From: bogul@nospambog.net
"AM" wrote in news:MNLle.37827$rt1.23951@fe04.lga:
> "bogul" wrote in message
> news:Xns96636D4CC171Bbugulbugus@129.250.170.90...
>> "AM" wrote in news:oTFle.203$HN1.51@fe02.lga:
>>
>>> "Lane Gray, Czar Castic" wrote in message
>>> news:opsrfjygwi8955ol@stylgar...
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:03:49 -0600, AM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "bogul" wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns965F8C8A7C3D2bugulbugus@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>> An interesting sub-plot the the original thread...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I gotta ask. What are you seeking out in a "jam"?
>>>>>
>>>>> A jam is simply people *playing* together. No hierarchicality is
>>>>> necessary - - - unless one is excessively egoistic. No control is
>>>>> necessary - - - unless one is excessively narrow-minded.
>>>>> Obviously, Control Freak Egomaniacs are psycho-spiritually
>>>>> incapable of meeting these two crucial conditions.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, if the piece getting played is a *song*, then one would
>>>> expect the singer to have a good deal of input, as one would
>>>> consider it his/her tune.
>>>
>>> Most folksingers define singing as "any sound emanating from a
>>> bodily orifice," and thus, are not worthy of any special deference.
>>
>> Basicly a meaningless tolling statement.
>
> Pot - - - Black, and that's "basically." How can you expect Mexican
> immigrants to learn English when you refuse to?
>
Typo... You also missed the fact that it should have been "trolling"
instead of "tolling".
Looks like we found us one of them racist bigots the original post was
referencing.
>>>>That said, unless the jam is held at someone's house (and the
>>>>homeowner plays the role of the jamnazi), someone laying down rigid
>>>>rules isn't very cool at all.
>>>>
>>>>>> or... perhaps better stated... what to you would truly
>>>>>> constitute a Jam?
>>>>>
>>>>> This, I described in Paragraph 5 of the previous post: "Union
>>>>> with the Creative Force through an egalitarian, synergistic,
>>>>> co-creative process, unfettered by subjective preconception of
>>>>> what must occur."
>>>>>
>>>> Here I'd say that the Dave Matthews Band or Phish have given you an
>>>> odd concept of a "jam session."
>>>> If you're at a bluegrass jam, expect the songs/instrumentals to
>>>> roughly conform to the general aspects of bluegrass (i.e. generally
>>>> three chords; generally in 2/4 time; most verses either 16 or 32
>>>> bars, with choruses of generally equal length; you don't play your
>>>> breaks in polyrhythms or take Charlie Parkeresque high-energy bebop
>>>> flights of fancy), just like you wouldn't break out your Lynyrd
>>>> Skynrd licks if you sat in at a Dixieland jam. The idea of a jam
>>>> session "unfettered by subjective preconception of what must occur"
>>>> will generally not exist anywhere. A room full of 'grassers will
>>>> generally expect the music to sound like bluegrass, a Dixieland jam
>>>> will generally conform to the standards and conventions of
>>>> Dixieland, a blues jam will generally conform to the standards and
>>>> conventions of the blues, et al, et c.
>>>
>>> As Frank Zappa once said, "Without deviation from the norm, no
>>> progress is possible."
>>>
>>
>> In order to deviate... a norm must be established... Any norm
>> established started as a deviation... So to give a "norm" the back of
>> your hand simply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and
>> appriciation for musical roots. Zappa was great... but didn't
>> "always" deviate... Much of what he did is now considered norm...
>> shall we belittle it as well?
>
> It is not I belittling the norm, but rather the die-hard
> conventionalists of any given genre belittling deviation, and, as you
> have already conceded, all norms started as deviations. Bill Monroe,
> for instance, was a musical innovator and adventurer, which is why we
> will remember his name long after we have forgotten yours. Bluegrass
> would not have enjoyed this current renaissance without the likes of
> borderline bluegrass figures such as Grisman and Fleck broadening it's
> appeal - - - by fusing it with other genre, an act intrinsically
> heretical to purist fundamentalists.
>
Grisman and Fleck are amazing(understatment). And they are likely your
conduit through which you view bluegrass. But there are a great may
conduits through which folk link up to bluegrass. To state that bluegrass
would "NOT" be where it is today without them is true... but the current
renaissance is much much broader than that.
My friend ... in the jams you've been to... you may well be right about
these "purist fundies(used a little atheist lingo there for ya)". But you
were the one in this forum who slammed the traditional music as lacking
any sense of musical adventure or jam worthness. So don't lay that on us.
> Personally, I *never* interfere in the play of others, because I never
> feel the need to, since I find MY fun in simply adapting to whatever
> IS played. If it just doesn't work with a given individual, usually a
> result of basic rhythmic incoherence (or a bum mix), I just move on -
> - - rather than attempting to impose my subjective musical values on
> another. There's no shortage of musicians to play with.
>
You are too funny man ... After post a flame of "jams", now you state
that you just "adapt to whatever IS played" .... lmao ... Apparently
you've been "interfered with while playing" ... well... breaks don't last
forever dude ... play your shit and move on and stop looking at the faces
around you to see if anyone liked it or not ... (the preceeding was
neither spell checked or reviewed so have at it)
> How amusing, as well, that you mispelled "appreciation" immediately
> after accusing me of lacking understanding.
Based on your content... you do lack understanding... So you lack that
but have spell check... whooop deee doooo (spell check that) I can "buy"
spell check.
>
> "Hee Haw!"
>
> AM
not yet ready for FM
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
