Non Group

[AlbionMoonlight]

I moved this from the IHP thread--Jesse asks:

it's unfortunate to see no thoughts on the non group piece... i think that it's a pretty engaging work. matthew has really been on point with his recent recordings.

'double negative' works as a nice commentary on some recent trends in improvisation and, without putting words into his mouth, i believe it questions/attacks the collapse of the sense of individuality from which these practices have devolved.

could you explain this please?

-j.

Anasara’s comment seems cloudy perhaps because he is one of the few keen to the details of the piece’s composition. “Double Negative” was released with little accompanying information so that its crux could be inferred—its conceptual points chipped away at by listeners. No manifestos attached—just the work. However, it seems that the work needs some elucidating.

“Double Negative” is a composition of appropriation. Using the recorded work of 42 contemporary improvisers, I edited together a false group improvisation, a “non group.” Via meticulous editing, multiple musicians play at once to create a new creative space--sometimes musicians play with themselves as segments are folded back atop one another while at other times sound events are isolated to create wholly unexpected connections. As a rule, aside from the opening few seconds, samples are never played unaccompanied. As a second rule, aside from panning and simple EQ, samples are not distorted in any way. If one listens without knowledge of the editing process, one may not know that these musicians never met in one room. Through these processes, I endeavor to question the relationship between the performer and trusting listener in recorded improvised music.

In appropriating these recordings, the idiomatic styles and co-opted “signature sounds” (i.e., Sachiko M’s sine wave, the hiss and spatter of Axel Doerner’s trumpet) of players are removed from their creator. The sounds become prime material, detached from the original situation, removed from the environment of “improvisation.”

If idiomatic playing is extended to its own ends, recorded improvisation becomes a predictable game of simple addition and subtraction—what would “x” sound like with “y”? The Non Group methodology serves as a master equation.

[jon abbey]

I haven't heard this piece, but from reading this, it seems like your concept falls apart right here;

If idiomatic playing is extended to its own ends, recorded improvisation becomes a predictable game of simple addition and subtraction—what would “x” sound like with “y”? The Non Group methodology serves as a master equation.

except that if x is actually playing with y, their sounds would quite possibly be entirely different. splicing already recorded segments together only really tells you about the person who's doing the splicing. the last sentence above (the 'master equation' one) is ridiculous and betrays a very superficial understanding of the area IMO.

and again, the piece might be good, I haven't heard it. I'm commenting on the concept as expressed in this post.

[AlbionMoonlight]

The Players:

Ryu Hankil
Jin Sangtae
erikM
Otomo Yoshihide
Christian Weber
Christian Wolfarth
Tomas Korber
Burkhard Stangl
Taku Unami
Toshimaru Nakamura
Axel Dorner
Gabriel Paiuk
Thomas Lehn
Jason Kahn
Michel Doneda
Giuseppe Ielasi
Ingar Zach
Anthony Pateras
Sean Baxter
David Brown
Martin Brandlmayr
Alfredo Costa Monteiro
Sachiko M
Choi Joonyong
Hong Chulki
Frederic Blondy
John Butcher
Tetuzi Akiyama
Tony Buck
Andrea Neumann
Guenter Mueller
Cor Fuhler
Rhodri Davies
Phil Durrant
Paul Lovens
Radu Malfatti
John Russell
Lucio Capece
Yannis Kyriakides
Burkhard Beins
Michael Moser
Werner Dafeldecker

edit: Fixed, thanks Jon.

[AlbionMoonlight]

Perhaps the equation analogy was false, I wasn't positing myself as a "master equation" writer, but rather I was positing this style of composition as a template. I can see how that could be misread. Sorry.

Also, I'm not positing my concept as watertight, as something that can "fall apart." It's in pieces already.

[jon abbey]

yeah, I just don't think most of that text serves you very well. I think even the term "players' is misused, honestly. you used the already recorded work of these musicians to put together your own piece, which is cool. I had NYC turntablist I-Sound do something similar in 2000 from the first 12 Erst releases to make a 5 minute piece for the Wire Tapper comp (although I think he was sampling groups more than musicians). I just disagree that it is an approach that illuminates anything about the artists sampled or the possibilities of improvisation.

[AlbionMoonlight]

The "Players" tag is tongue-in-cheek, and pokes fun at the nature of an imaginary improv session.

I think the piece functions isloated from the text as well--you can listen to the piece and enjoy it as a slice of suppoed EAI. I've listened to the piece many times, and at this point, I enjoy it just as that. But there's a second layer that I wanted to frame in this thread. I appreciate your input Jon, and totally understand why you think the text is distracting. I believe in a piece's autonomy, but in this case there were a few salient points that I wanted to bring up that could increase enjoyment/thought for a few.

[anasara]

Apologies for missing this thread - it is not as often as others that I check this board.

I just disagree that it is an approach that illuminates anything about the artists sampled or the possibilities of improvisation.

As I've been quoted above, I tend to disagree. A simple response to your comment would be "why not?", but I'll take it a bit further:

I had said that I believe the piece "questions... the collapse of the sense of individuality from which these [improvisatory] practices have devolved," a statement which evokes the nature of, to quote Matthew, the "idiomatic" technique which seems to fundamentally define free improvisation. What does it say about an artist whose "signature"/"idiomatic" sound is an unmodulated sine wave? How does this hyper-reductionism affect the assertion of an individual vocabulary/artistic identity? This is not to say that there is anything explicitly problematic here, or to criticize any of the sampled artists, but merely a call to reconsider the aesthetic possibilities of improvisation in general. As you've mentioned, Jon, the piece may indeed speak more toward the nature of Matthew as an artist himself than to anything I've just written here, but I think what is nice about the work is that it is capable of "illuminating" such questions at all.

Perhaps it should also be noted that it was I who mentioned the piece in context of live improvisation, not Matthew - something which I believe you mixed up in stating that:

...except that if x is actually playing with y, their sounds would quite possibly be entirely different.

I'll tentatively say that it seems to be Matthew's intention to frame this work within the context of recorded improvisation and not live practice - something which the appropriation of recorded material seems to address nicely.

Additionally, is it not presumptuous to believe that some pairing of two "unique" artists would yield a product which is unprecedented? I think it's fair to say that, regardless of who they might play with - and despite the fact that how they play is (to some extent) informed by their partner - each artist will remain somewhat close to that vocabulary which defined their practice as "idiomatic" in the first place. (edit: and, to be honest, the result of the pairing may even be somewhat predictable.)

- Charles

[jon abbey]

OK, I wanted to let this go, but I've checked this piece out since the above conversation and I have issues with it on pretty much every level.

my first question to Charles or Matthew or both: how many concerts have you seen with the musicians being sampled here? the pacing of the sounds throughout this piece is entirely unrealistic, no one would mistake this for live music at almost any point. I have no problems with this approach in general, and in fact Mr. Kirby's Maximalism is a really well executed version of a somewhat similar idea.

I think it's fair to say that, regardless of who they might play with - and despite the fact that how they play is (to some extent) informed by their partner - each artist will remain somewhat close to that vocabulary which defined their practice as "idiomatic" in the first place.

I hope you get to see some better live shows at some point. it's not the vocabulary that's the issue (although I'd argue that doesn't remain static either from group to group, an ideal collaboration pushes musicians into new sounds/areas they'd never get to otherwise), it's the timing. this is why Sachiko is Sachiko and why you can tell from the first 30 seconds of 'Non Group' that it's a non group. I'd recommend immersion in the work of John Wall, who did some great work in this area.

FWIW, I do think there's interesting territory to be explored in the areas between improv and sampling, but it's somehow really hard to do fully successfully. improv at its best has an energy that can't really be replicated by composed music (or extremely rarely), and it's very easy to lose that energy once you start tinkering around, even for the musicians themselves.

[RFKorp]

I had said that I believe the piece "questions... the collapse of the sense of individuality from which these [improvisatory] practices have devolved," a statement which evokes the nature of, to quote Matthew, the "idiomatic" technique which seems to fundamentally define free improvisation.

But I don't think these improvisatory practices actually have anything to do with 'collapsed individuality'?

What does it say about an artist whose "signature"/"idiomatic" sound is an unmodulated sine wave? How does this hyper-reductionism affect the assertion of an individual vocabulary/artistic identity?

it says that, in order to be paid attention to and respected, the artist has to work SO MUCH harder to use that sound interestingly (and individually) in an improvised context than one with a broader potential range of sound.

Perhaps it should also be noted that it was I who mentioned the piece in context of live improvisation, not Matthew - something which I believe you mixed up in stating that:

...except that if x is actually playing with y, their sounds would quite possibly be entirely different.

I'll tentatively say that it seems to be Matthew's intention to frame this work within the context of recorded improvisation and not live practice - something which the appropriation of recorded material seems to address nicely.

but the "studio" practice of improvised music is generally one of live interaction too. So I don't see how this is anything but an original composition with improvised music as sound source.

Additionally, is it not presumptuous to believe that some pairing of two "unique" artists would yield a product which is unprecedented? I think it's fair to say that, regardless of who they might play with - and despite the fact that how they play is (to some extent) informed by their partner - each artist will remain somewhat close to that vocabulary which defined their practice as "idiomatic" in the first place. (edit: and, to be honest, the result of the pairing may even be somewhat predictable.)

Plenty of pairings are predictable. Those are the bad ones. Occasionally you get two musicians in a room together and the interaction forces them both to stretch out of their prior respective comfort zones to produce something unexpected and unprecedented. That's great improvisation.

edit: I guess this post is mostly redundant since Jon answered so succinctly while I was formatting it.

[anasara]

how many concerts have you seen with the musicians being sampled here? the pacing of the sounds throughout this piece is entirely unrealistic, no one would mistake this for live music at almost any point.

I'm not sure anybody is meant to mistake it for a live performance, something which was addressed just above. In this sense the work appears to be about composition vs. recordings of improvisation.

I think it's fair to say that, regardless of who they might play with - and despite the fact that how they play is (to some extent) informed by their partner - each artist will remain somewhat close to that vocabulary which defined their practice as "idiomatic" in the first place.

it's not the vocabulary that's the issue (although I'd argue that doesn't remain static either from group to group, an ideal collaboration pushes musicians into new sounds/areas they'd never get to otherwise), it's the timing.

what you're talking about here is an "ideal collaboration," which, as we know, is a rare occurrence. the reality is that musicians - and specifically those who improvise - sometimes rely on established vocabularies (which of course can change or remain static). when you speak of musicians that "push...into new sounds/areas they'd never get to otherwise," you're referencing incidental ruptures in whatever sort of practice they're working within - something to be celebrated, naturally, but also something that most musicians will not attain. again, this is not to imply that a pairing of two skilled improvisers are unlikely to create a worthwhile/enjoyable/intelligible/significant experience, but rather that they need to be aware of the aesthetic choices that they're utilizing as well as have an interest in actively developing/modifying them in live performances.

[mudd]

seems to me you are taking a very condescending position towards the improvisers, some of whom contribute to this very forum. would you like to substantiate those claims, or continue to spread thinly veiled insults about their originality and ability? frankly i'm very familiar with the musicians sampled in that piece, and i'll go ahead and say you're flat-out wrong in reference to nearly all of them.

m

[jon abbey]

In this sense the work appears to be about composition vs. recordings of improvisation.

no, it doesn't. it appears (to me) to solely be about matthew's choices on how to put together material recorded by others.

they need to be aware of the aesthetic choices that they're utilizing as well as have an interest in actively developing/modifying them in live performances.

wow. do you not know how insulting this sounds? have you met many (any) of those people above? do you not think that they've thought about the context of the sounds they make about a million times more than you or Matthew have?

[anasara]

I had said that I believe the piece "questions... the collapse of the sense of individuality from which these [improvisatory] practices have devolved," a statement which evokes the nature of, to quote Matthew, the "idiomatic" technique which seems to fundamentally define free improvisation.

But I don't think these improvisatory practices actually have anything to do with 'collapsed individuality'?

I'd like to address this later, as I've got other things to do tonight. In short, you're right in stating that it's much to the talent of the artist to individualize such a non-personal sound - this is where identity is established. What I mean to say is simply what you've already mentioned: that it becomes increasingly difficult for artists to assert their autonomy while utilizing a medium which tends to negate such personalization inherently. Further, it may be increasingly more difficult for these aforementioned "aesthetic ruptures" to take place.

seems to me you are taking a very condescending position towards the improvisers, some of whom contribute to this very forum. would you like to substantiate those claims, or continue to spread thinly veiled insults about their originality and ability?

As stated, I am not referencing the artists sampled in the piece or commenting on their individual practices, but the nature of improvisation as a whole. Fortunately, the artists listed above are those who have made significant contributions to improvisational practice.

edit: perhaps this discussion needs its own thread, as these are solely my opinions and do not represent those of Matthew or Homophoni.

[mudd]

see above about substantiation. are we saying "some improvisers suck"? because some do, i can agree with that. but if you're going to be so general, it's sort of hard to avoid assuming you are pointing your fingers at, y'know, the long list of improvisers higher up on this page.

m

[anasara]

see above about substantiation. are we saying "some improvisers suck"? because some do, i can agree with that. but if you're going to be so general, it's sort of hard to avoid assuming you are pointing your fingers at, y'know, the long list of improvisers higher up on this page.

m

Fortunately, these are musicians who "do not suck," and are capable of adapting their technique in interesting and significant ways and, to quote Jon, have "thought about the context of their sounds" with much consideration.

[RFKorp]

what you're talking about here is an "ideal collaboration," which, as we know, is a rare occurrence. the reality is that musicians - and specifically those who improvise - sometimes rely on established vocabularies (which of course can change or remain static). when you speak of musicians that "push...into new sounds/areas they'd never get to otherwise," you're referencing incidental ruptures in whatever sort of practice they're working within - something to be celebrated, naturally, but also something that most musicians will not attain.

gotta say. this is kind of insulting. It also makes me wonder if you play music. Or more specifically, if you have experience improvising with a wide variety of players.

Because, as someone who does, I'll tell you that, with each new playing partner, I'm constantly finding myself creating an environment in which to play, in which I absolutely do not know how to play. I learn new things about my instrument and myself from new contexts. I am inspired to do things that I didn't know I could do and probably would never have discovered on my own or with other players. And this is the result of live, and in-person, musical interaction. And there's no mathematical formula to predict it.

[anasara]

I am inspired to do things that I didn't know I could do and probably would never have discovered on my own or with other players. And this is the result of live, and in-person, musical interaction. And there's no mathematical formula to predict it.

Of course, and this is one of the great things about group improvisation - something I am familiar with and have practiced. Improvising with another person or in a group is something which allows everybody involved to grasp new insight into their practice as a musician. Each session offers a new environment to work through, and this is invaluable to any musician/improviser.

It's unfortunate that my posts have been taken as such antagonistic rants, because that is certainly not where I am coming from. I've said it several times already, but these comments pertain to improvisation in its most general, sweeping sense, and should not be misconstrued as "thinly veiled" criticism or commentary on any artist's particular practice.

edit: I'm also going to leave it with this statement, because this is not the thread to continue this discussion. Please PM me or start a new thread if you have any further responses to my comments.

[jon abbey]

but these comments pertain to improvisation in its most general, sweeping sense

and what you need to understand is that they're remarkably uninsightful in those terms, and that you're preaching to people who know way way way more than you about said topic.

[RFKorp]

It's unfortunate that my posts have been taken as such antagonistic rants, because that is certainly not where I am coming from. I've said it several times already, but these comments pertain to improvisation in its most general, sweeping sense, and should not be misconstrued as "thinly veiled" criticism or commentary on any artist's particular practice.

Most of us here do not believe there is a way to generalize all of the various approaches to improvisation under a singular sweeping umbrella.

[mudd]

that swipe wasn't necessary either. discussion should probably go back to the first couple posts and leave off the offending or being offended.

m