please say today's pitchfork review of gang gang dance is a joke.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

my god. now I officially have no faith in the fork. that band is the worst ever. and what's worse is Chloe Sevningy is mentioned in the review. woo

― breezy, Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:44 (twenty years ago)

ALERT ALERT ALERT

PEOPLE B OFFERIN DIFFRENT OPINES, FOLKS SAY FOLKS ARE "DEAD WRONG"

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:55 (twenty years ago)

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:57 (twenty years ago)

I'm going to take that image of that guy wearing that shirt, and wear it around ironically.

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:57 (twenty years ago)

on a shirt

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

Don't be that guy.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

Be the guy the CRUNKED gun is pointing to.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 14 April 2005 16:05 (twenty years ago)

oh and I'll wear blackface

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

Don't drink your juice in a style lab, homie.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 14 April 2005 16:32 (twenty years ago)

that album is pretty awesome

― brokenfuses (brokenfuses), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:25 (twenty years ago)

Review here: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/g/gang-gang-dance/gods-money.shtml

I've never heard the band but I like Chloe Sevigny.

― Ian Riese-Moraine. To Hell with you and your gradual evolution! (Eastern Mantra), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:41 (twenty years ago)

as usual stylus gets it right
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=2910

― breezy, Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

Ooh, i like the sound of this! Does it actually marry free noisiness with rhythm? A lot of the new American noisy stuff is marred by crappy drumming, this might be more my thing.

― Good Dog (Good Dog), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

"amateurishly experimental distillations of world music through an urban No-Wave-y filter" does make this record sound really good to me, I have to agree, even it's meant dismissively.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

i don't think that stylus review is good at all, and not because i like ggd or the album (i don't particularly the former; i haven't heard the latter). the idea that art has to serve itself up to the listener/viewer/beholder/whatever with some kind of easy-to-digest "comprehensibility" is fucking rubbish.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:57 (twenty years ago)

also i think the bard gehry building probably looks like shite on the back because of budget, solely. he don't work cheap.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:58 (twenty years ago)

xxxpost - the drumming is v. good i think, that and the bass are probably the highlights of the record.

― Amon (eman), Thursday, 14 April 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

What a turgid, pretentious review.

Normally, you'd think I was referring to the Pitchfork review, but not this time.

― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:29 (twenty years ago)

Ba-dump-chang!

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:33 (twenty years ago)

"the idea that art has to serve itself up to the listener/viewer/beholder/whatever with some kind of easy-to-digest "comprehensibility" is fucking rubbish."

I don't see that the reviewer's suggesting that at all. Here's the quote:

"Gang Gang Dance’s meandering, ethno-performance art-jamz hold a similar place as the Performing Arts Center—both in the sense of being flashy on the outside, dull when you get around the whole thing, and also in presenting no clear overall aesthetic—masking an ultimate lack of consistency and substantiality with a feeling of humid, dreamy gravity."

Those are direct criticisms of the music: dullness, no clear aesthetic, no consistency and substantiality

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:43 (twenty years ago)

saying something presents "no clear aesthetic" = you don't understand its aesthetic on its own terms, you would like it to be served up to you, you listen to the radio a lot and your name is tim.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:45 (twenty years ago)

"can somebody please tell me what this sounds like so i don't have to listen to it?"

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:47 (twenty years ago)

th' fork is correct in noting GGD's chloesque societyismz put people off, but it should also be noted that people like 'em for that same reason (in d-town nyc at least). Fame, fame, fame, fame, fame... buh-nuh-nuh-nah.

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:49 (twenty years ago)

you know, you should have put some of my bbq sauce on your unchicken. woulda tasted better, i bet.

― Ian John50n (orion), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:53 (twenty years ago)

I AM VEY EXCITED TO HEAR THIS RECORD

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:07 (twenty years ago)

How do you know that he didn't understand the aesthetic? Maybe he was just saying that they do a bunch of stuff but it never amounts to much. And in doing all of this stuff -- and not doing it very well -- they haven't defined themselves as much of anything. (Note the substantiality criticism.)

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:08 (twenty years ago)

THIS THREAD HAS MADE ME TEH MORE EXCOTED

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:10 (twenty years ago)

unchicken is kind of like the Performing Arts Center, fried tastiness surrounding, well ... tofu.

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:11 (twenty years ago)

LACK OF CLARITY CAN BE AN AESTHETIC

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:13 (twenty years ago)

HMMMMMMM HMM YES

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:17 (twenty years ago)

some people are exasperated by aesthetics, others are aesthetically exasperated.

― noizem duke (noize duke), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:18 (twenty years ago)

I SEE

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:19 (twenty years ago)

I love this goddamned album.

― Waking Up Onstage at Jumbo's (Bent Over at the Arclight), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:27 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, of course lack of clarity can be an aesthetic you goddamn pedantic fussbudget. But again:

"Maybe he was just saying that they do a bunch of stuff but it never amounts to much. And in doing all of this stuff -- and not doing it very well -- they haven't defined themselves as much of anything. (Note the substantiality criticism.)"

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:30 (twenty years ago)

Sorry to curse.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:31 (twenty years ago)

i don't see much effort on the critic's part to try to understand their aesthetic (which is of course, different from actually saying it's good or worthwhile).

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:33 (twenty years ago)

why bother figuring out whether a review is otm or not if you haven't heard the record yet? this is why we are blessed with teh slsk!!!

― Amon (eman), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

that's why tim listens to the radio.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:53 (twenty years ago)

Well, I'm curious -- here are a few pull quotes. In describing the group (more specifically the album, which you say you haven't heard), what does he miss out on?

"meandering ethno-performance art-jamz"

"over stylized, self-consciously chintzy, and amateurishly experimental distillations of world music through an urban No Wave-y filter"

I'm not saying the reviewer's right. I'm just wondering how he is wrong, if indeed he is, or what it is that he missed out on.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:55 (twenty years ago)

I have never been less able to figure out what a band's aesthetic is based on comments on a thread about them.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:56 (twenty years ago)

"meandering ethno-performance art-jamz" = rather meaningless.

"over stylized, self-consciously chintzy, and amateurishly experimental distillations of world music through an urban No Wave-y filter" = similar

"doesn’t quite hit the marks of spiritual frenzy that a good structured improvisation seems like it should—the band just finds a lopsided groove and sits on it—nor does it feel like a collection of actual songs" = wtf? "the marks of spiritual frenzy that a good structured improvisation..." what does that even MEAN? esp. considering quite a NUMBER of improvisors say their music has nothing to do with spirituality whatsoever (read one derek bailey)!

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:59 (twenty years ago)

So, they're going for Bailey-like abstractness?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:00 (twenty years ago)

What does it MEAN? It means Ascension. It means Charles Gayle saying that when he plays he wants to go through the wall. It means Hindustani classical music.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

Ned, they kind of sound like The Residents and Black Dice and othe people. They're all ARTISTS so all the writing about them is WANKY.

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

i don't know! but saying "good structured improvisation" needs "spiritual frenzy" is dumb. not to mention that "structured improvisation" is somewhat of an oxymoron.

xpost - no it doesn't, tim.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

"spiritual frenzy"

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:03 (twenty years ago)

those aren't improvisations, those are musics with elements of improvisations.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:03 (twenty years ago)

frenzy.torrent

― Open your eyes; you can fly! (ex machina), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:04 (twenty years ago)

Oh give me a break! Most free jazz is primarily improvisation. Raga performances involve repetitions of the gat melody at the beginning and end -- otherwise, it's just a scale and a meter.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:05 (twenty years ago)

ie. those are music where the improvisation takes the structure to a different place.

as opposed to improvisation being the structure. totally different things.

i don't know what ggd's method is nor have i heard the album. i'd like to think if i did hear it and was intrigued or annoyed enough to care about it in some way (whether positively or negatively), i'd want to investigate what they were doing.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:06 (twenty years ago)

most free jazz is not improvisation, tim.

improvising within a scale/context/form is still not improvising as improvisation.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:07 (twenty years ago)

i've only heard the record once, and there were other things i wanted to buy instead of it, but it def. intrigued me. they're kind of an updated version of liquid liquid on this album. hell maybe even their band name is a reference to them?

"eth-no-wave" (new buzzword coinage! you heard it hear first folks) doesn't sound so bad really does it?

― Amon (eman), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:08 (twenty years ago)

As opposed to the reviewer?

x-post

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:08 (twenty years ago)

i should say, most free jazz is not improvisation, though obv. it has elements of improvisation. do you honestly think coltrane went into the studio with no sense of head, rhythm, melody, etc.?

xpost - no i don't think the reviewer bothered.

xxpost - their name comes from a jazz record.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:08 (twenty years ago)

What does this "improvising as improvisation" business have to do with Gang Gang Dance?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:11 (twenty years ago)

i don't know but they're not jazz. so it seems silly to hold them to that standard.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:12 (twenty years ago)

I think he was just saying that he thought the jamz were dull, dude.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:13 (twenty years ago)

pls read:

http://www.jazzscript.co.uk/images/improvistaion.jpg

technique for many different contexts, from baroque to flamenco to jazz to unclassifiable whateverness.

xpost - he was saying that in a clumsy, clunky, non-sensical manner.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:14 (twenty years ago)

Didn't someone say something about pedanticism earlier in the thread?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:19 (twenty years ago)

look, dude, tim - if you're gonna use WORDS try to use them as best you can. asking for clarity in criticism is MUCH different than asking for clarity in art (the latter is not necessary, but the former sure as fuck is - read one orwell).

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

ie if you can't even handle conveying, don't bother conveying.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

And a lot of free jazz IS improvisation. Just because you start off playing a head doesn't mean that what follows is structured in some way -- rhythmically or harmonically.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

If you want to that alap sections of raga performances are "not improvisation" because there's a prescribed meter and scale, that seems like semantic hairsplitting to me.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:23 (twenty years ago)

I mean, what, late 20th century modernists own the term?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:24 (twenty years ago)

it's not free improvisation, no. it's not "free." it has a predetermined context, idiom and even a sort of content - ragas are performed for specific ceremonies, times of day, etc.

no, late 20th century modernists do not own the term but it seems rather silly to use a yardstick to measure a kilometer.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:25 (twenty years ago)

No one said ragas were free improvisation!

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:26 (twenty years ago)

Or are you saying that free jazz is not free?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:28 (twenty years ago)

you're trying to tie ragas and jazz in as the examples of what improvisation is. I am saying improvisation is inherent in many different things, even some things that don't have very much improvisation in them (aside from certain elements).

it's not really that difficult.

xpost - no, free jazz is not free.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:28 (twenty years ago)

"you're trying to tie ragas and jazz in as the examples of what improvisation is"

No, I'm not. Perhaps you think I am because you want to make some point.

How is free jazz not free? Because someone is playing a saxophone? Because they had to go to a club to play?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:30 (twenty years ago)

Tim, you brought them up first:

What does it MEAN? It means Ascension. It means Charles Gayle saying that when he plays he wants to go through the wall. It means Hindustani classical music.
-- Tim Ellison (timelliso...), April 14th, 2005.

if you wanted to say there's more styles of improvisation, well you sure didn't say it.

How is free jazz not free? Because someone is playing a saxophone? Because they had to go to a club to play?

all free jazz has a structure, even with improvisation in it. Ayler uses BIG HUGE melody lines that he repeats. Coleman wrote with counterpoint. Coltrane structured pieces. Ad infinitum. There is not ONE SINGLE free jazz composition (heh, composition should be the obv. kicker) that i can think of, as a free jazz fan, that does not have some element of structure. ie. it is not truly free (which is not a pejorative to say that, just saying).

JAMMING ON A RIFF = YOU'RE STILL JAMMING ON A RIFF

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:33 (twenty years ago)

Maybe you haven't heard much free jazz? Just because you start out playing a head doesn't mean you're "jamming on a riff" for the remainder of the piece.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:35 (twenty years ago)

maybe i haven't heard much free jazz? god you are one douchebag tim.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:36 (twenty years ago)

i mean do you SERIOUSLY ever bother READING?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:36 (twenty years ago)

TIM DO THEY PLAY FREE JAZZ ON TEH RADIO?

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:36 (twenty years ago)

"if you wanted to say there's more styles of improvisation, well you sure didn't say it."

And this is just idiotic. I was just giving you examples of improvisation that IS about spiritual frenzy because you asked what the guy meant.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:37 (twenty years ago)

even when Ayler plays a New Orleans-esque funeral stomp and then goes into SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN THE SAME PIECE the funeral stomp is what sets the CONTEXT FOR THE FUCKING PIECE ie. IT IS JUXTAPOSED WITH THE SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAT SETS UP THE ENTIRE TENSION/REASON FOR THE DICHOTOMY.

I can't seriously believe you studied music at all.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:38 (twenty years ago)

AND TIM I WAS SAYING NOT ALL IMPROVISATION HAS SPIRITUAL FRENZY AS AN ELEMENT. I WAS NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS NO MUSIC WITH SPIRITUAL FRENZY OR THAT MUSIC WITH SPIRITUAL FRENZY HAS NO IMPROVISATION or whatever else you will ascribe to what I wrote because you're too lazy to GET ONE READING COMPREHENSION.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:40 (twenty years ago)

I did not ask what the guy "meant." I very forcefully put down his meaning becuase it's wholly inaccurate!

Unless you're Tim and can't read and like crappy radio music.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:40 (twenty years ago)

Creative Construction Company to thread.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:41 (twenty years ago)

yeah i have both their albums, doughhead.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:43 (twenty years ago)

"the funeral stomp is what sets the CONTEXT FOR THE FUCKING PIECE ie. IT IS JUXTAPOSED WITH THE SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAT SETS UP THE ENTIRE TENSION/REASON FOR THE DICHOTOMY"

Yeah, in the same way that Derek Bailey's diddle at the beginning of his piece is juxtaposed with the other completely different diddle that comes later, which sets up the entire whatsis of the piece.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:43 (twenty years ago)

DEREK BAILEY'S DIDDLE IS NOT A HARMONIC/RHYTMIC STRUCTURE WITH AN ENTIRE CONTEXT/IDIOM FROM A CULTURE.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

HITLER'S BITHDAY IS COMING UP

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

i think i prefer the old hstencil.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

Jazz is an IDIOM, a MUSIC, a CULTURE - developed over a couple hundred years.

Ragas were developed over a few thousand years.

DEREK BAILEY IS ONE DUDE.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:46 (twenty years ago)

i think i preferred it when gygax! had something interesting to say rather than blind loyalty to barry bonds and tim ellison.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:46 (twenty years ago)

NEITHER ARE THERE HARMONIC/RHYTHMIC STRUCTURES ON ANY NUMBER OF IMPROVISATIONS ON FREE JAZZ RECORDS.

AND RE. IDIOM POINT: THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT LATE PERIOD COLTRANE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS "NOT JAZZ."

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:47 (twenty years ago)

SURE DON'T SOUND LIKE COLEMAN HAWKINS

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:47 (twenty years ago)

i just like the way jazz sounds

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

those people are wrong. Late period Coltrane is most definitely jazz and most definitely fits into the context of what jazz is. Hence, people call them jazz records.

Even Anthony Braxton does standards, dude.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

CCC records definitely have melodic and rhythmic structures.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

I like Tyondai Braxton!

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

Well, that's your definition of jazz (and Braxton's). Not the opinion of some guy who was writing for Down Beat in '66.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

I like Tyondai too, he's a nice guy.

It's not 1966.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:50 (twenty years ago)

I like Tyondai Braxton! I listened to his music while wandering around an airport off my mash on prescription drug pipes!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:51 (twenty years ago)

I like JAZZ, but it's not GRIME, is it?

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:52 (twenty years ago)

"CCC records definitely have melodic and rhythmic structures."

By this you mean what? That someone might, momentarily, be playing something with a pulse? That someone might occasionally play some line with some relation to diatonic melody?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:52 (twenty years ago)

you need to listen to them again, i think.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:53 (twenty years ago)

but anyway that's besides the point of you always willfully misinterpreting what i write even when i spell it out in the most simple of terms that even a musicology student should be able to understand.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

"It's not 1966."

That's not the point. The point is that you're saying that if you come from a background where you played jazz, have a band where you use jazz instrumentation, and play music that is mostly freely improvised, that it's idiomatic and thus the improvisations are NEVER FREE.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:55 (twenty years ago)

tho i will admit in a sense it's kind of endearing.

"Ascension" is so totally jazz Tim, trying to deny it just seems silly.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:55 (twenty years ago)

You're full of shit.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:56 (twenty years ago)

im so stupid guys i dont really get what you're arguing about.

― charleston charge (chaki), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

even "Machine Gun" or "The Baptised Traveller" are jazz. tho later Bailey-related efforts are definitely not (ie. he was looking to break free from the jazz idiom and sometimes succeeded - whereas Coltrane was not looking to make a break at all).

xpost - there we go.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

i'm full of shit because you make outrageous claims such as late-period Coltrane isn't jazz, right-o.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

your father also invented the question mark, right?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

I think I like the Shaggs unironically, but I'm not sure what that means anymore.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

I personally agree that a lot of free jazz is jazz. Never said I didn't. Doesn't mean that I don't think there's FREE IMPROVISATION on them.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

MUSIC IS LOVE

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

xxp-Shaggadelic!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:59 (twenty years ago)

"them" = free jazz records

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:59 (twenty years ago)

I like the Shaggs a lot! Tons of melody, structure. Just not very conventional ones.

There is improvisation in ALL jazz, not just free jazz Tim! Are you so willing to willfully misread me that you won't acknowledge that I said that way way upthread?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:59 (twenty years ago)

When did I ever say there wasn't improvisation in all jazz???

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

I think I just realized that I set out to pretend to like the Shaggs ironically but instead I ironically like the Shaggs unironically, and that I only pretend to like them ironically.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

most free jazz is not improvisation, though obv. it has elements of improvisation.

did I have to write "most free jazz is not PURELY improvisation?"

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

no matter where you go, there you are! kind of like jazz improv!

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

The same with me and KKSF! Exactly the same!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

xp!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

KKSF is a beautiful vibe to wind down to.

Plus it fits into my daily schedule!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

When did I ever say there wasn't improvisation in all jazz???

Tim, Tim - stick to the willfully misunderstanding me. It makes it all easier.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

I like how Adam pretends to have a cellphone... isn't it ironic?

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

I can't tell about other people pretending to like music, gygax!. I thought I settled that on ILM long ago.

I like the Shaggs and I have my reasons, most of which have to do with melody and rhythm. And they were cute.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

did I have to write "most free jazz is not PURELY improvisation?"

Yeah, that would have been better than saying "most free jazz is not improvisation," which didn't make any fuckin' sense.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

Are you like this with customers?

xxp-hey!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

listening to the shaggs the other day made me feel sad for the shaggs. they are on the corner of cool and pitiful. and yet, sometimes i can hear them and be happy! but other times they sound drugged to me or something. and sad.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

it made total sense, you just wished to ignore it. In the sense of IDIOMATIC MUSICS, improvisation is a TECHNIQUE.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:05 (twenty years ago)

as opposed to NON-IDIOMATIC MUSIC, where IMPROVISATION IS THE MUSIC.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:05 (twenty years ago)

Tell that to Leo Smith.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:06 (twenty years ago)

take two eddie prevosts and call me in the morning.

-DR. JAZZ

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:06 (twenty years ago)

Leo Smith is a fantastic improvisor and jazz trumpeter. I have seen him play in both contexts, sometimes within the same concert!

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:06 (twenty years ago)

anyway I gotta go get drunk, see ya later Tim!

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:07 (twenty years ago)

You should do a study where you listen to 400 free jazz records and explain to the world when the playing is idiomatic and when it is not.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:07 (twenty years ago)

they can listen for themselves, unless they listen to the radio too much.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

What does Pitchfork think about... Jandek?

You should do a study where you listen to 400 free jazz records and explain to the world when the playing is idiomatic and when it is not.
-- Tim Ellison (timelliso...)

OTM! Live-Blog it all and then sell them all on eBay... the greatest performance ART piece EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:09 (twenty years ago)

YOU GUYS NEED THIS
http://cover09.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/360/369440.jpg

― charleston charge (chaki), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

I don't care what Pitchfork thinks, gygax!. I care what you think.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

xpost - I never ever want to have kids. They'll make me listen to the radio.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:11 (twenty years ago)

GO GET DRUNK YOU FUCK!

― charleston charge (chaki), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

roffle

― noizem duke (noize duke), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

Today in the car, we heard Shriekback (that "big black nemesis/parthenogenesis" song) and Franz Ferdinand ("Take Me Out"). The Franz Ferdinand song was the superior of the two.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

are these guys doing improv?
http://www.apoloybaco.com/logocombo.jpg

GET ONE THE YELLOWJACKETS

― charleston charge (chaki), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:14 (twenty years ago)

george benson plays pretty "out" on miles in the sky

― charleston charge (chaki), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:16 (twenty years ago)

does anyone have adam's phone #?

-- geeta (geet...), April 12th, 2005.

he never answers his phone anyway
where is the damon and naomi/ghost show?

-- kyle (akmonda...), April 12th, 2005.

Kyle's right, Adam doesn't answer his phone haha.
-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), April 12th, 2005.

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:18 (twenty years ago)

I guess in Scotland owning a mobile phone means having an answering machine that you rarely check up on.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:24 (twenty years ago)

i think this:

I officially have no faith in the fork.

was the most troubling thing said in this thread. however, i do enjoy the album very much.

― cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:25 (twenty years ago)

gygax check yr email

cutty you have such great taste in teh music!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:27 (twenty years ago)

nobody ever calls me!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:27 (twenty years ago)

i call you all the time

― cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

i'm calling you OUT, jack.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 22:39 (twenty years ago)

"i should say, most free jazz is not improvisation, though obv. it has elements of improvisation. do you honestly think coltrane went into the studio with no sense of head, rhythm, melody, etc.?"

The Om album would be an example. My point, again, was that just because you play a head at the beginning of a piece of free jazz doesn't mean that the piece is not primarily freely improvised.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 23:39 (twenty years ago)

http://www.thelps.com/images/lps-home1.gif

whoa what are they going to do next?? every note is an adventure!

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 14 April 2005 23:44 (twenty years ago)

http://www.jacara.net/images/cd-photo/candy-saxuality.jpg

~ FREE LOVE ON THE FREE JAZZ FREEWAY ~

― Waking Up Onstage at Jumbo's (Bent Over at the Arclight), Friday, 15 April 2005 00:08 (twenty years ago)

On Side One of the Creative Construction Company Volume 2 album, there is ONE MOMENT near the beginning when Anthony Braxton and Leo Smith play a line together. It's kind of like an Ornette Coleman head where there is no pulse but they're playing together, but it's very short. Otherwise, they sail along together jamming frantically with no rhythmic unity and no harmonic constraints. (The playing is almost totally devoid of any traces of diatonicisms.)

Is that "music with elements of improvisation?" Or is it, as I was arguing, almost entirely freely improvised music? Is that "music where the improvisation takes the structure to a different place?" What structure?

I understand the argument that free jazz is often a music with a "content" and you can therefore say that it's not "free" in this sense. (Although not having any content may ultimately be seen as much more of a straightjacket!) Maybe the content of some free jazz is "spiritual frenzy" or whatever. The title of the piece on this CCC album, though, is "No More White Gloves (With Sand Under Your Shoes Doing a Dance)."

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 15 April 2005 00:10 (twenty years ago)

where are you guys getting all these free jazz and free improv records from? i feel like a fucknut for buying this rubbish when i could have been getting them for free all along!!

― Amon (eman), Friday, 15 April 2005 01:52 (twenty years ago)

I kind of never imagined that this record would amount to such a huge discussion. Tim, thanks for getting my back, at least in the theoretical/prodemocracy sense. I'm not going to apologize for the review. I think the record is stiff. It's interesting, but it's not that great. As far as the whole "presenting a clear aesthetic" thing, well, maybe I'm just old fashioned. I'm not saying Gang Gang Dance has to do something totally accessible, clear-cut, whatever. What I am saying is that this record seemed to lack clarity in either adhering to previously established aesthetics and, at the same time, didn't fully imagine a new one (at least in my repeated listens of it not to mention listening to their other records several times and seeing them live). Look, freedom's fine, but music is made for the public, and I fully believe that-- if Gang Gang Dance didn't want to either 1) be a sound that already is or 2) make a new sound and thereby imagine a new listener, then they just shouldn't put out records. My problem with an album like this-- like the Gehry building-- is that because it hedges aesthetically (incl. not fully developing anything convincing and new), that people just get slack-jawed about it, and say "oh, it's great, how weird, how free." Come on. Good is good and not good is not good, regardless of aesthetic context. I just didn't hear anything on the record that I thought was really well-articulated. As far as the "improv" thing goe- maybe I just have zero understanding of it- all I meant was that it didn't sound like a bunch of musicians listening to each other, and playing off each other in a spontaneous way (how else would you define it?). "Spiritual frenzy" was just trying to imply a back and forth, a connection, a unification, or at least conscious gaps. I don't know. If someone can simply explain to me why this album is good, I'm happy to reconsider, and even happier to talk about the conditions that surround forming opinions about an album like this. I just wasn't all that into it.

― mike powell (mike powell), Friday, 15 April 2005 12:22 (twenty years ago)

"Good is good and not good is not good" - Yogi Berra

― hi, Friday, 15 April 2005 12:34 (twenty years ago)

mike remember the time i said "it was nice meeting you" and you said "we didn't meet"

― Nick Sylvester, Friday, 15 April 2005 12:35 (twenty years ago)

Yes. Why do you ask here and now?

― mike powell (mike powell), Friday, 15 April 2005 12:38 (twenty years ago)

Honestly Nick, I was just trying to be proper, not mean-spirited. A good handshake kind of affair.

― mike powell (mike powell), Friday, 15 April 2005 12:39 (twenty years ago)

ha i just thought it was really funny, totally took me off guard. seriously though it was nice meeting you!

re: gang bang dance, is it okay with you all that i liked BOTH reviews? both took the album pretty seriously, one tried to meet the band on its own terms, the other contextualized etc. i like that people are reading this stuff very high-concept, while the band's are playing themselves viciously pre-concept. the tension's great, even if the album sucks i'm always excited to read reviews that take a few chances with ideas, put themselves out so threads like this can happen.

― Nick Sylvester, Friday, 15 April 2005 13:31 (twenty years ago)

i'm with you mike. i can't believe pitchfork gave the GGD album such a good review. I fully agree with the whole "wow, so free, so wild" sentiment. who cares. it's annoying noodling and I hate how much praise gets heaped on so many crap "noise" bands, whatever you want to call it. weird that this thread took off though. wasn't expecting that. thank goodness for hstencil and tim to fight fight fight!

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 13:43 (twenty years ago)

why would anyone mistake this for an improv record? it's stylized pop made by people that buy grime 12"s and Sublime Frequencies and corroborate Ornette Coleman's claim that Yoko Ono was a 'world artist'.

― imbidimts, Friday, 15 April 2005 13:44 (twenty years ago)

breezy- I didn't say that I couldn't believe that Pitchfork gave it a good review, and I don't agree with the blanket generalization about "crap 'noise' bands;" it's just too vague. There's nothing wrong with people liking this record, I just don't really have a good understanding of one big question, WHY? Admittedly, there's certainly nothing wrong with listening, enjoying, and just not asking "why." That's a whole other story.

― mike powell (mike powell), Friday, 15 April 2005 13:58 (twenty years ago)

yeah well I'm cool with making the generalizations. haha. I'm no critic. point being I liked the review. I find the album essentially lazy.

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:02 (twenty years ago)

maybe you're a lazy listener

― rizzx (rizzx), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:08 (twenty years ago)

hah. that's an easy comeback and entirely untrue. i've found way more "difficult" albums to be wonderful. just because someone doesn't like something or thinks it smells of lazy songwriting doesn't mean I'm not putting in the effort.

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

pitchfork gave excepter a great review too, is that hard to believe for you, breezy?

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:12 (twenty years ago)

cool, but when you say this, dont you think you are wrong to assume it is a lazy record?

― rizzx (rizzx), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:12 (twenty years ago)

"songwriting"

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:14 (twenty years ago)

just an opinion rizzx. obviously I can't say anything more than what I think. pure speculation. and yes cutty, I thought excepter was pretty crap as well.

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:15 (twenty years ago)

breezy. you don't like the band. you type as if you have never read a pitchfork review you disagreed with before. SHOCKING.

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:23 (twenty years ago)

an opinion, yeah.

― rizzx (rizzx), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:24 (twenty years ago)

now I officially have no faith in the fork

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

"the fork"

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

did you want pitchfork to validate your dislike of the band? are you unsure now of what to think?

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

thanks for that sarcastic insight cutty. i'm not looking for anyone to validate anything. just voicing an opinion here. that is what this board is for right cutty? but I appreciate the condescending tone. look I too can be sarcastic cutty!

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

MY PROBLEM IS YOU CANT SIT AROUND TH CAMP FIRE SINGING SONGZ NO MO

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:37 (twenty years ago)

purposeful obtuseness.

― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

I am about to listen to the record now. I will let you know if it sucks ass!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:56 (twenty years ago)

Here's my take on it:
http://hippriest.blogspot.com

― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:33 (twenty years ago)

Here's my take on it:
http://hippriest.blogspot.com

― Brooker B (Brooker B), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

sorry 'bout the double post.

― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:40 (twenty years ago)

ILM IN DIDN'T LIKE PITCHFORK REVIEW SHOCKAH

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:42 (twenty years ago)

I REALLY like this!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:04 (twenty years ago)

"then they just shouldn't put out records"

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

Aw come on, you said that about the Killers.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

no i didn't.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:30 (twenty years ago)

Okay then.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:35 (twenty years ago)

Track 3 is the hotness.

― sleep (sleep), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

i really, really like this!

― Aerodynamic (Aerodynamic), Friday, 15 April 2005 21:27 (twenty years ago)

" vocalist Lizzi Bougatsos emerges as a legitimate frontwoman: She knows her Living Theater and Picabia and feels at times like Karen O performing Kurt Schwitters' "Ur Sonata". "...........yikes

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Friday, 15 April 2005 23:07 (twenty years ago)

Anyway, this thing KEEPS GETTING BETTER!

(And "Before My Voice Fails" DOES achieve "spiritual frenzy"!)

― Dr. Gene Scott (shinybeast), Friday, 29 April 2005 13:52 (twenty years ago)

i'm just annoyed that there is a band called gang gang dance and another called dance disaster movement. both names on their own are annoying enough (i swear, when will rock kidz stop talking about dancing already? it's become a weird fetish almost as bad as the fixation upon "making out"), but their combined existence makes the universe bend in places it shouldn't.

― philip sherburne (philip sherburne), Friday, 6 May 2005 01:56 (twenty years ago)

the name gang gang dance comes from a jazz record.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 6 May 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

This band name reminds me of Dance Dance Revolution. Oddly enough, one of the first people I saw play that game is apparently really into seeing lots of indie rock shows these days. Coincidence? I think not.

― mike h. (mike h.), Friday, 6 May 2005 03:27 (twenty years ago)

it's become a weird fetish almost as bad as the fixation upon "making out"

??..........................?

― Amon (eman), Friday, 6 May 2005 03:32 (twenty years ago)

indie rockers always talk about "making out." in flyers, in myspace testimonials, whatev. there's a weird peter pan syndromeness to the terminology - like we're all perpetually living in a john hughes movie. doesn't anyone just fuck any more?

― philip sherburne (philip sherburne), Friday, 6 May 2005 03:59 (twenty years ago)

now I feel dirty for liking it

― vanessa novaeris (novaeris), Friday, 6 May 2005 04:03 (twenty years ago)

2001 dude.

― A homunculus of Darby Crash, .... created for the purposes of *EVIL* (ex machina, Friday, 6 May 2005 04:05 (twenty years ago)

c'mon phillip. you're not even right about the origin of their name.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 6 May 2005 04:06 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

I just listened to the gang gang dance album.. it's kind of a boring mess of, for lack of a better term, "India-ness" with pretty moments in between the songs.

― donut e-g (donut), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 05:39 (nineteen years ago)

what the hell is the indie fixation on "making out"? somebody show me this!

― Mickey (modestmickey), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 15:50 (nineteen years ago)

eighteen years pass...

indie rockers always talk about "making out." in flyers, in myspace testimonials, whatev. there's a weird peter pan syndromeness to the terminology - like we're all perpetually living in a john hughes movie. doesn't anyone just fuck any more?
― philip sherburne (philip sherburne), Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:59 PM (eighteen years ago)

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:https://pitchfork.com+";philip+sherburne"+"making+out"
About 9 results (0.17 seconds)

🤨

― citation needed (Steve Shasta), Monday, 13 November 2023 07:52 (one year ago)

Lmao

― ian, Monday, 13 November 2023 13:21 (one year ago)

I miss GGD and was hoping this revive was about a new album. Anyone know what they're up to?

― Paul Ponzi, Monday, 13 November 2023 14:55 (one year ago)

xp sorry for pedantry, but that's not exactly a solid get if you click through to any of the results

― rob, Monday, 13 November 2023 15:01 (one year ago)

whoops sorry Phil... I mean "rob".

― citation needed (Steve Shasta), Monday, 13 November 2023 18:55 (one year ago)

your hair is everywhere

― a very very unfair (Neanderthal), Monday, 13 November 2023 19:07 (one year ago)

I’m not Phil, I’m treeship

― rob, Monday, 13 November 2023 20:18 (one year ago)

I'm a mummy

― a very very unfair (Neanderthal), Monday, 13 November 2023 20:20 (one year ago)

what prompted this revive

― I? not I! He! He! HIM! (akm), Monday, 13 November 2023 20:43 (one year ago)

I’m guessing boredom

― the new drip king (DJP), Monday, 13 November 2023 21:17 (one year ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.