Daorum SOH Sunday 9th March

[jec]

Caught a great show by Simon Barker's new band which involves his band (McMahon, Dewhurst, Slater) along with a Korean percussionist & singer. Fantastic show. Hard to describe without using the fusion word. I was a bit scared when the show was kicked off by an official with the depart't of Foreign Affairs who raved on about the commercial & cultural connections between the 2 countries. However from then on it was a fantastic show with great playing & what appeared to be traditional Korean theatrical singing. Saw Scott Tinkler there for what it's worth.

[ironguts]

I was at the gig too! Really great gig, all played great but the sum of the parts was the biggy, absolutely fantastic performance, Bae Il Tong is my favorite singer on the planet, wow. Wonder if Tinkler liked it? He can be very narrow minded, probably not Jazzy enough for the old man?
This is a great example of a successful meeting of cultures, go next time it's on, congratulaions to Simon Barker.

[alimcg]

I heard that Tinky doesn't play music any more - only golf.

[ironguts]

And not that well!

[trumpetguy]

Has anyone noticed that Daorum spelt backwards is muroad?

[ironguts]

And you are yugxas, life is weird!

stugnori, ( I do like Japanese food too!)

[trumpetguy]

freaky!

[trumpetguy]

changed my name again - thought yugratiug sounded better

[Miriam Zolin]

Words ain't enough to describe how wonderful I found this gig. Was up the front (near Scott acshewally!) and was blown away - not only by Slater's trumpet, which was pointed right at me at one stage. What a blast! Literally. You know how some nights in your life stand out - that was one of them for me. Combination of the music (primary factor), the enthusiasm and good will, the vibe, the weather, the venue. The structured, clearly stylised perfomance(s) by Bae il Tong and Kim Dong Won framed by engaged improvisation by Simon, Matt, Carl and Phil. Well, mate... couldn't review my way out of a wet paper bag so I'll shut up now. But if I could have the same night over and over, it would take me hundreds of goes around to get tired of it.

[ironguts]

I was reading through some Steve Coleman stuff last night and he said how weird it is that so many people that write about music are often failed musicians and that they write as if they understand the technical details of the music- why would you trust the opinion of someone who tried and failed? Like Stanley Crouch for eg. He said he would much rather them just write about how it made them feel and how the sounds affected them than try to analyze the music and more often than not get it wrong! I like this point of view, I've had so many reviews both positive and negative where the points made were on misunderstood notions of the techniques involved, who cares how it's done, how does it affect you?
I know a bit about improvised music, but when I saw Daorum I didn't think about anything other than it really made me feel inspired and interested, it was great music.
I did go to the workshop the next day to explore the technical side of the Pansori singing, but this was separate from my enjoyment of the gig.
So Miriam, write away about how much you loved it and how it made you feel, this is as much interest to us all as any qualified reviewers opinion.

[isaacs]

ironguts said:

I was reading through some Steve Coleman stuff last night and he said how weird it is that so many people that write about music are often failed musicians and that they write as if they understand the technical details of the music- why would you trust the opinion of someone who tried and failed? Like Stanley Crouch for eg

Were you being diplomatic in choosing an American example Guts? Unlike you to use American benchmarks given that our own thriving scene covers all bases, and in which John Shand was an aspiring drummer (and guitarist I think), John Clare a trumpet player, Adrian Jackson a saxophonist and John Macbeath a pianist. Any thoughts?

[gator]

Miriam, dont stop writing..I wonder if the point Guts is making here is that it really doesnt matter how much someone knows technically about music; their critique is still going to be subjective - and better if the critique actually values ones own subjectivity, rather than attempts to conceal it behind a notion of 'expertise' (which in itself is ultimately subjective).

Credentials in the performance, of music still are at the beck and call of the special and unique qualities of an individual performer - perceptions of which are also subjective.

There are so pitifully few reviewers in any field who posess what are collectively believed to be those credentials anyway - Some of these are given little opportunity to really go into any depth.Tim Stevens springs to mind as one of the few who writes to great detail- but that doesnt mean that he is bereft of a deeply personal and ultimately subjective perspective.

I think Mark mentioned how much he respected John Clare's writing in another thread: I think John embodies this sentiment - love or hate it, like music itself, you know when you are reading Clare's stuff - because he makes the effort to put his impressions into words that move beyond description or analysis - and like Tim he'll take ownership of what he is saying for good or bad. Maybe the sooner critics adopt the same responsibility and honesty with their words that good musicians take with their music, and the conviction that takes, the more musicians will appreciate the art of criticism.

[ironguts]

The example was the one Steve C used, I was sort of bowing out of relating it to the Aus scene.
I guess it goes more into the style of writing the critic or reviewer does. The liner notes and lengthy articles that Stanley does are rarely seen here. Crouch writes with an arrogance unmatched by any Ausy, in fact he more preaches about music.I don't see that level of bullshit here at all.
I certainly would not complain about Aus reviewers as I've been on the good side them which I'm most happy about, but, in truth, I think that if we don't believe the bad reviews to be accurate then why should we believe the good ones?
Bottom line is I'm as interested in the novice opinion as much as the 'expert' as gator says, though both will not really influence me in any way, it's just interesting.

[isaacs]

ironguts said:

in truth, I think that if we don't believe the bad reviews to be accurate then why should we believe the good ones?

The way you put it doesn't allow for people thinking that aspects of both good and bad reviews can be inaccurate. Or accurate. Some good stuff about me I don't agree with. And some bad stuff I agree with. If one was to agree with everything good and reject everything bad, yes, that would be very suspect. But I don't know anybody that lacking in integrity. I think artists can be quite objective about their own work and know its strengths and weaknesses.

Just as an example for what it's worth, on my most recent CD I was specifically complimented on my solos by one critic, who said they were amongst the strongest of anybody's on the disk. I was personally a bit disappointed in my solos, and can't really agree. I felt the best things of mine on the CD were my composing, arranging, producing and leading (in the sense of choice of players and how I went about putting it all together). Along the way, part of the deal was that I had to play some piano solos and they were OK, I think one was actually rather good. But on that particular project as a soloist I was basically outshone by James Muller and Bob Sheppard, absolute consistently motherfucker soloists. So I don't think that particular bit of good stuff is accurate, though I can accept that the critic may hear something there that I don't.

In fact, as far as negative criticism goes, most artists know best what is wrong with their projects, and in my own experience the critics rarely pick it.

[ironguts]

yep, I agree, if anyone knows, we do. That's sort of what I meant by not listening to the reviews, we know what's going on and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be mislead
either negatively or possitively into the realm of doubt or inflated ego.
I have several examples of reviews of my Solo cd where an idea or thread of the music was either praised or dissed and then the technique described in relation to the critique of that idea, more often than not the explanation of the technique was wrong thus canceling the argument against, or for, my supposed approach. Again I say, who cares how it's done or the techniques involved? Maybe I fail as an Artist if the listener is more curious about the technique than the outcome, like someone who circular breaths or plays a high note in order to get a clap, there is many out there! But, I can't let that get in the way either, they are both valid and useable techniques, if someone misinterprets my intention then I mustn't let that stop my quest either. Maybe that is the bottom line, reviewers are expected to interpret the music yet if the Artist exists is using a language they don't quite get, then where is the hope?
In the case of the reviewer of your album Mark, maybe he was looking for something other than the solo approach you admire in the others and actually can relate more to the 'language' that you are using? I mean what's a better solo? James Muller can blow most people on the planet of stage, but he can only say what he has to say, you or I will say something just as valid but in a different voice, a voice that some might prefer. ( that is definitely not a diss on James, just a statement, so don't go there anyone) Lets not forget too the sequence of events plays a huge part, do people really listen to the 'solo' as a single entity or hear it as part of the piece? How you play before or after someone really can make the difference between good solo's and great music? Maybe he heard that? This is the thing, again it gets back to how we listen to the music and what agendas we bring to it. Reviewers with a little knowledge may be in a bad situation, what's that saying? You know? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing(?)
I can't be bothered proof reading this, I hope it makes sense.