Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [thewire] Re: Boxes

Expand Messages
  • Kraig Grady
    Ok Keef! It is hard to answer a question when you have already put me in a category of those people . Kind of the type of rhetoric you get from the
    Message 1 of 23 , Jul 21, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok Keef!
      It is hard to answer a question when you have already put me in a
      category of 'those people". Kind of the type of rhetoric you get from the
      politicians..
      You have already raised ( or should i say lowered ) the issue to being a
      political one as to what and can or can not be done to a work of art. But
      first the particular case.

      Miles and Teo did it better than anyone. too bad you can't improve it, live
      with it.

      Music transcends any verbal description of it and if you want to label the
      panning on this track as just part of the 'mix', possibly you and the
      individuals in the board room who decided to so are missing the point. One
      can solo with notes, the harmonics of a single note even. In this particular
      singular case ( i can not think of any other off hand) this panning is a
      solos or possibly a beyond such music terms as even 'panning'. It is an
      indispensable element to the music as much as any note is. Without the
      bouncing of the drums the piece is no longer Go Ahead John and more go ahead
      sony moneybags . go ahead............, shall we also repaint Rothko ?


      sony in fact has done nothing more than cheapened Miles with all this
      recycling of the same material. After being rip-off on the bitches brew box
      set, i was not going to fall for that trick twice. Later others felt the
      same way about the silent way box set. i saw it coming. and it is all very
      substandard and is pretty much how people i know have reacted to it. The S
      in sony stands for substandard










      Keef wrote:

      > Hmmph. I didn't say it was *bad*. I said it was *weird*. Why is it
      > weird? Because I've heard it for 30 years the other way. The same way
      > that "Shady Grove" by Quicksilver sounds very strange without all the
      > pops and crackles of my old scratched up copy. Are you one of those
      > people that believe that if it gets remixed 30 years after the fact it's
      > automatically substandard to the original?
      >
      > K.
      >
      > >
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > >Message: 5
      > > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:32:01 -0700
      > > From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
      > >Subject: Re: Boxes
      > >
      > >if they took this out you might as well throw it in the trash
      > >
      > >
      > >Keef wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >> "Go Ahead John" sounds
      > >>weird without the drums shooting back and forth over the stereo
      > >>spectrum).
      > >>
      > >>K.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >-- -Kraig Grady
      > >North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
      > > http://www.anaphoria.com
      > >The Wandering Medicine Show
      > > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > the wire mailing list
      > post: thewire@yahoogroups.com
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thewire/
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >

      -- -Kraig Grady
      North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
      http://www.anaphoria.com
      The Wandering Medicine Show
      KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
    • chx
      Some thoughts, perhaps it might mean something. I think that it very had to obtain recorded music that is both intellectually satisfying and largely
      Message 2 of 23 , Jul 21, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Some thoughts, perhaps it might mean something.

        I think that it very had to obtain recorded music that is both
        intellectually satisfying and largely unmediated by commercial
        considerations.

        The idea(l) of Authenticity seems to me to rife with difficulties and
        contradictions. Who is to say which version is more authentic? Who
        really has that authority?

        Ultimately it does it not come down to the simple aesthetic dichotomy
        of like/don't like (and its commercial corollary of buy/don't buy)?

        My personal bias is for that decision to be made as independently as
        possible (from biases and prejudices)!

        However, the important thing about taste is to differ. So, please
        agree to disagree and then make the disagreements as violent,
        vehement and vitriolic as you can!

        Regards,

        chx


        >Ok Keef!
        > It is hard to answer a question when you have already put me in a
        >category of 'those people". Kind of the type of rhetoric you get from the
        >politicians..
        >You have already raised ( or should i say lowered ) the issue to being a
        >political one as to what and can or can not be done to a work of art. But
        >first the particular case.
        >
        >Miles and Teo did it better than anyone. too bad you can't improve it, live
        >with it.
        >
        >Music transcends any verbal description of it and if you want to label the
        >panning on this track as just part of the 'mix', possibly you and the
        >individuals in the board room who decided to so are missing the point. One
        >can solo with notes, the harmonics of a single note even. In this particular
        >singular case ( i can not think of any other off hand) this panning is a
        >solos or possibly a beyond such music terms as even 'panning'. It is an
        >indispensable element to the music as much as any note is. Without the
        >bouncing of the drums the piece is no longer Go Ahead John and more go ahead
        >sony moneybags . go ahead............, shall we also repaint Rothko ?
        >
        >
        >sony in fact has done nothing more than cheapened Miles with all this
        >recycling of the same material. After being rip-off on the bitches brew box
        >set, i was not going to fall for that trick twice. Later others felt the
        >same way about the silent way box set. i saw it coming. and it is all very
        >substandard and is pretty much how people i know have reacted to it. The S
        >in sony stands for substandard
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Keef wrote:
        >
        >> Hmmph. I didn't say it was *bad*. I said it was *weird*. Why is it
        >> weird? Because I've heard it for 30 years the other way. The same way
        >> that "Shady Grove" by Quicksilver sounds very strange without all the
        >> pops and crackles of my old scratched up copy. Are you one of those
        >> people that believe that if it gets remixed 30 years after the fact it's
        >> automatically substandard to the original?
        >>
        >> K.
        >>
        >> >
        >> >________________________________________________________________________
        >> >________________________________________________________________________
        >> >
        >> >Message: 5
        >> > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:32:01 -0700
        >> > From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
        >> >Subject: Re: Boxes
        >> >
        >> >if they took this out you might as well throw it in the trash
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >Keef wrote:
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >> "Go Ahead John" sounds
        >> >>weird without the drums shooting back and forth over the stereo
        >> >>spectrum).
        >> >>
        >> >>K.
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >
        >> >-- -Kraig Grady
        >> >North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
        >> > http://www.anaphoria.com
        >> >The Wandering Medicine Show
        >> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >> _______________________________________________
        >> the wire mailing list
        >> post: thewire@yahoogroups.com
        >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thewire/
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >-- -Kraig Grady
        >North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
        > http://www.anaphoria.com
        >The Wandering Medicine Show
        > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >_______________________________________________
        >the wire mailing list
        >post: thewire@yahoogroups.com
        >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thewire/
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >

        --

        "The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
        many different things."
        "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be MASTER -that's all."
      • keefycub
        Well, you must understand that I don t rate one better than the other. It just sounds weird. One s as originally played split up into parts, and one s a
        Message 3 of 23 , Jul 21, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, you must understand that I don't rate one better than the other.
          It just sounds weird. One's as originally played split up into
          parts, and one's a gargantuan track with studio fiddle-faddle. Are
          you sure we're talking about the same thing? I hear the same song,
          and it's interesting to hear it as played, but it sounds very strange
          to my ears because none of the stuff that went on the original album
          is on it. It's an interesting experience, really. But neither is
          greater nor better than the other.

          I don't particularly see what's political in that, other than some
          people actually have a hard time just listening to it and enjoying it
          rather than bringing the business end into it, which I don't (didn't
          pay to hear it, someone played it for me -- the chief way I hear most
          music these days).

          That panning is an element for *that piece of tape* that it was put on
          Big Fun. It's a part of *that* version of *that* song. It's supposed
          to be jazz -- where you're encouraged to interpret it your own way
          (isn't it?).

          Parallel -- check the version of Spanish Key that's hiding on that
          Rock Festivals album (where it's part of a thing called "Call It
          Anything"). I remember hearing that years ago, a couple of years
          after Bitches Brew came out, and I was trying to figure it out. Up
          comes the groove happing E mixolydian, and I was thinking "hmmm sounds
          like Spanish Key, but that's a cue tune .... so break it and go into D
          already if it's indeed Spanish Key." And Miles was doing his teasing
          thing, deliberately not cueing, letting the groove sit there like a
          giant black forest for 10 minutes. Finally you get near the end of
          this huge 20 minute track and just when you think, okay it's not
          Spanish Key, he cues the thing -- WHAM!!! and they hit the pivot riff
          and spend no time at all in D before taking it out. There wasn't any
          E mixolydian scale figure announcing what the tune was ... you had to
          guess based on the groove. Same thing when it happens on Black
          Beauty (remember the original didn't have the track titles so you
          didn't know what was being played because they never played the
          heads). There you have *three versions* of the same tune, played
          three completely different ways -- similar grooves, but they're
          different grooves -- no reprise of Bitches Brew the tune (the one
          called John McLaughlin) following the other two. The Call It Anything
          and Black Beauty versions aren't substandard, just different. So it
          is with Go Ahead John (and all the other tunes) on the Jack Johnson box.

          So I suppose it's "substandard" (not agreeing with you) not because
          the element of studio composition in the Big Fun version is missing
          from the Jack Johnson version but because Sony is the Big Bad
          Corporation trying to bleed money out of you (you're probably correct
          in that, but then again I didn't buy this box so perhaps that doesn't
          *really* enter into it)? What I'm asking is, are you listening to
          just the music, or does Sony *have* to be a part of your experience?
          I try to keep Sony out of my life as much as humanly possible. If you
          want to target them for being substandard, go after them for their
          shitty electronic equipment that breaks a month out of warranty.

          I could give a *fuck* what Sony is doing moneybagwise because they're
          not getting any money from me if I can possibly help it (I rarely buy
          items new anymore, have only done so rarely since about 1996 -- now
          I'm a downloader). You're 100% free *not* to buy the "substandard"
          (read that word with much facetiousness) version if you don't like it.
          I didn't buy it because hearing the music interests me far more than
          owning the artifact, and I can't see spending that kind of money for
          something that I wouldn't listen to all that often or for a book I'm
          not going to squint at. But I *did* hear it, and yes it sounded
          weird, but no it's not any better or worse than the other one -- just
          a different version of what was happening on that tape.

          It's going to be to see how archival releases of "important" stuff
          played now will be in 20 years, since so many records are jigsawed
          together. I can see it now -- the White Stripes 10 pack audio DVD box
          set of the making of hit song X, where each disc has 999 tracks on it,
          all some 10 seconds long of "guitar part, second verse, take 43" while
          the dinky book explains to you that it was the first usable take after
          the heroin hit. And you index it up and you hear it unpitched, out of
          rhythm, with only one or two wrong notes. Or maybe the collector's
          edition Whitney Houston in which she practises her scales for 20 DVD's
          (total playing time, 47:36:22 and 34 frames). In those scenarios you
          might have a point.

          Keef

          --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
          > Ok Keef!
          > It is hard to answer a question when you have already put me in a
          > category of 'those people". Kind of the type of rhetoric you get
          from the
          > politicians..
          > You have already raised ( or should i say lowered ) the issue to being a
          > political one as to what and can or can not be done to a work of
          art. But
          > first the particular case.
          >
          > Miles and Teo did it better than anyone. too bad you can't improve
          it, live
          > with it.
          >
          > Music transcends any verbal description of it and if you want to
          label the
          > panning on this track as just part of the 'mix', possibly you and the
          > individuals in the board room who decided to so are missing the
          point. One
          > can solo with notes, the harmonics of a single note even. In this
          particular
          > singular case ( i can not think of any other off hand) this panning is a
          > solos or possibly a beyond such music terms as even 'panning'. It is an
          > indispensable element to the music as much as any note is. Without the
          > bouncing of the drums the piece is no longer Go Ahead John and more
          go ahead
          > sony moneybags . go ahead............, shall we also repaint Rothko ?
          >
          >
          > sony in fact has done nothing more than cheapened Miles with all this
          > recycling of the same material. After being rip-off on the bitches
          brew box
          > set, i was not going to fall for that trick twice. Later others felt the
          > same way about the silent way box set. i saw it coming. and it is
          all very
          > substandard and is pretty much how people i know have reacted to it.
          The S
          > in sony stands for substandard
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Keef wrote:
          >
          > > Hmmph. I didn't say it was *bad*. I said it was *weird*. Why is it
          > > weird? Because I've heard it for 30 years the other way. The
          same way
          > > that "Shady Grove" by Quicksilver sounds very strange without all the
          > > pops and crackles of my old scratched up copy. Are you one of those
          > > people that believe that if it gets remixed 30 years after the
          fact it's
          > > automatically substandard to the original?
          > >
          > > K.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          >________________________________________________________________________
          > >
          >________________________________________________________________________
          > > >
          > > >Message: 5
          > > > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:32:01 -0700
          > > > From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
          > > >Subject: Re: Boxes
          > > >
          > > >if they took this out you might as well throw it in the trash
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >Keef wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >> "Go Ahead John" sounds
          > > >>weird without the drums shooting back and forth over the stereo
          > > >>spectrum).
          > > >>
          > > >>K.
          > > >>
          > > >>
          > > >>
          > > >>
          > > >
          > > >-- -Kraig Grady
          > > >North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
          > > > http://www.anaphoria.com
          > > >The Wandering Medicine Show
          > > > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > > _______________________________________________
          > > the wire mailing list
          > > post: thewire@yahoogroups.com
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thewire/
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          > -- -Kraig Grady
          > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
          > http://www.anaphoria.com
          > The Wandering Medicine Show
          > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
        • Kraig Grady
          the artist. ... -- -Kraig Grady North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island http://www.anaphoria.com The Wandering Medicine Show KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
          Message 4 of 23 , Jul 21, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            the artist.

            chx wrote:

            > Who is to say which version is more authentic? Who
            > really has that authority?
            >
            >

            -- -Kraig Grady
            North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
            http://www.anaphoria.com
            The Wandering Medicine Show
            KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
          • Kraig Grady
            there is a big difference from an artist doing different version of his music and someone else taking liberties with it. ... -- -Kraig Grady North American
            Message 5 of 23 , Jul 21, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              there is a big difference from an artist doing different version of his music
              and someone else taking liberties with it.

              keefycub wrote:

              > Well, you must understand that I don't rate one better than the other.
              > It just sounds weird. One's as originally played split up into
              > parts, and one's a gargantuan track with studio fiddle-faddle. Are
              > you sure we're talking about the same thing? I hear the same song,
              > and it's interesting to hear it as played, but it sounds very strange
              > to my ears because none of the stuff that went on the original album
              > is on it. It's an interesting experience, really. But neither is
              > greater nor better than the other.
              >
              > I don't particularly see what's political in that, other than some
              > people actually have a hard time just listening to it and enjoying it
              > rather than bringing the business end into it, which I don't (didn't
              > pay to hear it, someone played it for me -- the chief way I hear most
              > music these days).
              >
              > That panning is an element for *that piece of tape* that it was put on
              > Big Fun. It's a part of *that* version of *that* song. It's supposed
              > to be jazz -- where you're encouraged to interpret it your own way
              > (isn't it?).
              >
              > Parallel -- check the version of Spanish Key that's hiding on that
              > Rock Festivals album (where it's part of a thing called "Call It
              > Anything"). I remember hearing that years ago, a couple of years
              > after Bitches Brew came out, and I was trying to figure it out. Up
              > comes the groove happing E mixolydian, and I was thinking "hmmm sounds
              > like Spanish Key, but that's a cue tune .... so break it and go into D
              > already if it's indeed Spanish Key." And Miles was doing his teasing
              > thing, deliberately not cueing, letting the groove sit there like a
              > giant black forest for 10 minutes. Finally you get near the end of
              > this huge 20 minute track and just when you think, okay it's not
              > Spanish Key, he cues the thing -- WHAM!!! and they hit the pivot riff
              > and spend no time at all in D before taking it out. There wasn't any
              > E mixolydian scale figure announcing what the tune was ... you had to
              > guess based on the groove. Same thing when it happens on Black
              > Beauty (remember the original didn't have the track titles so you
              > didn't know what was being played because they never played the
              > heads). There you have *three versions* of the same tune, played
              > three completely different ways -- similar grooves, but they're
              > different grooves -- no reprise of Bitches Brew the tune (the one
              > called John McLaughlin) following the other two. The Call It Anything
              > and Black Beauty versions aren't substandard, just different. So it
              > is with Go Ahead John (and all the other tunes) on the Jack Johnson box.
              >
              > So I suppose it's "substandard" (not agreeing with you) not because
              > the element of studio composition in the Big Fun version is missing
              > from the Jack Johnson version but because Sony is the Big Bad
              > Corporation trying to bleed money out of you (you're probably correct
              > in that, but then again I didn't buy this box so perhaps that doesn't
              > *really* enter into it)? What I'm asking is, are you listening to
              > just the music, or does Sony *have* to be a part of your experience?
              > I try to keep Sony out of my life as much as humanly possible. If you
              > want to target them for being substandard, go after them for their
              > shitty electronic equipment that breaks a month out of warranty.
              >
              > I could give a *fuck* what Sony is doing moneybagwise because they're
              > not getting any money from me if I can possibly help it (I rarely buy
              > items new anymore, have only done so rarely since about 1996 -- now
              > I'm a downloader). You're 100% free *not* to buy the "substandard"
              > (read that word with much facetiousness) version if you don't like it.
              > I didn't buy it because hearing the music interests me far more than
              > owning the artifact, and I can't see spending that kind of money for
              > something that I wouldn't listen to all that often or for a book I'm
              > not going to squint at. But I *did* hear it, and yes it sounded
              > weird, but no it's not any better or worse than the other one -- just
              > a different version of what was happening on that tape.
              >
              > It's going to be to see how archival releases of "important" stuff
              > played now will be in 20 years, since so many records are jigsawed
              > together. I can see it now -- the White Stripes 10 pack audio DVD box
              > set of the making of hit song X, where each disc has 999 tracks on it,
              > all some 10 seconds long of "guitar part, second verse, take 43" while
              > the dinky book explains to you that it was the first usable take after
              > the heroin hit. And you index it up and you hear it unpitched, out of
              > rhythm, with only one or two wrong notes. Or maybe the collector's
              > edition Whitney Houston in which she practises her scales for 20 DVD's
              > (total playing time, 47:36:22 and 34 frames). In those scenarios you
              > might have a point.
              >
              > Keef
              >

              -- -Kraig Grady
              North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
              http://www.anaphoria.com
              The Wandering Medicine Show
              KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
            • keefycub
              ... his music ... Someone else taking liberties ? What rock did *you* crawl out from under? Do you really think Davis s estate *owns* that tape? Here s a
              Message 6 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
                > there is a big difference from an artist doing different version of
                his music
                > and someone else taking liberties with it.
                >

                "Someone else taking liberties"? What rock did *you* crawl out from
                under? Do you really think Davis's estate *owns* that tape? Here's a
                big hint -- it doesn't. Who owns it? SONY. The Big Bad Corporation.
                And they're going to do what they will with the tape. And if no one
                involved is going to want to do what they want with it (or they can't
                because they're dead), they'll get someone who will. Your choice is
                to consume or not. *Nothing more.*

                Read that again and let it sink in -- Davis wrote it, SONY owns it.
                So it's *SONY'S* tapes of music that Davis created FOR SONY.

                Sure Miles dreamt it up. But that doesn't give him "artistic
                exclusivity" over it. That's a very romantic notion of it, one that
                has nothing to do with how these things actually come into being.
                Musician as worker bee and all that. He was paid to make some music
                that would go into an LP for you to consume, much like someone had to
                decide what colour cabbage patch dolls would be. His thing was to
                decide what to put on the tapes and then make them and -- then make
                them into an album. All Sony did was take the tapes and make them
                into a different album. Which is their right. It's theirs to do that
                with.

                Also ... when it was played live into the air by the band, how do you
                think it sounded? It sounded something like they captured on the box.
                Those versions on the box are those songs as written and played
                before Teo and Miles started doing the montage thing with it. So
                it's not exactly someone taking liberties either. Michael Cuscuna is
                an archivist -- there's nothing really all that creative about the
                production (it's not that Bill Laswell remix thing, which was great
                too). Roll the tapes, here's the complete takes that montage was made
                from. Something like having three versions of Spanish Key on
                different albums. Coltrane's "Ascension" came out with two different
                takes for the same album, so there's two "Ascensions", so if you are a
                jazz fan it's like having two albums not one. 8 hours worth of music
                instead of 1.5 hours like we had for years from that session.

                Your beef appears to lie in that Miles is dead and as such couldn't go
                Davey & Goliath style against the Big Bad Corporation if he wouldn't
                have wanted this stuff out -- in other words you didn't get your
                romantic fix in this deal. Sony could and did say, well he's dead, so
                he's not going to complain. Betcha if Miles were alive and said he
                liked the project, your tune would be completely different and you'd
                be the first in line to buy it.

                Keef.
              • keefycub
                You mean Prince is the last bastion of authenticity? Seriously though, this authenticity/which-is-better shit s got to get thrown out the window else I know
                Message 7 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  You mean Prince is the last bastion of authenticity?

                  Seriously though, this authenticity/which-is-better shit's got to get
                  thrown out the window else I know you're not *really* listening and
                  everyone else does too (note that I said you're not listening --
                  instead your ear is consuming according to your idea of romantic
                  notions).

                  The artist has the authority, eh? Yeah, man. Zappa fans and King
                  Crimson fans shat themselves when those catalogs hit CD, and lo and
                  behold, the artists had gone back and *radically changed stuff*.
                  Which is authentic? Both are. One was for one time period, and one
                  was for a newer time period. They obviously like to fix things.

                  In other words -- you get two versions. You get your choice. It is a
                  *good* thing. You can choose one over the other or you can choose
                  both or you can choose neither. Is making a choice *really* so
                  difficult that you can't (or can't be bothered to) take each on its
                  own terms as a piece of tape with magnetic squiggles on it or a shiny
                  aluminum waffle with 0's and 1's etched into it?

                  K.

                  --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
                  > the artist.
                  >
                  > chx wrote:
                  >
                  > > Who is to say which version is more authentic? Who
                  > > really has that authority?
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  > -- -Kraig Grady
                  > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
                  > http://www.anaphoria.com
                  > The Wandering Medicine Show
                  > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
                • Kraig Grady
                  so your idea as anyone can mess with anyone s music. How about paintings, can i paint over a rothko or improve or make a new repaint version of it. can i
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    so your idea as anyone can mess with anyone's music. How about paintings,
                    can i paint over a rothko or improve or make a new repaint version of it.
                    can i rewrite pablo neruda? or beckett. why not?
                    how about reediting 2001?


                    keefycub wrote:

                    > You mean Prince is the last bastion of authenticity?
                    >
                    > Seriously though, this authenticity/which-is-better shit's got to get
                    > thrown out the window else I know you're not *really* listening and
                    > everyone else does too (note that I said you're not listening --
                    > instead your ear is consuming according to your idea of romantic
                    > notions).
                    >
                    > The artist has the authority, eh? Yeah, man. Zappa fans and King
                    > Crimson fans shat themselves when those catalogs hit CD, and lo and
                    > behold, the artists had gone back and *radically changed stuff*.
                    > Which is authentic? Both are. One was for one time period, and one
                    > was for a newer time period. They obviously like to fix things.
                    >
                    > In other words -- you get two versions. You get your choice. It is a
                    > *good* thing. You can choose one over the other or you can choose
                    > both or you can choose neither. Is making a choice *really* so
                    > difficult that you can't (or can't be bothered to) take each on its
                    > own terms as a piece of tape with magnetic squiggles on it or a shiny
                    > aluminum waffle with 0's and 1's etched into it?
                    >
                    > K.
                    >

                    -- -Kraig Grady
                    North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
                    http://www.anaphoria.com
                    The Wandering Medicine Show
                    KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
                  • Kraig Grady
                    just because they own doesn t mean they are not taking liberties with it. If i own a rothko and paint on it, what would you call that ... -- -Kraig Grady North
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      just because they own doesn't mean they are not taking liberties with it.
                      If i own a rothko and paint on it, what would you call that


                      keefycub wrote:

                      > --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
                      > > there is a big difference from an artist doing different version of
                      > his music
                      > > and someone else taking liberties with it.
                      > >
                      >
                      > "Someone else taking liberties"? What rock did *you* crawl out from
                      > under? Do you really think Davis's estate *owns* that tape? Here's a
                      > big hint -- it doesn't. Who owns it? SONY. The Big Bad Corporation.
                      > And they're going to do what they will with the tape. And if no one
                      > involved is going to want to do what they want with it (or they can't
                      > because they're dead), they'll get someone who will. Your choice is
                      > to consume or not. *Nothing more.*
                      >
                      > Read that again and let it sink in -- Davis wrote it, SONY owns it.
                      > So it's *SONY'S* tapes of music that Davis created FOR SONY.
                      >
                      > Sure Miles dreamt it up. But that doesn't give him "artistic
                      > exclusivity" over it. That's a very romantic notion of it, one that
                      > has nothing to do with how these things actually come into being.
                      > Musician as worker bee and all that. He was paid to make some music
                      > that would go into an LP for you to consume, much like someone had to
                      > decide what colour cabbage patch dolls would be. His thing was to
                      > decide what to put on the tapes and then make them and -- then make
                      > them into an album. All Sony did was take the tapes and make them
                      > into a different album. Which is their right. It's theirs to do that
                      > with.
                      >
                      > Also ... when it was played live into the air by the band, how do you
                      > think it sounded? It sounded something like they captured on the box.
                      > Those versions on the box are those songs as written and played
                      > before Teo and Miles started doing the montage thing with it. So
                      > it's not exactly someone taking liberties either. Michael Cuscuna is
                      > an archivist -- there's nothing really all that creative about the
                      > production (it's not that Bill Laswell remix thing, which was great
                      > too). Roll the tapes, here's the complete takes that montage was made
                      > from. Something like having three versions of Spanish Key on
                      > different albums. Coltrane's "Ascension" came out with two different
                      > takes for the same album, so there's two "Ascensions", so if you are a
                      > jazz fan it's like having two albums not one. 8 hours worth of music
                      > instead of 1.5 hours like we had for years from that session.
                      >
                      > Your beef appears to lie in that Miles is dead and as such couldn't go
                      > Davey & Goliath style against the Big Bad Corporation if he wouldn't
                      > have wanted this stuff out -- in other words you didn't get your
                      > romantic fix in this deal. Sony could and did say, well he's dead, so
                      > he's not going to complain. Betcha if Miles were alive and said he
                      > liked the project, your tune would be completely different and you'd
                      > be the first in line to buy it.
                      >
                      > Keef.
                      >

                      -- -Kraig Grady
                      North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
                      http://www.anaphoria.com
                      The Wandering Medicine Show
                      KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
                    • Kraig Grady
                      you fail to acknowledge that the written take was only part of the actual composition , which was completed with teo. this was not 19th century music. you
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        you fail to acknowledge that the written take was only part of the actual
                        'composition' , which was completed with teo.
                        this was not 19th century music. you might a well say that one could put
                        out very shot done by kubrick since that was he wrote and the actors acted
                        it .
                        in fact you could reconstruct every one of his movies with the outtakes.
                        he did like 40 takes per scene, what does he know. the studios own it let
                        them put out 40 versions

                        the issue is not sony, i could care less. they are interesting in the
                        least. they own it sure , but they didn't produce it or anything like it



                        keefycub wrote:

                        >
                        > Also ... when it was played live into the air by the band, how do you
                        > think it sounded? It sounded something like they captured on the box.
                        > Those versions on the box are those songs as written and played
                        > before Teo and Miles started doing the montage thing with it.
                        >
                        >

                        -- -Kraig Grady
                        North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
                        http://www.anaphoria.com
                        The Wandering Medicine Show
                        KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
                      • keefycub
                        ... paintings, ... of it. ... Ever heard of Marchel Duchamp? K.
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
                          > so your idea as anyone can mess with anyone's music. How about
                          paintings,
                          > can i paint over a rothko or improve or make a new repaint version
                          of it.
                          > can i rewrite pablo neruda? or beckett. why not?
                          > how about reediting 2001?
                          >
                          >

                          Ever heard of Marchel Duchamp?

                          K.
                        • keefycub
                          Shit I spelled his name wrong .... Marcel Duchamp. No I acknowledged that when I described that the montage part of the composition was for *that* version on
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Shit I spelled his name wrong .... Marcel Duchamp.

                            No I acknowledged that when I described that the montage part of the
                            composition was for *that* version on *that* album. In other words,
                            if you play the song live you don't necessarily replicate the montages.

                            And I'd be interested in seeing a reworked Kubrick like that. Might
                            give more insight as to how he worked. Probably won't happen though
                            as it would cost a fortune and only be a niche market.

                            And yes Sony (when it was Columbia) did produce it. They provided the
                            cash layout to make the thing. That makes them part of the production
                            team.

                            K.

                            --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
                            > you fail to acknowledge that the written take was only part of the
                            actual
                            > 'composition' , which was completed with teo.
                            > this was not 19th century music. you might a well say that one could put
                            > out very shot done by kubrick since that was he wrote and the actors
                            acted
                            > it .
                            > in fact you could reconstruct every one of his movies with the outtakes.
                            > he did like 40 takes per scene, what does he know. the studios own
                            it let
                            > them put out 40 versions
                            >
                            > the issue is not sony, i could care less. they are interesting in the
                            > least. they own it sure , but they didn't produce it or anything like it
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > keefycub wrote:
                            >
                            > >
                            > > Also ... when it was played live into the air by the band, how do you
                            > > think it sounded? It sounded something like they captured on the box.
                            > > Those versions on the box are those songs as written and played
                            > > before Teo and Miles started doing the montage thing with it.
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            > -- -Kraig Grady
                            > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
                            > http://www.anaphoria.com
                            > The Wandering Medicine Show
                            > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
                          • R. Lim
                            I don t see a problem with this, as long as the studio is up-front about what it is. As an example, 20th Century Fox did this with the new edition of Alien 3
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I don't see a problem with this, as long as the studio is up-front about
                              what it is. As an example, 20th Century Fox did this with the new edition
                              of Alien 3 and it's arguably more "authentic" to Fincher's original vision
                              than the movie that was released as with his name attached (despite his
                              refusal to have anything to do with the re-edit).

                              Film is probably a bad example to use, since it's by and large a
                              collaborative medium. If you applied what you've outlined below to the
                              music industry, don't you have a remix album?

                              Regarding your earlier point of painting over a Rothko, museums have been
                              doing this for ages- they call it "restoration." It makes me laugh that
                              tourists are paying top coin to see "The Last Supper."

                              -rob

                              On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Kraig Grady wrote:

                              > this was not 19th century music. you might a well say that one could put
                              > out very shot done by kubrick since that was he wrote and the actors acted
                              > it .
                              > in fact you could reconstruct every one of his movies with the outtakes.
                              > he did like 40 takes per scene, what does he know. the studios own it let
                              > them put out 40 versions

                              --
                              Janitor From Mars archives and more @ http://www.wfmu.org/~rlim
                            • chx
                              That is probably something that artists would like to believe, but I think that it is true only in a very literal and idealised sense. Ultimately it suggests
                              Message 14 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                That is probably something that artists would like to believe, but I
                                think that it is true only in a very literal and idealised sense.

                                Ultimately it suggests that there is some version of an art work that
                                exists in the artist's head against which all material productions
                                can be compared in order to gauge their authenticity.

                                Regards,

                                chx

                                >KG: the artist.
                                >
                                >chx wrote:
                                >
                                >> Who is to say which version is more authentic? Who
                                >> really has that authority?
                                > >
                                >>
                                --

                                "The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
                                many different things."
                                "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be MASTER -that's all."
                              • keefycub
                                Hmmm ... all the artists I know that have had to deal with it on some level (including myself) have a heightened sense of reality about the situation. I think
                                Message 15 of 23 , Jul 22, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hmmm ... all the artists I know that have had to deal with it on some
                                  level (including myself) have a heightened sense of reality about the
                                  situation. I think it's an idealized public who think that Rock
                                  Journalism Is Gospel (you know the old cliches -- Yoko Ono is the
                                  witch who broke up the Beatles, ELP *always* suck, Sgt Pepper the
                                  movie killed Peter Frampton's career, Hot Tuna wanted to call
                                  themselves Hot Shit originally, Frank Zappa/Alice Cooper/Iggy Pop vs
                                  the gross out contest, etc.) that make it the load of bollocks that it
                                  is.

                                  The problem is that there's some supposed standard, but it's never
                                  given what the standard actually is, other than "the artist's
                                  conception." No record *I've* ever made turned out like it was in my
                                  head when I thought of the music. I'd make some mistake in the
                                  translation and think "wow that's cool" and run with it, so it
                                  constantly morphed from initial conception the point I thought it was
                                  good as it was -- sometimes completely obliterating the way I
                                  originally heard it. It takes a lot of discipline to do that by the
                                  way. I don't know of anyone who has made a record that had it turn
                                  out exactly as they heard it in their head.

                                  It seems to me that people who start thinking of one artwork as
                                  "substandard" have some sort of ideology going on that has nothing to
                                  do with anything other than their personal wishes. So, I figure, well
                                  if you don't like it the way it is, make your own -- make a mashup,
                                  make it interesting. It's very much "okay, you think that's horrible?
                                  *You* do it." And it's amazing how many people *don't* take me up on
                                  that -- something I've never really understood.

                                  Keef.





                                  --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, chx <yahoogroper@b...> wrote:
                                  > That is probably something that artists would like to believe, but I
                                  > think that it is true only in a very literal and idealised sense.
                                  >
                                  > Ultimately it suggests that there is some version of an art work
                                  that
                                  > exists in the artist's head against which all material productions
                                  > can be compared in order to gauge their authenticity.
                                  >
                                  > Regards,
                                  >
                                  > chx
                                  >
                                  > >KG: the artist.
                                  > >
                                  > >chx wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >> Who is to say which version is more authentic? Who
                                  > >> really has that authority?
                                  > > >
                                  > >>
                                  > --
                                  >
                                  > "The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
                                  > many different things."
                                  > "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be MASTER
                                  -that's all."
                                • Kraig Grady
                                  possibly it is the artist conception that takes it to the level it is, even if imperfect. obviously certain people do better work than others , even though
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jul 23, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    possibly it is the artist conception that takes it to the level it is,
                                    even if imperfect.
                                    obviously certain people do better work than others , even though none of
                                    them get exactly what they want.
                                    Some times they get more.
                                    Most people can't get anything to happen.

                                    But you make such generalizations that bother me. Maybe i don't like it
                                    for the same reason the artist didn't like it as much either. In this
                                    particular case , i have not heard one person say to me , you just have to
                                    hear this other version, it is way better , or different , etc. It is not
                                    some philosophy, even though you have put the question from the beginning
                                    in that frame. It is nothing more than empirical observation from in this
                                    case, my little frame of reference. here. if your experience is different,
                                    it is great to hear. Hendrix would hardly ever play the same tune twice
                                    the same. yet haven't found much others version of his stuff on the same
                                    level.



                                    keefycub wrote:

                                    > It seems to me that people who start thinking of one artwork as
                                    > "substandard" have some sort of ideology going on that has nothing to
                                    > do with anything other than their personal wishes.

                                    This is a generalization you have no way of backing up and it is these
                                    generalization that i have trouble.
                                    Maybe they find it substandard, because, like the artist, they don't like
                                    it as much, in this case .as the ones they did decide to put out.

                                    If i wished anything , it would be that everything that miles put out or
                                    ever did was all on the same awesome level. Now that would be a 'romantic
                                    ' view of an artist.

                                    According to your own statement i can only deduce that 'substandard' is
                                    only a mistaken philosophical idea caused by improper thinking. I am
                                    really confused at exactly what is really going on here. Can anyone remix
                                    miles and it is obviously at the same standard as the originals. Do you
                                    think anyone s remix of bitches brew will sell a million, or is everyone
                                    just wishing that the original artist knew better






                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Keef.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >

                                    -- -Kraig Grady
                                    North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
                                    http://www.anaphoria.com
                                    The Wandering Medicine Show
                                    KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
                                  • keefycub
                                    ... to ... these ... like ... Oh no it s not. It s a VIEWPOINT. Notice it begins with it seems to me rather than People that ... ... i.e. stated as
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jul 23, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > keefycub wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > It seems to me that people who start thinking of one artwork as
                                      > > "substandard" have some sort of ideology going on that has nothing
                                      to
                                      > > do with anything other than their personal wishes.
                                      >
                                      > This is a generalization you have no way of backing up and it is
                                      these
                                      > generalization that i have trouble.
                                      > Maybe they find it substandard, because, like the artist, they don't
                                      like
                                      > it as much, in this case .as the ones they did decide to put out.


                                      Oh no it's not. It's a VIEWPOINT. Notice it begins with "it seems to
                                      me" rather than "People that ..." ... i.e. stated as absolute fact.

                                      > If i wished anything , it would be that everything that miles put
                                      out or
                                      > ever did was all on the same awesome level. Now that would be a
                                      'romantic
                                      > ' view of an artist.
                                      >
                                      > According to your own statement i can only deduce that 'substandard'
                                      is
                                      > only a mistaken philosophical idea caused by improper thinking.

                                      Bingo. For me it is. Turning music into some sort of competition
                                      rather than taking each recording and performance on its own merits
                                      strikes me as *very* improper.

                                      The trick is not to dwell on what you dislike about a recording but
                                      focus on what you like about it. There's not a record on the planet
                                      that I can't find something nice to say about. You can play the most
                                      universally reviled dreck to me and if I can't get into the song or
                                      the music itself, I'll find something else to like about it -- a
                                      certain sound on it, maybe the production values, maybe I'll listen to
                                      the orchestration, and so on). The worst I ever think about any
                                      record is that "it makes noise."


                                      >I am
                                      > really confused at exactly what is really going on here. Can anyone
                                      remix
                                      > miles and it is obviously at the same standard as the originals. Do
                                      you
                                      > think anyone s remix of bitches brew will sell a million, or is
                                      everyone
                                      > just wishing that the original artist knew better
                                      >

                                      I loved that Bill Laswell remix album, and I would have been
                                      completely chuffed to see that sell boatloads. To me a remix is the
                                      opportunity to hear a certain recording through someone else's ears,
                                      and I find that incredibly fascinating. There's so many ways it can
                                      and does go, but I don't hold it up to the original as though they
                                      were playing tennis and someone must win.

                                      Music isn't a sport. Sure I have my favorites -- things that reach
                                      out and grab me in the cosmic sense -- but at the same time 99% of my
                                      listening is devoted to sompletely unfamiliar recordings. The
                                      experience in music that I personally cherish most is that moment when
                                      you hear something that *does* grab you for the very first time --
                                      that point of reaction.

                                      One "universally reviled" recording that did grab me recently is that
                                      strange third part of Frank Sinatra's "Trilogy" album -- the one where
                                      he sings about death and flyihg to the stars and all that and all the
                                      tunes seem to be at least 10 minutes long, like prog -- what with a 90
                                      voice choir and a 170-piece orchestra -- going on about how Uranus is
                                      heaven (pronounced the Dan Rather way, not going on about yer
                                      butthole). I wasn't fascinated in a "what was he thinking?" sense but
                                      there was a sense of "this is the last thing I would ever expect from
                                      this guy. Wow. What's going on?" You go out and read reviews about
                                      it saying that's it's a "mess", but when I see people saying stuff
                                      like that I see people bitching about the bone being thrown -- not an
                                      attitude of "how extraordinary! He was actually *willing* to throw
                                      the bone!" It did give me that extraordinary feeling I experienced
                                      when I first heard Ruins, Henry Cow, Jandek, Einstuerzende Neubauten,
                                      Angus Maclise, Terry Riley, Pierre Marietan, Alan Silva and others to
                                      name a few people more "in the genre."

                                      Keef.
                                    • gradyfinklemyer
                                      ... What did Robert Fripp radically change on the cd versions of King Crimson albums? I know he put new vocals on a few of the tracks off Islands which were on
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jul 23, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, "keefycub" <k5rzr@n...> wrote:
                                        > The artist has the authority, eh? Yeah, man. Zappa fans and King
                                        > Crimson fans shat themselves when those catalogs hit CD, and lo and
                                        > behold, the artists had gone back and *radically changed stuff*.
                                        > Which is authentic? Both are. One was for one time period, and one
                                        > was for a newer time period. They obviously like to fix things.

                                        What did Robert Fripp radically change on the cd versions of King
                                        Crimson albums? I know he put new vocals on a few of the tracks off
                                        Islands which were on the 4cd box set, but I wasn't aware of any
                                        other major changes. I like how the cd versions that came out in 1989
                                        were the "definitive edition." And lo and behold, they were
                                        remastered yet again. I guess they are "definitive" until Mr. Fripp
                                        needs to put a down payment on a new house.
                                        >
                                        > --- In thewire@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
                                        > > the artist.
                                        > >
                                        > > chx wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > > Who is to say which version is more authentic? Who
                                        > > > really has that authority?
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > -- -Kraig Grady
                                        > > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
                                        > > http://www.anaphoria.com
                                        > > The Wandering Medicine Show
                                        > > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.