Discussion:
Jazz and Coca-Cola
(too old to reply)
LEWIS FRIEDMAN
2004-10-25 04:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Below is a letter I sent to Jazz at Lincoln Center protesting the jazz venue
's collaboration with The Coca-Cola Co.:



Dear Friends and Jazz Lovers:



At 63 years of age, I have been a jazz fan for almost 45 years, a frequent
patron at Birdland (in the 50s and 60s), the Jazz Gallery (in the 60s), the
Village Vanguard, the Village Gate, the Five Spot and many other venues
where jazz is played. I have numerous friends who are jazz musicians, whom I
love and respect for their values. Much of my life has been centered around
my love for America's only true original art form.



Jazz has also been filled with musicians who have been supportive of freedom
and justice -- among them, Max Roach ("We Insist: The Freedom Now Suite"),
Charlie Haden (the African National Congress anthem), Billie Holiday
("Strange Fruit"), Charlie Mingus ("Fables of Faubus").



New York City's Jazz at Lincoln Center's partnership with The Coca-Cola Co.
is painful to me. Coca-Cola has been accused in a lawsuit of complicity with
murder, torture and kidnapping of unionists in Colombia. In fact, I have
spoken with Luis Adolfo Cardona, a Colombian unionist who saw his friend
Isidro Gil, his union leader and friend, murdered on Coca-Cola's plant
grounds by paramilitary thugs working with a Coca-Cola plant manager. (You
can read more about this situation at www.killercoke.org and
www.laborrights.org). Luis was kidnapped by the paramilitaries, managed to
escape and came to the U.S. He is currently speaking at schools and unions
about his cause. By murdering unionists, Coke managers are able to bust the
unions and decrease workers' pay - in the case of Gil's plant, salaries went
from $380 a month to $130 a month. This kind of behavior is not American,
nor is it jazz.



Coke has been accused of numerous other human rights and environmental
abuses around the world and had to pay out $192 million to settle racial
discrimination lawsuits in the U.S. and others suits are still pending and
taking water from poor communities in India to produce Coke and to clean
their plants (see www.indiaresource.org).



I have been working with the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke. We gave out the a
leaflet on Thursday night, Oct. 21st, in front of Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola and
Rose Hall. Jazz fans going to the clubs were very interested in our leaflet
and our message. Many took more than one leaflet (the leaflet can be seen at
http://www.killercoke.org/jazzcoke2pg.pdf).



Our Campaign intends to destroy Coke's public image. Already Coke lawyer and
secretary Deval Patrick has resigned his job due to what has been happening
in Colombia, according to an April 22, 2004 article in the Washington Post.
"Coincidentally," Coke has been having problems with sales in North Americaa
and Europe, the two focuses of our Campaign. Of course, Coke and the press
will not admit this, but numerous schools, unions and human rights groups
are supporting a boycott and/or the "Unthinkable! Undrinkable!" Campaign
against Coke. There have been articles in Forbes, Fortune, the Atlanta
Business Chronicle, O'Dwyers PR Daily and most recently, Marketing Medios,
all business publications about Coke's abuses and/or the Campaign.



Delegates of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) found
that their summer conference in New Mexico this year was being sponsored by
The Coca-Cola Co. A resolution was overwhelmingly passed by the delegates
sending the $10,000 sponsorship fee back to the company and calling on the
AFL-CIO to sponsor an independent fact-finding mission to Colombia. I know
$10,000 is not $10,000,000, but some things are more important than money.



I would not like to see jazz, my favorite art form, have its reputation
smeared by a partnership with Coke, even though the company has donated
$10,000,000+ to JALC, or some would say they were bought off by an unjust
multinational corporation that considers their bottom line more important
than human life.



As Juan Galvis Carlos said to me weeks after escaping an assassination
attempt in Colombia, ""If we lose the fight against Coca-Cola, we will first
lose our union, next our jobs and then our lives."



Please reconsider this partnership with Coca-Cola. I intend to bring our
leaflets up the JALC and inform jazz fans of what Coke has been doing in the
world and JALC's relationship with the company.





Sincerely,



Lew Friedman
Curtis Plumb
2004-10-25 05:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by LEWIS FRIEDMAN
Below is a letter I sent to Jazz at Lincoln Center protesting the jazz venue
Jazz and Coke. They go together!
David Rutman
2004-10-25 23:13:57 UTC
Permalink
What really burns my patuti is that some jazz greats also drive Nazi BMW's
and Mercedes vehicles. I think true American jazz artists should never
travel to Germany to perform. For that matter, the Catholic church should
vacate the Vatican because Italy was fascist during WWII. Don't even get me
started about driving gas combustion engine powered cars and using imported
petroleum products!

Hey, what's Pepsi up to these days? Let's hear the "dirt."
Post by Curtis Plumb
Post by LEWIS FRIEDMAN
Below is a letter I sent to Jazz at Lincoln Center protesting the jazz venue
Jazz and Coke. They go together!
Joseph Scott
2004-10-26 15:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Rutman
What really burns my patuti is that some jazz greats also drive Nazi BMW's
and Mercedes vehicles. I think true American jazz artists should never
travel to Germany to perform. For that matter, the Catholic church should
vacate the Vatican because Italy was fascist during WWII.
Come on, be fair, you know Lewis isn't talking about stuff Coca-Cola
is accused of doing back in the _'40s_.

Personally I think anyone who thinks putting Dizzy's name and Coke (or
Pepsi or...) in the same thing is okay is showing us that they don't
mind totally disrespecting Dizzy when enough money is involved. Ugh.

Joseph Scott
Smack
2004-11-05 22:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Personally I think anyone who thinks putting Dizzy's name and Coke (or
Pepsi or...) in the same thing is okay is showing us that they don't
mind totally disrespecting Dizzy when enough money is involved. Ugh.
Why is that? Was Dizzy anti-Coca-Cola? If you don't like the company,
and think that it's responsible for some awful things, that's one thing.
But what does it have to do with disrespecting Dizzy?
--
Stephen Mack

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Joseph Scott
2004-11-06 19:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Personally I think anyone who thinks putting Dizzy's name and Coke (or
Pepsi or...) in the same thing is okay is showing us that they don't
mind totally disrespecting Dizzy when enough money is involved. Ugh.
Why is that?[...]
I think Dizzy had a lot of self-respect as an artist (e.g. it really
angered him one time when he and Stan Getz were standing near each
other and someone asked Stan, not him, a question about bebop, and
Stan answered it instead of deferring to him). I think Dizzy would
have turned thumbs down on the idea of a club called "Dizzy's Club
Coca-Cola." I think people who ostensibly adore jazz should be able to
show one of jazz's handful of greatest innovators enough respect to
use his name in ways he likely would have appreciated. (Nat Hentoff
has said "Dizzy wouldn't mind," but I don't buy it.)

Joseph Scott
Smack
2004-11-07 07:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Joseph Scott
Personally I think anyone who thinks putting Dizzy's name and Coke (or
Pepsi or...) in the same thing is okay is showing us that they don't
mind totally disrespecting Dizzy when enough money is involved. Ugh.
Why is that?[...]
I think Dizzy had a lot of self-respect as an artist (e.g. it really
angered him one time when he and Stan Getz were standing near each
other and someone asked Stan, not him, a question about bebop, and
Stan answered it instead of deferring to him).
Sounds kind of petty.

I think Dizzy would
Post by Joseph Scott
have turned thumbs down on the idea of a club called "Dizzy's Club
Coca-Cola." I think people who ostensibly adore jazz should be able to
show one of jazz's handful of greatest innovators enough respect to
use his name in ways he likely would have appreciated. (Nat Hentoff
has said "Dizzy wouldn't mind," but I don't buy it.)
But does it really matter if you buy it? I mean, we're all just
guessing here, right? Dizzy hasn't told you, me, or Nat Hentoff what he
would think of this. And if I were Dizzy, I'd be pretty damned honored
that people were still talking about me and playing my music after I was
dead. And if a little corporate sponsorship is what is needed to spread
the word, so be it. From what I've heard, Dizzy was always pretty
realistic about the business aspect of music.
--
Stephen Mack

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Joseph Scott
2004-11-08 21:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Joseph Scott
Personally I think anyone who thinks putting Dizzy's name and Coke (or
Pepsi or...) in the same thing is okay is showing us that they don't
mind totally disrespecting Dizzy when enough money is involved. Ugh.
Why is that?[...]
I think Dizzy had a lot of self-respect as an artist (e.g. it really
angered him one time when he and Stan Getz were standing near each
other and someone asked Stan, not him, a question about bebop, and
Stan answered it instead of deferring to him).
Sounds kind of petty.
Sort of, but suppose Little Richard and Paul McCartney are standing
next to each other and someone asks Paul a question about rock and
roll and Paul answers it instead of deferring to Richard. It would be
more appropriate and polite for him to defer to Richard, and I think
it would be okay for Richard to be well aware of that. (Paul wouldn't
do that, I don't think, being apparently a more gracious person than
Stan was.)
Post by Smack
I think Dizzy would
Post by Joseph Scott
have turned thumbs down on the idea of a club called "Dizzy's Club
Coca-Cola." I think people who ostensibly adore jazz should be able to
show one of jazz's handful of greatest innovators enough respect to
use his name in ways he likely would have appreciated. (Nat Hentoff
has said "Dizzy wouldn't mind," but I don't buy it.)
But does it really matter if you buy it? I mean, we're all just
guessing here, right? Dizzy hasn't told you, me, or Nat Hentoff what he
would think of this. And if I were Dizzy, I'd be pretty damned honored
that people were still talking about me and playing my music after I was
dead. And if a little corporate sponsorship is what is needed to spread
the word, so be it. From what I've heard, Dizzy was always pretty
realistic about the business aspect of music.
Your last three sentences seem to be suggesting that you buy it. Does
it really matter if you buy it?

Joseph Scott
Smack
2004-11-08 22:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
But does it really matter if you buy it? I mean, we're all just
guessing here, right? Dizzy hasn't told you, me, or Nat Hentoff what he
would think of this. And if I were Dizzy, I'd be pretty damned honored
that people were still talking about me and playing my music after I was
dead. And if a little corporate sponsorship is what is needed to spread
the word, so be it. From what I've heard, Dizzy was always pretty
realistic about the business aspect of music.
Your last three sentences seem to be suggesting that you buy it. Does
it really matter if you buy it?
No. And I don't necessarily buy it. I don't know what Dizzy would have
thought, and more importantly I don't really *care*. I can say on
pretty good authority that, right now, Dizzy doesn't doesn't care
either, given that he's, you know, dead and all. Why act like every
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease?
--
Stephen Mack

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Joseph Scott
2004-11-09 18:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
But does it really matter if you buy it? I mean, we're all just
guessing here, right? Dizzy hasn't told you, me, or Nat Hentoff what he
would think of this. And if I were Dizzy, I'd be pretty damned honored
that people were still talking about me and playing my music after I was
dead. And if a little corporate sponsorship is what is needed to spread
the word, so be it. From what I've heard, Dizzy was always pretty
realistic about the business aspect of music.
Your last three sentences seem to be suggesting that you buy it. Does
it really matter if you buy it?
No. And I don't necessarily buy it. I don't know what Dizzy would have
thought, and more importantly I don't really *care*.
I do care.

I can say on
Post by Smack
pretty good authority that, right now, Dizzy doesn't doesn't care
either, given that he's, you know, dead and all.
In particular, Dizzy can't benefit from the existence of this club
name in any way, given that he's dead.

Why act like every
Post by Smack
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease?
Straw man. My position is that "people who ostensibly adore jazz
should be able to show one of jazz's handful of greatest innovators
enough respect to use his name in ways he likely would have
appreciated" and that to the best of my understanding Dizzy wouldn't
have appreciated the use of his name in this way --not that every
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease.

Best wishes,

Joseph Scott
Smack
2004-11-10 05:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
I can say on
Post by Smack
pretty good authority that, right now, Dizzy doesn't doesn't care
either, given that he's, you know, dead and all.
In particular, Dizzy can't benefit from the existence of this club
name in any way, given that he's dead.
Well, we mortals can't really know that. ;) Though, I'm sure wherever
he is, money and ego-stroking don't go very far, as well they shouldn't.
Post by Smack
Why act like every
Post by Smack
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease?
Straw man. My position is that "people who ostensibly adore jazz
should be able to show one of jazz's handful of greatest innovators
enough respect to use his name in ways he likely would have
appreciated" and that to the best of my understanding Dizzy wouldn't
have appreciated the use of his name in this way --not that every
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease.
Both of your assertions are very questionable, and it reminds me of the
people in the Classical world who freak out every time an artist comes
up with a new interpretation of a classic, screaming that it wasn't the
composer's intentions. People who get bent out of shape over these
things typically are dealing with their own hang-ups, not those of the
deceased. The club may be in poor taste - like naming a stadium
National Car Rental Center - but it's hardly a dis on Dizzy.
--
Stephen Mack

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Joseph Scott
2004-11-10 16:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
Post by Smack
Why act like every
Post by Smack
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease?
Straw man. My position is that "people who ostensibly adore jazz
should be able to show one of jazz's handful of greatest innovators
enough respect to use his name in ways he likely would have
appreciated" and that to the best of my understanding Dizzy wouldn't
have appreciated the use of his name in this way --not that every
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease.
Both of your assertions are very questionable
My first assertion is an expression of my values; your values
apparently differ, which doesn't somehow mean I'm mistakenly
expressing my values. My second assertion is about what Dizzy likely
would have minded, a subject you have claimed you don't care about.

, and it reminds me of the
Post by Smack
people in the Classical world who freak out every time an artist comes
up with a new interpretation of a classic, screaming that it wasn't the
composer's intentions.
If I were criticizing every new interpretation of a Dizzy tune (and I
were freaking out and screaming), that would seem like far less of a
leap.

People who get bent out of shape over these
Post by Smack
things typically are dealing with their own hang-ups, not those of the
deceased.[...]
What hang-ups are you referring to?

Joseph Scott
Smack
2004-11-10 23:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
Both of your assertions are very questionable
My first assertion is an expression of my values; your values
apparently differ, which doesn't somehow mean I'm mistakenly
expressing my values.
This is just getting petty. Not all values are created equal, and I
consider values that say a person's name shouldn't be put next to a
corporate sponsor to be questionable.

My second assertion is about what Dizzy likely
Post by Joseph Scott
would have minded, a subject you have claimed you don't care about.
1) Don't care and 2) don't consider it particularly likely.
Post by Joseph Scott
, and it reminds me of the
Post by Smack
people in the Classical world who freak out every time an artist comes
up with a new interpretation of a classic, screaming that it wasn't the
composer's intentions.
If I were criticizing every new interpretation of a Dizzy tune (and I
were freaking out and screaming), that would seem like far less of a
leap.
You're saying it's wrong because Diz wouldn't have appreciated it.
Those people say it's wrong because the composer didn't intend it that
way. In both cases, it's just a guess. And even if it were true, it's
not clear that the preferences of the deceased should dictate what we
should or should not do to honor their work. Just because an artist did
some great things doesn't mean he has the best perspective on how it
should be presented when he's gone.
Post by Joseph Scott
People who get bent out of shape over these
Post by Smack
things typically are dealing with their own hang-ups, not those of the
deceased.[...]
What hang-ups are you referring to?
Hang-ups over how a dead person's name is used, of course. (Yeah, yeah,
I know, not just *any* dead person. I apologize if I leave too much
room for interpretation in my writing.)

Again, I find the club in poor taste, but I see no reason to project my
taste onto someone - whose opinion is supposedly more valid - who's not
around to say one way or the other.
--
Stephen Mack

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Joseph Scott
2004-11-11 05:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
Both of your assertions are very questionable
My first assertion is an expression of my values; your values
apparently differ, which doesn't somehow mean I'm mistakenly
expressing my values.
[...]Not all values are created equal
I don't understand what you mean by that.

, and I
consider values that say a person's name shouldn't be put next to a
corporate sponsor to be questionable.
I haven't said "a person's name shouldn't be put next to a corporate
sponsor." Anyway, rather than repeatedly saying you find things
"questionable" it would be helpful if you went ahead and asked actual
questions.
My second assertion is about what Dizzy likely
Post by Joseph Scott
would have minded, a subject you have claimed you don't care about.
1) Don't care and 2) don't consider it particularly likely.
Is it not inconsistent to (1) claim not to care about X and (2)
present a position about X?
Post by Joseph Scott
, and it reminds me of the
Post by Smack
people in the Classical world who freak out every time an artist comes
up with a new interpretation of a classic, screaming that it wasn't the
composer's intentions.
If I were criticizing every new interpretation of a Dizzy tune (and I
were freaking out and screaming), that would seem like far less of a
leap.
You're saying it's wrong because Diz wouldn't have appreciated it.
It's his name; showing respect to him, supposing one wanted to do so,
would be doing with his name what he would likely appreciate.
Those people say it's wrong because the composer didn't intend it that
way. In both cases, it's just a guess. And even if it were true, it's
not clear that the preferences of the deceased should dictate what we
should or should not do to honor their work.
Would you like to make an argument that the word "Coca-Cola" in the
club name "Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola" honors Dizzy's work?

Just because an artist did
some great things doesn't mean he has the best perspective on how it
should be presented when he's gone.
Best perspective according to whose values? Yours? It's Dizzy's name.
Post by Joseph Scott
People who get bent out of shape over these
Post by Smack
things typically are dealing with their own hang-ups, not those of the
deceased.[...]
What hang-ups are you referring to?
Hang-ups over how a dead person's name is used, of course.
Right, but explain what the "hang-ups" are, why they qualify as
"hang-ups."

[...]

, but I see no reason to project my
taste onto someone
What evidence do you have that I am projecting my taste onto Dizzy's
taste? What evidence do I have that you are projecting your taste onto
Dizzy's taste? How about Hentoff, is he? Would all those be "just
guesses," and would that mean we shouldn't "care"?

Joseph Scott
Smack
2004-11-11 12:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
[...]Not all values are created equal
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Okay, point by extreme example: A guy in, say, Germany has a value
system that says all Jews should be exterminated. Others have a value
system that says people of all races, creeds, and colors should be
considered equals. Should we accept these values as equal?
Post by Joseph Scott
, and I
consider values that say a person's name shouldn't be put next to a
corporate sponsor to be questionable.
I haven't said "a person's name shouldn't be put next to a corporate
sponsor." Anyway, rather than repeatedly saying you find things
"questionable" it would be helpful if you went ahead and asked actual
questions.
That's true, you didn't say that. I wasn't quoting you. I was making a
generalization based on your objection to Dizzy's name being used next
to Coca-Cola. Rather than dodging the issues with smartass semantics,
it would be helpful if you either addressed them or dropped the
conversation.
Post by Joseph Scott
My second assertion is about what Dizzy likely
Post by Joseph Scott
would have minded, a subject you have claimed you don't care about.
1) Don't care and 2) don't consider it particularly likely.
Is it not inconsistent to (1) claim not to care about X and (2)
present a position about X?
It's actually not at all inconsistent to (1) claim not to care about X
and (2) state X's perceived likelihood, which is what I did. I don't
consider it likely that many people eat lunch at 10 in the morning. If
they do, I don't care. I don't consider it likely that many people in
Guatemala are Pauly Shore fans. If they are, I don't care. See how
this works?
Post by Joseph Scott
Those people say it's wrong because the composer didn't intend it that
way. In both cases, it's just a guess. And even if it were true, it's
not clear that the preferences of the deceased should dictate what we
should or should not do to honor their work.
Would you like to make an argument that the word "Coca-Cola" in the
club name "Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola" honors Dizzy's work?
The club honors Dizzy's work by naming it after him. Coca-Cola sponsors
the club and helps it exist. It does Dizzy's precious name no good if a
club named after him goes out of business because it's unprofitable.
Post by Joseph Scott
Just because an artist did
some great things doesn't mean he has the best perspective on how it
should be presented when he's gone.
Best perspective according to whose values? Yours? It's Dizzy's name.
There are no worldly possessions in the afterlife. ;)

The point is that many people would believe that - were he alive - Dizzy
*should* be honored that there's a club named after him, and not be
particularly bothered that it took some corporate sponsorship to make it
happen. Whether he actually *would* be honored is A) questionable and
B) not very important given his current state. The only people around
to be bothered by it are people like you. And while I respect your
opinion, it shouldn't determine how other people do business. You can
always exercise your right not to patronize the club.
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Joseph Scott
People who get bent out of shape over these
Post by Smack
things typically are dealing with their own hang-ups, not those of the
deceased.[...]
What hang-ups are you referring to?
Hang-ups over how a dead person's name is used, of course.
Right, but explain what the "hang-ups" are, why they qualify as
"hang-ups."
Why not ask me what the definition of "is" is? I actually thought when
we began this discussion that you had something of substance to offer.
Apparently, I've been giving you more credit than you deserve. My bad.
--
Stephen Mack

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Joseph Scott
2004-11-11 22:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
[...]Not all values are created equal
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Okay, point by extreme example: A guy in, say, Germany has a value
system that says all Jews should be exterminated. Others have a value
system that says people of all races, creeds, and colors should be
considered equals. Should we accept these values as equal?
They definitely aren't the same as each other. Nor are my values
apparently the same as yours. (As I was saying.)
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
, and I
consider values that say a person's name shouldn't be put next to a
corporate sponsor to be questionable.
I haven't said "a person's name shouldn't be put next to a corporate
sponsor." Anyway, rather than repeatedly saying you find things
"questionable" it would be helpful if you went ahead and asked actual
questions.
That's true, you didn't say that. I wasn't quoting you. I was making a
generalization based on your objection to Dizzy's name being used next
to Coca-Cola. Rather than dodging the issues with smartass semantics,
it would be helpful if you either addressed them or dropped the
conversation.
Couldn't think of any questions that will illustrate how
"questionable" my assertions are?

I'm trying to communicate with you. It seems you likely misunderstand
my position. Here is my position broken into parts:
1) I think Dizzy wouldn't have appreciated the use of the club name
"Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola." If you think otherwise, okay.
2) I think people who ostensibly adore jazz should should show respect
to one of the most influential jazz musicians of all time. If you
think otherwise, okay.
3) I think using Dizzy's name in a club name he probably wouldn't have
appreciated is not showing him respect. If you think otherwise, okay.
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
My second assertion is about what Dizzy likely
Post by Joseph Scott
would have minded, a subject you have claimed you don't care about.
1) Don't care and 2) don't consider it particularly likely.
Is it not inconsistent to (1) claim not to care about X and (2)
present a position about X?
It's actually not at all inconsistent to (1) claim not to care about X
and (2) state X's perceived likelihood, which is what I did. I don't
consider it likely that many people eat lunch at 10 in the morning. If
they do, I don't care. I don't consider it likely that many people in
Guatemala are Pauly Shore fans. If they are, I don't care. See how
this works?
I disagree, I think trying to work out a likelihood regarding a topic
is inconsistent with having no interest in the topic. What happened
here is I was hoping you could focus your position by choosing between
suggesting that the reality of X is not what I think it is and
suggesting that I should not care at all what the reality of X is, but
I'm no longer hopeful.
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Those people say it's wrong because the composer didn't intend it that
way. In both cases, it's just a guess. And even if it were true, it's
not clear that the preferences of the deceased should dictate what we
should or should not do to honor their work.
Would you like to make an argument that the word "Coca-Cola" in the
club name "Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola" honors Dizzy's work?
The club honors Dizzy's work by naming it after him. Coca-Cola sponsors
the club and helps it exist. It does Dizzy's precious name no good if a
club named after him goes out of business because it's unprofitable.
According to you, Dizzy can't care whether this club is profitable,
because he's dead and all. Correct? You seem to be applying a double
standard: if the existence of this club name would please Dizzy, that
counts, and if it would displease him, that doesn't count.

I can't think of any way that the word "Coca-Cola" in that club name
honors Dizzy either.
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Just because an artist did
some great things doesn't mean he has the best perspective on how it
should be presented when he's gone.
Best perspective according to whose values? Yours? It's Dizzy's name.
There are no worldly possessions in the afterlife. ;)
The point is that many people would believe that - were he alive - Dizzy
*should* be honored that there's a club named after him, and not be
particularly bothered that it took some corporate sponsorship to make it
happen.
I don't think showing a man respect is using his name a way he
_should_ have wanted, I think it's using it a way he _would_ have
wanted.

Whether he actually *would* be honored is A) questionable and
Post by Smack
B) not very important given his current state. The only people around
to be bothered by it are people like you.
What sort of people are those?

And while I respect your
Post by Smack
opinion, it shouldn't determine how other people do business.
The opinions of the public shouldn't impact on how business is done? I
guess nobody ever told Dave Thomas that.

You can
Post by Smack
always exercise your right not to patronize the club.
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Joseph Scott
People who get bent out of shape over these
Post by Smack
things typically are dealing with their own hang-ups, not those of the
deceased.[...]
What hang-ups are you referring to?
Hang-ups over how a dead person's name is used, of course.
Right, but explain what the "hang-ups" are, why they qualify as
"hang-ups."
Why not ask me what the definition of "is" is?
Because that would be irrelevant. What I'm asking of you is very
relevant: please educate me about what hang-ups you think I have with
respect to the topic of this thread, if any, and _explain why you
think they qualify as hang-ups_. Got anything? Didn't think so.

I actually thought when
Post by Smack
we began this discussion that you had something of substance to offer.[...]
Hmm, my opinion is what I've been offering, and you wrote above that
you "respect" my opinion. (Again, your values regarding the word
"respect" may differ from mine.)

In your last four posts in this thread, you've made dozens of
statements, and you've asked me only four questions: a "straw man"
question ("... sacred cow...?"), a question about values being
considered "equal," your "See how this works?" question about the
relationship between having a probabilistic opinion about a subject
and not caring about the subject, and your rhetorical "'is' is"
question. If you were _really_ as interested in the substance of what
I think as you suggest above*, I think you would be asking me more
direct questions about the topic of this thread. Don't you?

Joseph Scott

*Of course, you suggest that in order to paint me as having nothing
interesting to say -- apparently me having different values from you
about a club name is upsetting you.
just another
2004-11-11 23:21:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>, ***@msn.com (Joseph Scott)
wrote:

<snip>
Post by Joseph Scott
I can't think of any way that the word "Coca-Cola" in that club name
honors Dizzy either.
I really laughed when I read the article describing the new facilities; it seems so
un-jazz-like. Does Dizzy's name in the club name do him honor, for that matter? Especially when
pared with Coke.

So I *get* that, without the Coke corp., there would be no club. Much in the same manner as, had
there been no mobster clubs, there'd be no jazz. An' for all I know, the management of 'da
former is merely the evolution of 'da latter!
Joseph Scott
2004-11-12 10:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by just another
<snip>
Post by Joseph Scott
I can't think of any way that the word "Coca-Cola" in that club name
honors Dizzy either.
I really laughed when I read the article describing the new facilities; it seems so
un-jazz-like.
Well, it's reportedly "club-like," which you must admit sounds like a
step in the right direction for something that's called a "Club." If a
portion of the third-of-a-million-square-foot mall known as the Time
Warner Center sounds to you like it would be a little too formal in
tone for Wynton's intended "down-home groove," don't worry. They have
scheduled "Hang Sets," which they say are an opportunity to hear jazz
"in an informal setting." Let's give them the benefit of the doubt
that the formalized informality in the same setting as the more formal
setting is less formal than the formalized formality: maybe that's
when the servers take off their pants or something. Plus they have
"breathtaking" views of New York City. That's kind of like a down-home
groove -- greatest city in the world, I'm sure Wynton knows. Or the
city with the most money or something.

You could order the collard greens and pretend you're eating them out
of a can because you blew all but your last dollar on smack (if you're
going to do this be sure you don't blow all but your last dollar on
smack first, of course -- and call ahead for a reservation, if you
have a telephone). That would be somewhat authentically reminiscent of
the authentic, many people would believe. Ken Burns ought to try that
some time if he wants to _really_ pretend to understand jazz, many
people would believe.

Hey, I just noticed that the building has more than 50 floors and
Dizzy's club is only on the 5th. Damn that makes me angry.

Anyway, a club named after a guy who can never ever play there because
he's dead and all is cutting it kind of close to admitting jazz is
"dead" and all, isn't it? Supposing jazz isn't dead, Wynton could have
named it after himself, but he's so modest, and it's not a venue of
the size that befits Wynton's reputation.

Joseph Scott
Smack
2004-11-12 19:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
[...]Not all values are created equal
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Okay, point by extreme example: A guy in, say, Germany has a value
system that says all Jews should be exterminated. Others have a value
system that says people of all races, creeds, and colors should be
considered equals. Should we accept these values as equal?
They definitely aren't the same as each other. Nor are my values
apparently the same as yours. (As I was saying.)
They A) not the same and B) not on equal footing. The latter is a more
evolved (and less pathological) value system. (And, for what it's
worth, this has pretty much been demonstrated in the field of
developmental psychology, not just an assumption made by me. I'm sure
you'll still have some smartass, pluralistic reply, but there it is.)
Post by Joseph Scott
I'm trying to communicate with you. It seems you likely misunderstand
1) I think Dizzy wouldn't have appreciated the use of the club name
"Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola." If you think otherwise, okay.
2) I think people who ostensibly adore jazz should should show respect
to one of the most influential jazz musicians of all time. If you
think otherwise, okay.
3) I think using Dizzy's name in a club name he probably wouldn't have
appreciated is not showing him respect. If you think otherwise, okay.
I agree with 2, but not necessarily with 1 and 3. You say it's okay,
then I assume it's also okay to voice my disagreement.
Post by Joseph Scott
I disagree, I think trying to work out a likelihood regarding a topic
is inconsistent with having no interest in the topic. What happened
here is I was hoping you could focus your position by choosing between
suggesting that the reality of X is not what I think it is and
suggesting that I should not care at all what the reality of X is, but
I'm no longer hopeful.
Again, this is just semantics. So I care *enough* about something to
consider it's plausibility. The issue in question is whether I should
care enough about it to reconsider my position on the club name.

You seem like you'd be great on a debate team, and I'm happy for you if
that's the case, but the purpose of this discussion should be to arrive
at some common truth (if that's possible) rather than to "win" the
debate. Using a little common sense interpretation of the English
language would be appropriate. Context is the key here. When I say "I
don't care" whether Dizzy would mind or not after saying that I don't
consider it likely, you can just go ahead and assume that what I mean is
"I don't care enough to make it swing the argument one way or another,"
rather than "I don't care enough to consider its plausibility."

Here are two bits of information:

1) I see no reason to believe that Dizzy would mind the name of the
club. I understand he was a pretty reasonable person, realistic about
the music business, and - as far as I know - had no qualms with
Coca-Cola. Of course, there's no way for me to be sure. This is a
question of fact that none of us are in a position to know the answer to.

2) Furthermore, even if he would have minded, he's not here anymore.
The issue at hand is whether a club named after Dizzy that happens to
use Coca-Cola in the name as a sponsor is disrespectful. And to me,
that has more to do with the intentions (and, ahem, the values) of the
people in charge of the club than what a dead person might have thought
about it.

What this means is that, even if you convince me that Dizzy would have
minded the club name - which you haven't done - it wouldn't necessarily
convince me that the club name is disrespectful. If you wanted to
convince me that the name is disrespectful, you would have to convince
me BOTH that Dizzy would mind AND that the fact that he would mind makes
it disrespectful. You haven't convinced me of either.
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
The club honors Dizzy's work by naming it after him. Coca-Cola sponsors
the club and helps it exist. It does Dizzy's precious name no good if a
club named after him goes out of business because it's unprofitable.
According to you, Dizzy can't care whether this club is profitable,
because he's dead and all. Correct? You seem to be applying a double
standard: if the existence of this club name would please Dizzy, that
counts, and if it would displease him, that doesn't count.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote ("Dizzy's
precious name" was sarcastic. I don't consider anyone's identifying
label precious: Beethoven's, Dizzy's, Ghandi's, Buddha's, or my own). I
repeat: it's not important to me whether or not Dizzy would have minded.
Post by Joseph Scott
I can't think of any way that the word "Coca-Cola" in that club name
honors Dizzy either.
You, who so meticulously notes every time I make even the slightest
generalization about your position, would misrepresent me so brazenly?
I *never* said that the word "Coca-Cola" in the name specifically honors
Dizzy. The word "Dizzy" honors Dizzy, and the name "Coca-Cola" helps
keep it there. For that I say: good for "Coca-Cola."
Post by Joseph Scott
I don't think showing a man respect is using his name a way he
_should_ have wanted, I think it's using it a way he _would_ have
wanted.
Some people are confused, some are prideful, and some are just
ungrateful. And while it can sometimes be worthwhile to try and please
them anyway while they are alive, it's pretty useless when they're dead.
Post by Joseph Scott
And while I respect your
Post by Smack
opinion, it shouldn't determine how other people do business.
The opinions of the public shouldn't impact on how business is done? I
guess nobody ever told Dave Thomas that.
Again, just don't go to the club. If enough people join you, the club
won't be around long. I'm sure if the club owners thought that enough
people would object, they wouldn't have used Coca-Cola. Apparently
that's not the case, though. If they run a successful club, your
objection doesn't - and shouldn't - make much difference to them.
Post by Joseph Scott
Because that would be irrelevant. What I'm asking of you is very
relevant: please educate me about what hang-ups you think I have with
respect to the topic of this thread, if any, and _explain why you
think they qualify as hang-ups_. Got anything? Didn't think so.
Sure. You seem to be hung up on what you think a dead person would've
thought of a club that you probably don't even plan on attending, or
atleast, you certainly don't *have* to. You could easily just turn your
head and the club's existence would never trouble you, but you choose to
be bothered by it.
Post by Joseph Scott
In your last four posts in this thread, you've made dozens of
statements, and you've asked me only four questions: a "straw man"
question ("... sacred cow...?"), a question about values being
considered "equal," your "See how this works?" question about the
relationship between having a probabilistic opinion about a subject
and not caring about the subject, and your rhetorical "'is' is"
question. If you were _really_ as interested in the substance of what
I think as you suggest above*, I think you would be asking me more
direct questions about the topic of this thread. Don't you?
My questions should be obvious by now (whether I happen to use a
question mark at the end of certain sentences or not). 1) Why should I
believe that Dizzy would have minded the club name? 2) Why should I
care?
Post by Joseph Scott
*Of course, you suggest that in order to paint me as having nothing
interesting to say -- apparently me having different values from you
about a club name is upsetting you.
No, what upsets me is your mindless nitpicking of the English language.
You could easily just respond like a normal human being by using some
interpretation. Instead, you seem intent on playing games to tire me.
I spent too much time editing this post to try to prevent you from
having an interpretative field day with it, and I assure you it will be
the last time I do so. Stick to the issues, though, and I'll be glad to
continue.
--
Stephen Mack

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Joseph Scott
2004-11-13 19:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
[...]Not all values are created equal
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Okay, point by extreme example: A guy in, say, Germany has a value
system that says all Jews should be exterminated. Others have a value
system that says people of all races, creeds, and colors should be
considered equals. Should we accept these values as equal?
They definitely aren't the same as each other. Nor are my values
apparently the same as yours. (As I was saying.)
They A) not the same
i.e. not "equal"

and B) not on equal footing.

i.e. you value one more than the other (as do I of course)

The latter is a more
Post by Smack
evolved (and less pathological) value system. (And, for what it's
worth, this has pretty much been demonstrated in the field of
developmental psychology, not just an assumption made by me. I'm sure
you'll still have some smartass, pluralistic reply, but there it is.)
What does answering your question as it is worded have to do with
being a "smartass"? Where are you going with all this value stuff if
not to try to suggest that your values (or someone else's) are more
valuable than mine? Of course your values are more valuable to you
than mine are. And of course my values are more valuable to me than
yours are. Call that "pluralistic" if you want, it's also a fact.
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
I'm trying to communicate with you. It seems you likely misunderstand
1) I think Dizzy wouldn't have appreciated the use of the club name
"Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola." If you think otherwise, okay.
2) I think people who ostensibly adore jazz should should show respect
to one of the most influential jazz musicians of all time. If you
think otherwise, okay.
3) I think using Dizzy's name in a club name he probably wouldn't have
appreciated is not showing him respect. If you think otherwise, okay.
I agree with 2, but not necessarily with 1 and 3.
Thanks for clarifying.

You say it's okay,
Post by Smack
then I assume it's also okay to voice my disagreement.
Of course it's okay for you to tell me about what you think Dizzy
would have appreciated and about what you think respect entails.
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
I disagree, I think trying to work out a likelihood regarding a topic
is inconsistent with having no interest in the topic. What happened
here is I was hoping you could focus your position by choosing between
suggesting that the reality of X is not what I think it is and
suggesting that I should not care at all what the reality of X is, but
I'm no longer hopeful.
Again, this is just semantics.
No, I really was hoping you would focus your position so I could
understand well what I was supposed to be replying to.

So I care *enough* about something to
Post by Smack
consider it's plausibility.
Now you're focusing your position, so obviously I accomplished more
than "just semantics."

You care some, not none.

The issue in question is whether I should
Post by Smack
care enough about it to reconsider my position on the club name.
How curious and open-minded you want to be about X is always up to
you.
Post by Smack
You seem like you'd be great on a debate team, and I'm happy for you if
that's the case
Thanks, but what little debate I did in high school I didn't enjoy and
wasn't particularly good at.

, but the purpose of this discussion should be to arrive
Post by Smack
at some common truth (if that's possible) rather than to "win" the
debate.
I think the purpose of this discussion should be for us both to share
our honest thoughts, possibly convincing others of things, possibly
not.

Using a little common sense interpretation of the English
Post by Smack
language would be appropriate.
I think I have common sense.

Context is the key here.

I certainly have nothing against context.

When I say "I
Post by Smack
don't care" whether Dizzy would mind or not after saying that I don't
consider it likely, you can just go ahead and assume that what I mean is
"I don't care enough to make it swing the argument one way or another,"
rather than "I don't care enough to consider its plausibility."
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the amount _you
care_ about 1 (above) impacts on how 1 really ultimately impacts on 2
(however much you care about 2). If so, I disagree with the reasoning.
Post by Smack
1) I see no reason to believe that Dizzy would mind the name of the
club. I understand he was a pretty reasonable person, realistic about
the music business, and - as far as I know - had no qualms with
Coca-Cola. Of course, there's no way for me to be sure. This is a
question of fact that none of us are in a position to know the answer to.
All questions of fact can be researched, and the fact that we can
never have absolute certainty about them doesn't mean we can't figure
out what we think is probable. In the Gillespie interview I linked to
in the "Bop as new kind of swing" thread recently, he described a tune
he cowrote as "the most successful, unique and the fullest
collaboration in the history of jazz, I think." This was a proud man.
He knew he was the number one person to invent bebop and the number
one person to invent Latin jazz as we know it and that's saying a hell
of a lot. He also sometimes kidded himself imo, e.g. in his belief
that early bebop as an art form was closely linked to civil rights
progress. Not true imo. Again, illustrates imo that he was proud.
Dizzy was too proud, I think, to approve of the club name "Dizzy's
Club Coca-Cola" as doing his own accomplishments and reputation
justice. If you want to say _maybe_ I'm wrong, I agree, _maybe_ I'm
wrong.
Post by Smack
2) Furthermore, even if he would have minded, he's not here anymore.
The issue at hand is whether a club named after Dizzy that happens to
use Coca-Cola in the name as a sponsor is disrespectful. And to me,
that has more to do with the intentions (and, ahem, the values) of the
people in charge of the club than what a dead person might have thought
about it.
What this means is that, even if you convince me that Dizzy would have
minded the club name - which you haven't done - it wouldn't necessarily
convince me that the club name is disrespectful. If you wanted to
convince me that the name is disrespectful, you would have to convince
me BOTH that Dizzy would mind AND that the fact that he would mind makes
it disrespectful. You haven't convinced me of either.
Fair enough. We seem to disagree on what "respect" entails. (My
position -- excuse me if this is repetitive folks -- is that showing
"respect" to a man is defined by what he values, not by what I think
he _should_ value. It's fine to have an opinion about what he _should_
value but I don't think "respect" is an accurate word to describe
that.)
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
The club honors Dizzy's work by naming it after him. Coca-Cola sponsors
the club and helps it exist. It does Dizzy's precious name no good if a
club named after him goes out of business because it's unprofitable.
According to you, Dizzy can't care whether this club is profitable,
because he's dead and all. Correct? You seem to be applying a double
standard: if the existence of this club name would please Dizzy, that
counts, and if it would displease him, that doesn't count.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote ("Dizzy's
precious name" was sarcastic. I don't consider anyone's identifying
label precious: Beethoven's, Dizzy's, Ghandi's, Buddha's, or my own). I
repeat: it's not important to me whether or not Dizzy would have minded.
You were acknowledging above that it's not of _no_ importance to you
("I care *enough*...") , which seemed promising, but now you're back
to it just not being important to you. Please make up your mind.
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
I can't think of any way that the word "Coca-Cola" in that club name
honors Dizzy either.
You, who so meticulously notes every time I make even the slightest
generalization about your position
Nah, sometimes I let it slide.

, would misrepresent me so brazenly?

I didn't misrepresent you. I asked you whether you would like to argue
in favor of X and then agreed I wouldn't argue in favor of that
either, in order to establish that neither of us believes X.
Post by Smack
I *never* said that the word "Coca-Cola" in the name specifically honors
Dizzy. The word "Dizzy" honors Dizzy
You confuse me -- above you said you "don't consider anyone's
identifying
label precious," including Dizzy's (and _I've_ certainly never said I
consider it quote "precious"), but apparently you consider it _sort
of_ precious, if the way it is used can "honor" Dizzy? Again, you seem
to be applying a double standard: to you, to whatever extent it honors
Dizzy, we should notice, and to whatever extent it dishonors him, we
should regard as unimportant.

, and the name "Coca-Cola" helps
Post by Smack
keep it there. For that I say: good for "Coca-Cola."
Post by Joseph Scott
I don't think showing a man respect is using his name a way he
_should_ have wanted, I think it's using it a way he _would_ have
wanted.
Some people are confused, some are prideful, and some are just
ungrateful. And while it can sometimes be worthwhile to try and please
them anyway while they are alive, it's pretty useless when they're dead.
Trying to "please" a dead man is not the same thing as trying to show
respect to a dead man, and you wrote above that you "agree" that
"people who ostensibly adore jazz should should show respect to one of
the most influential jazz musicians of all time."
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
And while I respect your
Post by Smack
opinion, it shouldn't determine how other people do business.
The opinions of the public shouldn't impact on how business is done? I
guess nobody ever told Dave Thomas that.
Again, just don't go to the club.
Never said I planned to. I was just pointing out that your "shouldn't
determine how people do business" reasoning is unconventional in the
business world.

[...]
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Because that would be irrelevant. What I'm asking of you is very
relevant: please educate me about what hang-ups you think I have with
respect to the topic of this thread, if any, and _explain why you
think they qualify as hang-ups_. Got anything? Didn't think so.
Sure. You seem to be hung up on what you think a dead person would've
thought of a club that you probably don't even plan on attending, or
atleast, you certainly don't *have* to. You could easily just turn your
head and the club's existence would never trouble you
Maybe you can willfully not remember things you read, but I can't.

, but you choose to
Post by Smack
be bothered by it.
Where's the explanation I asked for of why you think me caring what
this club is called qualifies as a "hang-up"?
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
In your last four posts in this thread, you've made dozens of
statements, and you've asked me only four questions: a "straw man"
question ("... sacred cow...?"), a question about values being
considered "equal," your "See how this works?" question about the
relationship between having a probabilistic opinion about a subject
and not caring about the subject, and your rhetorical "'is' is"
question. If you were _really_ as interested in the substance of what
I think as you suggest above*, I think you would be asking me more
direct questions about the topic of this thread. Don't you?
My questions should be obvious by now (whether I happen to use a
question mark at the end of certain sentences or not).
I disagree -- I think making statements is a _very_ inadvisable way of
trying to communicate what questions one has.

1) Why should I
Post by Smack
believe that Dizzy would have minded the club name?
Because you agree with me, if you do, that he was a proud man who knew
how huge his accomplishments were (relative to e.g. sugar water), and
cared how his name was used, and if you don't agree with my reasoning,
okay.

2) Why should I
Post by Smack
care?
You should care if you buy that what Dizzy would have appreciated is
relevant to what showing him "respect" is.

Why should I think what Dizzy would have appreciated is irrelevant to
what showing him "respect" is?
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
*Of course, you suggest that in order to paint me as having nothing
interesting to say -- apparently me having different values from you
about a club name is upsetting you.
No, what upsets me is your mindless nitpicking of the English language.
You thinking someone "mindless" would be "great" on a debate team? Get
your story straight.
Post by Smack
You could easily just respond like a normal human being by using some
interpretation.
I'm not a mind-reader, I don't know you, and all we have are these
English sentences we're sending back and forth: you know what you
mean, but I don't unless you word your sentences carefully. That is
normal.

Instead, you seem intent on playing games to tire me.

I don't want to play games, I want to find out what your specific
positions really are and what good arguments you can make in favor of
them, and I want to defend my positions (and defend myself against ad
hominem attacks, when I can be bothered) until someone convinces me
they're not good positions.
Post by Smack
I spent too much time editing this post to try to prevent you from
having an interpretative field day with it, and I assure you it will be
the last time I do so.
This is the last time you're gonna edit your post so your meanings are
fairly clear? That doesn't sound promising.

Stick to the issues, though, and I'll be glad to
Post by Smack
continue.
I've been responding to stuff you bring up -- to suggest that I can't
stick to the issues is unreasonable.

Joseph Scott
Michael de la Sota
2004-11-15 02:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
No, what upsets me is your mindless nitpicking of the English language.
You could easily just respond like a normal human being by using some
interpretation. Instead, you seem intent on playing games to tire me.
I spent too much time editing this post to try to prevent you from
having an interpretative field day with it, and I assure you it will be
the last time I do so. Stick to the issues, though, and I'll be glad to
continue.
What if Scotty knows something that you don't and that Henthoff
doesn't? Maybe he knows that Dizzy liked Ginger Ale. Scotty is right,
Dizzy was proud and he made mistakes because of that pride. Scotty
knows that Dizzy would not have liked a Dizzy Club Coca-Cola and even
if he would have liked it, Scotty knows better than you, Henthoff and
Dizzy on this one thing.
Joseph Scott
2004-11-16 00:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Scotty is right,
Post by Michael de la Sota
Dizzy was proud and he made mistakes because of that pride.
What would be some examples of the mistakes Dizzy made because of his
pride, in your opinion, Michael?

Joseph Scott
Michael de la Sota
2004-11-16 16:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael de la Sota
Scotty is right,
Post by Michael de la Sota
Dizzy was proud and he made mistakes because of that pride.
What would be some examples of the mistakes Dizzy made because of his
pride, in your opinion, Michael?
Joseph Scott
Thinking that bebop had anything to do with advancing civil rights.
Music is music. I'm sure Scotty that you know these mistakes better
than me, so do tell.
Joseph Scott
2004-11-17 02:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael de la Sota
Post by Michael de la Sota
Scotty is right,
Post by Michael de la Sota
Dizzy was proud and he made mistakes because of that pride.
What would be some examples of the mistakes Dizzy made because of his
pride, in your opinion, Michael?
Joseph Scott
Thinking that bebop had anything to do with advancing civil rights.
Bebop did have "anything" to do with advancing civil rights, Michael,
and I haven't said it didn't. For your edification: early bebop was
one of the styles in which fighting the personnel color line was
common, more so than many other styles of music. Meanwhile, in
contrast, the lyrics of early bebop had very little to do with civil
rights: overall Dizzy had less to say about "race" _in his art_ during
the '40s than, e.g., some swing musicians and some blues musicians
did. Meanwhile, Dizzy _was_ a progressive pro-integration non-racist
(as were many pre-bop musicians).

Thank you for giving me the soap box to share my thoughts on that.
Unlike you, I enjoy sharing my own thoughts about jazz history.
Post by Michael de la Sota
Music is music.
What do you mean by that?

I'm sure Scotty that you know these mistakes better
Post by Michael de la Sota
than me, so do tell.
If you claim that you think Dizzy made mistakes because of pride, you
should be able to back that up by describing your understanding of
that subject. You aren't by any chance an insincere, unknowledgeable
person who for some reason gets off on pretending to know what he
doesn't, are you?

Joseph Scott
Michael de la Sota
2004-11-09 23:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smack
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Smack
But does it really matter if you buy it? I mean, we're all just
guessing here, right? Dizzy hasn't told you, me, or Nat Hentoff what he
would think of this. And if I were Dizzy, I'd be pretty damned honored
that people were still talking about me and playing my music after I was
dead. And if a little corporate sponsorship is what is needed to spread
the word, so be it. From what I've heard, Dizzy was always pretty
realistic about the business aspect of music.
Your last three sentences seem to be suggesting that you buy it. Does
it really matter if you buy it?
No. And I don't necessarily buy it. I don't know what Dizzy would have
thought, and more importantly I don't really *care*. I can say on
pretty good authority that, right now, Dizzy doesn't doesn't care
either, given that he's, you know, dead and all. Why act like every
historical figure is some sacred cow we have to appease?
Hey Smack, try listening to Joseph! He knows what he is talking about.
So what if Nate Henhoff knew Dizzy and feels that he would not have
minded. So what!
just another
2004-11-10 06:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael de la Sota
Hey Smack, try listening to Joseph! He knows what he is talking about.
So what if Nate Henhoff knew Dizzy and feels that he would not have
minded. So what!
Nah, "So What" was Miles.
Joseph Scott
2004-11-10 17:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael de la Sota
So what if Nate Henhoff knew Dizzy and feels that he would not have
minded. So what!
I disagree with you: I'm interested in what Hentoff thinks. (And I
think on this one he's wrong.)

Joseph Scott
Michael de la Sota
2004-11-11 19:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Michael de la Sota
So what if Nate Henhoff knew Dizzy and feels that he would not have
minded. So what!
I disagree with you: I'm interested in what Hentoff thinks. (And I
think on this one he's wrong.)
Joseph Scott
Yes I agree you're right. I'm interested in what Henthoff thinks too
but he is wrong on this one and you are right. On this one thing only
I'm saying so what! to what Henthoff says because he's wrong on this
and you are right. Dizzy wouldn't have stooped to this commercial
level. Thanks for pointing this out. You make it hard to agree with
you sometimes Scotty.
Joseph Scott
2004-11-12 03:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Dizzy wouldn't have stooped to this commercial
Post by Michael de la Sota
level. Thanks for pointing this out.
As I'm sure you'll agree, you have distorted my position: I haven't
pointed out that Dizzy "wouldn't have stooped to [that] commercial
level."

I predict that you will distort my positions again. Naturally, I
expect you will agree with me that you will distort my positions
again.

Still looking forward to some knowledgeable comments about jazz from
you. You are knowledgeable, right? Or perhaps the notion that you are
knowledgeable is just a joke?

Joseph Scott
Michael de la Sota
2004-11-15 23:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael de la Sota
Dizzy wouldn't have stooped to this commercial
Post by Michael de la Sota
level. Thanks for pointing this out.
As I'm sure you'll agree, you have distorted my position: I haven't
pointed out that Dizzy "wouldn't have stooped to [that] commercial
level."
It is hardly a distortion of your position. I may have misinterpreted
your position but I didn't willfully distort it. We both agree that
associating Dizzy's name with Coke does not hold to the high standards
that we ourselves hold Dizzy's name to. We also both agree that
despite the fact that Nat Henthoff personally knew Dizzy and believes
that Dizzy would not have minded the club's name that Henthoff is
wrong. I thought that part of why we agreed on this was because Dizzy
would not himself had permitted such a blatant commercial use of his
name but I guess I am wrong and that is not part of the common reason
we regret the name of the club. It is one of the reasons I regret the
name of the club.
Post by Michael de la Sota
I predict that you will distort my positions again. Naturally, I
expect you will agree with me that you will distort my positions
again.
Your prediction was wrong.
Post by Michael de la Sota
Still looking forward to some knowledgeable comments about jazz from
you. You are knowledgeable, right? Or perhaps the notion that you are
knowledgeable is just a joke?
I'm beginning to see why Smack called you a smartass and someone else
said arguing with you is like arguing with butter.
Joseph Scott
2004-11-16 21:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael de la Sota
Post by Michael de la Sota
Dizzy wouldn't have stooped to this commercial
Post by Michael de la Sota
level. Thanks for pointing this out.
As I'm sure you'll agree, you have distorted my position: I haven't
pointed out that Dizzy "wouldn't have stooped to [that] commercial
level."
It is hardly a distortion of your position.
Wrong. Dizzy did very commercial stuff, such as singing a rock and
roll song at Birdland, and he chose what kind of very commercial stuff
he felt comfortable doing and why -- not all very commercial stuff
would have been considered equally unacceptable by Dizzy, and I
haven't written that it would.

I may have misinterpreted
Post by Michael de la Sota
your position but I didn't willfully distort it.
I didn't say you willfully distorted it, I said you distorted it.

We both agree that
Post by Michael de la Sota
associating Dizzy's name with Coke does not hold to the high standards
that we ourselves hold Dizzy's name to.
I haven't written anywhere in this thread that I hold Dizzy's name to
high standards, Michael. It is apparent to me that (1) you're
insincere, or (2) it is more difficult for you than for Smack to pay
attention to the specific content of my positions, or (3) both. My
guess is (3).

[...]
Post by Michael de la Sota
Post by Michael de la Sota
Still looking forward to some knowledgeable comments about jazz from
you. You are knowledgeable, right? Or perhaps the notion that you are
knowledgeable is just a joke?
I'm beginning to see why Smack called you a smartass and someone else
said arguing with you is like arguing with butter.
This is funny: Why would you begin to see why arguing with me is like
arguing with X given that this is the _first_ post in which you've
disagreed with me about anything, and you _haven't read my response to
your disagreement yet_? Think about it!! (If you like that sort of
thing.) Whoops. Your credibility gap seems to be widening.

The latter comment you're referring to was Jan's complaint that
discussing with me is like "boxing with a piece of butter." Perhaps
paraphrasing a simile is as much of a struggle for you as paraphrasing
a position, eh? (Arguing with butter would be uneventful.) I've stated
very clearly what my positions about this club name are -- I even
numbered them 1 2 3 -- so I'm not sure what to make of the notion that
my arguing in this thread has something to do with butter.

Thanks for showing me some new tricks, but it's really that knowledge
you bragged about that I'm most interested in seeing any of.

Hoping your next post will be knowledgeable,

Joseph Scott
Michael de la Sota
2004-11-17 13:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Wrong. Dizzy did very commerciol stuff, such as singing a rock and
roll song at Birdland, and he chose what kind of very commercial stuff
he felt comfortable doing and why -- not all very commerciol stuff
would have been considered equally unacceptable by Dizzy, and I
haven't written that it would.
I didn't say you willfully distorted it, I said you distorted it.
I haven't writen anywhere in this thread that I hold Dizzy's name to
high standards, Michael. It is apparent to me that (1) you're
insincere, or (2) it is more difficult for you than for Smack to pay
attention to the specific content of my poitions, or (3) both. My
guess is (3).
This is funy: Why would you begin to see why arguing with me is like
arguing with X given that this is the _first_ post in which you've
disagreed with me about anything, and you _haven't read my response to
your disagreement yet_? Think about it!! (If you like that sort of
thing.) Whoops. Your credibility gap seems to be widening.
The latter comment you're referring to was Jan's complaint that
discussing with me is like "boxing with a piece of butter." Perhaps
paraphrasing a simile is as much of a strugle for you as paraphrasing
a position, eh? (Arguing with butter would be uneventful.) I've stated
very clearly what my poitions about this club name are -- I even
numbered them 1 2 3 -- so I'm not sure what to make of the notion that
my arguing in this thread has something to do with butter.
Thanks for showing me some new tricks, but it's really that knowledge
you bragged about that I'm most interested in seeing any of.
Hoping your next post will be knowledgeable,
Joseph Scott
Hey Butter! Or do you prefer Joseph "K-Y Jelly" Scott? When you think
of Butter, think of Marlon Brando. I don't think anyone is as
knowledgeable as the mighty Butter. I think perhaps Nat Henthoff was
right. He knew Dizzy personally and thinks the association of his name
with Coke is not something Dizzy would have minded. JALC should have
accepted the money but not used the donor's name, maybe they could
have called it "The Butter Club"?
Joseph Scott
2004-11-20 00:02:00 UTC
Permalink
I think perhaps Nat Henthoff was
Post by Michael de la Sota
right.
Of course Nat Hentoff is _perhaps_ right. Any other facts you want to share with us?

Joseph Scott
Steve Carras
2004-11-10 05:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by David Rutman
What really burns my patuti is that some jazz greats also drive Nazi BMW's
and Mercedes vehicles. I think true American jazz artists should never
travel to Germany to perform. For that matter, the Catholic church should
vacate the Vatican because Italy was fascist during WWII.
Come on, be fair, you know Lewis isn't talking about stuff Coca-Cola
is accused of doing back in the _'40s_.
Personally I think anyone who thinks putting Dizzy's name and Coke (or
Pepsi or...) in the same thing is okay is showing us that they don't
mind totally disrespecting Dizzy when enough money is involved. Ugh.
Joseph Scott
Of course anything jazzy and COKE = Andrews Sisters (read;RUM AND A COCA COLA!)
Frank D
2004-10-26 20:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curtis Plumb
Post by LEWIS FRIEDMAN
Below is a letter I sent to Jazz at Lincoln Center protesting the jazz venue
Jazz and Coke. They go together!
I prefer Jazz with Rum and Coke.
Tom F
2004-11-12 19:52:37 UTC
Permalink
The basic premise of this post is dubious -- that jazz is somehow
damaged or "smeared" by Coca Cola's financial support of Jazz at
Lincoln Center and that JALC should therefore reconsider accepting
Coke's tainted money.

When an arts organization like JALC accepts a corporate contribution,
does it implicitly endorse the donor's policies, practices or
products? Mr. Friedman apparently thinks so, but has failed to make
the case.

Let's think through the implications of Mr. Friedman's position. Let's
say cultural, educational and charitable organizations were to agree
to accept only "clean" money from corporations, i.e. money from
companies untainted by allegations of unfair labor practices,
deceptive business practices, exploitation, discrimination, disregard
for the environment, etc.

Since almost every company in the Fortune 500 faces such allegations
(often originating from the plaintiffs' bar), and almost every Fortune
500 company makes charitable contributions, it would be necessary for
a cultural organization to investigate the allegations pertaining to
the donor and obtain an opinion on the relative cleanliness of a
company's money prior to accepting a contribution.

Who then would be the appropriate party to pass judgment on the
suitability of a corporate contribution to a not-for-profit? And by
what criteria would they determine the cleanliness of a company's
money? Mr. Friedman apparently places a high value on labor relations
and therefore objects to Coca Cola. Another party might place a
higher value on environmental issues and therefore object to
contributions from the Ford Foundation. As you can see, the natural
consequence of Mr. Friedman's position would be the construction of an
ethical bureaucracy that would probably result in nobody getting any
money for anything from anyone.

Personally, I believe that Jazz at Lincoln Center should continue to
accept funding from whomever it chooses and should disregard pressure
tactics from special-interest groups like the one Mr. Friedman
represents. TF
Post by LEWIS FRIEDMAN
Below is a letter I sent to Jazz at Lincoln Center protesting the jazz venue
At 63 years of age, I have been a jazz fan for almost 45 years, a frequent
patron at Birdland (in the 50s and 60s), the Jazz Gallery (in the 60s), the
Village Vanguard, the Village Gate, the Five Spot and many other venues
where jazz is played. I have numerous friends who are jazz musicians, whom I
love and respect for their values. Much of my life has been centered around
my love for America's only true original art form.
Jazz has also been filled with musicians who have been supportive of freedom
and justice -- among them, Max Roach ("We Insist: The Freedom Now Suite"),
Charlie Haden (the African National Congress anthem), Billie Holiday
("Strange Fruit"), Charlie Mingus ("Fables of Faubus").
New York City's Jazz at Lincoln Center's partnership with The Coca-Cola Co.
is painful to me. Coca-Cola has been accused in a lawsuit of complicity with
murder, torture and kidnapping of unionists in Colombia. In fact, I have
spoken with Luis Adolfo Cardona, a Colombian unionist who saw his friend
Isidro Gil, his union leader and friend, murdered on Coca-Cola's plant
grounds by paramilitary thugs working with a Coca-Cola plant manager. (You
can read more about this situation at www.killercoke.org and
www.laborrights.org). Luis was kidnapped by the paramilitaries, managed to
escape and came to the U.S. He is currently speaking at schools and unions
about his cause. By murdering unionists, Coke managers are able to bust the
unions and decrease workers' pay - in the case of Gil's plant, salaries went
from $380 a month to $130 a month. This kind of behavior is not American,
nor is it jazz.
Coke has been accused of numerous other human rights and environmental
abuses around the world and had to pay out $192 million to settle racial
discrimination lawsuits in the U.S. and others suits are still pending and
taking water from poor communities in India to produce Coke and to clean
their plants (see www.indiaresource.org).
I have been working with the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke. We gave out the a
leaflet on Thursday night, Oct. 21st, in front of Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola and
Rose Hall. Jazz fans going to the clubs were very interested in our leaflet
and our message. Many took more than one leaflet (the leaflet can be seen at
http://www.killercoke.org/jazzcoke2pg.pdf).
Our Campaign intends to destroy Coke's public image. Already Coke lawyer and
secretary Deval Patrick has resigned his job due to what has been happening
in Colombia, according to an April 22, 2004 article in the Washington Post.
"Coincidentally," Coke has been having problems with sales in North Americaa
and Europe, the two focuses of our Campaign. Of course, Coke and the press
will not admit this, but numerous schools, unions and human rights groups
are supporting a boycott and/or the "Unthinkable! Undrinkable!" Campaign
against Coke. There have been articles in Forbes, Fortune, the Atlanta
Business Chronicle, O'Dwyers PR Daily and most recently, Marketing Medios,
all business publications about Coke's abuses and/or the Campaign.
Delegates of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) found
that their summer conference in New Mexico this year was being sponsored by
The Coca-Cola Co. A resolution was overwhelmingly passed by the delegates
sending the $10,000 sponsorship fee back to the company and calling on the
AFL-CIO to sponsor an independent fact-finding mission to Colombia. I know
$10,000 is not $10,000,000, but some things are more important than money.
I would not like to see jazz, my favorite art form, have its reputation
smeared by a partnership with Coke, even though the company has donated
$10,000,000+ to JALC, or some would say they were bought off by an unjust
multinational corporation that considers their bottom line more important
than human life.
As Juan Galvis Carlos said to me weeks after escaping an assassination
attempt in Colombia, ""If we lose the fight against Coca-Cola, we will first
lose our union, next our jobs and then our lives."
Please reconsider this partnership with Coca-Cola. I intend to bring our
leaflets up the JALC and inform jazz fans of what Coke has been doing in the
world and JALC's relationship with the company.
Sincerely,
Lew Friedman
Joseph Scott
2004-11-17 03:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom F
The basic premise of this post is dubious -- that jazz is somehow
damaged or "smeared" by Coca Cola's financial support of Jazz at
Lincoln Center and that JALC should therefore reconsider accepting
Coke's tainted money.
When an arts organization like JALC accepts a corporate contribution,
does it implicitly endorse the donor's policies, practices or
products?
The JALC implicitly endorses the product Coca-Cola when it chooses to
put the word Coca-Cola in the name of one of its music clubs.

Mr. Friedman apparently thinks so, but has failed to make
Post by Tom F
the case.
Let's think through the implications of Mr. Friedman's position. Let's
say cultural, educational and charitable organizations were to agree
to accept only "clean" money from corporations, i.e. money from
companies untainted by allegations of unfair labor practices,
deceptive business practices, exploitation, discrimination, disregard
for the environment, etc.
Since almost every company in the Fortune 500 faces such allegations
(often originating from the plaintiffs' bar), and almost every Fortune
500 company makes charitable contributions, it would be necessary for
a cultural organization to investigate the allegations pertaining to
the donor and obtain an opinion on the relative cleanliness of a
company's money prior to accepting a contribution.
Who then would be the appropriate party to pass judgment on the
suitability of a corporate contribution to a not-for-profit?
Anyone who makes a good-faith attempt to do so, such as an employee of
that not-for-profit.

And by
Post by Tom F
what criteria would they determine the cleanliness of a company's
money?
Ethical criteria.

Mr. Friedman apparently places a high value on labor relations
Post by Tom F
and therefore objects to Coca Cola. Another party might place a
higher value on environmental issues and therefore object to
contributions from the Ford Foundation. As you can see, the natural
consequence of Mr. Friedman's position would be the construction of an
ethical bureaucracy that would probably result in nobody getting any
money for anything from anyone.[...]
Slippery slope, eh?

During apartheid, as a result of pressure from special-interest
groups, many entities, from small to huge, divested a total of
billions of dollars from South Africa, which was a huge part of what
then resulted in a change in labor relations and other social issues
in S.A. In your opinion, was that human-rights result worth the no
doubt complicated "construction of an ethical bureaucracy" work that
went into it?

Joseph Scott
Tom F
2004-11-17 15:23:24 UTC
Permalink
South Africa would be relevant if Mr. Friedman was arguing that the
Colombian government is engaged in widespread violations of human
rights and that capital investment in Colombia by US corporations,
including Coca Cola, enables an undemocratic, brutal regime. He may
in fact believe this, but the material he posted deals only with one
specific corporation, Coca Cola, and its alleged violations of fair
labor practices, with reference to various, unspecified abuses of
human rights elsewhere in the world. Mr. Friedman's stated agenda is
not to improve the quality of life for Colombians but rather "to
destroy Coke's public image." To that end, he seeks to exploit the
sympathy of jazz lovers by claiming that the music will somehow be
"smeared" by JALC's association with Coca Cola.

Even if every word Mr. Friedman says about Coca Cola's labor practices
is true, neither he nor Mr. Scott have articulated a persuasive
argument as to how JALC's acceptance of funding from Coca Cola would
be harmful to jazz. Tobacco and alcohol companies have sponsored jazz
events for many years without causing any noticeable damage to jazz
although, from a public health perspective, these companies have
wreaked incalculable havoc. Jazz artists frequently appear in casinos
-- even Duke Ellington played the Sands! Not all readers will agree,
but I believe the growth of legalized gambling is a troubling and
pernicious development in our society. Nevertheless, I would not
argue that jazz is damaged when casinos hire jazz artists. Ever go to
a jazz concert in Carnegie Hall? The place was built with profits
from the Carnegie Steel Corporation, whose murderous strike breaking
tactics are one of the most shameful episodes in US corporate history.
I can think of no better use for those bloodstained dollars than to
provide an auditorium for the music of freedom.

I simply fail to see how JALC accepting Coca Cola's supposedly tainted
money damages jazz, no matter how objectionable the corporation's
policies and practices may be. JALC has other corporate supporters,
and I am sure that one could find odious aspects to each of them as
well. The problem I'm having with Mr. Friedman's position is not with
activism per se, but with a self-appointed commissar of morality
attempting to dictate to a worthy arts organization the sources from
which it should or should not accept funding.

Finally, on the issue of the use of the Coke brand in close proximity
to the name of Dizzy Gillespie, I think it is just plain bad taste to
exploit the good name of a great musician by linking it with a brand
-- any brand. But I have no problem with the owners of these brands
giving money to JALC, and going forward I hope they will give a lot
more. TF
Post by Joseph Scott
Post by Tom F
The basic premise of this post is dubious -- that jazz is somehow
damaged or "smeared" by Coca Cola's financial support of Jazz at
Lincoln Center and that JALC should therefore reconsider accepting
Coke's tainted money.
When an arts organization like JALC accepts a corporate contribution,
does it implicitly endorse the donor's policies, practices or
products?
The JALC implicitly endorses the product Coca-Cola when it chooses to
put the word Coca-Cola in the name of one of its music clubs.
Mr. Friedman apparently thinks so, but has failed to make
Post by Tom F
the case.
Let's think through the implications of Mr. Friedman's position. Let's
say cultural, educational and charitable organizations were to agree
to accept only "clean" money from corporations, i.e. money from
companies untainted by allegations of unfair labor practices,
deceptive business practices, exploitation, discrimination, disregard
for the environment, etc.
Since almost every company in the Fortune 500 faces such allegations
(often originating from the plaintiffs' bar), and almost every Fortune
500 company makes charitable contributions, it would be necessary for
a cultural organization to investigate the allegations pertaining to
the donor and obtain an opinion on the relative cleanliness of a
company's money prior to accepting a contribution.
Who then would be the appropriate party to pass judgment on the
suitability of a corporate contribution to a not-for-profit?
Anyone who makes a good-faith attempt to do so, such as an employee of
that not-for-profit.
And by
Post by Tom F
what criteria would they determine the cleanliness of a company's
money?
Ethical criteria.
Mr. Friedman apparently places a high value on labor relations
Post by Tom F
and therefore objects to Coca Cola. Another party might place a
higher value on environmental issues and therefore object to
contributions from the Ford Foundation. As you can see, the natural
consequence of Mr. Friedman's position would be the construction of an
ethical bureaucracy that would probably result in nobody getting any
money for anything from anyone.[...]
Slippery slope, eh?
During apartheid, as a result of pressure from special-interest
groups, many entities, from small to huge, divested a total of
billions of dollars from South Africa, which was a huge part of what
then resulted in a change in labor relations and other social issues
in S.A. In your opinion, was that human-rights result worth the no
doubt complicated "construction of an ethical bureaucracy" work that
went into it?
Joseph Scott
Joseph Scott
2004-11-20 00:05:56 UTC
Permalink
South Africa would be relevant if[...]
I thought divestment because of apartheid was relevant to the
arguments you were making in your previous post: In that one you
seemed to me too dismissive of the very idea of the large-scale
organization of people making decisions based on ethical
considerations that matter to "special interest groups" who sometimes
use "pressure tactics."

Your statement "Mr. Friedman's stated agenda is not to improve the
quality of life for Colombians but rather 'to destroy Coke's public
image'" is inaccurate and unfair. The guy wrote in that post about
"calling on the AFL-CIO to sponsor an independent fact-finding mission
to Colombia," for instance. His hopes to destroy Coke's public image
are the _means_ and human rights are the _ends_.

Tom, our values seem to differ in that you seem to be much more
concerned about art getting outside funding than I am. I think the
first three decades of recorded jazz, when jazz virtually always paid
its own way, are easily some of the greatest decades of jazz. Wynton
being (among other things) an empire builder is his trip, which is his
prerogative, but I don't buy that it's a trip that's particularly
relevant to jazz being "healthy" or being great art.

Best wishes,

Joseph Scott
Tom F
2004-11-22 13:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Joseph - You make a very interesting point that I will certainly give
a lot of thought to -- that the collective explosion of musical genius
known as jazz occurred without financial support from government
agencies, corporations, cultural foundations and other sources of
outside funding. That may well be a factor in the enduring vitality of
the music of the early 20th century. Is there a lesson about market
efficienty in there somewhere?

I may or may not have been unfair to Mr. Friedman, but I just don't
take kindly to moralizers, dogmatics or puritans on either end of the
political spectrum. I wonder if you would be as concerned about my
being fair to Mr. Friedman if he were objecting to Coke's financial
support of JALC on the grounds that Coke is a gay-friendly company,
one of the first of the Fortune 500 to extend full medical benefits to
domestic partners, and for that reason the target of a boycott by
Christian evangelical groups.

As for apartheid -- very different issue. The anti-apartheid movement
objected to the investment of capital into a national economy that
supported a morally heinous political system. But the ANC did not turn
down financial support from the Oppenheimer family, even though the
family's Anglo American and DeBeers enterprises profited as much as
any other company from the unequal treatment of whites and blacks.
The distinction is between investing in evil (and thereby propagating
evil) as opposed to using the profits from evil practices for good
purposes.

My last word on this topic before getting back to the more interesting
topic of music: Money is morally neutral. I do not believe, as Mr.
Friedman does, that jazz will be damaged or smeared by being
performed in a venue that is supported in part by a corporation that
allegedly engages in unfair labor practices. It is a superstition to
believe, as Mr. Friedman apparently does, that money earned from
morally objectionable behavior carries some kind of taint or curse
that is transmitted along with the money. Talk about voodoo
economics.

Tom F
Post by Joseph Scott
South Africa would be relevant if[...]
I thought divestment because of apartheid was relevant to the
arguments you were making in your previous post: In that one you
seemed to me too dismissive of the very idea of the large-scale
organization of people making decisions based on ethical
considerations that matter to "special interest groups" who sometimes
use "pressure tactics."
Your statement "Mr. Friedman's stated agenda is not to improve the
quality of life for Colombians but rather 'to destroy Coke's public
image'" is inaccurate and unfair. The guy wrote in that post about
"calling on the AFL-CIO to sponsor an independent fact-finding mission
to Colombia," for instance. His hopes to destroy Coke's public image
are the _means_ and human rights are the _ends_.
Tom, our values seem to differ in that you seem to be much more
concerned about art getting outside funding than I am. I think the
first three decades of recorded jazz, when jazz virtually always paid
its own way, are easily some of the greatest decades of jazz. Wynton
being (among other things) an empire builder is his trip, which is his
prerogative, but I don't buy that it's a trip that's particularly
relevant to jazz being "healthy" or being great art.
Best wishes,
Joseph Scott
Joseph Scott
2004-11-23 00:26:24 UTC
Permalink
I just don't
Post by Tom F
take kindly to moralizers, dogmatics or puritans on either end of the
political spectrum. I wonder if you would be as concerned about my
being fair to Mr. Friedman if he were objecting to Coke's financial
support of JALC on the grounds that Coke is a gay-friendly company,
one of the first of the Fortune 500 to extend full medical benefits to
domestic partners, and for that reason the target of a boycott by
Christian evangelical groups.
Yes, I would be equally concerned about you being fair to him if he
were fighting for a cause I don't agree with. Everyone deserves
fairness.

Regarding moralizers, would you not say you've moralized in this
thread, e.g., when you told us what in your opinion the JALC "should"
do?

Joseph Scott
Tom F
2004-11-23 14:41:52 UTC
Permalink
If you look back at the original message, what I said was "I believe
that JALC should continue to accept funding from whomever it chooses."

Moralizers are men on a mission to change the world and bring it into
line with their own sense of morality, for reasons that usually have
more to do with their own intolerance than a genuine desire to make
the world a better place.

I was simply saying "let's leave things the way they are" (at JALC,
that is, except I wouldn't mind if they took down the obnoxious
commercial for Coke, for the reasons I stated earlier.) My original
point (expressed, perhaps, rather too polemically) is that it is
unnecessary, impractical and unwise for JALC or any other
cultural/educational/charitable organization to agonize over the
origin of every contribution. Expressing approval of a sound business
practice is not moralizing. Peace & thanksgiving, TF
Post by Tom F
I just don't
Post by Tom F
take kindly to moralizers, dogmatics or puritans on either end of the
political spectrum. I wonder if you would be as concerned about my
being fair to Mr. Friedman if he were objecting to Coke's financial
support of JALC on the grounds that Coke is a gay-friendly company,
one of the first of the Fortune 500 to extend full medical benefits to
domestic partners, and for that reason the target of a boycott by
Christian evangelical groups.
Yes, I would be equally concerned about you being fair to him if he
were fighting for a cause I don't agree with. Everyone deserves
fairness.
Regarding moralizers, would you not say you've moralized in this
thread, e.g., when you told us what in your opinion the JALC "should"
do?
Joseph Scott
Joseph Scott
2004-11-24 00:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Seems to me LF expressed his opinion about what JALC behavior would be
right or wrong, and then you expressed your opinion about what JALC
behavior would be right or wrong.

Anyway, peace to you too,

Joseph Scott
Tahir
2005-01-17 22:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Peace & humbleness to all.

Michael de la Sota
2004-11-23 19:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom F
I just don't
Post by Tom F
take kindly to moralizers, dogmatics or puritans on either end of the
political spectrum. I wonder if you would be as concerned about my
being fair to Mr. Friedman if he were objecting to Coke's financial
support of JALC on the grounds that Coke is a gay-friendly company,
one of the first of the Fortune 500 to extend full medical benefits to
domestic partners, and for that reason the target of a boycott by
Christian evangelical groups.
Yes, I would be equally concerned about you being fair to him if he
were fighting for a cause I don't agree with. Everyone deserves
fairness.
Regarding moralizers, would you not say you've moralized in this
thread, e.g., when you told us what in your opinion the JALC "should"
do?
Joseph Scott
What a freaking knob you are? Always right. Butter.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...