freebop

[philip sirois]

All I can add to this is that here in new york I've seen great musicians make great music that is totally improvised, with very little or no form. William Parker, Drew Gress, Bavid Binney, Craig Taborn, Tim Berne, Tom Rainey, Chris Lightcap, Roy Cambell the list goes on. These are all master musicians and composers who can play jazz with anyone, and also often play music that is composed with sections where the improvisation is totally freed from the form (beyond just stretching the form, although the intitial theme can be referred to). But when guys at the level I'm talking about engage in group improvisation with no form at all, it never sounds like masturbation to me. It's not always easy listening, but if your patient enough to let them take you on a little ride, it can be very rewarding, and sometimes, in my view, truly great music can happen.

I often wonder why people who love jazz, are so quick to dismiss this kind of improvised music. The squeekers and squonkers aside (I understand that being annoying for some) there a lot great musicians making great improvised music these days.

BTW, this is not a shot at anyone, particularly Treyzer, whose posts are always among the most thoughtful and generous on this board.

[damonsmith]

The great Eugene Chanbourne used to say masturbation is one of the most amazing things ever and that he was always flattered to have his music compared to it!

Free improvisation is a good format to explore the most extreme edges of making sound with other musicians, but, hence the name it can just sound like whatever you want. You make the sound you want to play in that moment - you are free to make beautiful sounds.

The master cornetist Bobby Bradford said in a workshop once, "if you want to play something - you play it! Do you think Sonny Rollins give a f*** what you think when he plays that Caribbean sh**?"

[Treyzer]

Originally Posted by philip sirois

....But when guys at the level I'm talking about engage in group improvisation with no form at all, it never sounds like masturbation to me. It's not always easy listening, but if your patient enough to let them take you on a little ride, it can be very rewarding, and sometimes, in my view, truly great music can happen.

I often wonder why people who love jazz, are so quick to dismiss this kind of improvised music. The squeekers and squonkers aside (I understand that being annoying for some) there a lot great musicians making great improvised music these days.

BTW, this is not a shot at anyone, particularly Treyzer, whose posts are always among the most thoughtful and generous on this board.

Thanks for the last part Philip. These discussions are always a little harder than real life. No way to read a persons facial expressions, body language; just words on a page. I'm all for being expressive and taking it out or breaking new ground. Marc has said some real important things regarding the level of musicianship and awareness that must be non-negotiable in order to make these kinds of endeavors work. However, I'm reminded of something someone said to me one time regarding music as a self indulgent pursuit; "I've suffered for my music, now it's your turn".
Makes ya think don't it?

[Marc Piane]

Originally Posted by philip sirois

All I can add to this is that here in new york I've seen great musicians make great music that is totally improvised, with very little or no form. William Parker, Drew Gress, Bavid Binney, Craig Taborn, Tim Berne, Tom Rainey, Chris Lightcap, Roy Cambell the list goes on. These are all master musicians and composers who can play jazz with anyone, and also often play music that is composed with sections where the improvisation is totally freed from the form (beyond just stretching the form, although the intitial theme can be referred to). But when guys at the level I'm talking about engage in group improvisation with no form at all, it never sounds like masturbation to me. It's not always easy listening, but if your patient enough to let them take you on a little ride, it can be very rewarding, and sometimes, in my view, truly great music can happen.

I often wonder why people who love jazz, are so quick to dismiss this kind of improvised music. The squeekers and squonkers aside (I understand that being annoying for some) there a lot great musicians making great improvised music these days.

BTW, this is not a shot at anyone, particularly Treyzer, whose posts are always among the most thoughtful and generous on this board.

TBDB really needs a 'like' button. I agree 100% with everything above. Well said.

[philip sirois]

Originally Posted by Treyzer

Thanks for the last part Philip. These discussions are always a little harder than real life. No way to read a persons facial expressions, body language; just words on a page. I'm all for being expressive and taking it out or breaking new ground. Marc has said some real important things regarding the level of musicianship and awareness that must be non-negotiable in order to make these kinds of endeavors work. However, I'm reminded of something someone said to me one time regarding music as a self indulgent pursuit; "I've suffered for my music, now it's your turn".
Makes ya think don't it?

I get where your coming from. Maybe it's because I have the opportunity here in new york to see a really broad spectrum of improvised music, often with great players, and just as often in some dark loft for cheap money ( which makes seeing so much music doable for me), that I think a little differently about it. But much of the music I see and like doesn't require any suffering, just maybe a bit of faith on the listeners part. The good ones play music that can be all kinds of things that we generally think of as positive in music: rhythmic, melodic, lyrical. Of course it can be dissonant and diffuse, and many other things as well.

Maybe lack of form is not a good way to describe what I'm talking about. It seems great musician can approach redefining the idea of what we think of as form, which in turn really opens up the possibilities for the group.
Bottom line is I've had some great moments listening to these guys, and I hardly ever feel like the good ones are being self-indulgent. Of course it's always a personal thing.


I guess I equate it to looking at paintings (I'm a painter by trade). I like form and content as much as Aunt Alice does, but great artists that can work with those things in new ways, or to employ artspeak here, begin to question our assumptions about what those things are, have taken me, personally, on a much more interesting journey than Monet, as great as he is(and he IS great), ever could. It's required some work on my part. but the rewards can be great.

One last thing. When I tell people that aren't so hip to contemporary art that I'm a painter, They often say "do you paint portraits or landscapes?" To them those are the possibilities for a painting. I usually say "are those my only choices?"

[Treyzer]

Great points Philip. Very thoughtful and insightful. I'm enjoying the discussion!

[Marc Piane]

Something that I've always admired ever since I started playing the bass were guys that were able to play a bunch of different styles very well without losing their personal voice. Drew Gress, Eric Revis, Harrison Bankhead, and our own Eric Hochberg are players like that. To me this is an understanding that it is all just music. The only thing that changes are the parameters.

[Marc Piane]

One other thing that was a great lesson for me was being on tour in Barcelona and going to the Picasso Museum. The museum there houses many of his early works. I was absolutely floored because he is was a very talented portrait artist. There were pencil drawings that looked like photographs. It has always brought to mind to me the adage that you have to have something to abstract from.

[Paul Warburton]

Originally Posted by philip sirois

I get where your coming from. Maybe it's because I have the opportunity here in new york to see a really broad spectrum of improvised music, often with great players, and just as often in some dark loft for cheap money ( which makes seeing so much music doable for me), that I think a little differently about it. But much of the music I see and like doesn't require any suffering, just maybe a bit of faith on the listeners part. The good ones play music that can be all kinds of things that we generally think of as positive in music: rhythmic, melodic, lyrical. Of course it can be dissonant and diffuse, and many other things as well.


I guess I equate it to looking at paintings (I'm a painter by trade). I like form and content as much as Aunt Alice does, but great artists that can work with those things in new ways, or to employ artspeak here, begin to question our assumptions about what those things are, have taken me, personally, on a much more interesting journey than Monet, as great as he is(and he IS great), ever could. It's required some work on my part. but the rewards can be great.

Kindly and with great respect for all sentient beings, I find statements like this very confusing. Is it just me?

[philip sirois]

Does it really confuse you? Or does it displease you? If you're implying that because I used this word that I failed to hear or wasn't listening to the music, you'd be wrong. That said, you're right that it probably isn't the best description of my experience, and I'll be more careful in the future. In fact I listened to, heard and saw the music being made all at once.

[Marc Piane]

Semantics. Your sentiment is crystal clear Phil and I heartily agree.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Although there is a very big difference between visual art and music, which is relevant here - in that, the former has all its structure (or lack thereof), laid out before you.

Whereas with music, the structure is revealed over time - or you realise there is no structure, only gradually, as you compare with models in your head. This is actually quite a difficult concept and process. Whereas, I can look at an abstract painting and immediately decide that I like it - regardless of any additional reference or thought process.

I think we try to make sense of music in our heads - whereas, with visual art, we don't necessarily feel that need, if we like it.

[philip sirois]

Bruce,

I'm, not sure the differences between art and music at their very essence are as great as you say. But that is another discussion. I will say that a lot of great art also reveals itself over time through prolonged or repeated viewing, much as they're constructed over time. And of course much art of today has just as much of a time component as any music (certainly art is no longer just paintings and sculptures).

In some way that makes my point. The deeper your understanding of an art-form the greater its potential rewards. I think all of us studying jazz and jazz influenced music can attest to that. The art viewer that believes that they have all the tools necessary to make an immediate, informed decision on works worth, may be missing out on a much greater experience. For me, some of the artists that I respect the most were not immediately appealing to me, but their value came to me over time, and with greater understanding of where they were trying to go, their process, and what came before them. Of course some things that I hated, I still hate, and some things I thought were great, I have little respect for now.

So no, we don't need to make sense of visual art, and of course we don't need to make sense of music either, to enjoy it. But I think those of us in search of something deeper can find a lot to appreciate with a little patience and effort.

[Marc Piane]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Although there is a very big difference between visual art and music, which is relevant here - in that, the former has all its structure (or lack thereof), laid out before you.

Whereas with music, the structure is revealed over time - or you realise there is no structure, only gradually, as you compare with models in your head. This is actually quite a difficult concept and process. Whereas, I can look at an abstract painting and immediately decide that I like it - regardless of any additional reference or thought process.

I think we try to make sense of music in our heads - whereas, with visual art, we don't necessarily feel that need, if we like it.

I very strongly disagree. While it is true that the art is 'finished' from the creation side (though some artists would argue that viewing it is part of the creation) it can take a lifetime to digest . Some abstract art has different meaning every time you view it. I also think that when dealing with things new to you it is not about liking and disliking but about keeping an open mind and and being open to how how it makes you feel. I also think our minds do try to make sense of everything. That's why we get immediate like/dislike signals. If our brain can't make sense of it we are flooded with hormones that are similar to those in the fight or flight response.

[philip sirois]

Yes Marc. And that open mind thing is an ongoing struggle, especially for those us approaching old and crusty territory. We've done a lot to gather and refine our prejudices and assumptions, and we'll be damned if were going to abandon them now!


Oh since I'm making noises I suppose I should share this for better or worse:

http://philipsixking.com/?page_id=8#1

[Bruce Lindfield]

I think that both of you have missed the main point I was trying to make - which is about "structures"?

So we were talking about whether music uses structures, as a way of determining if it is "free" or "open".

What I was trying to say is that the structure of music is something that a listener has to consciously work on - if they are to determine structure or lack of it - it is only revealed over time and by comparing what you hear, with models you have in your brain.

We listen for repetition and patterns in music, as something to latch on to and it is quite an involved process.

But with a picture - structure is just there or it isn't, as we confront the work.

The difference is that in music - patterns are only shown over time and require mental work to determine.

It's probably not worth arguing about though ..

[Marc Piane]

Hmmm. Seems like it's all just space. Art is just the ornamentation of space time isn't it?

[hdiddy]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

But with a picture - structure is just there or it isn't, as we confront the work.

I disagree with this right along with the others. The structure might be there, but I'm not seeing it, and it may take me time to notice. Just because the image is frozen and everything laid out on a single canvas doesn't mean that you instantly notice everything there is to notice.

You may not see the structure but it could be at any level of perspective: small or large. If you're not willing to sit there and change your perspective, you may be missing it entirely. As part of the audience, I don't feel like it's any different than listening to Coltrane's solo on Giant steps. There's way too much **** going on and it sounds like noise. Change my perspective to listen to tiny little phrases and I find dozens of beautiful little melodies.

The abstract concept is the same but the medium is different.

[philip sirois]

That structure might be there, but it as often as not reveals itself over time just like music. And frankly, I'm not sure when I'm listen to music for my own enjoyment that I'm spending any energy looking for patterns to grab onto and such. I think most times I'm just listening and seeing what happens next. I guess for me, I look at painting the same way. Then the more I look , the more I see. You're right though, that I can keep looking at the same painting, but with music it is sequential so I'm not really listening to the same music over time.

And anything is worth discussing if it interests you, and the discussion remains civil.

Back on the original topic. There is a group of people here in the city who have been running something called the School of Improvised Music. Details here:

http://www.schoolforimprov.org/

The faculty is comprised of some pretty heavy forward thinking musicians who use improvisation in all kinds of ways, and includes many of the people I mentioned in earlier posts. They have had a workshop which focused on ways to compose and arrange pieces that include totally free improvisational sections within a larger composed structure. A lot of the faculty members are folks that employ this kind of thing in their music, and the results can be very cool. It finds an area somewhere between free improvisation, and stretching out on a more traditional form.

[hdiddy]

BTW: Nice paintings Phillip. Me like.