innovation in improvised music.

[jon abbey]

Charon, that's one of the silliest posts I've ever read. you yell and scream and then go on to describe exactly the same thing as I've been saying. this is my favorite part:

"then there was free improvisation. No 'European' was needed. It started in europe, it spread, there may well have been people doing it before the germans and the englishmen and the dutch, we don't know"

no, we do know. there weren't. that's why it was a EUROPEAN-based style originally, like jazz was created in America, and in fact it was almost exclusively practiced in Europe and by Europeans for quite some time with very few exceptions.

anyway...

I don't quite have the energy to get fully into it, but I do think there's a strong case for quite a bit of 'post-EAI' work emerging in the last couple of years specifically. there are people who tend to work in EFI-style contexts (Parker, Emanem, plenty of others), there are people who you could still probably usually group into working in EAI contexts (Sachiko, Rowe, Radu when he improvises, etc.), and a newer generation that has worked off of those ideas and that body of work created over the past decade, along with whatever specific takes they bring to the table. this last group is probably where the bulk of the 'innovation' in improvised music is these days, although ironically in more than a few cases, it's led to composed music.

so, yes, in my opinion, after a decade or so of EAI, a subsequent generation has emerged, in addition to the people still working in EAI, in addition to the people still working in EFI, in addition to the people still playing Coltrane-derived/inspired jazz, in addition to the people still playing every other mini-area of jazz. and, yes, of course, some people work in multiple areas, occasionally even on the same project. THAT DOES NOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT AREAS. thank you.

[Jesse]

It might be getting too humorless and claustrophobic for this gif, but it's what I see when the wheels invariably come off any thread, on any fora, with the signifiers EFI and EAI in the same post.

[jon abbey]

(for anyone who saw it in the few minutes it was up, I deleted that last post because I wasn't sure I really believed what I wrote, I need to think about it more)

[Charon]

(for anyone who saw it in the few minutes it was up, I deleted that last post because I wasn't sure I really believed what I wrote, I need to think about it more)

I saw it. Good to hear!

[simon reynell]

Jon, I agreed with your deleted post, but not with some of what you were saying earlier on.
You ended an earlier post with the words: “and so history rolls on”

Hmmm
I can see that time rolls on, but – as the Barthes quote I offered above suggests – histories are cultural constructs and are liable to wobble around or fossilise as much as roll on, and sometimes veer off, bump into things and fall apart.

You seem to have a very confident but monocular view of musical history that goes pretty much straightforwardly from jazz to efi to eai (and now, it seems, post-eai).
I can see that this works for you because from what I can gather it pretty much describes the evolution of your own taste, as well as placing you at the cutting edge where you clearly want to be.
But for those like myself who came to improvised music from a very different path and at a different time, has never really known or liked jazz (or jazz-derived improv for that matter), that version of history doesn’t offer much in the way of defining or categorising the improvised music I like as against the improvised music I don’t. So I need a different history and a different set of categories.

But back to innovation:
I think John Tilbury is an interesting case. As an instrumentalist he too has doubtless honed his skills over the years, but basically he plays the same instrument in pretty much the same sort of way that he did 25/30 years ago. And yet most of us seem to agree that he is somehow still at the cutting edge (or one of the cutting edges) of improvised music. How is this?

Conversely, though changing your instrument or instrumental set-up might be a way of innovating or renewing yourself musically, it isn’t necessarily so. If you end up using a different instrument or a new electronic gizmo to do musically the same sort of thing you were doing before, that isn’t innovating in my book. (That isn’t a dig at Keith Rowe, who I agree is an unusually restless and innovative musician)

In improvised music I think that a kind of innovation can come just from different combinations of players, and as most groupings seem to be pretty fluid and short-lived, there are plenty of opportunities for new things to emerge. Arguably someone like Derek Bailey kept his music fresh over the years more by continually seeking out new and challenging playing partners than through honing the (massive) instrumental innovations he had made early in his career. And Derek’s attitude as a musician – spiky to the point of being confrontational at times – doubtless helped force the pace of innovation in the musicians he played with, when a more laid-back approach might have produced lovely but much safer music.

But, as Jesse Kudler suggested earlier, it would be wrong to assume that improvised music should or has to always strive to be innovative. I certainly know the rush of excitement you can get when you feel that a concert you’ve just attended was something you’ve never quite heard before. But I think it’s also valid to make (or enjoy listening to) improvised music that is simply and comfortably gorgeous in a familiar kind of way. The last time I saw AMM was like that; there was nothing significantly new or different in what they did (even though it was a new line-up). It sounded pretty much like AMM sounded in the early 1990’s, and it was lovely.
Yes, in a broader sense innovation is essential for improvisation to renew itself and prosper, but IMO innovation should not be held up as the only or even the main arbiter of a performance’s worth.

[jon abbey]

I think John Tilbury is an interesting case. As an instrumentalist he too has doubtless honed his skills over the years, but basically he plays the same instrument in pretty much the same sort of way that he did 25/30 years ago. And yet most of us seem to agree that he is somehow still at the cutting edge (or one of the cutting edges) of improvised music. How is this?

we've had this exact discussion before (if not here, maybe on Jazz Corner?), and I'd say that he tends to get a pass because his music is just so goddamn beautiful.

but I'd also say that the bulk of his improv work outside of trio AMM has been unsuccessful to various degrees, and I'd probably disagree with the last statement above, that he's still at the cutting edge of improvised music, although I think there's a good argument to be made that his recent classical recordings are the best of his career, or at least the most heartfelt.

[olie brice]

we've had this exact discussion before (if not here, maybe on Jazz Corner?), and I'd say that he tends to get a pass because his music is just so goddamn beautiful.

doesn't that pretty much prove the point that much discussion of innovation vs stagnation is largely an attempt to justify taste? very quiet music reached an extreme in 1952, its not really that groundbreaking anymore.

You're only going to hear the detailed development in the music of musicians you listen to.

[jon abbey]

Yes, in a broader sense innovation is essential for improvisation to renew itself and prosper, but IMO innovation should not be held up as the only or even the main arbiter of a performance’s worth.

I don't really disagree with this, but I guess my issue is that once you fall into this mindset, it's easy to just settle for "lovely but nothing significantly new or different", and then it's easy to just keep aiming for that, and that's when a musician or a group or an entire musical area ends up becoming creatively stagnant. every area hits this wall eventually, but it's my objective to do what I can to keep this one going as long as possible.

Simon, I'd be curious to hear you elaborate a bit on your own perspective on the history involved here. I'd agree that the New York School/Stockhausen (via Cardew) were quite influential on the AMM personnel (obviously), but to me, that's still more of an influence as opposed to the tradition/lineage they chose to work in/continue.

and I think that Parker/Bailey/Brotzmann/Schlippenbach/Bennink/Stevens are/were all very solidly in the free jazz tradition/lineage, albeit using those ideas as a jumping off point for their own music (I could see any one of them saying something similar in 1975 to Keith's quote about Derek, regarding the American free jazz of the sixties).

[jon abbey]

we've had this exact discussion before (if not here, maybe on Jazz Corner?), and I'd say that he tends to get a pass because his music is just so goddamn beautiful.

doesn't that pretty much prove the point that much discussion of innovation vs stagnation is largely an attempt to justify taste?

no, it proves that Tilbury is an extreme outlier, and that you should read the rest of my post that you selectively excerpted and that I carefully worded because it contradicts your statement here directly.

very quiet music reached an extreme in 1952, its not really that groundbreaking anymore.

"Silence in music was not the cessation of sound, or even a gesture: it was a different sound, one with more density than those sounds made by instruments."-Michael Pisaro, 2009

You're only going to hear the detailed development in the music of musicians you listen to.

well, yeah, but not all musicians develop, and not all who develop do so in a successful way.

[Dominic Lash]

I love Simon's quote from Barthes. Just very briefly on Derek's flexibility/lack of flexibility (relevant to this thread if a lack of flexibility hinders the possibility of innovation): I certainly agree that on his less satisfying recordings one gets a sense of this. It seems to me (and of course I don't know what he was thinking, so I could be totally wrong) that one can get a sense of which people Derek felt particularly engaged with by the fact that he is willing to do things that he wouldn't "normally" do: just thinking of duo records, CDs with Min Tanaka, Han Bennink, Jamie Muir and Alex Ward come to the top of my head.

And speaking of Alex, for what it's worth I observed to him about 10 years ago that Derek always played more or less the same way. His response, interestingly (based on having played with Derek as much as anyone towards the end of his life) was that his approach to pitch was totally fixed, but that every other aspect of his music could change radically depending on context. It certainly made me reconsider his music when I heard that.

[Jesse]

I hear refinement, honing the saw, in Tilbury's work-not so much innovation. And, as Simon says about that life-long process, it rewards us greatly.

Genuine innovation is a quality some privilege more than others. Jon has consistently referred to his own tastes as somehow more demanding/exacting than others; that is, music/musicians he regards as above "satisfying" are very few, and he is hypercritical of EAI releases. I mention this only to say I think that that constricting valuation on his part is due to the high value he places on innovation. I have chafed at this in the past, reading this as high-handed/arrogant on Jon's part. Tonight it seems more like a personal and value-driven thing-if you assess a music's *success* as being defined in large part by the degree of innovation realized, you'll of course encounter only a few such examples over time.
I am sorting out my response to Jon's perspective only as an example of one that contrasts significantly with my own-and it is a good example to reference, given the strong responses it often generates, and his own efforts, via Erstwhile, to put his money where his sometimes polemical mouth is.

I do not expect nor demand a high level of innovation across all the music I listen to- and good thing, because much EAI is sounding codified and super-familiar to me these days. But I value it a great deal and regard an encounter with genuine innovation to be a rarified gift.

[simon reynell]

Simon, I'd be curious to hear you elaborate a bit on your own perspective on the history involved here. I'd agree that the New York School/Stockhausen (via Cardew) were quite influential on the AMM personnel (obviously), but to me, that's still more of an influence as opposed to the tradition/lineage they chose to work in/continue.

Help, I have to work now, but I'll think about this and try to post again tonight.

[jon abbey]

Genuine innovation is a quality some privilege more than others. Jon has consistently referred to his own tastes as somehow more demanding/exacting than others; that is, music/musicians he regards as above "satisfying" are very few, and he is hypercritical of EAI releases. I mention this only to say I think that that constricting valuation on his part is due to the high value he places on innovation. I have chafed at this in the past, reading this as high-handed/arrogant on Jon's part. Tonight it seems more like a personal and value-driven thing-if you assess a music's *success* as being defined in large part by the degree of innovation realized, you'll of course encounter only a few such examples over time.
I am sorting out my response to Jon's perspective only as an example of one that contrasts significantly with my own-and it is a good example to reference, given the strong responses it often generates, and his own efforts, via Erstwhile, to put his money where his sometimes polemical mouth is.

yeah, I think this is fair. my perspective is basically that there's so much music in the world already, if you're going to go to the trouble and expense of pressing a new CD, there should be more of a reason than "here is my/our latest attempt at something".

also, while Keith and I come from entirely different backgrounds, one reason we work so well together is that we have similar views along these lines, but we also both tend towards making polemical statements that are at times possibly slightly stronger (or less nuanced) than we actually believe, I guess in order to try to shock or push people into reevaluating their own perspective.

much EAI is sounding codified and super-familiar to me these days.

sure, it's all about post-EAI these days!

[Charon]

my perspective is basically that there's so much music in the world already, if you're going to go to the trouble and expense of pressing a new CD, there should be more of a reason than "here is my/our latest attempt at something".

what about "here is my/our latest attempt at an innovation"?

[negative potential]

simon reynell,

what is the source of the barthes quote?

[Miguel Prado]

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.

I do not have the need to find if it's EAI or not, but if I think what Richard says of Unami, the last performances by Sugimoto or Mattin are difficult to classify as music. There is (just as in improvisation) tension and relaxation but not only in the sound, also of the situation. in these cases is no longer a question of "good quality experimental music", is to be on the lookout for an idea, a concept behind the performance. for me it´s much more interesting.

[jon abbey]

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.

I do not have the need to find if it's EAI or not, but if I think what Richard says of Unami, the last performances by Sugimoto or Mattin are difficult to classify as music. There is (just as in improvisation) tension and relaxation but not only in the sound, also of the situation. in these cases is no longer a question of "good quality experimental music", is to be on the lookout for an idea, a concept behind the performance. for me it´s much more interesting.

just to be clear, I don't really have a need to classify specific performances or records either, and this kind of discussion is the only time I end up doing so. that doesn't make it any less true or important, but I feel like I give an unbalanced impression of myself to people who don't know me via these discussions sometimes.

anyway, Miguel, I think you're right, although I think this is an area of 'post-EAI' that I generally don't have too much interest in. I'm still personally looking for at least a component of challenging or compelling music, an idea or a concept on its own usually isn't enough for me.

[Damon_Smith]

You're only going to hear the detailed development in the music of musicians you listen to.

[/quote]well, yeah, but not all musicians develop, and not all who develop do so in a successful way.[/quote]

My only question, Jon, is do you still follow improvised music outside of EAI?

All musics go through what are or outwardly appear to be stagnant periods, and can move on from those. I feel improvised music in general has gone through some big changes, sure some people just do the same thing but that goes for any genre.
I had a nice concert with Hans Koch last month and the music we played couldn't have happened 10 years ago.
I saw a set in Ulrichsburg with Joelle Leandre, Tibury and Kevin Norton, that music could not have happened 10 years ago.

[jon abbey]

I dip in occasionally, like I dip into any kind of music that comes to my attention and seems like it has a chance of interesting me.

but I don't need to keep up with current reggae/dub to know it peaked in the seventies and mostly fizzled out soon after. I don't need to hit jazz clubs three times a week to know that jazz has basically been done since 1975, with very few exceptions. I don't need to listen to virtually any new blues to know that interesting blues musicians have been few and far between for decades now.

All musics go through what are or outwardly appear to be stagnant periods, and can move on from those.

I disagree with this, and it's something I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about.

most musical genres go through periods of intense creativity when they begin, then fizzle out, either gradually or rapidly. when this happens, there's virtually never any resuscitating possible, the peak moments are gone for good and the choices are either to continue in that area, as a musician or a listener, knowing deep down that the possibilities for substantial innovation within that area are slim to none, or to do something new outside of that area.

[jon abbey]

honestly, I can't even keep up with the small subsection of music I stock at ErstDist and run Erstwhile as well as it needs to be (which means a TON of listening). just while I was writing that last post, three new CDs arrived and more are on the way later today.