Bagatellen: A Coda (Whereupon A Jazz Guy Learns a New Acronym and Makes Some New Enemies): Comments</i>

A Coda (Whereupon A Jazz Guy Learns a New Acronym and Makes Some New Enemies): Comments

Posted by mcgr on March 5, 2005 12:36 PM

I assume Joe is properly insured against potential claims soon to be filed by the surviving family members of future bagatellen conversation(al)ists already suffering from dangerously high rates of hypertension, including my mother.

Posted by bob on March 5, 2005 12:41 PM

luckily blaise is a lot more open minded than you. that was quite insulting. cant wait for solo soprano wank number 956 to come out

Posted by Brian Olewnick on March 5, 2005 01:16 PM

Hey, Chris. Glad you tried some stuff (not sure exactly which ones, though), sorry you didn't enjoy it; not everyone will. I'd just like to point out an obvious analogy: most of the critique you make about "eai" could have, with a shift in media, been the same critiques levelled at abstract painting from 70 years ago. Perhaps you feel that's appropriate (goodness knows, in some painters' case, I do too). But I sorta doubt you'd paint the gamut of abstract visual artists with the same brush. It's an old truism that I first heard from a high school art teacher around '71: that music lags 50 years behind painting conceptually. More recently, Rowe felt that his work was roughly equivalent to what was going on in visual art in 1928 (I think he placed avant jazz in the late 1890's!).

But saying, in essence, that any fool could do it (eai) strikes me as rather analogous to saying that anyone could create a beautiful ink splash painting in the classic Japanese style. After all, it's merely flicking some ink on paper, right?

btw, I continue, as always, to listen to Mingus and Rowe with approximately equal levels of pleasure.

Posted by jon abbey on March 5, 2005 02:24 PM

what discs exactly did you hear, Chris?

Posted by jon abbey on March 5, 2005 02:31 PM

also, I'm not going anywhere, I've been posting on Bagatellen since it was founded. you were the one who said in your original piece that Axel Dörner's music had little to do with jazz, a musician who just got finished recording the entire Monk songbook. if you're going to continue to spread ignorance, I'm going to continue to point out said ignorance.

this current one is so extremely reactionary that it's pretty funny, though. Adam Hill will be proud.

Posted by mcgr on March 5, 2005 03:02 PM

"It's an old truism that I first heard from a high school art teacher around '71: that music lags 50 years behind painting conceptually. More recently, Rowe felt that his work was roughly equivalent to what was going on in visual art in 1928 (I think he placed avant jazz in the late 1890's!)."

I'm seeing very different frames of reference here. On the one hand, the music is considered in terms of 'standard American' biography:

"I suspect that in a few years most of you will go back to listening to Nirvana, or The Smiths, or U2, or Charles Mingus, or whoever it was you listened to in high school, anyway. Trust me. It happens to all of us to one extent or another."

on the other, the context given is that of (European?) modernist historiography (cf. the Keith Rowe line).

Now Deleuze (mentioned here the other day) could come along (if he wasn't dead already) posting his 'postmodern' take on Melville being cooler than Joyce.

And so on

btw, re this fascination with technical skills, cf. the Simon Fells interview.

Posted by mcgr on March 5, 2005 03:05 PM

ooops

Simon Fell

Posted by Brian Marley on March 5, 2005 03:37 PM

Well, Chris, sometimes one can listen to a music but simply not 'hear' the music in it. If your brief introduction to eai hasn't pleased you, seems, in fact, to have annoyed you, that's unfortunate. But based on that extremely limited sampling you have no right to dismiss it as brusquely as you do.

Posted by jon abbey on March 5, 2005 03:38 PM

also, Chris, if your mind's not totally closed to this area already, you might want to consider checking out the Thomas Lehn/Gerry Hemingway duo next Saturday night at Clemente Soto Velez Center. this duo typically operates in a grey area between "eai" and first-generation Euro free improv, Gerry's normal territory (some may call it jazz, that's a debate for elsewhere).

I recommend this specifically for you because not only is it something I think you might dig, but I'm pretty sure that you haven't seen a musician integrate electronics into improvisation as well as Lehn, he's amazing to see live.

Posted by Sergio Zamora on March 5, 2005 03:46 PM

"Until then, please stop going around proclaiming that jazz is dead, or limiting, or that Wynton Marsalis is keeping Axel Dörner down, or something equally ludicrous."

Given the proclamations you just made, I don't see how you can request this of anyone.

But FWIW, those is an opinion of a few individuals, but not of everyone who listens to this music. Certainly not of me. Any valid points you might have get obfuscated by such generalizations.

"We're asking nicely. Please stay away."

Stay away from where?

Almost all of the folks you encountered in JC who have any interest in this music also happen to listen to copious amounts of JAZZ, among other things.

Posted by uli on March 5, 2005 03:58 PM

"But FWIW, those is an opinion of a few individuals, but not of everyone who listens to this music. Certainly not of me. Any valid points you might have get obfuscated by such generalizations."

Unfortunately some of the few are aebly & Ollie, two of the utmost eai experts.

I think it's pretty funny that Ollie quotes his high school art teacher and aebly refers to Doerner's playing on Monk's Casino, a music that from all I've read would irritate him and that Ollie would describe as emulating the past.

"Stay away from where?"

My preference would be if they stayed away from the jazz boards at least with the hating.

Posted by LeMo on March 5, 2005 04:38 PM

Hi, Kris. I like your last one. I mean your last record.

Posted by LeMo on March 5, 2005 04:41 PM

Heu, Hi CHRIS...

Posted by P. Wretch on March 5, 2005 06:20 PM

As a disinterested bystander, I'd just like to pick up on one aspect of this discussion. Above, and frequently on the 'EAI 2.0' thread at JazzCorner, Mr B. Olewnick compares the advent of 'EAI' to the development of abstract painting. This seems to me a false analogy, since all non-vocal music is abstract in the sense of not referring to anything extrinsic. If you mean the comparison in terms of abandoning a 'traditional' (tonal?/compositional?) vocabulary, than EAI is no more radical in this respect than certain strands of free improvisation were over thirty years ago, or even serialism earlier in the century. Surely a more appropriate artistic analogue would be conceptual/installation art (detached from painting), since EAI is arguably as concerned with notions of space and listener perception as it is about musical performance.

Also, while I share the general enthusiasm around these parts for EAI as a vital contemporary medium, I am sceptical about the apparent belief of certain chief advocates that this music represents some sort of 'permanent revolution'. If one cites c. 1966 as an approximate beginning for what is now (somewhat dismissively?) referred to as 'European free improv', then it is reasonable to suggest that by 1976, a recognisable vocabulary had been established, even a set of aesthetic norms for the music. Supposing 1998 is arbitrarily posed as an approximate beginning for EAI (ignoring AMM's prehistory), then might one not predict that by 2008, the genre will have undergone a similar process of codification? Obviously, a decade is a random marker; the process is gradual. I'm simply making the point that ceaseless novelty within one area is unsustainable.

Posted by Bill Ashline on March 5, 2005 06:41 PM

This piece is a woefully ignorant caricature of EAI. It's ahistorical as well as hysterical. Go back and listen to the earliest practitioners of electroacoustic music and find the thread to the current EAI--people like Stockhausen, Schaeffer, Henry, Tudor, Stepan Wolfe, Russolo, and Xenakis were laying the floor for EAI decades before the current music developed. For that matter, look at the early techno and mid-nineties glitch experimentalists. How can you say, "Making music partly out of aural detritus is not a terrible idea. Certain electronic musicians, IDM artists among them, have helped transform glitchiness into a viable music-making component," while at the same time ignoring non-IDM artists like Oval, who basically invented the notion of glitch? The IDM folks hopped on all of that later.

And why do you persist in misunderstanding the notion of the "death" of jazz? List the top five jazz innovations since Coltrane and free jazz on a par with bebop or cool that would suggest its viable creative life--the creation of new forms within the idiom? I'm not talking about great CDs from Tim Berne, Peter Brotzmann, or Vandermark. I'm talking about NEW forms--new innovations. yeah, there have been some fine jazz albums over the past thirty years, but they work within a well-trod idiom. I speak, as I said, as a jazz lover and collector. I used to have a jazz radio show for a number of years as well. Let's instead analyze the notion of the "death" of jazz rather than becoming hysterical about it, thereby serving to demonstrate its truth through anxiety.

Posted by Bill Ashline on March 5, 2005 06:48 PM

"I'm simply making the point that ceaseless novelty within one area is unsustainable."

I don't think you'd find any disagreement from the EAI partisans on that point, Mr. Wretch.

"Mr B. Olewnick compares the advent of 'EAI' to the development of abstract painting."

I could be wrong but I think Mr. O is talking about the "reception" of abstract painting, not its development. Otherwise, I would agree with you that conceptual art is a better analogy.

Posted by Dennis Gonzalez on March 5, 2005 06:55 PM

"'Rowe felt that his work was roughly equivalent to what was going on in visual art in 1928 (I think he placed avant jazz in the late 1890's!)'"

Rowe said that my music was the exception. He agrees that my music can be placed somewhere between September 1979 and March 2005. Or something like that. Maybe it wasn't Keith Rowe. Maybe it was...or then again...maybe my marching band stuff doesn't count, which would put it somewhere around 1970???

Posted by Bill Ashline on March 5, 2005 07:04 PM

Looks like we're all Hegelians and don't realize it, Dennis. How could the absolute spirit screw up its chronology like that--getting the trajectory of music and art so out of wack?

Posted by mcgr on March 5, 2005 07:09 PM

"new innovations" (Bill Ashline)

exactly.

Posted by jon abbey on March 5, 2005 07:16 PM

Chris: upon further reflection, if you do come to that Lehn/Hemingway show, I'll bring you a promo of Duos for Doris. if you give that a few open-minded listens and still feel like you do above, then this area of music's probably not for you.

Mr. P. Wretch writes:

"If one cites c. 1966 as an approximate beginning for what is now (somewhat dismissively?) referred to as 'European free improv', then it is reasonable to suggest that by 1976, a recognisable vocabulary had been established, even a set of aesthetic norms for the music. Supposing 1998 is arbitrarily posed as an approximate beginning for EAI (ignoring AMM's prehistory), then might one not predict that by 2008, the genre will have undergone a similar process of codification? Obviously, a decade is a random marker; the process is gradual. I'm simply making the point that ceaseless novelty within one area is unsustainable."

yes, as Bill says, no one's more aware of that eventual inevitability than me. one thing "eai" does have going for it that other musical subgenres haven't had in the past is the fact that it's developing contemporaneously in many places, Tokyo, Vienna, Berlin, London, on and on, with quite a bit of interaction between the individual scenes.

first-generation EFI (which, for the record, I don't mean to use dismissively, simply as a general area delineator) developed mostly in London and Berlin with minimal interaction between the two primary groups of musicians, at least for a while, and certainly very little interaction with non-European musicians.

what I believe is the major galvanizing force in "eai" is the group of Tokyo musicians (Taku Sugimoto, Otomo Yoshihide, Sachiko M, Toshimaru Nakamura) introducing their aesthetics to those of the European improvisers, and vice-versa. (if you need to use a date, I'd go with November 1999, the festival that Otomo curated in Wels, Austria, and the shows that Taku Sugimoto did in France and the UK on the way there). it's true that the initial shock of this clash/melding of aesthetics has worn off, and there are questions about where to go next (aren't there always?). but anyone who's heard schnee_live would be hardpressed to tell me that all the surprise and innovation is gone already.

Posted by Vincent Kargatis on March 5, 2005 07:31 PM

A very strong entry in the "John McDonough of eai" contest.

Posted by mcgr on March 5, 2005 07:39 PM

"A very strong entry in the "John McDonough of eai" contest."

this guy?

http://www.mcdonoughfuneralhome.com/John_McDonough.html

[...]

Posted by mcgr on March 5, 2005 08:04 PM

http://www.jodyjazz.com/brilliantcoroners.html

Didn't see this one at first. You're right, it's even better.

Posted by Vincent Kargatis on March 5, 2005 08:37 PM

Re: McDonough... No, this guy

Posted by Michael Anton Parker on March 5, 2005 08:57 PM

[Chris] ...improvisers whose musical vocabularies consist entirely of incidental noise: electronic hums, whirs, and clicks; the scraping of strings; the playing of radios; the mating-of-vibrator-with-guitar; the clicking of closely mic'd saxophone keys.

[Chris] The bringing of incidental electronic noise to the foreground is apparently eai's defining characteristic: the hum you get from a defective patch cord or from boosting a microphone's gain too high (to 11, I suppose), the screech of an AM radio fighting interference from a computer, the clicks-and-pops of a dusty stylus that's reached the end of the groove. At this point in my life -- having dealt with untold numbers of inept sound men and lousy sound systems -- I do not find these sounds appealing or interesting. I find them annoying, often extremely so.

[MikeP] I object to the phrase "incidental noise" that appears twice in your essay. While from your perspective this may be an accurate description of these sounds, surely you couldn't fail to be aware that to some of these musicians and their listeners the sounds are neither incidental nor noise. For such people, they are extremely intentional, foregrounded, deliberate soundings, the very opposite of incidental. Further, they are perceived with internal structure, the threshold at which sound becomes more than noise. Keep in mind that there are a great many people alive today, including people with broad cultural similarities to our specialized community of music connoisseurs, who consider ordinary free jazz saxophone solos to be noise, because they simply lack the interest or capacity to parse certain timbres. Why should we take your remarks about EAI any more seriously than all the parents who dismissed their kid's Black Sabbath records as mere noise in the early 70s?

As an extremely general methodological concern, if one wishes to comment about an aesthetic, they can either partially simulate or refer to the cognitive experience of its practitioners, or they can report their failure to do so. Your remarks read like an ugly, condescending exclamation of the latter "I don't get it" case. In other words, you're either *inside* the aesthetic and referring to its parameters, or your commentary can amount to little more than an announcement that you don't get it. Note that your outsider status would be shared by at least 99% of the world's population for any given example of the thousands of specialized aesthetics that currently exist, making such announcements, well, to be frank, only nominally interesting. Substitute "EAI" with "reggae", etc.

To give a personal context to my remarks, I'm not some kind of wild-eyed EAI apologist looking for a chance to butt heads with jazzers. In fact, my tastes in EAI are very limited. To illustrate, if I had to choose between listening to a randomly drawn Erstwhile disc and a randomly drawn CIMP disc, I'd pick the CIMP disc. I greatly enjoy both catalogs, but neither represent my musical preferences very well at all, and I have a fairly unlimited appetite for creative jazz.

I think many other people also have roughly equal enthusiasm for EAI and jazz, and find antagonistic, polarizing discourse such as yours to be a poor reflection of consensus reality. Further, the way I look at things, I don't see why EAI and jazz are ever even discussed in the same context. When I say I have roughly equal enthusiasm for EAI and jazz, I don't mean it any differently than when I say I have roughly equal enthusiasm for heavy metal and jazz, or EAI and Korean opera, both of which would be true statements. They're just separate musical spaces. I mean, I'm sure I'll find just as many of my fellow jazz lovers who'll deride metal with equal vigor as EAI.

I can hear people objecting "but it's the improv scene, man", "historical overlap, dude", blah blah blah, but the methodological commonality of employing improvisation is to me superficial and insignificant since there are dozens and dozens of aesthetics based on improvisation besides jazz and EAI, to varying degrees of idiomaticity, indeed exhausting the bulk of human musical history. Most obviously, EAI aesthetics are vastly closer to the aesthetics associated with Cage from decades ago than any jazz aesthetics, so I don't see why you're not investing equal resources in rejecting the Cagean canon. In fact, your remarks on EAI deal with it at such a superficial level that all its characteristics you broach are shared by the well-entrenched and academically well-trod non-improvisational aesthetics from a decades-old avant-garde music community.

Posted by wilson on March 5, 2005 09:06 PM

"And why do you persist in misunderstanding the notion of the "death" of jazz?"

Since you mentioned the death of god around the corner from here, I'm curious to hear whether your understanding of the notion of "death" incorporates in any way some of what I found in Deleuze's Nietzsche & Philosophy, esp. the chapters on "God is Dead" and "Against Hegelianism"? I'm probably way off the mark here.

For those who don't have the book at hand >

http://tinyurl.com/4gx7c

Posted by Jared/sonic1 on March 5, 2005 09:12 PM

You have the right to see EAI however you want. But you do not have the right to define the audience.

It may be true that a few EAI fans think jazz is dead. But most of the EAI guys I know still spend a shitload of money on all types of music, including jazz. I am not so lucky as to get free music, and so I spend a lot of money on jazz and the majority of my collection is jazz. I still listen to it daily, though I admit to giving a lot of time to EAI lately.

This music for me is the most exciting music I have found in a long time and I have the right to like it without being lumped into some cultist category.

I find it funny that so many people are threatened by a bunch of music geeks that are excited about their music.

And I am especially annoyed that you call yourself "jazz folk" and that people like me are now supporters of the genre / non-genre known as "eai".

Funny I thought I was a jazz guy too.

Posted by Brian Olewnick on March 5, 2005 09:28 PM

I didn't want to stress any direct connection between eai and abstract painting too strongly for any reason other than to offer another art form toward which the commentary, "Any five-year-old could do that" is often made. I'm guessing (not sure) that Chris would agree that such a charge is, more often than not, silly. (leaving aside the question of whether or not music/art produced by a five-year-old is that bad to begin with....)

Posted by mcgr on March 5, 2005 09:43 PM

"music lags 50 years behind painting conceptually"

"(leaving aside the question of whether or not music/art produced by a five-year-old is that bad to begin with....)"

What world could that be where those two thoughts of yours, Brian, might be considered compatible? :)

Posted by Akchote Noel on March 5, 2005 11:27 PM

sorry i ll keep away this time but

Mainly and from "ONKYO" for me did it

rest being less clear and the a trend too

(if you need to use a date, I'd go with November 1999, the festival that Otomo curated in Wels, Austria, and the shows that Taku Sugimoto did in France and the UK on the way there).

that s maybe cause that s the one you went to no ? i wouldnt be that precise

"but anyone who's heard schnee_live would be hardpressed to tell me that all the surprise and innovation is gone already."

seriously arguable for me or not much to say

best

Posted by Akchote Noel on March 5, 2005 11:35 PM

i dont see the Dead or Alive jazz point as a big problem at all i just would like to hear something a little more Balanced or left open than EAI makes all things before sound like dinosaurs .......

and maybe too not such a use of EAI as a generic term for various things including individual artists , "the fashionable new thing" and a scene (2 things here )

and

"rather than becoming hysterical about it, thereby serving to demonstrate its truth through anxiety."

HYSTORY you should say ... ?

Posted by Akchote Noel on March 5, 2005 11:44 PM

and most people involved here in these discussions would probably agree on one thing

: it s not so much the taste or recognition of EAI as something that comes next but the way sometime Jon s makes you feel an old idiotic piece of rubbish if you re not 1000 % EAI enthusiast .... that makes people react strongly ... it s often full of little sentences or points that goes back to "EAI s SUPERIOR "

can t remember where you wrote that Jon but the thing with you gladly informing people that you sell away 50 Bailey / Parker Cds is a little caricatural i find cause i m sure you did with many other things too , but OLD Bailey vs new EAI is the line .... everyone one knows here you re dedicated and total devote to your productions and the genre but ACCEPT not everyone wants to JOIN the same way

SOME OF IT is enough for me

not ALL OF IT

and also we love Keith but we dont need to hear all the time you just jad him on the phone like a Cardinal talks of the pope

i dont know him like this ONLY

also a nice human being not just the DOCTRINE

best

Posted by Akchote Noel on March 5, 2005 11:47 PM

and of coruse i ve made myself too a CARICATURE of the musician who came too late to catch the LAST TRAIN TO MODERNITY CITY

of course ... i apologise for it

have a nice following around these

Posted by Akchote Noel on March 6, 2005 12:02 AM

but one very last point

as a musician i ve never really faced such a clash or opposition from people filed in these discussions as EAI really ...

the only times i ve experienced this as far as i remember was when people used the EAI sound and images as a sort of sudden curtain to hide or a flag to show they were on the COOL side of the thing ... exactly like before you d hear the stupid "REAL THING" opposed to the old farts ....

enjoy

rest we can listen

[...]

Posted by Jesse on March 6, 2005 01:06 AM

[B]Stockhausen[/B]: [U]Momente[/U], [I]for soprano, 4 choral groups, 13 instrumentalists[/I] 1965 version

Skipped over to the Bags site, read Mr. Kelsey's screed, reviewed the Stockhausen penned liner notes for [U]Momente[/U].

The cyclical nature of "critical" reactions like Mr. Kelsey's is so self-evident as to beg off engaging his suprisingly shallow post with any serious counter-point as to the musical merits of the "eai." That's rather disappointing, from my point of view, as a substantive critical drubbing of this genre could be really engaging. I thrill at intelligent challenges to the artifice & ersatz that can attach themselves to genuine innovation. It's simply fun to read contrarians who give you pause, where your own unreflected on tastes & pretenses are concerned. Alas, not to be found in the piss & vinegar of his high-handed post.

Anyway, Stockhausen's liners, penned in 1963 ([U]Texte[/U], Cologne) include his barely concealed weariness at defending that his work [I]is[/I] actually music, & that derision & ridicule are often the first line response to the truly new, generally followed by a more critical, measured response, [I]predicated on repeated & actively engaged listening[/I].

"...the whole thing was ridiculed. What should I do in such a case? When electronic music began, I had to put up with the same reactions. As soon as noises were introduced into music, listeners laughed & swore and labeled the whole thing a hoax or a willful destruction of the Western musical tradition. I do know that this reaction quickly subsides with listeners who hear my works several times, and that their perception then concentrates, as ever, on what I have made with my sound material...i.e., the music...extra-musical associations possess many listeners, once more on the basis of the unaccustomed treatment of sound."

I quote this at length as the source is an inarguably serious composer confronting & integrating into his creative world the mockery & panic of novice listeners [I]over 40 years ago[/I]; so when I assert Mr. Kelsey's absurd (particularly for a musician who plies his trade in the fields of improvisation) reduction of the works of so various a global gaggle of creative musicians as Yoshihide, Rowe, et al. to "sticking a knife in a toaster", I am asserting that his reactionary post is patently familiar to anyone genuinely attentive to the history of avantgarde art.

To have launched & euthanized a thread at JC in a matter of several days, as he didn't like the robust & relentless response to his opinions here, only to resurface at Bags with another ex cathedra tag on your tastes, says all I need to know about Mr. Kelsey's substance as a serious creative musician responding to the divergent work of his peers.

Posted by Jesse on March 6, 2005 01:21 AM

Sorry, I should clarify I posted this on WAYLTL? at Jazz Corner, then linked my read of Stockhausen's liners to Kelsey's post here.

Fwiw, I am in no wise ready to concede you "know jazz better than most of you", Chris. Why I would I? I've got 30 years avid listening, concert attending, "jazz" musician pals, and have tortured myself with the guitar since 1972. And thats' me. Brian's got an equally lengthy involvemet threading back to the N.Y. loft scene & beyond. To shore up your "jazz" cred is to shore up the very basic, divisive duality implicit in your view of creative musics. You can place yourself in whatever camp makes you feel you have solid ground under your feet. My feet remain out from under me, thank you very much, as I follow my native curiosity.

Your characterization of the curious listener as a poseuer, "keeping up with the avant-Jones'" is, like so many of your hits here, tired. Try to regain a modicum of respect for your fellows on the musical journey. Or don't.

Posted by tomas on March 6, 2005 02:48 AM

"Lighten up, guys! Geez, you must really give my thoughts a lot of weight to get so worked up. Who the hell cares what I think? I expressed an honest opinion. So what? You like eai. That's cool. I don't. That's equally cool"

chris, there is something i don't understand about this. if liking whatever is "cool" at the end and people shouldn't particularly care about what you think, then why you make the effort to write this article in the first place? i mean, i like bananas more than kiwis still i won't waste my time writing a piece about it... -> ??

Posted by Akchote Noel on March 6, 2005 04:05 AM

Tomas :

Salade de fruits ... jolie jolie jolie

Posted by scott h on March 6, 2005 04:18 AM

This ultralinear schematism of what is ahead or behind the times seems really hilarious to me; aren't we over this by now? If music tends to be "50 years behind" painting, I feel like Keith Rowe's painting is conceptually maybe 30-40 years tardy in relation to, say, painting; and "eai" (cringe, how about something at least chuckleworthy and pressworthy, like "neolaminal") is 50 years behind American music composition. This is a game everyone loses, as is any art-game edifice that erects a new star-system by which we (cf. Schoenberg) preserve our life-preserver conoisseurship, our investments, and maybe our jobs, by another, oh, 10 years...by which time we can convince ourselves of the exhaustedness, or if you prefer, timelessness of DUOS FOR DORIS, and extol the virtues of whatever next new big thing has come along. But it makes sense that genres are always behind the form from which they emerge, maybe a phylogenic/ontogenic question, but mostly a photogenic one: it seems telling that "eai" refers directly only to a material-methodological axis, but not directly at all to the music, just as the ill-fated and equally awful "non-idiomatic improvisation" refers to an ethos and a knot of wishful thinking, rather than to any particularly accurate feature of the body of work referred to. Just as most of the great improvisors were, and are, in some way creating a mise en abyme of tidily ordered sequence, tying linear time in knots many times over---just as the epoch of relativity might prove to be the body to music-improvisation's symptom---it makes little sense to even belabor the notion of Who Made Who. The next revolution will be when the artists stop mattering, particularly, and when the listeners become clergy, too. Then listening, even beyond listeners, then immanence. Music's days are numbered.

Posted by Brian Olewnick on March 6, 2005 04:57 AM

"What world could that be where those two thoughts of yours, Brian, might be considered compatible? :)"

mcgr, that's one of the things that makes the whole issue so deliciously complex and unsolvable! :)

It might come more to the fore in an area like eai, where we (or, at least, I) go back and forth between the enjoyment of appreciating "art" and the enjoyment of appreciating "non-art" and wondering if it makes any difference.

Posted by Bill Ashline on March 6, 2005 05:53 AM

chris, if you had couched this particular article in terms of pure, subjective reaction rather than a serious attempt to rip the field, and if you had injected it with the requisite humor, I would have had a wholly different reaction to it. I would have said to myself, "OK, some novice's opening salvo with a new musical area." And then, of course, I would have ignored it, because I see this kind of thing all too often and find it boring. But you didn't write the article from that tone and very subjective and personal point of view. You attempted to be a "critic," albeit a very ill-informed one. So you set yourself up for criticism. Well as my old grandpappy used to say, if you can't take the frickin' heat, get out of the damn kitchen. Now don't attempt to play the "victim" or third rate provocateur now that you've been called on the carpet. It's not impressive to be a mediocre iconoclast. Go do your homework next time before you write your paper. Try to develop a legitimate counterargument by moderating your position somewhat and taking your opposition a bit more seriously. Qualify your claims. show some respect toward your opponents. Do that and you won't be be seen to be embarrasingly telling your audience to "lighten up," when it is you who so needs to do so first.

Posted by Bill Ashline on March 6, 2005 06:00 AM

"Since you mentioned the death of god around the corner from here, I'm curious to hear whether your understanding of the notion of "death" incorporates in any way some of what I found in Deleuze's Nietzsche & Philosophy, esp. the chapters on "God is Dead" and "Against Hegelianism"? I'm probably way off the mark here."

Great book, Nietzsche and Philosophy. Read it while auditing a class in 1995, so it isn't fresh right now. What did you have in mind? My comment was intended in a more banal way about the trajectory of the avant-garde in experimental music. I wasn't really thinking about it in Nietzschean terms. But if you found it there, then I applaud you. Why don't you spell it out for everybody to dig into.

Posted by walto on March 6, 2005 06:03 AM

I agree with Tomas. This was an extremely preachy (and I think defensive--maybe embarrassed about not knowing what "ea-i" referred to?) post.

One really can't call something "detritus" and "crappy" and then be surprised when people who like it get upset. "Hey who cares what I think?" Please. I don't think these types of "the emperor is naked!" rants are illuminating at all. And it's not really fair to feign surprise when there's annoyance afterwards.

Posted by Bill Ashline on March 6, 2005 06:14 AM

"If music tends to be "50 years behind" painting, I feel like Keith Rowe's painting is conceptually maybe 30-40 years tardy in relation to, say, painting"

Assuming we know what you mean by "painting" in that non-Keith Rowe way, I'd have to agree with you. Keith Rowe's painting seems pretty tied to the area of pop-art, which reached its nadir after the sixties. I'd like to see Rowe spell out these Hegelian lines in print at some point, but I doubt that it will ever happen, so I suspect we'll be left with these ellipses to puzzle over.

"i dont see the Dead or Alive jazz point as a big problem at all i just would like to hear something a little more Balanced or left open than EAI makes all things before sound like dinosaurs ......."

Well, if some listener really does feel that EAI makes other music sound pretty dated or dinosaur-like, and that feeling is spoken from a very personal and private standpoint, what on earth would be the problem with it? Other than a desire not to hear it as you suggest?

Posted by scott h on March 6, 2005 06:16 AM

As an afterthought, but only as such, I might mention that a devastating critique of improvisation of the "eai" variety would be excellent; but such critique isn't coming from Mssrs. Hill and Kelsey, nor from Tom Djill's and Tindy Bayar's rather misguided critique of the "overproduction" of independent labels/artists. Closer to the mark but still off is Jack Wright's response to the Djill/Bayar, and even moreso, Wright's handwringing over "reductionism" (scroll down to his "Letter to NoNet workshops"). All these arguments do raise good points about the general similarity of "eai" to the forms it succeeds: it is not exempt from the conformity, fraternity, wild overproduction, careerism, and parasitism that accompanied even the best work of the previous forms. The criticism available is overhwelmingly transcendental boosterism and cheerleading, but the detraction remains the vulgarest commonsensical know-nothingism: bilious expressions of preference, as Tomas pointed out. It makes me reach for my Eddie Prevost, even though I am afraid that those noble efforts don't quite make the cut, either.

Posted by uli on March 6, 2005 06:21 AM

"Well, if some listener really does feel that EAI makes other music sound pretty dated or dinosaur-like, and that feeling is spoken from a very personal and private standpoint, what on earth would be the problem with it? Other than a desire not to hear it as you suggest?"

One of the problems of course is when those feelings are not spoken from a very personal and private standpoint but from the standpoint of someone who peddles records.

Posted by jon abbey on March 6, 2005 06:21 AM

and I'm still waiting to hear exactly which records you heard. my guesses are 'Afternoon Tea' (a bit surprising since it's OOP, but still), 'eh', and something with Axel. would you deign to type those in, please?

Posted by jon abbey on March 6, 2005 06:46 AM

"the thing with you gladly informing people that you sell away 50 Bailey / Parker Cds is a little caricatural i find cause i m sure you did with many other things too"

actually, you're wrong, that's all I've sold so far in this current purge. I hope to get rid of a couple of thousand discs, though, but for me, those were the easiest to get rid of (and I had someone who wanted to buy them in bulk). I still have probably 30 discs of Bailey and Parker as leaders, FWIW.

Posted by Dennis Gonzalez on March 6, 2005 06:50 AM

Keith Rowe is dead.

Posted by jon abbey on March 6, 2005 06:58 AM

I expect better from you, Dennis, lame.

Posted by Noel Akchote on March 6, 2005 07:25 AM

"I agree with Tomas. This was an extremely preachy (and I think defensive--maybe embarrassed about not knowing what "ea-i" referred to?) post. "

Frankly i expected more Mutual knowledge about both parts ... but that also refers to an early point i made ( when we got an EAI list and see Evan Parker or George Lewis or Shaking Ray Levis or etc etc were NOT in ) that what s been discussed here has EAI is much more of as tiny erea than just ELECTRO ACOUSTIC IMPROV

therefore EAI means mainly about 5 labels and probably even 3 or so

Posted by jon abbey on March 6, 2005 07:38 AM

that's not true, Noel. I could give you a label list, but I'd get more flak for the ones I leave off again. again, that list of musicians wasn't all-inclusive, it was a quickly done one off the top of my head for Chris' benefit, you should really let it go.

as for Parker and Lewis ventures into using electronics in improvisation, you're correct that I don't consider them "eai", just as I don't consider many acoustic improvisers part of the genre. Parker always works with the same two or three processors from academic backgrounds, and Lewis' ideas haven't advanced at all since the original Voyager release. Shaking Ray Levis, Stock, Hausen and Walkman, Steve Beresford, Ground Zero, all interesting artists, but not what I'd personally call "eai". but this is a discussion for a different thread.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 on March 6, 2005 08:03 AM

Chris, now you wonder why anyone would get upset at your peice?

I don't necessarily dig Grover Washington so very much. But I wouldn't use my debut as a critic on the bags to introduce my dislike. I don't think I would ever waste the time on writing about a music that doesn't do anything for me.

You have already established yourself as an anti- force instead of just talking about what you like.

I have a lot of friends who don't like EAI, but I have no problem with them because they don't spend the time talking about that. They talk about what they like and I end up sharing with them loves instead of arguing with them the higher points of EAI.

You are already backtracking, probably because some really good points were made about someone judging a music from the outside. It does make your article look very silly.

So I have been asking myself recently, why are so many people so fucking hellbent on trashing EAI?? Why waste the time?

The only thing I can think is that there are a lot of us out there talking about the music. There is excitement surrounding the music, and that threatens you because you don't understand the attraction. But instead of learning from history, and leaving it at that, you repeat history and write a negative article putting down the whole genre. Are you hoping to go down in the history books with your negative article? It certainly worked for those critics in the 60s, but certainly you wouldn't want to go down in history as a stick in the mud.

Better to keep your mouth shut don't ya think?

But FWIW you are a little late. There are already a lot of very devoted fans out there who aren't going to be moved by your article, and as for anyone who hasn't heard EAI-they will now probably go out and get an album just to hear what all the fuss is about.

I am sure there are some crusties out there who will join your call to rejection (those who already feel as you do mostly), but I would think most people would react to your article by getting curious more than anything.

I lauged at first. Then I got a little annoyed. Now I am laughing again.

Posted by Adam Hill on March 6, 2005 08:20 AM

Chris, brother, power to you.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 on March 6, 2005 08:24 AM

Adam, as much as I find Chris' article annoying, it is not half as much annoying as what you have written. Chris at least knows a little something about music.

[...]

Posted by Dennis Gonzalez on March 6, 2005 08:31 AM

"I expect better from you, Dennis, lame."

Oh come on Jon. I'm your friend, man. It wasn't about you. (As if I have to explain to you) that this is a takeoff on the Jazz is dead / God is dead shit. I happen to like Keith Rowe, dead or alive.

Posted by class on March 6, 2005 08:33 AM

"Parker always works with the same two or three processors from academic backgrounds...not what I'd personally call "eai". "

I see, unless you're a high school/college dropout, you forfeit your eai membership.

Posted by jon abbey on March 6, 2005 08:38 AM

John Butcher doesn't have a solo disc on Meniscus, just a couple of solo pieces on 'Music on Seven Occasions". he's released a bunch of solo records, not sure which one you actually mean, but you should hear the one on Fringes if you haven't.

are you really not going to tell me which records you heard? not that you really care, but "Afternoon Tea" isn't a good example of anything except an all-star jam session that Ritornell released because of the names involved. it's interesting for a few minutes, and quickly goes downhill from there.

[...]

Posted by jon abbey on March 6, 2005 08:51 AM

I'm not a trainspotter, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the hell you're talking about. what "eai" records are you making your vast generalizations from? what Butcher record were you actually talking about?

Posted by Jared/sonic1 on March 6, 2005 08:53 AM

Chris,

The problem when you address a music you have hardly heard is that you risk making huge mistakes.

How can you begin to draw genre comparissons when hearing so little of the music. How would you feel if someone started doing the same of music you love. Pretty annoyed?

I have spent a year listening to this music. At first, as an enthusiast, I drew lines of similarity between EAI and older musics of Braxton, Stockhausen, Cage, etc.

Now that I have been really listening for a year and own a lot more EAI albums, I find those comparisons very elementary. EAI has a language unto itself very unlike any of the musics that I once drew comparisons.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like you are going to like this stuff, or give it that much more listening time. So why not just talk about what you like and leave our enthusiasm as something that is "not your thing".

ANd I won't bag on Grover Washington.

Posted by Alastair on March 6, 2005 11:31 AM

Chris Kelsey: the other day something Martin Archer did blew me away.

Really? Blimey.

Posted by Dennis Gonzalez on March 6, 2005 11:35 AM

"It seems to me the last gasp (no pun intended) of an improvisational avant-garde that's finally run out of ideas."

Is eai avant-garde? Apres-garde? Garde-concurrent? Maintenant-garde?

Posted by Jared/sonic1 on March 6, 2005 11:42 AM

"It's as if they have a vested interest in convincing the world that jazz is dead (may it rest in pieces) and that their favored music is fated to reign supreme over the world of improvisation."

I did a poll on the JC, where most of the EAI culprits post, and so far only one person checked being into EAI and thinking jazz is dead (and he did it in jest, was not serious).

Where are these people you wrote about Chris? Maybe you should stick around a little more and get to know these EAI people before you decide you know enough to write an article about them.

Or you can do an even bigger favor and ignore us.

Posted by Phil at March 6, 2005 12:20 PM

I agree with a few of Chris's statements. I, too, have only listened to a few eai discs (and gotten ripped up by jon for not having the correct academic/trainspotting baggage to dare write a review of one of his releases for The Wire - I actually attempted to describe the sounds I heard, rather than wander into theoretical thickets - imagine the temerity!). The ones I've heard (Too Beautiful To Burn, Lidingo [the subject of the review] and the Cosmos album, the title of which I forget, plus a bucket of AMM stuff from their "we're not playing the instruments, we're just dusting them lightly between smoke breaks" period) have been moderately enjoyable - as in, I didn't leap for the stereo and hurl the discs into the street - while they were playing, but I have never, and I mean never, felt the need to take them out of their jewel cases for a second listen. Music that can't inspire adoration or vituperation in me is not music I need to grant a major place in my life. So when he says he can't imagine why he should concern himself with eai any further, I'm standing right there with him.

Which brings me to the second point. I feel like bagatellen has become polluted by eai triumphalism. Every little mini-scene spends half its time on creation, and the other half on self-congratulation, but perhaps because eai has arisen in the internet age, the signal-to-noise ratio seems overwhelmingly biased in the direction of autostroke flattery. Chris's sharp reaction to the persistent meme that jazz is fusty and moribund, while eai (which, to my ear, really does sound like random clicks and scrapes and pings and squeaks most of the time) is The Future is one I share, and part of the reason for that is the relentless way that message is being bleated around - it's like a car alarm under my window, and all I want to do is get some fucking sleep. Maybe it's the circles I frequent, but I find myself getting as tired of hearing this particular line of (frequently self-promotional) BS as I am tired of hearing that glossy hip-hop and prefab pseudo R&B is the greatest music ever made and that anyone who doesn't like the new Britney Spears single "hates fun." Triumphalism of any kind is tedious, and I say that as someone who's made his share of "this genre is the greatest thing ever, and everything else sucks" pronouncements in the past. I've learned the error of my ways - why can't other folks do the same?

Posted by Dennis Gonzalez at March 6, 2005 12:25 PM

Be forewarned don't read this, because it really sucks:

Lidingo...

No. Forget it. I can't do it.

Posted by Akchote Noel at March 6, 2005 12:25 PM

"Stock, Hausen & Walkman" are dead

that s for sure now

that s all i can say for now

sounds like the roof is falling or even the sky ... plenty reasons to listen to EAI a different way now

best

Posted by Phil at March 6, 2005 12:37 PM

>No. Forget it. I can't do it.

Go ahead. I wouldn't have mentioned which disc I'd written about if I was afraid of what the cheerleading squad would have to say.

Posted by: jon abbey at March 6, 2005 01:32 PM

"I have never, and I mean never, felt the need to take them out of their jewel cases for a second listen. "

there's a shock, not that it stopped you from asking for promos of them, which I reluctantly sent (since I told you before sending them that you wouln't care).

also, good to hear you're writing Wire reviews based on one listen, no wonder they're not paying attention to you anymore. stick to metal and porn, my man, and feel free to send those discs back my way, so they don't pollute your home any longer.

Posted by Jesse at March 6, 2005 02:01 PM

Better yet, send them my way. I exercise repeated listens without having a byline, and with musics that, at first blush, don't grab me.

Posted by Phil at March 6, 2005 02:22 PM

>I exercise repeated listens without having a byline, and with musics that, at first blush, don't grab me.

[golf clap]

Posted by Adam Hill at March 6, 2005 02:24 PM

No matter how many people have grown tired of their nonsense, the responses by Dear Leader and his eai acolytes are so utterly predictable now as to be laughable.

Because they are incapable of seeing how obnoxious they behave on-line, all they can do is make nasty personal attacks and then obfuscate with grad school rhetoric and references. After this, they congratulate themselves with the usual mix of self-righteousness and sycophancy. But not one of them has shown himself capable of self-reflection.

Not one might see how hijacking a bbs dedicated to jazz might be offensive.

Not one can see how hijacking threads that have nothing to do with eai, including discussions here, might be viewed as insolent.

Not one can see how consistently denigrating jazz and declaring it dead and played-out might be insulting.

Nor can they see anything wrong with bad-mouthing other record labels, or seeking to instigate fights with invited guests (Giddins, Vandermark, etc). And though rarely does anyone enter into their discussions to ridicule the absurd drivel they use to elevate the importance of their worshipped records, they can't seem to resist getting on other people when they don't agree with what's said about non-eai music.

And of course, there's nothing wrong with the fact that personal friends are writing all those glowing eai reviews for AMG and Dusted and other places.

And there's nothing wrong with piling-up on people when your Dear Leader has been called on something.

etc etc etc

Hey, you don't like being called a cult? Don't like having your music attacked? Then get the fuck out of peoples' faces already.

Posted by jon abbey at March 6, 2005 02:34 PM

actually, I left Jazz Corner once for a few months, and only came back by popular demand (including yours, Adam, want me to repost those mails again?). most of the rest of your points are half-truths (and that's being generous), I'm not going through answering them again.

Posted by Bill Ashline at March 6, 2005 02:41 PM

"it's like a car alarm under my window, and all I want to do is get some fucking sleep."

Why don't you?

"Chris's sharp reaction to the persistent meme that jazz is fusty and moribund, while eai (which, to my ear, really does sound like random clicks and scrapes and pings and squeaks most of the time) is The Future is one I share, and part of the reason for that is the relentless way that message is being bleated around"

You mean, "the moment." You know, in all the posts I ever read by you, you don't ever seem to understand a goddamn thing. This isn't "triumphalism" versus "moribund" at all. There are plenty of EAI discs I don't get with at all. One of them is the latest Rowe/Beins live, which despite some nice moments, is overly encumbered with that long sample of "Son of Preacher Man," which I can't stand. It annoys me to no end that every time i put that disc on I'm going to have to listen to that song.

From what I see from time to time on the Bagatellen, some discussion goes off on some anti-EAI vitriole, usually born out of pathetic ignorance and then you hop in somewhere even though you apparently have no interest in the genre.

Oh and there's most assuredly a line of connection between EAI and the earlier electroacoustic music and that line is hardly superficial.

Posted by Bill Ashline at March 6, 2005 02:50 PM

"Not one might see how hijacking a bbs dedicated to jazz might be offensive.

Not one can see how hijacking threads that have nothing to do with eai, including discussions here, might be viewed as insolent."

Does he use a box cutter?

"Not one can see how consistently denigrating jazz and declaring it dead and played-out might be insulting."

I don't denigrate jazz. I like it. But yeah, it is a dead form played out in often very fine ways to this day. I'm sure that's a nuance that quickly slips through your head as it does with Mr. Freeman. Or maybe it's only Jon Abbey with whom you have an axe to grind. In that case, carry on--as needed.

Posted by Phil at March 6, 2005 02:53 PM

There's no "e" in vitriol.

[...]

Posted by jon abbey at March 6, 2005 03:37 PM

usually I only send promos to writers who I think might have something of insight to say about the music, pro or con. I don't send out many. I'd read quite a bit of Phil's writing prior to him contacting me, and knew that he had the attention span of a gnat and that he and "eai" would likely not be a good fit. looks like I was right on that account. occasionally I go against my better judgment and give promos to people like Ben Watson or Phil, but I try to minimize that.

and I don't have any interest in convincing you of the validity of this music, I'm fairly sure that you won't dig most of it. however, if you'd answer any of my many requests to tell me which records you actually heard, I'd be happy to discuss those specifically.

"Is it not possible that by giving a label to this music-and excluding other similar kinds of music because of narrow stylistic differences-you are painting with too broad a brush? "

no, maybe it seems that way to a neophyte like yourself, but basically I use "eai" as a half-assed placeholder to talk about a general area of music. not as a "marketing term", I haven't ever put it in a press release, simply in online discussions as a shorthand term. simply because it doesn't include all uses of electronics within live improvisation hardly makes it narrow.

"You ignore the fact that I've heard eai or its precursors live since the late '80s. This stuff didn't just happen. It's been around."

no, it really hasn't, and your couple of hours spent listening to examples of the current scene hardly qualifies you as an expert.

Posted by Sergio Zamora at March 6, 2005 03:45 PM

Chris, regarding the labelling of the music under discussion, if you'd asked, you would know of the reluctance which many listeners have had to use one precisely because of the limiting nature any label would have. But there it is. Yes, it is expedient. Yes, there is a risk of codification. But at the same time some sort of identification seems necessary because it is a subset or outgrowth which, regardless of its birthdate, has audible differences from other areas of improvisation.

And will you please stop with the "lighten up, guys"/"aw, it's just my opinion"/"don't have hurt feelings" responses? I don't read any anger in the responses so far. Folks are just trying to respond to what you wrote. I mean, were you expecting a pat on the back?

Posted by Sergio Zamora at March 6, 2005 03:49 PM

To clarify the above sentence "But at the same time some sort of identification seems necessary" - I meant that for practical purposes of knowing what we're talking about, not for some general taxonomic necessity.

[...]

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 6, 2005 09:41 PM

Chris,

Your debut on the bags begins with limitations; what is not considered good music, not worth the time, your first article attacking EAI which you only recently heard of and lack the patience to even listen through.

I said some of the same you just said above about a year ago, only in a positive context. I said EAI had a lot in common with other electronic music or electroacoustic music of the past. But after purchasing many albums this year, and really deep listening I realized those assumptions were false, especially when doing some real comparitive listening. The "instrumentation" is totally different. The structure of the music is totally different. To vocabulary and phrasing is totally different. But I only learned that from really listening-many albums, artists, labels, and learning at least to understand the basics of this new genre.

Many people say that jazz all sounds the same. They say the same of classical music. But as I assume you know, that is not true. But as an outside listener how would you know that unless you spent the time with the music?? You have not spent hardly enough time with EAI to even do a decent record review let along comment on the whole genre.

I expect more from a man who has spent the time you have with music, especially knowing the history of jazz.

I doubt you would tolerate the same statements made about any musics you love.

BTW Phil, your accidental candid statements about listening once to an album and writing a review just proves my point that most of the really anti-EAI people out there have no clue what they are discussing. It takes time to understand music. It takes careful listening. It takes letting your preconceptions go before you listen. None of the above has been done by you.

Let's put this topic to an end. If you don't really want to get into EAI then leave the subject alone. Phil, Adam and Chris have not heard enought EAI to even make any arguments worth battling out. If it is not your thing, spend your so-called precious time talking about what you love. Why should our EAI enthusiasm bother you unless you feel like you are missing something. And if you really feel like you are missing something, shut up and listen.

Posted by mcgr at March 6, 2005 09:41 PM

"Among the things we talked about was his dislike for the label "jazz." He felt it was confining, that it didn't do justice to the many different kinds of music made by him and his colleagues. He preferred the term, "African-American Classical Music," feeling it was more inclusive."

'more inclusive' in terms of all-American & all-black music perhaps but certainly only by way of expelling the likes of Giuffre or Broetzmann from the supreme sanctum named 'jazz' which on second thought actually saved these guys from being buried alive and entombed inside an old world temple named Classical Music, as long as 22 years ago.

Posted by Phil at March 7, 2005 04:29 AM

>stick to metal and porn, my man

>the attention span of a gnat

That makes two personal insults in the course of this thread, Jon. I've said nothing personally insulting to you; I've limited myself to talking about music, and about the tone of the discussion itself. I suggest you back off me, you pathetically insecure fuckwit.

Oops. Guess that makes us closer to even.

[...]

Posted by puritan at March 7, 2005 07:27 AM

Berlin reductionism is dead; long live Berlin reductionism.

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=2803

Posted by walto at March 7, 2005 07:37 AM

I really loved this extremely thoughtful post by Mr. Parker, and thought people should read it again maybe. It really says it all, I think.

Also, to amplify what I and others have said above, if you're legitimately surprised at the "non-lightened up" response, Chris, your title for the post "...and makes some new enemies" doesn't really make much sense, does it?

**************************************************

In this case, by adopting a descriptive vocabulary exemplified by "incidental noise", your discourse unambiguously rejects the option of viewing EAI from the inside, and in my mind reduces to little more than "Some guy doesn't get it". To give a personal context to my remarks, I'm not some kind of wild-eyed EAI apologist looking for a chance to butt heads with jazzers. In fact, my tastes in EAI are very limited. To illustrate, if I had to choose between listening to a randomly drawn Erstwhile disc and a randomly drawn CIMP disc, I'd pick the CIMP disc. I greatly enjoy both catalogs, but neither represent my musical preferences very well at all, and I have a fairly unlimited appetite for creative jazz.

Thanks for that!

Posted by Altar Boy at March 7, 2005 07:37 AM

It's easier to catch flies with sugar than with vinegar, boys!

Time's fun when you're having flies.

What's the difference between eai and a matterbaby?

Posted by Altar Boy at March 7, 2005 07:40 AM

It's easier to catch flies with sugar than with vinegar, boys!

What's the difference between eai and a vacuum cleaner?

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 07:53 AM

actually, those weren't personal insults, Phil, they were simple observations. you should stick to metal and porn because whenever you try to discuss anything else, you expose yourself for the dilettante that you seem to revel in being. I assume that you know more about metal and porn since those are your main areas of focus, but possibly I"m wrong and you don't really know much about those either.

and even you have to admit your attention span is pretty damn short. would you really disagree with that? damn, man, you're awfully sensitive for a guy who's extremely quick to rip and dismiss whatever he doesn't instantly grasp.

that Axel/Robin Heyward record is a good one. to answer Wayne's question (in his Stylus review, linked to in "puritan"'s post above), it probably didn't make many critics lists because it took a while to get distributed, we didn't get our copies until late January, I believe. it's my favorite release on Absinth thus far.

Posted by mcgr at March 7, 2005 08:01 AM

"I object to the phrase "incidental noise"" (MikeP as highlighted by Walto)

might not this voicing of an anxiety within earshot of the "incidental" (the random? non-intentional? nondeliberate? aleatory?) seem to put you squarely into ChrisK's corner (exorcising rather than exercising the horror vacui?)?

Posted by mcgr at March 7, 2005 08:13 AM

"Why should we take your remarks about EAI any more seriously than all the parents who dismissed their kid's Black Sabbath records as mere noise in the early 70s?"

To this day I wish my dad had dismissed the first Black Sabbath album I bought when it came out as not "mere noise enough".

Posted by walto at March 7, 2005 08:24 AM

"I object to the phrase "incidental noise"" (MikeP as highlighted by Walto)

That's an interesting point. I think, though, that the quotient of "incidental" (depending on what's meant) may be thought to move the music from improv into "field recording" or "installation" world. But these genres are fuzzy. And, anyhow, the purely incidental can still be very beautiful, I think.

"To this day I wish my dad had dismissed the first Black Sabbath album I bought when it came out as not 'mere noise enough'."

Yeah, there is that. But I still think Mike's point is right on. It's all in Slonimsky: Beethoven is monkeys on keys. This is detritus, that is detritus, etc...

This is the end. That is dead. Anybody could do it.

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 7, 2005 08:29 AM

"Anybody could do it."

Isn't that one reason why *it* -- not a specific work but "art" in general -- is often beautiful?

Sorry, I always have more questions than answers.

Posted by walto at March 7, 2005 08:34 AM

In "Six Degrees of Separation" there's a nice scene in which the art critic muses about how all four-year-olds seem to have this ability to make fabulously beautiful pictures--but that it's generally gone by the time they turn five.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 7, 2005 08:48 AM

Chris et al. I would normally not bother with such an elementary understanding of a particular music. I would normally write you off as an outside novice trying to chime in about something you don't know anything about. Unfortunately you have been given a stage which suggests you know what you are talking about. As much as I like modern composition, I don't know jack about it, not enough to write about the genre as a whole. Cerainly if I were to attempt to write an article about some genre or subgenre I only gave a few reluctant listens to I would be held in contempt.

Can you not understand why we bother to counter your comments?

Posted by Phil at March 7, 2005 09:10 AM

>you should stick to metal and porn because whenever you try to discuss anything else, you expose yourself for the dilettante that you seem to revel in being. I assume that you know more about metal and porn since those are your main areas of focus, but possibly I"m wrong and you don't really know much about those either.

You really can't help yourself, can you jon? I have to wonder - your whole purpose, on this board and seemingly everywhere else you haul your reeking baggage, is to pimp the squiggle 'n' scrape monkeyspank of your pals. So tell the truth - does being a bristly, pushy prick actually sell more records? Is there a burning need in the beard-stroker community for its very own Steve Albini/GG Allin? You may want to ask yourself whether your poo-tossing hyperdefensiveness is helping or harming you, as a businessman.

Another question. It's been brought up on this thread a few times, by a few folks, and on other threads by the same folks and others, that the reason some of us don't "get" eai is because a) we've got "the attention span of a gnat" or b) we haven't listened to enough of it. Now, I may be just a stupid metalhead/porn-addict, but I gotta wonder: if a given piece of music isn't comprehensible outside of the larger context of its "scene," or without hearing two dozen other similar records by the same artist or other artists, then isn't packaging these pieces of music for individual sale somewhat futile, not to say perverse? It's bound to happen, no matter how limited an edition you release - people are going to stumble across one or another of these discs and try it out, free of context. They're not going to "get" it. Is that the fault of the listener, or the work? And if you insist it's a failing on the listener's part, what's to be done? How will you bring the ignant masses into line?

Third question. Again, I'm just a stupid metalhead, so bear with me. The Japanese excepted, how many non-whites are major figures in eai? It seems like this could be another bone of contention between the jazz and eai "factions" - that jazz is primarily an African-American music, though open to all, and eai is primarily the turf of graying whiteboys, open to all who don't try to swing or play the blues or do anything similarly vulgar or body-based. Yes? No?

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 09:36 AM

"people are going to stumble across one or another of these discs and try it out, free of context. They're not going to "get" it."

actually plenty of people dig "eai" records on first listen. they tend to be younger people, though, not ones coming from a jazz perspective such as yourself or Chris. they also occasionally listen more than once to a record, as not all music makes itself crystal clear after one listen. I'm guessing you don't have much time for Tarkovsky either.

"The Japanese excepted, how many non-whites are major figures in eai? It seems like this could be another bone of contention between the jazz and eai "factions" - that jazz is primarily an African-American music, though open to all, and eai is primarily the turf of graying whiteboys, open to all who don't try to swing or play the blues or do anything similarly vulgar or body-based. Yes? No?"

filtering out the snottiness, this is a valid point that's rarely mentioned. however if you look at it from a worldwide geographic perspective, jazz was created in the US and remained predominantly a US-based form for quite some time, arguably it still is. "eai" is developing as a much more worldwide art form, with well-known musicians, "graying" as well as non-graying, from Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the US, Australia, plus I'm sure I'm leaving some out.

and it's pretty absurd to use the qualifier "The Japanese excepted", when I've stated already in this discussion that "the major galvanizing force in "eai" is the group of Tokyo musicians (Taku Sugimoto, Otomo Yoshihide, Sachiko M, Toshimaru Nakamura) introducing their aesthetics to those of the European improvisers, and vice versa".

as I just wrote on JC, it's interesting that the only people I ever hear these inane "emperor has no clothes" arguments from tend to be Americans trying to filter the music through their personal jazz filters, hunting for swing or blues or whatever. Phil, you don't use the same standards to judge metal that you do to judge jazz, do you? so why would you try to filter a different kind of music through jazz fundamentals?

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 7, 2005 09:53 AM

"[H]ow many non-whites are major figures in eai? It seems like this could be another bone of contention between the jazz and eai 'factions' - that jazz is primarily an African-American music, though open to all, and eai is primarily the turf of graying whiteboys, open to all who don't try to swing or play the blues or do anything similarly vulgar or body-based."

I like some, not all, of what gets called "jazz". I like some, not all, of what passes for "eai". In fact, I like all kinds of music. And Bagatellen has always been for me an opportunity to write about whatever music -- or even "just" sounds appeal to me.

That said, I think there is something to Phil's observation-question. Especially whenever the subject of "jazz death" (Lester?) comes up. Jazz by its very definition is a messy and indiscriminate music. The art's great practitioners were all borrowers. Often, they were theives. Jazz remains -- paltry sales and the attempts of its enthusaists to enshrine and institutionalize it aside -- a popular music. As such, "jazz" is less a set of techniques that it is a musical attitude, a loose alliance of very different kinds of (musical, cultural, social) information, information that manages to cohere and flow through any available circuit, and across many geographical and anthropological borders.

Yet "eai" by its very nature seems to be antagonistic towards anything remotely *popular*. That strikes me as an essentially Modernist position, i.e., in pursuit of tradition-less-ness. (Maybe I am confusing an observer such as Wayne Spencer's personal political views with those of the musicians about whom he writes, but I think there is something to the fact that "eai" lends itself rather well to just his sort of interpretation --as well as to aesthetic jingoism.)

That said, I don't hold anything against Radu Malfatti or Taku Sugimoto for rejecting (accepted notions of) the popular in their own quest for a new kind of egalitarianism. I certainly don't hold against their music. We need the experimenters, and we need them as much for their mistakes and errors in judgment -- e.g., they may be negaged in an tried-and-true experiment and nothing radically *new*, novel as that experiment may be to them -- as we need them for their successes.

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 10:01 AM

""eai" by its very nature seems to be antagonistic towards anything remotely *popular*."

schnee_live, baby!

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 7, 2005 10:18 AM

Gee, it sure is nice to see a term of endearment pop up in a discussion as fraught with animus as this one...

In that spirit, schnookie-lumps, I'll just say I have not heard SCHNEE-LIVE, though I have been following the whole Dean Roberts saga with some interest. "Pop" the Autistic Daughters and Black Moths discs may be, but they are more Eno-esque cabaret than Ramones-style rock 'n roll as far as I can determine. A kind of pop art that bemoans and stylizes its inherent limitations rather than taking glee in blowing them up to ridiculous proportions in the name of blowing them out. Both approaches being equally valid but, emotionally, rather different experiences from the listener's p.o.v.

And that is a question I still have: in terms of affect (or affectlessness), what sets "eai" callitwatchawanna apart from other (presumbaly) used-up forms?

Posted by Phil at March 7, 2005 10:26 AM

I'm not that old; I'm 33. Now, granted, I've been listening to jazz for 18 years at this point, but still - 33 ain't old by anybody's yardstick.

As to this point:

>Phil, you don't use the same standards to judge metal that you do to judge jazz, do you? so why would you try to filter a different kind of music through jazz fundamentals?

This is where you're misunderstanding me. When I brought up the dichotomy I did, in my last post, it wasn't something I personally believe. But it appears to be what Chris and maybe Adam believe. My beef with the eai stuff I've heard is that it's not interesting for itself. I don't care what it's not - jazz, metal or otherwise. I own jazz records. I own metal records. I own rap records. When I want to listen to them, I will. I don't need to seek those musics' inherent qualities elsewhere. But eai doesn't grab me. And again, I feel that if music doesn't grab you on the first listen, it's failed. This is a belief I'm surprised more supporters of improvised music don't share, since the whole point of improv (in any form) is that it's only happening once, in the moment. (No, I don't want to talk about the paradox of recorded improvisations.) The idea that if what an improviser's doing isn't compelling to the listener, that listener should stick around and wait until something does hit home, is nothing but arrogance on the part of the musicians and/ or their promoters. What makes Taki Sugimoto (to pick a random example) so much superior to James Brown, that someone would demand that a neophyte listener study Sugimoto's music until they "understand" it? It's music; it's sound. It either sounds good to you, or it doesn't.

By the way, I want to also point out that I'm not disdaining eai because it's quiet and skritchy and whatnot. I own, like, and regularly listen to records by Taylor Deupree, Motion, Sogar, alva.noto, and a bunch of other similar artists. So I'm not all about the obstreperous noisy dick-waving stuff all the time.

Posted by mcgr at March 7, 2005 10:32 AM

"I feel like bagatellen has become polluted..."

"It's all in Slonimsky: Beethoven is monkeys on keys. This is detritus, that is detritus, etc.."

But why insist on remaining trapped within the four walls of Kelsey's value system (if one wants to call it a system)? Those old French farts (Baudelaire, Artaud, Bataille) weren't nearly as squeamish, they said yes to 'crap'.

Posted by Rrrrrrrrrobbbbbbbbbbbbbb at March 7, 2005 10:38 AM

Sure is fun watching vultures fight over scraps of carrion. It seems to me that both sides of this argument are too involved in pushing their agendas (and lets all admit that both sides have them) to step back and take a breath. Michael Parker (is that you, BFP? if so, hi from ralph) seems to be one of the few beacons of reason here. Chris Kelsey is like the school kid who picks a fight with the scrawny kid he thinks he can beat up and then says "just kidding" when he finds out the little guy is scrappier than he thought. And the little scrappy kid, the 'eai-supporters' for lack of a better term, have all the snot-nosed temerity one must develop from being pushed around their whole lives. Sucks to be the kid trying to convince the others that fighting is futile, they don't listen and then you're an enemy to both sides. No reason they can't all co-exist, jazz is dead, blues is dead, rock is dead, composition is dead, improvisation is dead, eai is dead. I'm not religious at all, but I understand heaven is a very large place. See you all there.

Rob

Posted by Adam Hill at March 7, 2005 10:39 AM

Phil wrote: "This is where you're misunderstanding me. When I brought up the dichotomy I did, in my last post, it wasn't something I personally believe. But it appears to be what Chris and maybe Adam believe."

I thought I'd clarify since Jon has made this claim here and at JC. I actually came at eai directly from reading the passionate comments by Jon, Brian, and others at JC, and then reading reviews by Brian at AMG, and some other reviews in WIRE and STN. Based on what I read, I did not expect it to sound or even be related to jazz, so my disappointment with the records (and I bought about 30, including about 9 ersts) had nothing to do with it not giving me what jazz gives me. i've already said what did disappoint me, and there's no need to replay that here. and fwiw, i listened to many of those discs several times over a course of nearly a year.

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 10:41 AM

"And again, I feel that if music doesn't grab you on the first listen, it's failed. "

this is where we (among other places) fundamentally disagree. I believe that it's much more important for a CD to still be revealing new facets on its twentieth listen than to be instantly accessible on its first one.

"What makes Taku Sugimoto (to pick a random example) so much superior to James Brown, that someone would demand that a neophyte listener study Sugimoto's music until they "understand" it? "

no one's saying this, it's just a different kind of music, with a different structure and vocabulary. once you've familiarized yourself with that, then it's much more likely that you can process new releases fairly quickly.

FWIW, if I had to choose whether to jettison all of my Sugimoto CDs or all of my James Brown CDs, I'd be extremely hardpressed to make that choice, but thankfully I don't have to.

[...]

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 10:59 AM

Chris, your making overarching statements about Keith Rowe based on one listen to 'Afternoon Tea' is the rough equivalent of my making overarching statements about Miles Davis based on one listen to 'Doo-Bop'. even worse, actually, because at least Doo-Bop was a Miles-led project.

Posted by Phil at March 7, 2005 11:04 AM

>"I have no repertoire"

Speaking of this, how come improv always sounds like itself? To take the obvious example, Derek Bailey's big selling point is that he's continually improvising and never repeating himself, but he always sounds just like Derek Bailey. How come he never sounds like Chet Atkins, just for a second? He's "not repeating himself" within just as narrow a range as Yngwie Malmsteen or anybody else.

Posted by walto at March 7, 2005 11:20 AM

Chris, I think Jon makes an important point in his last post. IMHO, if you like, say, Varese, Xenakis, (early) Penderecki, and Ligeti, a Rowe gig would knock you out. I've seen him live two or three times now, and he's been killer each time. I don't care if he rehearses or not--he's very talented. I'm not sure what disc I'd recommend to give a good sense of what he's capable of--maybe that middle AMM Laminal disc. It's soooo powerful. Anyhow, a lot of guys around trying to do much the same thing just can't. (FWIW, I think even they'd admit this.)

[...]

Posted by Brian Olewnick at March 7, 2005 11:50 AM

Quackery? Perhaps. Lightweight? Never!!!

Posted by Paul B at March 7, 2005 11:56 AM

Sonic: "I would normally write you off as an outside novice trying to chime in about something you don't know anything about. Unfortunately you have been given a stage which suggests you know what you are talking about."

Actually, Chris Kelsey knows a helluva lot about music, and is well qualified to express a critical opinion about eai, which has none of jazz or classical music's complex theoretical underpinnings. And it does involve improvisation, right? And it is discussed on jazz boards, right? And may of its "players" are at least tangentally afiliated with the jazz world, right? Seems to me Chris' opinion--whether one agrees with it or not--is eminently valid.

At this point I won't chime in on my views about eai. Deep down I probably agree with Chris--I find it lacking in almost every quality that makes me passionate about music--but I do agree with Jon's point above, namely that to some degree one simply cannot filter one's take on eai through the prism of western (jazz, classical, other) music. The question is, does one want to bother with the necessary leap?

For me the answer is, generally speaking, no. But a lot of people I respect are into this music, and I'll probably see some of them at the Hemingway/Lehn show this weekend. I'll be giving the music another try there. But I'll probably go home afterwards and cleanse the mind with a little Steve Lacy or Bach.

Posted by w at March 7, 2005 12:10 PM

"this music is, for the most part, lightweight quackery. Let no one misunderstand, I am most certainly NOT "kidding" about that central fact. If you'd rather I get down in the gutter, well, I'm not gonna do it. Christ, we're all snot-nosed underdogs here."

"Lightweight quackery" isn't down in the gutter? That's just calling people fakes, isn't it? Dumb ones at that? (The last sentence, involving snot and underdogs, I don't understand at all.)

Anyhow, is this the new C. Kelsey or the old C. Kelsey? Yesterday's Rusch is today's Rowe. Tomorrow, who knows?

[...]

Posted by Jacques Oger at March 7, 2005 12:31 PM

Where is Dan Warburton ?

It could be funnier...

Posted by Jacques Oger at March 7, 2005 12:40 PM

"I don't like guys that copy Bird, so why would I like guys that copy Rowe?"

I know a lot of musicians who have tried to copy Charlie Parker.

I don't know a lot who have tried to copy Keith Rowe.

But, sure, many musicians of so-called "eai " area were influenced by AMM.

Posted by walto at March 7, 2005 12:43 PM

I think it's clear that "quackery" connotes an intent to deceive, and "lightweight" connotes dimwittedness.

Neither of those are merely opinions about the value of music: they're insults too.

I do hope, however, that you'll check out some Rowe and that, if you're indeed "overheated" you'll stop back here when you've cooled off a bit. BTW, Penderecki is probably best known for his early "Threnody on the Victims of Hiroshima": he was never a Boulezian total serialism type--more of a "sound artist" guy. He later chucked "noise" altogether and became a "neo-romantic."

Posted by Rrrrrrrrrobbbbbbbbbbbbbb at March 7, 2005 01:01 PM

Yes, we are all snot-nosed underdogs here, that was the point of my comment about the vultures and the scraps of carrion. Anyway, Chris, you seem to really enjoy picking this little fight and then claiming it isn't important and claiming to be done with it, (for real this time) and then you keep coming back. Either it is more important to you than you are willing to let on or you enjoy pushing people's buttons or some of each. If I am improvising with other musicians, I'm not thinking "is this new" as I'm playing (which, if I took the time to do while playing would all but ensure that nothing new would ever come out), but rather trying to make my component of the music fit in with or against in a complimentary manner or add to the music being created. And I am doing this with whatever techniques that I have available to me. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to eai musicians that they are doing the same. Whether or not some laptop guitarist can or can't play a G7 chord is pretty irrelevant to this sort of music. (Besides being the same sort of baseless canard leveled against free-jazz players by boppers in the late 50s and early 60s). I happen to know Kevin Drumm can play Rush's "Limelight" perfectly well on guitar. I don't particularly want to see him pull out those licks when he's playing with some eai folks (unless he really thinks it will add to the proceedings).

Not for now, but sometime I will try to explain how my 2 years working on a full realization of John Cage's "A Dip in the Lake" gave me a greater appreciation for eai and informed my improvising in certain contexts and really opened my ears in some surprising new ways.

Rob

Posted by mcgr at March 7, 2005 01:12 PM

Where is Dan Warburton ? It could be funnier...

thinking the same thing, yeah, miss him, too.

pip pip :))

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 01:18 PM

"Jon, I said "guys *like* Rowe."

there are no other "guys like Rowe.", hence my confusion.

Paul, nice to see your name. Chris of course has every right to express his opinions about the genre, and he's probably fairly knowledgable about jazz and classical music. but the point is he took a couple of random examples from the field, at least one of which is a throwaway jam session, listened to them once, and now is talking in generalities about the entire area of music. I think even you would agree how silly that is. at least my generalities about jazz come after having listened to thousands of records and attending hundreds of concerts.

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 01:21 PM

Dan wrote me before and said he's not getting involved in this one, and he's leaving for a few days in the UK. as I told him, that's a shame, I don't always agree with him, but at least he's heard the music...

Posted by Phil at March 7, 2005 02:05 PM

>a throwaway jam session

How can you tell the difference between a "throwaway jam session" and any other improv gig? Is importance/"seriousness"/"realness" assigned after the fact?

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 7, 2005 02:06 PM

Re: "open" and (or versus) "closed"...

You know, I've been giving this some more thought. And, though I'm still not ready to say "eai" is as open as other improvised musical genres, I am willing to say that: 1) it is open in different ways, not so much with regard to "raw" sonic materials, but to new ideas of musical process; 2) because eai is relatively young -- and this has to do not only with person-to-person global networking among likeminded musicians, but also the fact that only recently has the technology that makes so much of this music "happen" been developed -- it may be absolutely vital that it be closed and remain more or less so for the time being.

Sugimoto's experience, in part becuase it is so extreme, is instructive. From one perspective, here is a musician who jettisons the ballast of vocabulary after vocabulary like Passepartout seized by some illyngophobic dementia. From another perspective, Sugimoto is the most purely consistent of musicians. He really is leading the way. The vocabulary that many of his colleagues are developing is defined by the act of discarding, and Sugimoto holds on to almost nothing (so it seems). Still, like any other pioneer, he'll get to the point where he can no longer stay one step ahead, the circles will close around him, and the real work of having to live in an environment partly of his own creation will take over.

Didn't something like this occur with bebop? When it first arose, the bebop movement was seen in ascetic terms. Moreover, it was -- and is still, to a certain extent -- understood that what separated bebop from what came before it were matters of technique or practice: those "Chinese chords", the rapid tempos, the many-noted runs, the abandonment of a dance-friendly swing. Too, bop's emotional range was fairly limited. It took the bop players some time to figure out how in the world to play ballads and remain true to their "new" aesthetic.

But, eventually, the vocabulary was fleshed out, the hype abated, and bop began to open itself to musical influences new and old. But the fact remains that, for a while, bop society was closed; if you wanted to play it, and if you wanted to enjoy it, you had better be an initiate.

I don't really know if contemporary "eai" is really 2005 state-of-the-art, or if that even matters. I don't know if contemporary "eai" is point A or point B or even point Z. Whether it is or not really does not factor into my enjoyment of it (when I do enjoy it). I do know, that, if we are fortunate, we should at some point be able to look back at all this and make some sense of its ultimate significance.

Finally, in thinking in terms of how "eai" may break or split apart, non-idiomatic / "free" / "European" improv provides at least one example to think about. Musical "content" per se may not be terribly significant. What practitioners like Bailey and Parker and John Stevens have done redefine what it means to be an improviser. They demonstrated that you don't need to be a Charlie Parker or an Eric Clapton to make interesting spontaneous musical choices. By disregarding the conventional "solo", they not only helped dissolve the linkage between virtuosity and improvisation, they also broke improvisation's exclusive association with certain musical genres. If you look around the independent / creative music scene, there is no question we are living in a post-free improv world.

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 02:34 PM

"How can you tell the difference between a "throwaway jam session" and any other improv gig? Is importance/"seriousness"/"realness" assigned after the fact?"

well, for one, the amount of thought and planning that goes into it beforehand, and the level of focus and communication that's evident during the listening. the point remains that "Afternoon Tea" is about as bad a single representative document of Rowe's past decade as you could find (the only one worse might be the Kim Cascone duo, since Rowe's work was only used as source material there). as I said earlier in the thread, 'Afternoon Tea' starts promisingly but quickly degenerates; I doubt the musicians involved would agree to release it today, but that was in the early days of documentation of this nascent scene.

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 02:44 PM

Joe:

"From another perspective, Sugimoto is the most purely consistent of musicians. He really is leading the way."

I don't really agree with this, for a couple of reasons. first of all, while Taku got to this ultraminimalism largely on his own, Radu Malfatti was there before him, and I don't think it was until he met Radu that he felt fully confident in finishing the journey. also, this perspective is a year or two old in this rapidly changing field, as both Malfatti and Sugimoto have recently taken tentative steps out of their foxholes, Radu in his work with Mattin, and Taku on the new Hibari release, essentially co-led with Nikos Veliotis, a very interesting record (three long quartet pieces, one composition by each, then an improv).

but the other point is that what Taku and Radu do is only one extreme end of the "eai" spectrum. when you also realize that musicians like Marcus Schmickler and Pita and Kevin Drumm work under the same genre umbrella (not for all their work, but for some), that makes things somewhat more difficult to pin down and generalize about.

by the way, Joe, thinking about it more, Schmickler is another "eai" musician working in pop contexts, with his Pluramon project currently featuring Julee Cruise. Burkhard Stangl was on David Sylvian's next record, and Keith Rowe and a cast of Viennese improvisers are on parts of Sylvian's next one.

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 02:49 PM

whoops:

"Burkhard Stangl was on David Sylvian's next record"

that should have read last record, although he's on the next one too.

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 7, 2005 03:22 PM

Jon -- very informative as always. I wonder if one day you won't publish the }eai{ (getting tired of the rabbit ears) equivalent of George Gimarc's PUNK DIARY or Leo Feigin's RUSSIAN JAZZ: NEW IDENTITY.

But surely you see the irony in you offering a caution vis-a-vis generalization.

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 7, 2005 03:42 PM

Footnotes:

Extreme examples are often the best examples.

From your comments, Jon, it sounds like the gnostic Mr. Sugimoto is already at this stage of his career: "... he'll get to the point where he can no longer stay one step ahead, the circles will close around him, and the real work of having to live in an environment partly of his own creation will take over."

Posted by Dennis Gonzalez at March 7, 2005 05:16 PM

Re: Walto's post on March 7, 2005 07:37 AM: Let us in on the secret on how to post boldface type.

Re: Abbey's "eai" always being in quotes: Maybe I've not been paying attention, but what do *you* call this music, Jon?

Re: Abbey's quote "...a cast of Viennese improvisers are on parts of Sylvian's next one." Who are they, are they "eai" musicians, and do they play in the "eai" genre on his next record?

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 05:33 PM

"Maybe I've not been paying attention, but what do *you* call this music, Jon?"

I'm fine with using "eai" in online discussions, in real life, it never comes up. I put it in quotes out of force of habit, probably no real reason to. "Who are they, are they "eai" musicians, and do they play in the "eai" genre on his next record?" not sure exactly of everyone who participated (I think it was Rowe, Stangl, Dafeldecker, Brandlmayr, Moser, but that might be incomplete or incorrect). yes, those guys are all involved in eai to one extent or another, and I haven't heard the results yet, so I don't really know.

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 05:39 PM

"From your comments, Jon, it sounds like the gnostic Mr. Sugimoto is already at this stage of his career: "... he'll get to the point where he can no longer stay one step ahead, the circles will close around him, and the real work of having to live in an environment partly of his own creation will take over."

that's your reading of the situation, not mine. my guess would be that Taku doesn't think that way, and that playing a bit out of his ordinary style at times made sense on that night. I have no idea whether it symbolizes anything more than that.

Posted by walto at March 7, 2005 06:01 PM

Re: boldface, Dennis, you gotta blow real hard without opening your mouth while your hitting the keyboard. You'll know you're doing it right if your face starts turning blue.

Plus, of course, you gotta believe. That's big. You have to always believe deeply that what you're typing is somehow....important.

;>}

Posted by mcgr at March 7, 2005 06:28 PM

"I do know, that, if we are fortunate, we should at some point be able to look back at all this and make some sense of its ultimate significance."

Why wait for the owl of Minerva to spread its wings with the falling of the dusk? Why wait for the transcendental shrink to reveal unto me the insignificance of my senses, my itches (bill included)?

Posted by Tanner at March 7, 2005 06:47 PM

Conversations like this are always so depressing. I live in a small town in the middle of Wisconsin where no one likes what I listen to: free jazz, field recordings, noise rock, grind, (ahem) EAI, and I'm just happy to be able to listen to the stuff I like and find others that do as well once and while. But here we have a bunch of guys wasting this much time arguing about one another's personal taste (cuz ultimately this is all it is). This bullshit twittering takes the fun out of music, it really does. As always, opinions are like assholes....

Now, I'm going to go listen to Burkhard Stangl and then (oh no!) listen to Frank Wright.

Posted by Dennis Gonzalez at March 7, 2005 06:52 PM

Thanks, Jon. Never comes up in real life, huh? Not that I don't believe you, but when I meet new people who wonder what I do, the words "improv", "jazz", "my stuff" come up all the time...

Walto: "Re: boldface, Dennis, you gotta blow real hard without opening your mouth while your hitting the keyboard. You'll know you're doing it right if your face starts turning blue.

Plus, of course, you gotta believe. That's big. You have to always believe deeply that what you're typing is somehow....important."

No, really...!?

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 07:12 PM

"Never comes up in real life, huh? Not that I don't believe you, but when I meet new people who wonder what I do, the words "improv", "jazz", "my stuff" come up"

usually I start with "I run a record label", then if they persist, I say it's experimental music, pretty extreme stuff. once in a while I use the term "electroacoustic improv" if they know a fair amount about music already, but usually I stick with things like "abstract electronics, not usually beat-driven". I never use eai, though, what would be the point? it works well for Internet shorthand, though.

Posted by echo charlie at March 7, 2005 07:56 PM

"I've heard plenty "laptop" and "prepared" guitarists who couldn't play a G7 chord to save their life. If pressed, I'll admit should have said "apparently epitomized by, etc.," since I haven't heard much of Rowe specifically."

you need to be pressed pal, but when all the crap comes out there'll be nothing left of yah

Posted by Michael Anton Parker at March 7, 2005 08:27 PM

[Phil] Speaking of this, how come improv always sounds like itself? To take the obvious example, Derek Bailey's big selling point is that he's continually improvising and never repeating himself, but he always sounds just like Derek Bailey. How come he never sounds like Chet Atkins, just for a second? He's "not repeating himself" within just as narrow a range as Yngwie Malmsteen or anybody else.

[Mike] I think you've got it backwards here. As someone who's totally sold on Derek, I believe it's the fact that he always sounds just like Derek Bailey that is his big selling point. On the other hand, the fact that he's continually improvising and never repeating himself is important historically and theoretically, but in terms of the substance of the music itself, it's no more (or less) significant than the fact that Webern created music using a certain moderately novel notation method. I've never heard anyone say Webern's big selling point is that he has weird symbols all laid out on paper for his pieces. In other words, it's the content of Derek's music, not his methodology, that accounts for his greatness. There are hundreds of other musicians with the same methodology (continually improvising, never repeating) who are vastly less consistently great than Derek.

I certainly agree with your last sentence above, but you seem to be posing it as a criticism, whereas to me it's a neutral, familiar observation of little bearing on the value of Derek's music. (However, to nitpick, Derek is much more varied than Malmsteen, who, despite the power and brilliance of his peak work, is an unusually narrow musician.) Why doesn't Webern sound like Chet Atkins, just for a second? Why doesn't Joe Morris sound like Chet Atkins, just for a second? Why doesn't Slayer sound like Chet Atkins, just for a second? Why does Slayer always sound like Slayer? In fact, why doesn't Slayer sound like Derek Bailey, just for a second? Why should anybody sound like anything other than what they choose to sound like, just for a second? I don't think breadth of vocabulary correlates with quality of music, and Derek is among the very finest examples in history of an aesthetic exalting depth of vocabulary.

Your question "Why does improv always sound like itself?" is almost too silly to respond to, but since I'm already at it... Wait, it is just too silly.

Posted by Michael Anton Parker at March 7, 2005 08:35 PM

[Paul] Actually, Chris Kelsey knows a helluva lot about music, and is well qualified to express a critical opinion about eai, which has none of jazz or classical music's complex theoretical underpinnings. And it does involve improvisation, right? And it is discussed on jazz boards, right? And may of its "players" are at least tangentally afiliated with the jazz world, right? Seems to me Chris' opinion--whether one agrees with it or not--is eminently valid.

[MAP] I have no doubt that Chris has deep knowledge about his chosen areas of music, but I don't see how that in itself qualifies him to express a critical opinion about other areas of music like EAI, or reggae, or doom metal, or whatever. There's always the possibility that someone will express an interesting critical opinion about any topic regardless of their background, but Chris' opinion was "critical" only in the sense of "negative", not the sense of "possessing analytical substance". The phrase "eminently valid" above can only mean one thing: you're a friend or admirer of Chris'. All opinions are valid, but "eminently"?

As far as "it does involve improvisation, right?", by that logic he would also be qualified to give a critical opinion about Yakutian epic vocal music. Or if you want a sociologically closer non-EAI non-jazz-related free improv example, how about, say, Nautical Almanac, or Emil Beaulieau?

That EAI is discussed on jazz boards is mainly an incidental sociological phenomenon, and that some musicians share affiliations between jazz and EAI is no more significant than the overlap between jazz and punk circles. Is Chris qualified to offer a critical opinion about punk rock based on this? These minor comments aside, I'm writing to focus on your first sentence above, particularly the astonishing relative clause you added at the end there. First of all, this statement is not only false, and not even only absurd, but a full-out dirty rhetorical gambit to win a round in the "politics of objective art evaluation" game, a game we should know better than to even play.

If by "complex theoretical underpinnings" you're referring to the complexity of the music itself (bearing in mind that music is an event that occurs in human central nervous systems), it's clear to me that most non-idiomatic free improv (henceforth NIFI, meant to subsume EAI) is more complex than most jazz or classical music. In other words, you can find examples of jazz, classical, and NIFI music that would rank side-by-side as maximally complex, and you can find examples of NIFI that are simplistic, but NIFI is generally characterized by greater complexity than jazz or classical music. (By "classical" I'm assuming we're using the broad sense, including any kind of 20th notated academic music.)

Obviously many people will wonder what is meant by "complexity" here in the first place and whether it's in fact possible to make these sorts of comparisons. I'll defer that topic to another occasion and simply base these remarks on a casual, intuitive sense of information-theoretic complexity for musicprocessing events in the brains of listeners.

To give some anecdotal evidence for my claim, I can point to the fact that the NIFI listener demographic is heavily populated by people (Jon Abbey being a paradigmatic example for the EAI strains of NIFI) who have previously acquired a serious appreciation for jazz and/or classical, finding a preference for EAI at a later point in the chronology of their central nervous system. This parallels Chomsky's (rarely cited in non-specialist contexts) model of grammar succession in a given individual, wherein grammars of certain complexity are preceded by simpler grammars.

So that covers one interpretation of "complex theoretical underpinning", and I believe it's the most relevant and interesting one, but I suspect it's not the one you had in mind. Perhaps you were referring to the complexity of theoretical discourse about music, not the music itself. In this case, I point you towards the writings of Oliveros and Cage as the most critical and profound among many older theoretical works that constitute a theoretical underpinning for some strains of EAI (not NIFI generally), most of which contribute a more technical, mundane level of theory ala Alvin Lucier, and not the radical paradigmshifting of Oliveros/Cage. Further, the current practitioners of EAI (notably including Malfatti and some of the Japanese musicians in the "Onkyo-kei" crowd) have articulated serious theoretical concepts to accompany their work.

Further, I would suggest that the supposedly complex theoretical underpinnings of jazz and classical you may be referring to consist of little more than trivial analyses of simple structural phenomena in the domains of melody, harmony, and rhythm. Theoretical discourse about music has only scratched the surface at this point in history. Speaking as someone with a background in math/logic/computability, symbolic notation is generally a way to keep the emperor's tailors busy.

The two readings of "complex theoretical underpinnings" aside, let me address the most salient problem with your first sentence above. You seem to suggest that if person P has a grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of music X, then they are qualified to offer critical opinions about musics with a simpler theoretical underpinning than X. Let's assume that punk rock has a simpler theoretical underpinning than jazz or classical. By your logic, by virtue of Chris' grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of jazz and classical music, he can offer a critical opinion about punk rock. That seems absurd. For all I know, Chris could in fact have a critical understanding of punk rock, but I know for sure that there are people with similar backgrounds as Chris who do not. The key lapse in logic here is a hidden assumption that the theoretical underpinnings of simpler musics are contained as subsets of the theoretical underpinnings of more complex musics. Certainly this is not true, and EAI is a prime example of how avant-garde musical aesthetics can be almost completely incommensurable with conventional pitch-and-groove musics like jazz and classical.

So aside from the disturbing claim of that relative clause itself, it's relationship to your overall argument is problematic.

[...]

Posted by jon abbey at March 7, 2005 09:54 PM

wow. not much to say to that.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 7, 2005 10:09 PM

Chris,

1) I don't care what you don't like.

2) There are many musics I am new to. I used above the example of modern composition. Though I have owned Cage, Stockhausen, Berg, etc. albums for over a decade, I would never pretend that I could be able to make big statements about the whole genre. And I have much much more experience with modern composition than you do with EAI. In fact, I would never pretend I could even begin to write anything on the genre EAI, even though I have spent a lot more time with the genre than you have. Your performance in this article is very adolescent. What would be adult of you is to admit your debut article was somewhat not well thought out and an attempt at taking a cheap shot to exercise your wit. We all do it sometimes, being the lame human beings we are. I won't hold it against you. I would like to see you talk about music you know something about. Can we see an article like that sometime soon??

For the record I would act as I have here about any of the music I appreciate. I wouldn't tolerate such shallow, unexamined critisms of any of the music I love. That is shitty critism whether or not you are talking about EAI.

Thanks.

Posted by Sergio Zamora at March 8, 2005 12:28 AM

"You're wrong, but maybe you have no way of knowing that"

Right back atcha, you paragon of humility you

Posted by tomas at March 8, 2005 12:59 AM

"...guitarists who couldn't play a G7..."

G7... hey, what's that?! the new power mac? nah, i prefer PC, anyway.

Posted by Noel Akchote at March 8, 2005 03:00 AM

I can see over all that EAI polemics sells pretty good if we look at the corpus of posts

much more than other subjetcs at least

best n

Posted by Lutz at March 8, 2005 04:13 AM

Hello there. The only concert roughly in the said idiom I attended was Michel Doneda and Alessandro Bosetti (doesn't quite qualify, though some electronics were provided by local musicians, but it'll do). They both use (rather than play) soprano saxophones, dripping spittle, snorting softly through open valves, chewing empty mouthpieces. They probably weren't at their most inspired in their duo piece, -but the difference between them was: when some heavier involvement was called for Doneda started to wail, it was a short outburst (and not an outburst at all by free jazz standards), but made you understand what had gone on before and why that was necessary as a starting ground (to bend time). Bosetti remained unperturbed and continued to repeat little noises as if to check previous research in the field over and over again, just to make sure. Which probably is ok (though not especially intriguing)- it's like a lot of artists who must prove their sincerity by carving out a tiny niche and stubbornly repeating themselves. The embarrassing moment for me was when Bosetti, driven to contribute something more substantial started to sing (and very badly too). Which meant: I will not compromise myself by playing my saxophone for one single note, even if it might make for better music (or probably to avoid musical moments in the conventional sense). I can understand why anybody who loves music might be pissed off by such an attitude. And it's an attitude that sometimes comes across in eai - but perhaps that's just because it's hard to see if the musicians are trying at all on a bad day. And it has nothing to do whatever with eg Keith Rowe who can be gentle, or (very) angry, or funny, or just plain rock out (as can be heard on the beautiful Duos for Doris which Jon Abbey mentions a lot, as he should).

From another perspective: I've seen two concerts featuring the music of Salvatore Sciarrino, a classical composer working with the same kind of extended blowing techniques. The first was chamber music, good stuff, but just to see well trained musicians stare into the sheet music without moving for several minutes, then lifting their instruments to tenderly lick them before putting them down again, gave the whole thing a slightly ridiculous undercurrent that detracted from the experience. Same with Doneda/ Bosetti: in the first half the loudest sound was a clock ticking on the wall - it made for a slightly tense atmosphere, though it was a pity that the musicians did not feel free to sometimes react to it. Then they put the clock down, and the quasi religious silence with which one had to attend to the timid manipulations of the players was much more distracting than any outside noise could be. The second Sciarrino was a piece for large orchestra, and that was overwhelming. In a large concert hall there is a meaning to quietness somehow (gotta do with space), and to have half a dozen trumpeters breath into their instruments, was instantly experienced as music instead of novelty. (It was quite a shock to hear the boos afterwards, it had felt like everybody couldn't help enjoying). Of course, different kinds of music require different kinds of listening. I personally like to listen to eai on train rides with noises intruding, or at home as background music until it creeps up and starts to demand attention. Perhaps that's a waste, but it's inspiring instead of ear-clotting (like more "substantial" music) or mood-imposing in a cheap way (like most of ambient). And it has changed my perceptions of sound and music in general (I guess, haven't read a book by David Toop, so can't be sure in what manner). But, although I know nothing about Chris Kelsey's mind-frame, if I had to sit down in front of my CD-player and listen to a handful of eai-records with undivided concentration, I would sorely miss the instant gratification you can get from a good jazz record, the intellectual pleasure you can get from a complicated set of rules mastered and transcended, the emotional pleasure of a human voice addressing you directly. Couldn't sit through it, but well you needn't.

Posted by walto at March 8, 2005 04:41 AM

Just wanted to say (again) that I've really enjoyed Michael Parker's last couple of posts. Very illuminating and well-considered.

Mr. Milazzo take note--can you sign THIS gentleman up?!

Posted by derek at March 8, 2005 06:10 AM

Gone to DC for a long weekend & it seems I've missed out. It'd be nice if we could get a modicum of this level of response to one of Joe Milazzo's many thoughtful and thought-provoking posts here at Bags.

Comforting to see that Bill's preference for pedantic proclamations hasn't diminished; neither has their ability to get my panties in a twist ;) Nietzsche or not, I don't see a dearth of the 'new' or the 'innovative' as always equating with the "death" of a creative means of expression. By my lights there's plenty of LIVING creativity being exercised in jazz, TODAY in 2005. Long existing forms aren't necessarily "dead" ones and those who choose to work with/within them aren't practicing some type of associative necrology.

Here's a pithy proclamation for Bill: "the cutting edge will always sharpen on a whetstone that blunts more rapidly than it hones."

Chris' post was obviously designed to push buttons & provoke- mission accomplished, yet again. I share his disinterest in eai, but mine is much more grounded in ambivalence than antipathy. There's just way too much other stuff I'd rather listen to. I've reviewed a small handful of Erstwhile releases (probably woefully inadequately by the rigorous standards of the cognoscenti) and came away with little desire to delve deeper. But to those who enjoy it, I say right the fuck on! The problems always seem to arise with the inevitable & pointless "my music is better than your music" debates. Snore. A reason, I'm sure, why certain regulars here (Nate D and Dan W among others) have opted to sit out this current tête-à-tête.

Anyway, it's still my hope that some of the folks commenting here who haven't cruised by, say, the killer Simon Fell piece in the features section, will do so posthaste and lend their opinions to that portion of the site too.

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 8, 2005 06:43 AM

"Mr. Milazzo take note--can you sign THIS gentleman up?!"

Allow me to introduce Bagatellen's new managing editor. And, with his appointment, a title change -- we are now THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BAGGING.

"That's your reading of the situation, not mine."

Another cool point for frosty Jon ("so what have you heard?") Abbey. What are you going to pick from the prize catalog when it comes time to redeem them all?

As for dancing bears, owls, brains in jars overseen by evil genii, eczema, Power Macs, royal haberdashers and abecedaries: dig deep enough in thie bagarchives and you'll find all of it there. And then some.

Never too early but always too late,

Joe [formerly joe]

Posted by jon abbey at March 8, 2005 07:21 AM

"Just wanted to say (again) that I've really enjoyed Michael Parker's last couple of posts. Very illuminating and well-considered.

Mr. Milazzo take note--can you sign THIS gentleman up?! "

yes, I was going to post that also.

Chris, it's nice to see you analyze people with the same amount of depth as you spend on analyzing new genres of music. I hope you take being a musician more seriously than you do being a critic.

Joe, I'm really not sure why you're taking shots at me. I simply made it clear that your conjecture isn't my own, as these are people I actually know and interact with and who often come across these discussions online, as opposed to names on CDs for you.

Posted by walto at March 8, 2005 07:33 AM

I just wanted to temper my paeon to Parker by noting that there's enjoyment and enjoyments. That is, as Jon has mentioned, a number of people will come to ea-i, or modern classical or whatever without much prior listening experience (baggage?). They may just like the feel of whatever it is "washing over them." In the early 70's I made a "Come Out To Show Them" type tape loop piece, that a couple of bikers I met really liked. They were casual fans of hard rock, that's it. Mostly listened to their bikes roaring. Classical music aficionados were much tougher sells. Figured anybody could do it.

So, the intesections of "complexity" and "listening chops" (if there are really such snooty things) must be pretty convoluted themselves.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 8, 2005 08:43 AM

"My bottom line is, this stuff is dreadful and n not worthy of my time."

So much so that you spent yourself posting a nasty article about it, and spent two days trying to justify your article, losing most of the debate.

I really don't understand what your point was Chris but to take a cheap stab. You are like a chicken that pecks at the ones already being attacked-got a punch in? Feel better? Did ya get your tension release? Now maybe you can go to a topic where you might be more useful and knowledgeable.

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 8, 2005 08:44 AM

Jon -- what can I say? Your humorlessness comes as a surprise to me. I apologize if I drew any blood.

Of course I knew that was my interpretation of what's going on, not yours, and not Sugimoto's. That's why I wrote it. You agree not to put my own words in my mouth, and I'll abstain from trying to shove your words back in yours. (I have a phobia about getting bit anyway.)

Besides, the idea that I somehow "run" Bagatellen to the contrary, I'm but a mere pea-shooter. I'm a selfstyled "essayist" who can't spell Alan Hovanhess' [Hovhaness'] name correctly, a reviewer who wastes your time with umpteen PDF files in what should be a simple piece about whether I liked the damn record or whether I didn't, an amateur wordsmith in love with his own "impenetrable verbosity", a fan who invests way too much in his enthusiams, a wannabe cosmopolitan stuck in a state (Texas) apparently empty of anything but greed and malice, a sophomore who passes philosophy in the hall but has never screwed up the courage to actually speak to her, a unfinished novelist with two red-inked manuscripts dangling around his neck, and a commentator who is really just "an imbecile, pure and simple".

Don't get me wrong; this isn't spilled milk I'm despairing over. Hardly. My very liberation consists in being this writer. (Cry "compensation" if you like.)

And, this is just my opinion, but the last thing this site needs is yet another avenging angel.

Posted by mcgr at March 8, 2005 09:07 AM

"So, the intesections of "complexity" and "listening chops" (if there are really such snooty things) must be pretty convoluted themselves."

"I suspect that in a few years most of you will go back to listening to Nirvana...or whoever it was you listened to in high school, anyway. Trust me. It happens to all of us to one extent or another. Hell..."

"Why doesn't Webern sound like Chet Atkins, just for a second?...Why should anybody sound like anything other than what they choose to sound like, just for a second? I don't think breadth of vocabulary correlates with quality of music, and Derek is among the very finest examples in history of an aesthetic exalting depth of vocabulary."

Suspended between Nirvana and Nirvana

(cf. Schopenhauer [that "philosophical laborer", according to Beyond Good & Evil that is] or Kelsey [and his eternal return(s) of the same high school reunion(s)]), (historical) times flies and--"just for a second"--a real snooty hoot.

Posted by walto at March 8, 2005 09:11 AM

You mean, Joe, that....you're...you're...not the boss of me? But....

Yes you are too! In fact, I think you should fess up to the fact that everything I've ever written on this site you, Joe Milazzo, made me say.

Joe's not the boss around here! Hah!

Posted by uli at March 8, 2005 09:33 AM

I wouldn't mind if Joe *was* the boss!

I'll save this in my file for the top 10 critics poll end of this year:

"Jon -- what can I say? Your humorlessness comes as a surprise to me. I apologize if I drew any blood.

Don't get me wrong; this isn't spilled milk I'm despairing over. Hardly. My very liberation consists in being this writer. (Cry "compensation" if you like.)

And, this is just my opinion, but the last thing this site needs is yet another avenging angel."

Posted by Tom Djll at March 8, 2005 12:03 PM

Finally, finally, Lutz has something of substance to say amid all the spitballing and lockerroom towelflicking:

"They probably weren't at their most inspired in their duo piece, - but the difference between them was: when some heavier involvement was called for Doneda started to wail, it was a short outburst (and not an outburst at all by free jazz standards), but made you understand what had gone on before and why that was necessary as a starting ground (to bend time). Bosetti remained unperturbed and continued to repeat little noises as if to check previous research in the field over and over again, just to make sure. Which probably is ok (though not especially intriguing)- it's like a lot of artists who must prove their sincerity by carving out a tiny niche and stubbornly repeating themselves. The embarrassing moment for me was when Bosetti, driven to contribute something more substantial started to sing (and very badly too). Which meant: I will not compromise myself by playing my saxophone for one single note, even if it might make for better music (or probably to avoid musical moments in the conventional sense). I can understand why anybody who loves music might be pissed off by such an attitude. And it's an attitude that sometimes comes across in eai - but perhaps that's just because it's hard to see if the musicians are trying at all on a bad day."

I'm not ready to claim the analysis is right-on, but at least it's a start at some kind of analysis, and it's in a language English-firsters can understand (as opposed to jargon). I hear in it something I've noticed myself at "eai"-related performances -- and even more on records, but that should be another subject--which is the intense self-consciousness that seems to arise. Many of us seem to throw this selfconsciousness back on the musicians, as if it's their fault we're uncomfortable, and therefore they must be uncomfortable, too. This is only projection on our part, and it's stupid to keep repeating it. But I guess it makes us feel better. (I'm not picking on you, Lutz, this is a self-critique.)

"made you understand what had gone on before and why that was necessary as a starting ground (to bend time)" -- this seems to me the real heart of the matter, and it's as good an encapsulation as any of just one of the strategies "eai" artists are exploring. Recently in conversation with Bhob Rainey he repeatedly voiced his interest in "recontextualizing" sonic events during the course of an improvisation, and that, for him, the real action going on was not necessarily in "the cool sounds you can make" but in how and where you placed them in the timescape, and the recontexualizations which would result in, among other things, the kinds of mind- and time-bendings that Lutz brings up in the opening quote preceding this hideously long sentence (sorry).

Anyway, IMO "eai" certainly borrows on Cage, Feldman, Stockhausen, Sciarrino, Oliveros, Zorn, Lachenmann, et al, and not so much from so-called "jazz," and then there's all the noise artists, and AMM, and Bailey, -- and what about David Toop, and all the Bead Records stuff from the early 80's? --etc, etc (I'm not interested in hashing over genre defs and territorial imperatives here.) The question is, does "eai" or whatever these artists are doing constitute something that's a valid advance over its predecessors? Somehow I get the feeling that there's an antirevolutionist stance lurking underneath some of the artistic rhetoric I've read that's associated with it. Not only that, the kinds of extreme-experience aesthetics I've also seen associated with "eai" enforce this. Which leads to a paradox, which I've noted before (see http://www.onefinalnote.com/reviews/b/baltschun-boris/no-furniture.asp): In rejecting revolutionism, one naturally falls into its clutches. Has history really ended, as who was it, Lyotard, famously declared? When one's in ones 20s and 30s, it's a pulse-quickening dream. From an old-fart perspective, it seems earnestly foolish to think one can escape the past.

Sorry for the discursion there. Anyway, just because the effete rhetoric that sometimes surrounds "eai" can be off-putting, that doesn't invalidate the music or artists themselves. I think that's the mistake that many have made in criticizing the new, and not just "eai." I don't claim to understand everything the "eai" artists are up to -- nor would I be so obtuse as to state, beyond the purposes of grammatical expediency, that they're some kind of monolithic "school" -- but in my humble attempts to contextualize this stuff over the last ten years, I do feel I've sometimes broken beyond the poses and manifesti and been exposed to some critically engaging, life-shaking stuff.

I think once you understand the game, you'll have a better time, Chris--that is, if you're interested at all in art that goes beyond making you feel good or comforted in some way. It's just that the game is one of non-engagement, of anti-narratives, of (relatively) extreme psychological manipulation. On the last point, that very manipulation places "eai" IMO squarely in the music universe. Lutz correctly points out that, because of the eschewing of drama or reaction or connection, it's hard "to see if the musicians are trying at all on a bad day." But who says music ain't music without all that stuff? That's the crucial question "eai" raises.

Posted by Tom Djll at March 8, 2005 12:07 PM

Sorry, I should have said "psychosomatic manipulation" there.

Posted by Rrrrrrrrrobbbbbbbbbbbbbb at March 8, 2005 01:02 PM

I tend to view "eai" as simply free improvisation with electronic instruments and therefore related in some way to other free improvisation. I would put 'eai' in the same galaxy as free-jazz, bailey style free improvisation, works by Kagel, Zorn, et al that are sort of structured improvisations. Am I totally out of the ballpark on this or the only person who looks at it like this? I mean, presumably, there could be an "eai all-star" version of Cobra or some of these guys could be in a Peter Brotzmann ensemble, for example. It might not be the best fit or anything, but that's part of improvisation too, trying things out and seeing what sticks. There are plenty of free-jazz records where the players don't seem to mesh together, but it was worth a try. Or is/are eai-practitioners so stand-offish as to not want to interact with other musicians? Seems unlikely in a lot of cases.

On a related note, when and where is that Lehn/Hemingway show? I will be in NYC for about a week starting Thursday and will check it out if I can.

Also, I've been trying to keep my subjective views on whatever 'eai' I've heard to myself during this whole discussion. Has anyone caught any ideas of what I think about what I've heard so far? Just curious.

Rob

Posted by lukaz at March 8, 2005 02:22 PM

''And of course, there's nothing wrong with the fact that personal friends are writing all those glowing eai reviews for AMG and Dusted and other places.''

I don't want to take sides on this one (and i think that many of you involved neither). I do not agree with this one, mayber only on the basis that many of the reviews are really shallow in their opinions bout the music. In fact this statemnet could be a bit offending to all who are passionately involved in this music. The aesthetic here hidden under term eai is relatively new in last couple of years and there is really not a lot of people listening to it as it may seem from some of yr writings. As with any of contemporary art forms the easthetics, critical judgements, theoretical aspects, etc still have to develope taking clues from the past and the present. Artists involved in this field of sound (which is not homogenuos at all as it may seem- in fact we can nowadays hear more and more artists taking the electronic aspects of sound, or the dialectic between acoustic and electronic poles into totally acoustic domain) are not taking the pleasure of bigger labels, festival circles, grants, funding, etc ... as some of older participans from improv field or jazz are enjoying (at least in Europe). So the ones involved in it (artists, writers, promoters, ...) make a small circle where it is a common thing that they sort of know each other (at least by e-mails). But in my experiance as a musical journalist this is not in any way different than in other musical genres, that are outside the mainstream. I can totally understand Jon Abbey's radical and provocative opinions and i doubt that without them Erstwhile would come as far as it did. For fuck sake they re his opinions and should be considered as such not as an opinion making machine for everyone else. I will end this with very plastic ilustration from an excellent festival of improvised music from Austria-Konfrontationen from Nickelsdorf. Festival is blending free improv, free jazz and lately music refered here as eai for number of years. What bothered me in last two years is constant ingnorance or even offending relationship of some audience members toward ''eai'' constantly applauding even to worst performances of free jazz or ''good old improv'' and booing to anything slightly different. And there were good & bad performances on each sides. That was the first sign for me that there was a division between them. I didn't feel that way then and i don't feel that now but it's apparently ignorance that makes this divisions and give room to this shitty debate. Rather listen to music and place it in it's proper context. If not go and listen to ''pleasant pop'' that will grab yr ears and make you whistle on the first hearing ...

Posted by mcgr at March 8, 2005 02:26 PM

"'Just wanted to say (again) that I've really enjoyed Michael Parker's last couple of posts. Very illuminating and well-considered.

Mr. Milazzo take note--can you sign THIS gentleman up?!'

yes, I was going to post that also."

Now that you've endorsed him, too, Jon, I guess this cat is on the mat.

"Theoretical discourse about music has only scratched the surface at this point in history. Speaking as someone with a background in math/logic/computability, symbolic notation is generally a way to keep the emperor's tailors busy."

Hell, probably all a matter of taste, but why you'd want to read retreads of the ancient or--if you like--deader-than-dead :)} Nelson Goodman and his Languages of Art (e.g. the chapters on 'Music' and 'The Theory of Notation') in regularly editorialized form here I can't fathom.

on Symbolic Notation (you've probably seen this already) start here:

http://www.symmatrix.info/pdf/intro.pdf

Posted by jon abbey at March 8, 2005 02:52 PM

Rob, the Lehn/Hemingway show is at Clemente Soto Velez Center on Saturday night, around the block from Tonic. there's also a potentially very interesting show on Sunday night in the Roulette Series, a Barry Weisblat composition featuring Tim Barnes, Margarida Garcia, and Sean Meehan, at Location One. specifics at gerryhemingway.com and roulette.org.

thanks for chiming in, Luka. for those who don't know, Luka runs a superb label from his home in Slovenia, l'innomable.

Posted by Paul B at March 8, 2005 03:42 PM

Ahh, Mr. Parker. You've got some wind. Not much time here, so let me put it simply: eai is as complex as rain falling on the ground or a the sound of train passing in the night, both interacting with your little world of awareness. For the Zen master, that's the height of complexity, as deep as it gets. For a musician, it's preposterously simplistic and inane, and no amount of theorizing by the likes of John Cage can make it anything else.

Posted by adam hill at March 8, 2005 03:48 PM

"Hell, probably all a matter of taste, but why you'd want to read retreads of the ancient or--if you like--deader-than-dead :)} Nelson Goodman and his Languages of Art (e.g. the chapters on 'Music' and 'The Theory of Notation') in regularly editorialized form here I can't fathom. "

and then:

"Ahh, Mr. Parker. You've got some wind. Not much time here, so let me put it simply: eai is as complex as rain falling on the ground or a the sound of train passing in the night, both interacting with your little world of awareness. For the Zen master, that's the height of complexity, as deep as it gets. For a musician, it's preposterously simplistic and inane, and no amount of theorizing by the likes of John Cage can make it anything else. "

Wow, thank goodness for these posts, because I was thoroughly convinced that those Parker posts were brilliant parodies of grad school rhetorical nonsense, and then a few people praised them to high heavens, so I was left wondering why I had found them so shockingly funny.

Posted by walto at March 8, 2005 06:16 PM

"those Parker posts were brilliant parodies of grad school rhetorical nonsense" I love that kind of criticism. (It's so, so...arrogant, all-knowing and name-cally!) "read retreads of the ancient or--if you like--deader-than-dead :)} Nelson Goodman and his Languages of Art"

Hey Adam, did you make that to be a criticism of ea-i? Or take it as some sort of support for the "Well, it's just shit." 'critique' of a couple of records (I still make it 8) that you don't care for? That's pretty creative. Parker probably did go a bit farther than he should have, but please. At least he didn't just sling mud. He tried to put an argument together. Maybe if he just called you a dunderhead, you'd consider it a more "adult" and less sophomoric post? BTW, instead of trying to slog through Goodman again, can I just go back to the source--the almighty Aufbau? Reading Goodman makes me so grue.

Posted by walto at March 8, 2005 06:23 PM

"...so shockingly funny."

I forgot to mention how much I liked that shockingly part too. Not just funny but SHOCKINGLY funny!

(Maybe "hilarious" would have been a smidge better, though, hmmmmmm.)

Anyhow, you really nailed him that time, boy! Ga-zing! Pow!

Posted by mcgr at March 8, 2005 07:23 PM

"Jon Abbey [in the] chronology of [his] central nervous system [...] parallels Chomsky's (rarely cited in non-specialist contexts) model of grammar succession in a given individual, wherein grammars of certain complexity are preceded by simpler grammars."

This kind of vivisection did admittedly tickle my funny bone.

Posted by walto at March 8, 2005 07:49 PM

If I could start a poll here, I'd consider something like this:

Which do you think is simpler (i.e., more preposterously inane) and which more complex (i.e., better):

1. Rain falling on the ground.

2. "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star"

(If you're wondering about my own take, I'd probably wait and see how Chomsky votes.) :>}

Posted by Adam Hill at March 8, 2005 07:59 PM

walter, i guess academia long ago cured me of having a taste for that/your kind of writing. but i would never accuse you of any kind of pretentious glibness. you're better than that, and i commend you.

Posted by walto at March 8, 2005 08:23 PM

I've aimed for glib (and think I've sometimes landed thereabouts). OTOH, while I try to resist pretentiousness (most of the time), I know I sometimes lose (big).

I didn't (and don't) really want to fight, I just kind of liked Parker's posts--not so much for any punditry in there but mostly for his ways of putting that taste is mostly taste. Remember, he's the guy who early on said that he wasn't even drawn too much to ea-i. I guess I can't deny that he's given mcgr reason to smile here and there. But his posts seem to me heartfelt and intelligent, and he's never been nasty.

(Which somehow reminds me, I should have mentioned Sachimay along with Emanem and Leo above--after all, I'm playing with Katt Hernandez now and her records kick ass!)

Anyhow, Adam, thanks....I guess.

Posted by Adam Hill at March 8, 2005 08:45 PM

fair enough, walter, and i'll admit your tweaking of me was deserved. not in the least bit nasty, which i (sadly) can't always say about my own tweaks.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 8, 2005 09:42 PM

Adam: "walter, i guess academia long ago cured me"

Ha ha ha ha ha hahaha ha I bet it did!

Posted by Adam Hill at March 9, 2005 07:06 AM

now Jared, old boy, whatever your talents may be, i think we could all agree that wit isn't among them.

now if i remember correctly, your occupation is taxidermist, a perfectly respectable profession, and one no doubt that his lord Keith Rowe would approve. so what i suggest is rather than words, you express yourself in images culled from your working life. this would be most welcome and potentially very very funny.

Posted by uli at March 9, 2005 07:14 AM

hey noel! are these private converstions from which aebly quotes over at jazzcorner true?

Posted by Rrrrrrrrrobbbbbbbbbbbbbb at March 9, 2005 07:15 AM

Thanks Jon for the heads up on the Lehn / Hemingway and the Roulette show, I will try to make both, but part of Sunday night I will be checking out Howard Johnson's band, so I might not make the Roulette show depending on time constraints.

Rob

Posted by jon abbey at March 9, 2005 07:44 AM

"are these private converstions from which aebly quotes over at jazzcorner true?"

not private conversations, those were posts he made in the New-ness and Jazz-ness thread right here.

Posted by uli at March 9, 2005 08:01 AM

Yeah, sorry, I saw you edited your post at jc.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 9, 2005 09:23 AM

Adam: "now if i remember correctly, your occupation is taxidermist, a perfectly respectable profession, and one no doubt that his lord Keith Rowe would approve. so what i suggest is rather than words, you express yourself in images culled from your working life. this would be most welcome and potentially very very funny."

If it takes wit to decipher the meaning here, then you are right, I do lack wit. But I don't really need wit to disguise any lack of intelligence. Wit is, especially with you, a compensation and a distraction.

You have exposed your "wit" all too often by continuing to pretend to know anything about music. But wit will not make up for anything here Adam. You still have never handled any of the arguments presented on this subject with any bit of grace. I'll even take a graceless attempt to begin dialogue...but I am not expecting anything from you. We all know where you stand (stoop).

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 9, 2005 11:13 AM

[comment deleted]

[...]

Posted by Adam Hill at March 9, 2005 11:39 AM

yeah, and fyi, he posted it over at JC too, Chris.

which gets right to the point I made earlier and that Pete C and Uli make often over at JC about the obnoxious behavior of some of these folks.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 9, 2005 11:51 AM

I told you in one of those emails that I thought this would be public. It might even be in the message above.

At any rate if you can't stand by your words, that is not my fault. Don't email me anything you can't stand by Chris.

I guess this gives you more of a smoke screen to function under though. Now you can really avoid the subject.

Posted by derek at March 9, 2005 11:53 AM

Jared, I haven't engaged you directly here or at JC in the past, but in this instance I gotta agree with Chris, posting private correspondence without permission to advance your argument is *TACKY* in the extreme. Bags isn't about censorship in the least, but part of me hopes Chris goes into the MT Engine that drives our site and deletes your post above in toto.

[...]

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 9, 2005 12:00 PM

If you "start a dialogue" with me I expect that you really mean it chris. When I got specific with you, you decided to "butt out". This is a serious cop out and you had better expect to defend your "opinions" when they are made public in the first place. It started as a public discussion and I thought you wanted to continue it with me without the personal issues other people in this debate have. When you chickened out I posted our exchange to share what I learned.

All that said I will delete what I can. I have no control of that on this site. I appologize for being "unethical" or "tacky". But I thought our exchange exposed the heart of this matter, that at all costs the music is not talked about in specific. Instead smoke screens like this are made.

Posted by Phil at March 9, 2005 12:05 PM

>Don't email me anything you can't stand by Chris.

Yeah, that attitude'll mark you as a valued participant around here for sure.

Posted by Jared/sonic1 at March 9, 2005 12:19 PM

Though I don't think despicable would be the right word, after some thought I do think my posting of your "personal" email might have been ethically grey, though not unlawful- So I appologize for that Chris. Your engagement and sudden withdrawal of the conversation we had was irritating and I thought it highlighted the very nature of the whole EAI exchange. That is why I posted it, along with my own "private" email.

If it makes you feel better, have it swiped.

Posted by Joe Milazzo at March 9, 2005 12:19 PM

ALL RIGHT ALREADY.

I may be slow to anger -- and, whatever else my pervious comments here may have been, trust me, they were not angry -- but this so-called discussion has gone far enough.

I can joke all I like about not "running" this site, but no way can I condone the sharing of personal correspondence without the permission of all parties on these pages. We have to adhere to some standards. And, much as feel I should not have to, I guess I have to enforce those standards in this instance.

Jared, I'm deleting your comment reproducing what passed between Chris and yourself via email. I would ask that you please not post in that manner here again. If you cannot respect the (relative) freedom you have to express yourself at Bagatellen, then I'll have to request that you not participate here any longer. If you do insist / persist, I'll have to ban you from the site.

Finally, I am closing this thread to further comments. Sorry for any inconvenience, but it seems to me the only fair and reasonable thing to do at this point.

Joe Milazzo