Contemplazione

PVC, I agree with you on your 53 (by the way, we were writing together and my 54 doesn't consider your 53). And there's no envy, I assure you. It's just that you start like this: "Hearing the voice of God, his presence, finding faith can represent a real misfortune for an artist." Therefore, I, who can read, deduce that for you A Love Supreme was an artistic misfortune, a failure for the artist in question, a step backward. And you give it a 3, which you consider an excellent rating but the rest of the world sees as mediocre. It all starts from that point. Rightly, you complain: "I love bands like AMM, Voice Crack, or US Maple and in some forums I've heard people say things like they were terrible, useless noise, horrible rock album, and frankly I didn't even respond." It's the same thing you did when you talked about "misfortune" regarding this album. Or defining Mehldau as "garbage." The only difference is that we responded to you, to understand why. But you didn't explain why it was a "misfortune," you just said you like something else. Everyone is good like that! ;-)

What the hell are you saying, Charles Gayle's record would have a solid critical history behind it? Adieu.

Goodness gracious, why on earth would one of the greatest contemporary pianists and improvisers be considered rubbish? And what about the poor Quintorigo, whether they're derivatives or not, haven't they made quality music? And in the Italian scene, weren't (aren't they) quite dignified? Anyway, if you dig through my reviews, you'll also find free stuff, with a capital F though. What a shame, you started off so well by trashing Bosso with strings... Let's play a game: enlighten us on the strong stuff that you feel is worthy? As long as they’re names that are unpronounceable, evoke fear and reverence, even if invented, it doesn't matter. The more unknown and cryptic, the better. Not commercial stuff like Beethoven, or Bach, or Mozart. Not even Schoenberg, please, because even though he’s notoriously bad, too many people have heard of him and you wouldn't make a good impression talking about it. (Anyway, those who know me realize that when I sing and play for myself, it’s to lighten the mood when I talk with the broken pieces.)

Muff, it was a joke, I’m not reading Dost right now, it was in response to Fiquata's quote! Now I'm reading Mademoiselle De Maupin by Theophile Gautier, whose protagonist, a poet and intellectual, loves beauty and particularly the female body above all else. How can one not relate?

De coccio, eh? First of all, I can't belong to those who say: "if you don't understand anything then it's crap," simply because I've never experienced that (except when I was young and impatient) in music. When that's the case, I rather say: "there's really nothing to understand (it's completely lacking content), so it's crap." But that's their problem, their limitation, never mine. I don't miss a thing. If there's something good, I see it, I feel it, I perceive it. What's more: I actively seek it out. If I don't find it, I mean that it just isn't there. Sorry for the immodesty. Regarding jazz, you're right, I know little or nothing, so much so that I even like A Love Supreme, a really overexposed album, can you believe it... but you know, it’s like a parent! You love them even at fifty, even at seventy. Even after they’re gone! But all in all, maybe I should do well to disown them like you do with your old folks… after all, they've already raised me, what am I wasting time for? I’ve got new people now, very in, avant-garde people, to nurture and to be seen with around town! Those old, drooling losers of mine are rotting in the nursing home, since I'm the only heir. And even my childhood friends, for that matter!

Tarkovsky is not hermetic; he is a great director and communicator. The message is there, and it's evident if you want to see it. The problem arises when there is no message at all, and people try to mask this with a hermetic attitude and tricks that appeal to those who blame themselves for not understanding the "message." They say: but you can't understand anything... it must be genius! And in part, they are right because they get fooled. Anyway, let's end the debate; you claim to listen to strong stuff, Avant-garde with a capital A, and we believe you. It shows that you’re in such a phase of enthusiasm that you set aside all music that deviates, even slightly, from your ideal of music. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. For us, I mean... for you, it's an obvious limitation.

I wasn't talking about the Avant-Garde, but about the "avant-garde stubbornness," which usually appeals to those who disdain A Love Supreme and Kind Of Blue. At least the attitude of sneering at "classic" masterpieces in favor of (alleged or real) avant-garde masterpieces feels very much like stubborn avant-garde to me. Perhaps I'm wrong. I like the Avant-Garde. And I understand it. That's precisely why I can't help but praise a masterpiece of this magnitude. Just because I like and appreciate Picasso, I would never dream of giving a 3 to Caravaggio. Meanwhile, "merda d'artista" isn't really artist's work (since it isn't Art), but just crap. I don't know if what I'm saying reaches your understanding; I understand myself. Now I have to go read Dostoevsky, greetings to all, we'll talk on the next occasion!

Well done, great review, I also liked the reference to Flores! The album is very beautiful, definitely worth purchasing, very enjoyable, pleasant, and well performed. For me, it's between 4 and 4.5 anyway, if I want to put it in context with other Michel albums that I consider superior.

Anyway, Zorn, Ribot, Ayler, I like them; I'm not referring to them. It's just that the way you approached the subject (not giving credit to A Love Supreme or even to poor Kind Of Blue—too melodic for your hard and pure ears) made it seem like you were reasoning a bit along those lines. But amen, everyone has their tastes; the problem arises when those tastes are (even partially) dictated by external influences, by attitudes. And above all, appreciating one genre (such as avant-garde) should not preclude appreciating other genres (mainstream included, to which neither Davis's masterpiece nor Coltrane's belong). The avant-garde comes from the mainstream, modifies it, eludes or breaks its rules, and creates something else. To truly appreciate it, one must also appreciate what it originated from; in fact, one must feel the same love for all forms of artistic expression that arise from a poetic, intellectual, or emotional yearning. There must be communication in art, not hermeticism. There must be a desire to share, not to hunker down in one's fortress of arrogance and insecurity.

The "hardcore and cacophonous" experimenters tend to generate an audience that mirrors their "avant-garde stubbornness." The mistake is to consider one type of music better than another not based on true artistic and musical quality (melody, harmony, rhythm, structure, feeling), but based on how (apparently) extreme it is, based on something extramusical that convinces the experimenter at all costs and their indoctrinated follower of their superiority, as they are "ahead," "going beyond," "pushing the limits." In reality, they are stuck where they are; experimenting becomes repeating stylistic elements as loudly as possible, the horror vacui making the screeching increasingly dense and compact because the lack of ideas is frightening, resulting in music that is as full as it is empty, as screaming as it is devoid of real communication, save for the mere transmission of physical, primitive, coarse stimuli. Art? Thrown to the winds to "stand out," to be conformists in anti-conformity.