innovation in improvised music.

[mudd]

If the interest is a serious conversation, then I think somebody should address Damon's point above about Evan Parker changing reeds, which I thought was a really good substantive counter to Jon's emphasis on Rowe changing his set-up. Once we even start to talk about "EAI" in terms of being a "genre", then isn't Rowe just making very minor personal changes within an already codified system? Sort of like how Joe Lovano is a very individual voice in a Jazz context?

changing reeds is an interesting decision on parker's part. does it sound different though? i can't comment on whether or not this is a significant change for parker since i don't know very much about saxophone reeds. i can say for certain that his recordings in 2008 don't demonstrate a significant change in playing style since 2001, only a significant difference in playing partners. as i would respond to the earlier part of your point, playing partners or collaborators don't determine your style, only their own.

i haven't a clue what you mean about rowe, though. talking about a genre makes a change in instrument (and rather a significant one, to my ears) minor and personal how?

your diversion into jazz examples seem to me wildly off-topic and confusing. did anyone suggest jazz was not innovative? i thought the opposite was the case actually. i am not familiar with all of your examples, so i can't really argue your points. i think it should be pretty easy to find movements in jazz history that had high value on innovation and compare them to others that did not.

m

[negative potential]

i haven't a clue what you mean about rowe, though. talking about a genre makes a change in instrument (and rather a significant one, to my ears) minor and personal how?

Dude, I'm just going on premises advanced in this thread! See Jon's first post on page one, and the post of his on the top of page two. The claims being made is 1) A, if not the, main distinction between "EAI" and "EFI" is that the former is driven by a desire to innovate. 2) e.g. Keith Rowe. 3) e.g. he has changed his kit 2-3 times in recent years.

your diversion into jazz examples seem to me wildly off-topic and confusing.

Just intended by way of analogy to illustrate that Evan Parker and Keith Rowe have just as little and just as much in common as Louis Armstrong and Archie Shepp.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

A musician playing in different bands/combo's that play different styles/genres/whatever doesn't prove the genres/styles/whatever don't exist.

Make up your mind. Either these distinctions are a convenient shorthand for getting a grip on a messy reality, or they "exist".

As I said, the fact that there is blur doesn't mean that there aren't genres. Just as grey doesn't denny the existence of black & white.

It's indeed true that there are records that are more grey than others, but overall most fall on clear sides of the shorthand dichotomy.

At this point, these semantic distinctions are then no longer a convenient shorthand for distinguishing stuff that sounds different, but just a pretentious way of saying "I like listening to this guy more than that guy".

And let's not forget, the whole premise of the conversation in this thread turns on Jon's comment in the second post that the major difference between "EFI" and "EAI" is that artists in the latter are consciously trying to stay "ahead of the field". But if that were really the case, then wouldn't they no longer be playing a genre called "EAI"?

I think the semantic question is different from the innovation-question. I don't think it is helpful in solving the latter to start arguing about the question if there "really is a distinction between EAI and EFI" or saying that "they don't differ really".

I wouldn't go as far as Jon, I don't think it is "the major difference" between the two. I think the differences lay first and foremost in the fact that they sound different. I must say though that I don't hear as much evolution in Evan Parker than I do in Rowe, and I have lots of their output & seen them both live numerous times. An important issue indeed is age - to my ears EFI doesn't evolve that much anymore (let's say for the last 10 years) than EAI has evolved the last 10 years. I don't however think it has to due with their very nature, I think it's just the whole Braxton traditionalism-stylism-restructuralism shebang. Or maybe Hegel, ha.

---

edit: It's of course true that the reason I don't listen to Parker that much anymore is that I indeed "don't like listening to that guy more than the the EAI guys" anymore - so in a way, you're right. But then again, the very reason for that is that I don't think there's that significant evolution/innovation in Parker's playing anymore.

[jon abbey]

See Jon's first post on page one, and the post of his on the top of page two. The claims being made is 1) A, if not the, main distinction between "EAI" and "EFI" is that the former is driven by a desire to innovate.

why would you paraphrase in a thread like this when actually quoting what I said is just as easy? pretty annoying, putting words in my mouth when my actual words are opinionated enough on their own.

Keith Rowe addressed this in the Wire piece Dan Warburton wrote about him in 2001:

"I have the very greatest admiration for Derek's work, but for me he's playing the old language. The structure, verbs and syntax are different but the language is the same. My work's always been oriented towards the future, finding a completely different language."

[jon abbey]

I wouldn't go as far as Jon, I don't think it is "the major difference" between the two.

of course not, I don't think that either. the main differences tend to lie in the space allowed to breathe within the music, the atmosphere, the "gabbiness" (to use a Malfatti term) of most EFI, knowing the 'importance of a note' (Tilbury via Feldman), the actual music.

[jon abbey]

also, Alex, your example shoots down your own case, at least IMO:

To those of us who can see Michael Thieke play a duo with Kai Fagaschinski one week, and then listen to him play in a Charles Mingus tribute band the next week

this is the point, these are different projects. if they alternated Mingus covers and abstract pieces in the same set, you'd have a bit more of a case, but they'd still be separate tracks. Otomo has tried to bridge this divide with his jazz projects, utilizing Sachiko and others within jazz pieces, and to my ears, he's mostly proved that doing so successfully is pretty much impossible, like oil and water.

[Damon_Smith]

I think the reed thing was a big deal, they allowed him to do what he was doing and they stopped making them. He played a lot more tenor and had figure something else out for soprano.

I personally see difference but not a divide between EAI and EFI, I think they inform each other even still, and the influences can be very subtle and even not stylistic.

[maRi]

Keith Rowe addressed this in the Wire piece Dan Warburton wrote about him in 2001:

"I have the very greatest admiration for Derek's work, but for me he's playing the old language. The structure, verbs and syntax are different but the language is the same. My work's always been oriented towards the future, finding a completely different language."

Responding to a criticism of this comment in an old thread Rowe said:

"[M]y comments about Derek, as they appear, do come across as platitudinal and patronising. It's possibly a problem when speech is put into text, along with the stripping away of the general context, remarks can look cold and stark."

[jkudler]

also, Alex, your example shoots down your own case, at least IMO:

To those of us who can see Michael Thieke play a duo with Kai Fagaschinski one week, and then listen to him play in a Charles Mingus tribute band the next week

this is the point, these are different projects. if they alternated Mingus covers and abstract pieces in the same set, you'd have a bit more of a case, but they'd still be separate tracks.

i think the more salient point is that a mingus tribute band, by very definition, is neither "innovative" nor "improvised" (and actually, the thieke/kai duo isn't improvised either), so it's hard to see any relevance to the topic at hand.

this thread got real derailed into the same old "EAI vs EFI, what is genre" debate. i think it is fair to say that EAI demonstrates more "innovation" just by dint of being a far newer "genre." what may be interesting to discuss is whether "innovation" is an essential feature or goal of what's being called "EAI." i think that is debatable. is sachiko, since limning out her vocabulary, really "innovative"? i know she's done some contact mic work, but has any of what she's done on record with sine waves really been surprising of late? akiyama?

-j.

[jon abbey]

Keith Rowe addressed this in the Wire piece Dan Warburton wrote about him in 2001:

"I have the very greatest admiration for Derek's work, but for me he's playing the old language. The structure, verbs and syntax are different but the language is the same. My work's always been oriented towards the future, finding a completely different language."

Responding to a criticism of this comment in an old thread Rowe said:

"[M]y comments about Derek, as they appear, do come across as platitudinal and patronising. It's possibly a problem when speech is put into text, along with the stripping away of the general context, remarks can look cold and stark."

but he's not backing off the general meaning, he maybe could have phrased it a bit better, but it is what he believes.

[RFKorp]

i think it is fair to say that EAI demonstrates more "innovation" just by dint of being a far newer "genre."

As things currently stand, I think the question of degrees of innovation does help to distinguish approaches to improvised music. But yeah, the pessimist in me says that EAI will eventually stagnate in exactly the same way too. As the population of musicians playing in this area of music grows and "generations" of baggage are accumulated, a point will come when fewer musicians are able to strive in the same way to constantly reinvent their playing language and it will be hard to notice more than nuances like those by which EFI styles have continued to evolve.

But by then, a completely divergent stream of improvised music will probably be starting to emerge anyway and we'll be having this same argument about innovation, just with different categories.

[maRi]

but he's not backing off the general meaning, he maybe could have phrased it a bit better, but it is what he believes.

In my opinion what he believes is just a failure on his part to understand the wisdom behind the quotation that opened the thread.

[jon abbey]

As things currently stand, I think the question of degrees of innovation does help to distinguish approaches to improvised music. But yeah, the pessimist in me says that EAI will eventually stagnate in exactly the same way too. As the population of musicians playing in this area of music grows and "generations" of baggage are accumulated, a point will come when fewer musicians are able to strive in the same way to constantly reinvent their playing language and it will be hard to notice more than nuances like those by which EFI styles have continued to evolve.

But by then, a completely divergent stream of improvised music will probably be starting to emerge anyway and we'll be having this same argument about innovation, just with different categories.

actually, I've been thinking about broaching that in this thread the last few days, I wonder if we're already seeing a 'post-EAI' area emerge.

records like 'The Breadwinner' and 'Musik - Ein Portrait in Sehnsucht' (just to name two on my own label that I'm extra familiar with) both could fit in here, not sure if either of those could really be described as EAI, same with the Unami/Davies performance Richard P described on his blog yesterday, or much of Unami's other recent activity.

[mudd]

In my opinion what he believes is just a failure on his part to understand the wisdom behind the quotation that opened the thread.

and what would that wisdom be? that improvisers should not represent the avant garde? i'd have to go check the context, but i read bailey's comment as observation without judgeship. i don't particularly agree with rowe's sentiment towards bailey, but i support his effort to eke out something in improvised music that may represent the avant garde.

m

[Dominic Lash]

I've really been enjoying reading this thread - I think it's a fruitful discussion and I actually think there's quite a lot of common ground between people - more differences in evaluation rather than basic premises. Just a couple of points: I think it's important to remember than linear evolution is always something of a simplification, and only one model of development. If I can quote something about Derek again (sorry about that but you have these kinds of things in your head when doing part of a PhD on someone!) the poet Harry Gilonis said this in an interview in a book called "Don't Start Me Talking' published by Salt (p. 146, for what it's worth):

"for a while I thought I could follow Derek Bailey's changes in guitar style as he moved from investigating one area to another . . . In part this was a fiction created by the obviously patchy sampling created by recordings and concerts; though there were the years when, e.g., he was investigating his '19-string' guitar, after which it was set aside, I felt there were less-clearly defined periods when, for example, he made particularly strong use of harmonics. But I certainly wouldn't, now, want to try to lay down such a model of periodicity; even the notion of early- middle-, late-Beethoven, which has always seemed to me logically unassailable - has recently come in for stick. Bailey seems to me to go back to things later; or integrate lots of micro-enquiries from his whole playing life into a cadence - I'd hesitate to say narrative."

So can one innovate by returning to previous areas? If they are recontextualised, then I'd argue certainly, which means that any model that only speaks of innovation moving "forwards", as it were, is unsatisfactory.

And the second point - and this is a genuine question, not meant to sound like snide nit-picking - but if the structure, verbs and syntax of a language are changed in what sense could the language as a whole be said to remain the same? Surely even if nouns and prepositions (say) were unchanged, to change such crucial parameters would fundamentally alter the language?

[jon abbey]

I've really been enjoying reading this thread - I think it's a fruitful discussion and I actually think there's quite a lot of common ground between people - more differences in evaluation rather than basic premises.

glad to hear this!

So can one innovate by returning to previous areas? If they are recontextualised, then I'd argue certainly, which means that any model that only speaks of innovation moving "forwards", as it were, is unsatisfactory.

well, there are two kinds of innovation, personal and in the greater, overall context of the world. your question requires a pretty huge and nuanced answer, but I guess my answer would be occasionally on the personal level, virtually never on the overall context level.

And the second point - and this is a genuine question, not meant to sound like snide nit-picking - but if the structure, verbs and syntax of a language are changed in what sense could the language as a whole be said to remain the same? Surely even if nouns and prepositions (say) were unchanged, to change such crucial parameters would fundamentally alter the language?

he's not saying the language remains identical, he's saying that the original language was formed some time ago, and he's interested in something unconnected to that. does that make more sense?

as a side note, the problem I always had with Derek's work (and again, I owned 50+ CDs of his before selling most of them to a friend, and saw him play at least 15-20 times in various contexts) was his general inflexibility. he played in a wide variety of contexts but in almost all of them, his collaborators were forced to adapt to him, rather than vice versa or a genuine middle ground.

[RFKorp]

So can one innovate by returning to previous areas? If they are recontextualised, then I'd argue certainly, which means that any model that only speaks of innovation moving "forwards", as it were, is unsatisfactory.

ABSOLUTELY. And I think this is a safe question to have applied to Rowe as well in his recontextualization of older ideas over time.

And the second point - and this is a genuine question, not meant to sound like snide nit-picking - but if the structure, verbs and syntax of a language are changed in what sense could the language as a whole be said to remain the same? Surely even if nouns and prepositions (say) were unchanged, to change such crucial parameters would fundamentally alter the language?

The problem with this question in terms of EAI is that it never represented a particular language in the first place. It's a genre signifier that somehow encompassed filament, polwechsel, and radian from the day it came into use. If anyone can point out a common language there, I'll eat my hat (or my mixing desk).

[Damon_Smith]

First of all, I think we can all stop defending Rowe and Parker, both are extraordinary musicians who have been more innovative than most.
Rowe prefers to keep changing and pushing forward that way, Parker is more concerned with seeing what he has developed can do in other contexts and how much he can refine it.
Both make very good and subtle music that continues to be interesting to anyone following improvised music as a whole.

Second, we don't need to derail the thread further by "defining EAI".

[mudd]

that's the most condescending post in the thread so far, congratulations. i think everyone here understands the terminology well enough to have the discussion without your rapid history of improvised music. feel free not to engage the terms already under discussion, but everyone here knows exactly what we refer to by EFI and EAI. we also know the context of both fairly well.

now to address your point to the bailey quote that started the discussion, it is absolutely true that all musicians change and develop over time. innovations occur incidentally, as bailey suggested originally. but they a musician must make an active and deliberate choice to engage in "the attitudes and precepts associated with the avant-garde". jon has asserted that musicians loosely grouped under the eai banner are inclined to make that choice. i personally am inclined to agree, though i don't think it has been established yet how far this approach travels past keith rowe in particular. i'd love to follow up that thread, but it seems like every four posts someone else wants to quash the idea that EAI exists at all and i'm getting pretty tired of that.

and as for evan parker and his reeds, i postulate this is an example of incidental innovation, something a talented musician like parker is more than capable of. in particular, if the reeds he was accustomed to ceased manufacture he would be more or less forced to innovate in order to continue making music. the argument isn't whether or not evan parker is capable of innovating, that question is answered quite obviously upon a first listen to anything he has ever done. the argument is that parker (yes, he's become symbolic and that isn't really fair to him or his music at all. i think he has actually made a lot of effort to innovate with the context of his music moreso than the content) is not interested in innovation as a driving force, only as a problem solving tool. disagree? please explain.

there is the second argument, as i think mari is hinting, as to whether innovation as a driving force is desirable. i'm not entirely sure i am up to that discussion, as it requires a lot of parallels from the classical/composed music world that i'm just not capable of developing.

now can we please have a discussion without anyone trying to shout the whole thread down?

m

[simon reynell]

I think it's important to remember that linear evolution is always something of a simplification.

Bit of a side issue, but this reminded me of a quote from a Roland Barthes essay which would apply to music as much as any other artform, I think, and is kind of relevant to aspects of this discussion:

“To analyse a work of art through the prism of a teleological narrative is comforting for the critic; it allows him to believe that he has fixed the work, placed it in a history (‘histoire’), in a linear system of logic of which he is the master. In fact he has done no such thing; he has reduced it, flattened it, violated it to make it fit in with the limitations of his theoretical thinking…..
To understand the specificity of a work of art is to open oneself to the irreducible multiplicity of its meanings and associations. It is not a link in a linear chain moving from A to B; it is a living, polymorphous entity reaching out backwards, forwards, sideways, upside down, colliding with countless other works of art, aspects of life and interpretations in a contradictory multitude of connections past, present and future….
The richness of (its) specificity is killed by the dull dogma of the critic’s General History.”