Okay, thanks for your help!

Stop it!

You'll hurt yourself!

I thought you were referring to the album called Free Jazz.

Not Ornette Coleman's music in general.

I can see the comparison there!

My apologies for misreading what you said.

I love Ornette Coleman and have heard all of his Atlantic albums.

I didn't read all the posts on this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating anything.

I'm not much a fan of Zorn's music. IMHO, he's not a very interesting composer, but he's a relentless self-promoter, and that makes all the difference. Do I think he gets more attention than he deserves? Absolutely. But artistic merit isn't commensurate with publicity. Never was, really. On the one had, I'm grateful that he has terrific marketing skills and releases so many excellent CDs on his Tzadik label. On the other hand, I resent him for being a tightwad-cheapskate who won't provide promotional copies to writers and to radio program hosts like me!

All right, I think it's close enough to November for me to respond to this thread properly now...

(( honestly, I just completely forgot about this thread...I thought I'd already posted something here! ))

Firstly, I can understand how some of you may feel the way you do about Zorn as a serious composer of art music; and from this perspective, I would agree that he's hardly among the most innovative or radical of recent times...but rather than seeing this as a flaw on the part of the artist, I would say that it's really more of a misjudgment on the part of the critic.

If you dismiss Zorn's work because it doesn't adhere to a certain level of quality control befitting of a real musician I think you're missing the point. Zorn isn't a serious musician because he doesn't make "serious" music. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that he doesn't take his art seriously, I know he does...but I don't believe he approaches his music with the intent of expressing some sort of dry, laborious, overly-cerebral musical approach. The man's just having fun! His music is celebratory, energetic, and liberated from all notions of convention, genre, and good taste. He enjoys the musical process, and he enjoys music of all sorts and sees no reason to distinguish between any of it. He's not a composer, he's a music fan-boy with a record label! He's more aligned with the spirit of punk-rock than Jazz or Classical traditions, honestly. If there is a possible candidate, I'd call John Zorn the true successor of Frank Zappa.

In all, I suppose I relate to his music because I share Zorn's exuberance for music. I'm not a musician, but I enjoy every style of music imaginable, and of all the music that is out there, I enjoy hearing new/interesting concoctions of disparate styles beyond anything else...and of this, Zorn is a master. It's also convenient to hear a broad variety of musical styles in a single musical catalogue...

Another point I'd like to make: we're discussing Zorn as if he is a composer in the sense that he is a single creative mind with zero external input; working in solitude, churning out works completely of his own vision, distributed to whatever musical lackeys he happens to hire next, expecting that they will perform to his exacting specifications. This just isn't the way Zorn works. He's collaborative first and foremost, taking as much as he gives from the musicians he chooses to surround himself with, producing music that is as much the work of others as his own, and the people he chooses to perform with are often the best of the best today, in my opinion.

Really, I think of John Zorn more as a cult leader than a musician!

Basically, I don't love John Zorn's work because he's the most brilliant mind on the planet. I love John Zorn's work because John Zorn loves music, and so do I, and this reveals itself in every one of his releases...it's as simple as that...

I think Seba's defense is good...I was bothered a little by this whole "you don't understand because you're a classical snob" thing. You can shut anyone down in defense of the worst avant-garde music that way...besides, (at least in my case) that's pretty far removed from my actual feelings...

it's not so much about the standards of "serious" music.

To make my point more obvious, y'know that thing The Beatles usually have in their music? I call it "immediacy" or "inevitability"..."catchyness(?)"

If you're going to play rock music (which is what Zorn does, forgetting about Masada for a minute), at least be able to come up with a catchy tune once and awhile so we know we're listening to an actual musician. Frank Zappa, on the other hand, was capable of immediacy. Peaches En Regalia...We're only in it for the money...Zorn couldn't pull off a poppy tune to save his life. That's my personal litmus test...and I understand how simple-minded that is. So at least I'm not over-intellectualizing (if I'm even capable of doing so ).

The problem with Seba's argument is that I'm not a classical snob. I'm not comparing Zorn to Brahms at all. It's obvious to me that he has never studied composition seriously...that's fine with me. He's progressive rock! Great...but I've been listening to rock music all my life (my Dad was a record collector on crack) and I know what a good song is (no matter how "progressive" or "weird" it may be). I think Zorn dissapoints on both levels...he's an alto sax player on the loose!

Of course, since I'm moving to Buffalo...I'd better be careful what I say. One slip and I'll never work in that town again.

If you don't care for the sound of his rock-influenced music, that's fine...but personally, I don't consider it a fault that it's not immediate or catchy, since a good 90% of the "rock" music I listen to usually wouldn't be described in those terms anyway. Also, you have to consider who his primary influence is in the rock world: Napalm Death.

Also, if you look at him from the perspective that he is a Free-Jazz musician first and foremost, incorporating elements of rock, metal, classical, folk and so on on top of that basic creative foundation, you can probably understand how his music would be less than "immediate"...

Well first I am suprised that you actually posted this a couple months before even your estimate of Nov.

It's a well thought out and intelligent post. I don't agree with a bit of it, but still a good post.

At least it's not some absurd post whining about having to actually buy the recordings (like the rest of us) and not getiting them for free. 95%+ of critics in all the arts are hacks as it stands now. I personally think that critics should have to pay for everything like everyone else.

God forbid a musician that starts his own label that releases his and other musician's music actually is able to break even or even make a profit.

Another well thought out post I don't agree with. Though, in your case there is a lot more I am in disagreement with.