odradek

Nah, I have a nice throat, I do, I care about it...

oh...

As I was reading your words, even more urgent than on other occasions, I imagined the meeting between Mr. Nathan Amundson and Carla Bozulich. Mhhhh... Perhaps the most likely scenario is that they will cross paths, sooner or later, on the route between your mailbox and mine. Sooner or later..... :) Hi, JoP.

Something tomorrow, I hope. Not live, but from the great album with the same tracks. You should have seen that carpet with the planes crashing into the towers.... And the face of the young Indian guy (how many fingers did he have?) while he looked slyly at the audience with that "devilish" grin.

Oh, yes Dream, I don’t doubt it. But if you know him, you know what to expect; no one forces anyone to consult his space. I often do not agree with his topics, nor with the way he presents them, in an annoying hybrid between "personal taste" and "information." But, precisely, I know him, and deep down I end up liking this "unpleasant" side of him, just as I find the stubborn tenacity of a design from an ancient encyclopedist almost moving, who, like in Borges' story, I believe will ultimately provide us with his immense self-portrait...

Sure! Please send the text you'd like translated.

The meaning that each person chooses to give to the term moves within the realm, as the learned Sanjiuro teaches us, of the misunderstanding of common objectivity. Especially if one refuses to dedicate a little time and interest to topics that are probably boring, not at all "desecrators." In short, if one decides to talk about it, I believe it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least try to investigate the matter. However, even just a casual reading of some examples posted by Sanjiuro helps clarify things. - But it's obvious that the overall tone of this page is, as far as I'm concerned, irritating. Because it reduces a very serious experience to a sideshow, for the use and consumption of a young man who irritably boasts of using it as a pretext, justifying the use of absolutely misleading terms with ridiculous generalizations. For his sacred pleasure of writing. That's fine, good for him, as I said. At this point, why not take advantage of the situation anyway? I suggest listening to this record and Dolmen Music. I think that anyone who truly appreciates them will end up finding the multitude of references they contain, and it will be natural to gather information about the very interesting work of this lady. Because that’s what this is about. A true Lady.

@ Know-it-all, Fusillo, and Stoopid: I am of the opinion, which is quite banal and obvious (therefore likely surpassed by much brilliant insight), that before discussing polysemes it would be prudent, in a conversation, to come to an understanding of common terms. To establish a shared form of communication. So I address you, who seem to share such a banal logic. - No, John Cage is not a minimalist (but saying "fundamental minimalist guru" is nice; quoting him always sounds chic). And no, allowing a certain amount of silence to elapse between one sound and another is not necessarily minimalism. Minimalism is a fairly circumscribed and defined musical movement, which has, like all, relationships and connections with others. But it is not defined by a misunderstood subtraction of "quantity." Just because you play a note every quarter of an hour doesn’t make you a minimalist. Minimalism is history, history of music; it has its proponents and its chronology. It is a complex and articulated matter that, of course, cannot be sliced with a hatchet or tackled here.

You’re a riot. As you wanted to demonstrate: that you couldn’t care less was evident, so much so that I told you, but probably caught up in the polysemy you can’t grasp the most obvious things. You’re a riot, like all kids who learn new words and can’t wait to use them. But you’re also tough, a true iconoclast. It matters little, dear Sanjuro, for whom or for what you do it. What matters to me is that you made me start the day with a bit of good humor. For today, that’s enough; maybe we’ll see each other when you have more great language analyses to share. Thanks for existing. And have a good day.

3) In Monk's work, there is no desecrating intent; on the contrary, it is about reclaiming a sort of "pagan" sacredness of movement and voice, a search with serious anthropological significance. Punk, yes, truly a fitting term. 4) The album you speak of is from '79, I believe, and it is one of her fundamental works. In your "review," there is no trace of the date, nor of the context in which it was created, there is no information about a career that continues to this day, and there is no sign of respect for her work, reduced to that of a trained "punk." If the intent, aside from showing the usual pose, was to "shed light" on what you call an overlooked artist, it would have been better to approach her work while avoiding the superficial arrogance that permeates your text and your posts. But I realize that this is asking too much: anyone wanting to know more can simply read the slew of words you put under "genres," which you quote in your post. - Finally, the fact that I acknowledged an error in the reading of your text and retracted my previous statements is not enough for you, is it? You cling to it to conclude your response with dignity. I imagine you enjoyed writing "monomorphic blindness." Blessed are you who knows all these difficult words and teaches us the meaning of quotation marks. Too bad that such arrogance has produced a page like this about a musician like M. Monk. Anyway, and back to the starting point, if you’re fine with it this way, good for you. Regards.