Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#2The original transscript of that interview, in French.
http://www.lesinrocks.com/1997/08/20/musique/ornette-coleman...
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#3Why is this here? What's the relevance?
For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities.
A good example of what one should strive not to become.
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#4"Lonely Woman" is one of the most iconic and haunting melodies in jazz.
I'm glad that the interview explains where its title came from. Though, I'd always assumed it must have come from a much darker place.
Also, this quote is a gem:
OC: I had a niece who died in February of this year and I went to her funeral, and when I saw her in her coffin, someone had put a pair of glasses on her. I had wanted to call one of my pieces She was sleeping, dead, and wearing glasses in her coffin. And then I changed the idea and called it "Blind Date."
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#5Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.
I kind of agree with you. I've seen some of his interviews on Youtube and tried to read some of his work but couldn't find anything of substance. On the other hand, many smart people seem to disagree so it's very possible I am missing something. There's been a few debates on HN about deconstruction and both sides had good arguments.
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#6Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.
That is very harsh critique which you leave unsubstantiated. Did you have something particular in mind? Preferably something you have made an honest attempt to benevolently interpret.
This being said, I too am confused about this being popping up on the front page uncommented.
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#7Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.
"For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities."
This is a ridiculously inaccurate way to explain Derrida to "those who don't know" him. Derrida is one of the most important continental philosophers of the 20th century.
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#8Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.
I haven't finished reading whole interview/discussion, but to bridge Coleman's treatment of improvisation vs composition over to the software domain: the "philharmonic" wanted a "waterfall" version of music composition, where everything was written down in advance and completely choreographed, with no notes, chords, phrasing, tempo, volume, tone left to chance; this upset Coleman, who believed in a more "agile" version of music. In Coleman's life in the jazz community with jazz musicians, he said he'd rehearse to review brand new pieces with them and lay down the framework; in the second rehearsal, the other musicians would riff on the themes, find new things to say, fill in the gaps. The jazz performances would work out just fine, just-in-time, like "agile". The classical "philharmonic" musicians couldn't relate to this at all.
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#9Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.
"For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities." This is a ridiculously inaccurate way to explain Derrida to "those who don't know" him. Derrida is one of the most important continental philosophers of the 20th century.
If important means talking in confusing ways about simple concepts. Noam Chomsky said it best in his essay about Post Modernism:
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-pos...
This quote contains his criticism very clearly: "As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others had been doing long before and and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies --- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return."
Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]
#10Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.
I kind of agree with you. I've seen some of his interviews on Youtube and tried to read some of his work but couldn't find anything of substance. On the other hand, many smart people seem to disagree so it's very possible I am missing something. There's been a few debates on HN about deconstruction and both sides had good arguments.
Noam Chomsky summarized as follows:
"As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others had been doing long before and and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies --- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return."