Pink Fire Pointer November 2012

TATTOOS

Get Paid To Promote, Get Paid To Popup, Get Paid Display Banner

CloudCrowd

Is your English acceptable? 
Do you have a Facebook account?
Do you have a PayPal account?
Do you have 20 minutes up to an hour to spend on CloudCrowd and have fun?
Excelent!

Head to the link https://www.cloudcrowd.com/i/9fx8eland and start your way up to the top in Internet earnings.
This is one of the most profitable "jobs" that I have ever done online and it's child play.
After you accesed the link above and logged in with your Facebook account click "Earn Money Now". You will be redirected to the Home page. Here you must firstly click Available work -> Credentials -> Categorization and make the test for english comprehension. Be careful, take your time. The questions are simple, but the answers are mostly alike, so it's easy to get the answer wrong, and if you fail the test you can only take it after one week, also you only have 4 tries, so get it right the first time.
You will be informed via email regarding the level you were awarded (this is also important). After this you can begin working at Available work -> Projects, if you have the required Credentials and Credibility (which increase when you get work done correctly and rapidly decresses when you mess up).

If your English is excelent you can try appling for writig and editing Credentials, but first you must read the requirements of  each task. This is very important, because you will be paid $20-40 for each article (1-2 hours worth).

If you have any questions feel free to ask them in a comment to this post. 
Cheers!    

Tasteful? What's in a Word?

I just read a review of an album in which the critic described the rhythm section's playing as 'tasteful' I really hate when critics use that description of someone's playing, because to me it denotes several things.

First of all, when the word tasteful is used to describe the playing of the rhythm section, either individually or collectively, it tells me that the writer probably has no idea what to say about the them, and probably doesn't have enough knowledge of the intricacies of rhythm section playing to venture anything other than this bland phrase. It's a cop-out on the writer's part - a one-size-fits-all phrase to use when you've no idea how to differentiate the playing of one rhythm section player from another. It also implies an under-appreciation of how important the rhythm section is - the kind of writer who will  apply the 'tasteful' soubriquet to the rhythm section will usually have written extensively about the soloists in previous paragraphs and then, feeling they have to say something about the rhythm section, will describe their playing as tasteful. It's the same kind of lazy writing that trots out cliches like 'getting up close and personal with......' to describe an interview with someone.

If the rhythm section have had the good manners not to distract the writer from listening to the soloists, whom (ahem), after all are the most important members of any group, the critic will describe them as tasteful. Which brings me to my second point.

'Tasteful' can often be freely substituted by the word bland..... The kind of rhythm sections that are described as tasteful often are units that plod along, playing the right changes, keeping the time in an efficient way, doing nothing to frighten the horses. They have no identity and fulfill a function - they don't get in the way. Like good children, they are seen and not heard. Anonymous. In short, they are a terrible rhythm section. A rhythm section should always be adding to the music, not staying out of the way of it. This doesn't meant that they have to be incredibly active all the time in terms of amount of notes played (it depends on the context), but it does mean that whatever they're doing should be vital to the sound of the band, to the energy of the rhythm, to the forward motion of the music. It should be vital, not tasteful.

If a critic says that a rhythm section is 'tasteful' it usually means one of three things: 1) The critic has no idea about rhythm sections, how they work, or what to say about them. 2) The critic likes his or her rhythm sections to be of the 'seen and not heard/servant of soloists/Bebopper's Labourer kind. Or 3) The rhythm section is crap.



A final point in this mini-rant. What does 'tasteful' even mean in this context? Does it mean played with good taste? A subjective judgement if ever there was one...... Does it mean polite and well mannered? Or does it mean, appropriate to the music? For my money, the latter is the true definition of tastefulness. If a musician is playing in a way that is apposite to the requirements of the music he or she is being tasteful. Elvin Jones, rampaging through 'Transition' with Coltrane is the epitome of tasteful playing. Ron Carter, rhythmically and harmonically nudging and bossing Miles' band is tastefulness personified. Monk's comping behind Coltrane is an object lesson in good taste. Good taste is about doing the right thing in any musical situation, it is not necessarily only about being polite and self-effacing.

Poor Bill Evans is always burdened with that cliche by critics who see things in a very simplistic way. Because his music is lyrical and often on the quieter end of the dynamic spectrum, his playing is often thought to be 'tasteful' in the same way that a restaurant pianist's playing could be described as being tasteful. Quiet, not getting in the way, not drawing attention to itself. Well mannered. This does such a disservice to the depth and complexity of Evans' playing. Whenever I see a critic describe Evans' music as tasteful, I just can't take anything else they say seriously. This is a surface listener, a lazy writer, someone who really doesn't have the equipment to talk about the music in any depth.

If you are a jazz writer, please don't use this vapid cliche when describing someone's playing - do a bit of research instead, listen a little harder, tell us something worth knowing about the music you're describing instead of giving us some bland bromide that fulfills your word count but means nothing. 

In my opinion, describing someone's playing as tasteful is in the worst possible taste..........



On The Road with Pekka - Part 1, Europe




In October and November of this year I took part in a two-legged tour with the great Finnish alto player Pekka Pylkkanen and as part of his Global Unit group. The first part of the tour took place in France and Switzerland, the second leg in Japan. I've played in this group in the past and it's always fun, being made up of great musicians from different parts of the world (hence the name). For the European leg the other musicians, apart from Pekka and myself, were the American pianist Greg Burk and the Brazilian drummer Carlos Ezequiel. Both wonderful musicians, I've played with them both before in Pekka's group, and with Carlos in several other configurations, including a memorable trip to India earlier this year.

My trip began as so many do, with having to get up at 4am (bleh.....) to catch the red-eye to Geneva, and from there to Basel where we were playing two nights at a wonderful club, The Bird's Eye. We were also going to do some live recording, some recording during the day, and combine that with a studio recording at the end of the week in France. A lot of people don't realise what musicians have to do on the road sometimes - in this case, we had four musicians who have come from four different countries, travelled long distances, went straight into rehearsal, put two sets of music together in 90 minutes, soundchecked, ate quickly and then played two sets of music. And some people think being on the road is glamorous!


Considering how little time we had and how tired he were, we played some very good music - a mixture of originals by Pekka, Carlos, Greg and I, and a few arrangements of jazz standards. But the extremely long day kicked in, and I definitely hit the wall half way through the second set - got totally exhausted and had to dig deep to keep my concentration and play competently at least for the last few tunes.

But a good night's rest will do wonders, and the next night was much better - the band sounded better and we were starting to get a real grip on the music. The result of getting to know your material in jazz is always one of creating a feeling of both tightness and looseness - tightness in that the written and composed material is played better, and looseness in the sense of a feeling of freedom within the material that comes from having confidence in knowing that material well. We got into some good energy and the audience responded warmly - it all boded well for the next day's recording.

And the recording the next day was indeed a good one - it was nice to record on stage rather than in the often sterile environment of the studio. And since we'd played the music the previous two nights we had the cushion of both being comfortable with the material and the recording environment, which is a real bonus. We recorded pretty much all our material and then recorded a bunch of improvised short vignettes - pieces improvised on the spot, each one started by a different member of the band. I've always liked doing this - these pieces can often reveal aspects of the band that are not evident in the written material. I haven't listened back to the material yet, but I'm looking forward to hearing these pieces - I think we did some really nice ones!

Recording finished, we headed to Basel airport (which must be the only airport in the world that straddles the border of two countries......), hired a car and drove into France. We headed for Metz to stay overnight, and on the drive there got into some lengthy discussions of politics and economics and the current political/financial situation. Jazz musicians should really record these on-the-road conversations - on this trip we pretty much solved all the world's problems - who needs politicians and economists when you have a jazz quartet to sort everything out!?

(Metz Cathedral)

We had some time off the next morning before heading to Fontainebleu, so Greg and I took a look around Metz, an interesting town that shows both German and French influences. The Cathedral is renowned and when you step inside you can see why - it's a vast Gothic construct with a soaring ceiling and featuring beautiful stained glass windows by Chagall. The size of it and the fact that people have prayed there since the 5th Century gives even an atheist like me an idea of the power religion has had on the minds of people over the centuries.

And the power that good food has on me in France should not be underestimated either - having basked in the glory of Medieval religion, it was time for Greg and I to bask in the glory of local French food, at a local market and to eat a simple but great lunch at a famous soup counter in the market, beside the cathedral. I partook in the delicacy of Boudin Noir with apples (an acquired taste perhaps, but one I acquired a long time ago, raised as I was on Black Pudding - the irish equivalent), while Greg had some fantastic slow-baked lamb. French food is often thought of as fancy and chef-y, but regional French food tends to be both simple and delicious.

And the food theme continued as we headed off for Fontainebleu to play the next gig - at a jazz club that is owned by and is an annexe to a Moroccan restaurant. The R-Jazz Club is a cosy little club and the owner and his family are lovely people - genuine enthusiasts who love the music and their club. It was really a pleasure to play for them, and also a pleasure to eat the wonderful food they provided for us before and after the gig - all jazz club gigs should be like this!

(Gourmet Market - Milly La-Foret)

We stayed the night at a small hotel in the nearby town of Milly La-Foret, a small quiet place that sports a gourmet market (more food!) on Saturday mornings. All kinds of artisan products were on display and the market demonstrated again the importance the French place on food - if only all countries were the same in this regard.......

And then it was off to another small town - Dammarie-Lès-Lys


 (Pekka and Carlos at the studio)


We were recording in a studio in the engineer’s home – I like these kinds of environments, again they’re a bit different to the airless bunkers that often constitute studios these days. The engineer’s house was in a small town in the countryside and the whole scene was pleasant and conducive to relaxed but concentrated work. Where else but France could you take a break and have a lunch of Confit Duck in a local restaurant? We got all the tracks recorded that we hadn’t managed to get to in Basel, and we re-recorded a couple of others, and then we headed for Dammarie-Lès-Lys where we would be staying for the next few nights.



Dammerie is close to Paris, and we had a day off the next day so it was a foregone conclusion that we would head into town at some point. And what a perfect day for a trip to Paris it was! A beautiful late Autumn day, bright sunshine – it was almost like being on the film set of one of those Hymn-to-Paris movies that Woody Allen makes. Carlos and Greg went in earlier and went around the Louvre, (Carlos commented that his smile is more mysterious than that of La Giaconda – see below and decide for yourself….), Pekka and I headed in during the late afternoon and we met up with the guys, walked around in the sunshine along the Seine, and had a delicious and very good value dinner in a great traditional Bistro, before heading back to our hotel in Dammarie. Sometimes being a musician IS glamorous! Or at least lots of fun………

(Carlos enters a smiling competition with the Mona Lisa)


The reason we were in Dammerie was because of its proximity to CMDL – the school of Didier Lockwood, where we did a combined workshop and concert performance. The school is in a lovely setting and has a student body of around 100, which is a perfect size in my opinion – big enough to be interesting, but not too big to become impersonal. I got together with the bassists, and we discussed various bass related issues, but also musical issues in the wider sense. When you get together with a group of students whom you haven’t met before, and you only have an hour, it’s hard to get into much concrete information, since by the time you know what it is they wish to work on with you, the time is almost up. But they were a very receptive group, we managed to get into some interesting stuff, and a good time was had by all.



After the workshop we played a concert for the students for about an hour – really fun, because at this point we really knew the music and were able to get into it immediately and explore it more fully at the same time. This was our last gig on this leg of the tour, so it had the usual bittersweet flavor that these last gigs on tours always have.

To give you an idea of some of the music we played, here's a recording of a piece of mine called 'Traditional', recorded live at the Bird's Eye club on the second night of the tour.


 

(Greg, Pekka, Carlos and I, outside the Bird's Eye Club in Basel)

 So that was that – some travelling, lots of music, lots of new music recorded, and lots of good food! I left the next morning to go back to Dublin to change my clothes re-pack my bags, and head off for the second leg of the tour – Japan!







Why Religion?

I made it to Salt Lake City and back, and it all went very well.  But let me back up a couple weeks.

 Ried

A 23-year-old named Ried from Minnesota hitched into town.  He had read the book and decided to come camp with me for a while.  He's a total joy, a shining light, making me and everybody I know smile.  My friend Arlen also started camping out with us off and on, making for sublime music and conversation around the fire.  While I went to SLC, Ried decided to hitch to Boulder to meet up with new-found friends.  He says he plans to come back here in a short while.  But you never know where wind will blow.

SLC

Last Friday, my friend Chris picked me up hitch-hiking and took me all the way to Salt Lake City, and I stayed at my friend Lin's.  Lin has a huge drum and we percussed and discussed, the perfect preparation for the next day.

Mark Sundeen's and my KCPW interview the next day with Jennifer Napier-Pearce went very well, and the audience was sublime.  The KCPW interview is on podcast now (I haven't listened yet since I lost my dumpstered earphones).  [On the last post I mistakenly said the interview was through KUER, not KCPW.  Napier-Pearce was formerly with KUER but now is with KCPW].

Westwater Canyon

On Sunday, Mark and his fiance, Cedar, took me on a river trip through Westwater Canyon (between Colorado and Utah) with seven other Moab friends, and it was stupendous.  Then on Tuesday night Chris (the one who had picked me up hitching), took me to a drum circle (or more like an oval or trapezoid) jam in a culvert with some other Moabite friends.  Now that jamming I can't even describe, it was so beyond-imagination-extraordinary.

Why Religion?

I've had a burr in my pants these days.  You might have noticed the blog entry before last was burr inspired.  

I've got myself on a line between the religious world and the secular world, and sometimes find it either pisses off both or inspires both.  One side keeps warning me I'm slipping over to the other.  The razor's edge.

Lately I've been saying that all I care about is that people be true and just.  Whatever motivates people to be true and just, I support.  I simply don't care whether or not they are called Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans, Atheists.  As the Dalai Lama said, "My religion is kindness."  My saying this really upset some of my friends and loved ones who consider themselves Christian.  But I can't deny what I see.  Good fruit is good fruit.  Know them by their fruit, not their talk, not their vocabulary.  There are a few secular folks who get turned off by my vocabulary, too.  It's like I'm on a tightrope, balancing between both sides, translating language between both sides.  

I keep saying that if we erase all money and simply look at reality, we see truth so simply an infant understands.  In the same way, if we erase all words and simply look at reality, we see truth so simply an infant understands.  Let go of the imagination of your mind, and you see Truth.

How do deer and ants and coyotes eat nutritious, balanced diets?   They do it without books or manuals or school!  They know how to eat because they have no words to deceive them!

Ironically I find that non-religious people, including self-proclaimed atheists, are more accepting and comfortable with Jesus' teachings than self-proclaimed followers of Jesus.  I guess it's always been that way, the religious persecute their own prophets and then worship them when they're good and comfortably gone.  And Jesus himself states more than once he finds more faith outside his religion-nation than inside it, which is why he hung out with non-religious people.  That got him crucified.

Lately I've had several conversations with Evangelicals about Jesus' teachings.  Every single one of them has an explanation why Jesus' teachings are not for us, or Jesus didn't really mean what he said, or else they find clever "salvation-by-grace" loopholes, or "dispensationalist" loopholes, to cancel out Jesus' teachings.  I've personally witnessed many even call me evil and going to hell if I even suggest keeping his teachings!  They put incredible amounts of energy into diverting attention away from Jesus' teachings with distracting doctrines and scripture-quoting rather than simply admit they don't believe in their own Jesus!  I was impressed by some sincere Evangelicals a few months ago.  They simply admitted they didn't believe, but they wanted to.  The first step to believing in Jesus is to admit that you don't.  The first step into being able to practice Jesus' teachings is to admit that you can't.  Religious AA!  This is the paradox of all spirituality.

The only way to acting truth is by admitting truth.
Admitting you don't believe truth is truth, and makes you truth.
Lie that admits itself as lie annihilates itself and resurrects as Truth.
If Satan admitted he were Satan, he would annihilate himself and resurrect as God. 

A few weeks ago I was reading notes by Charles Ryrie from the Ryrie Study Bible on the Sermon on the Mount.  Ryrie's notes pretty much encapsulate Fundamentalist, Evangelical doctrine, and are popular with Fundamentalists.  The hallmark of Fundamentalist doctrine is that the Bible must be taken literally.  Genesis Creation: literal.  The Flood: literal.  The Red Sea parting: literal.  Armageddon: literal.  If you even question the literalness of these stories, most Fundamentalists would call you non-Christian!  But things change when we get to Jesus' teachings.  Jesus' teachings have to do with doing, taking personal, active responsibility, Here and Now.  If it's about past (Genesis) or future (Apocalypse), which have nothing to do with personal responsibility, it's literal.  If it's about present, which means changing our behavior, then it's mysteriously not literal.  

Ryrie states that the Sermon on the Mount, nice as it is, simply cannot be taken literally, unless we want all churches and Christian schools and institutions to collapse.  After all, he says, what institution could survive giving to everyone who asks?  What organization could exist if it gave up all it owned to the poor?  What will happen to our rich donors if we talk about camels squeezing through needle's eyes?

I repeat: Evangelical scholar Ryrie says that the Sermon on the Mount simply cannot be taken literally, unless we want all churches and Christian schools and institutions to collapse.

Collapse!  Hallelujah!

If everyone practiced the core principles of their own religion, religion would go obsolete, just as money would go obsolete.  Collapse.  The Law would be written on our hearts, as it has been from the beginning, and we would stop worshiping scriptures and dogmas.  When the Law is on the heart, there is no more need to talk about God, as the Prophet Jeremiah prophecies (Jeremiah 31:33-34).  No more ranting about how God is taken out of schools and congress.  We would no longer be under law (scriptures) but grace.  We would simply be ourselves.  

It's written that the religious people, in deciding what to do with Jesus, said,  "If we let him alone like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation."  So they opted to crucify him.  Christendom would lose its place and its empire if it followed its own Jesus.  But our institutions, our dogmas, our scriptures, are more important to us than love and justice and simplicity.  Religion, Money, and Nationalism are the Unholy Trinity.  Separate one from the other, and watch the religious dogmatist go ballistic.

Crucifixion of All that I THINK I am

I had an epiphany a few weeks ago:
 
To say, "I am Christian" is to say "I am righteous."

No righteous person can say "I am righteous."

Only an egotist can say "I am righteous."

No Christian mind can say, "I am Christian."

Only an egotistical mind can say, "I am Christian"
or, "I am Buddhist" or "I am Muslim" or "I am Hindu."

This is why the Bible forbids calling yourself a Christian (1 Cor 1:12)
or whatever religious label.

Both Christ and Christian mean "Annointed One," Messiah.

No Christ can say, "I am Christ."
Only ego can say, "I am Christ" or "I am Christian".

Only an honest person can refuse giving herself religious labels, and have trust enough to say, "what does my life and works say?" (John 2:24)

I am not labels,
I am who I am.

If I am good, it will be self evident.
If I am bad it will be self evident.

It's not for me to say,
but only my life.

I can't be anything else but who I am,
so why try?

Only my actions can bear witness to who I am.

The Quran states that, at the Judgment Day,
all of us will be silenced, unable to speak on our own behalf.
Only our bodies will bear witness to us.

Erase all words, and Truth is revealed.
 
There is no higher name, no greater power, no God but I am who I am.

The world's institutions always want to know what authority sent you.
What government, what nation, what institution, what religion?
What degree?  What certification?  What identification?
What credentials?  What credit?

If you refuse to go to war by saying, "I am Christian', "I am Brethren", "I am Mennonite", "I am Quaker," or even "I am Buddhist", your refusal will be respected, legally.  But if you say, "I refuse to go to war under no authority but my conscience.  No authority but I am who I am," you'll be imprisoned and persecuted.  [Nov 8 CORRECTION:  jbkranger commented below: "since the 1960's the US military has allowed for non-religious conscience objection."  He's right. I didn't do my homework: see Conscentious Objector]  If you are completely sincere, if you can say, I am who I am, the Name above all names, Word beyond all words, you will find that those who are actors (those who refuse to be themselves) will pick up stones to stone you.  The Greek word for actor is hypocrite.  I am who I am: there is no other way, no other truth, no other life.  Anything more or anything less is not love, not real.

A word, a thought, a symbol, is something that represents something else.  It is not the thing, but represents the thing.  If a word, a thought, or a symbol, represented itself, it would vanish from sight, from hearing, from mind.  A rose speaks for itself, because it has no words but itself.  Even called by any other name, a rose is a rose.  Imagine not imagining!  Think what it would be to not think!  To see everything as it is, as an infant!  Zen mind! 

Reality speaks for itself, having no words but itself as one never-ending Word.  In the beginning is the Word, and the Word is with Reality and the Word is Reality.  In the realm of time, the Word became not reality, separated from Reality, and only represented reality, to dwell among us who are unreal.  No thought becomes thought in order to lead thoughts back to no thought.  The Buddha leaves Nirvana to become a boddhisattva to lead lost thoughts back to Nirvana.  All we like sheep have gone astray.  All we thoughts have wandered away from Reality.  And Reality becomes not reality, the shepherd becomes a sheep and searches for lost sheep to lead them back to Reality.

There is nothing like reality.  Reality is itself and nothing else. 

As both the Bible and the Quran emphasize, there nothing else like God.

Funny how we don't consider this.

"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (Genesis 1:26)

To be yourself is to be the Image of God, like no other.
To try to be like anybody else is to not be True.

"I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your Likeness." (Psalm 17:15)

For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me (Isaiah 46:9)

The only way I can be the Image of God is to put away likenesses that I think I am, to put away all that I think I am: thoughts, images, labels, and simply Be Who I Am.

I am who I am, the only way, the only truth, the only life.
There is no other way to Reality
And there is no Heaven but Reality,
No God but Reality.

There is no power greater than
I am who I am.
I am who I am,
right here, right now,
in the flesh.

Any action (spirit) that
does not confess
that I am who I am,
right here, right now,
in the flesh,
is Anti-Messiah.