Non Group

[RFKorp]

you're right. I hit submit to fast and didn't think that post through. edited.

[billygomberg]

my two cents:

I think that releasing this work with no clues or remarks as to its construction is dubious. then a listener (like me), listens to this, goes "oh, ok, thanks for some music" and puts the file away - I feel that the "reveal" that is going on in this thread is intended to "prove something" to listeners, esp those on IHM who are involved with and/or highly listeners of the musicians whose work is being appropriated, and also think that this "aha" that is going on here is what is causing a lot of frustration in this thread.

I've always felt that the point of a collage work is made salient by the acknowledgment of its process (if not also the primary sources). this is more palpable to an audience in visual media of course. and as we examine more the reasoning behind the work itself (which I find opaque, same as the recording), there is frustration coming from confronting the artist-in-question's language, which leads me to believe that this was just not very well thought through, and I think this is audible in the work itself.

I don't think this work "misses the point" - I just don't think it knows the point. Whether the author does or not is not what I'm after here....listening back on this after reading through the first page of this thread I'm less convinced by the music presented...the knowledge of its process makes it seem watery and unfocused.

Collage is great tool for creation, whether done in broad strokes or surgical precision, that gives the artist a great access to the material of creation - I don't see that in this work.

I've thought a few times of, for my own pleasure, playing Duos For Doris, Good Morning / Good Night, and Contact all at the same time, simply b/c there is crossover b/w the players on these recordings, and they are all 2-disc sets. I think this would be an interesting experiment, for myself as a listener and someone who really loves this music. I don't know if that is very relevant to this thread. But it is an idea I've had.

Lastly, it is too bad that much of the discussion around this is largely negative. This is discouraging for any artist. But sometimes a work does not succeed. I would like to hear how this work does succeed - I think that would be more productive than Jon, Richard, and myself agreeing on something, especially for those behind this work.

[AlbionMoonlight]

A few things:

On the recorded versus live “improv” dialectic: Charles and I are from Cleveland, far removed from any noted “hub” for this area of music. We interact with the music primarily through recorded media, be it CD/MP3 etc. I studied abroad in Japan and had the wonderful opportunity to see and chat with (in garbled Japanese) some of artists I mentioned earlier in Osaka and Kyoto, but by-and-large the music is heard on record. This is the perspective from which the Non Group piece was recorded—as a keen listener from the other side of the hill. I believe this perspective to be of no greater or lesser value than the perspective from on top.

On collage: Collage makes inherent reference to its sources by using them, not by explaining to the viewer/listener what they are. An example from some of the earliest modern collage—the cubist work of Picasso and Braque. Their incorporation of newspaper clippings is explicit, however, the inferred political content and ramifications of those clippings (headlines of war, covers of anarchist periodicals, etc.) is left to the viewer to decipher. The source material for the Non Group piece is far less tangible than newspaper clippings—sound is inherently so, but in this realm of music that attribute is multiplied.

On editing, composition: Jon made reference to the piece being edited in a wholly unrealistic manner. I had not considered this, but listening back, he is absolutely correct. Non Group is not strictly a “trompe l’oreille.” The interactions are oblique and disjointed. But I believe this to be a manifestation of my aforementioned perspective on this area of music. Perhaps it’s my Cleveland-born short attention span, perhaps it’s the manner in which I reflect on listening, I’m not entirely sure.

[billygomberg]

On collage: Collage makes inherent reference to its sources by using them, not by explaining to the viewer/listener what they are. An example from some of the earliest modern collage—the cubist work of Picasso and Braque. Their incorporation of newspaper clippings is explicit, however, the inferred political content and ramifications of those clippings (headlines of war, covers of anarchist periodicals, etc.) is left to the viewer to decipher. The source material for the Non Group piece is far less tangible than newspaper clippings—sound is inherently so, but in this realm of music that attribute is multiplied.

I wasn't trying to say that a work of collage needs to be explicitly descriptive of its sources - nowhere on the homophoni page is it indicated that "Double Negative" is a work of collage. In Picasso's cubist works, you can visually verify the elements that are collaged, and draw meaning from that. in my initial listen to "Double Negative," not being privy to what we are now debating, I couldn't read the materiality of this work as collage. I think it is dubious to create a work of collage and then mask or elide that material reality of the work, which I what I hear in this work. I understand that, as its creator, you see and express the material differently, and this leads to a question regarding artwork that I really despise -> "what are you trying to say?" which i think is being brought up in the debate here.

On editing, composition: Jon made reference to the piece being edited in a wholly unrealistic manner. I had not considered this, but listening back, he is absolutely correct. Non Group is not strictly a “trompe l’oreille.” The interactions are oblique and disjointed. But I believe this to be a manifestation of my aforementioned perspective on this area of music. Perhaps it’s my Cleveland-born short attention span, perhaps it’s the manner in which I reflect on listening, I’m not entirely sure.

but was your goal to make a "hyperreal" recording? or to highlight the act of collage? (this is a postmodern v modern binary I am setting up). or are you still deciding?

like the Mattin/Rowe debate I think this could become interesting, but I'd really like to get it off the "defensive/offensive" rhetoric going on and I need you to be more articulate about this.

[AlbionMoonlight]

On the Homophoni page, the instrumentation is listed as “appropriation.” It’s not awfully explicit, I know, but it was never intended to be passed off as a work composed of original sound material.

On intention: Billy, you say that you couldn’t read the materiality of the work as collage. That edge of uncertainty was my area of intention. That edge wherein a listener hears a potential ghost of what he/she has heard in the past, but can’t for certain pinpoint the source. In doing this, the nebulous nature of this area of music is emphasized and utilized towards a new sound object. I hadn’t quite formulated my own thoughts on the piece in this manner until you described your listening experience.

On Collage, 2: You are correct, Picasso’s collaged elements are obvious—they are physical. When sound is collaged in this manner, particularly sound material that is so nebulous, reference points become blurred. Pre-recorded sound material is used in a way that almost insinuates the “real thing”, that is, that almost creates a piece that might be mistaken for something that it is not.

If I may, I think a particular collage by Picasso may elucidate:

“Still Life with Chair Caning” from 1912



The “chair caning” that is included in the collage is in fact not real chair caning, it is a printed pattern, a “trompe l’oeil,” if you will. It’s close to being real caning, but it is not. By including it in the collage, it references the varying levels of “unrealness” of its surrounding elements and the forever "almost-being" of painting.

Similarly, the Non Group piece is in a state of forever "almost-being." Perhaps I could cross analogies here and say that the piece is like trying to build a chair out of printed pictures of chairs.

On a goal: The goal was manifold, however, the primary element, the primary impetus to even create the work, was to start a discussion such as this.

[anasara]

I've always felt that the point of a collage work is made salient by the acknowledgment of its process (if not also the primary sources). this is more palpable to an audience in visual media of course.

An interesting statement... could there be a point at which some of the formal charges of collage break down? To keep with what's been mentioned, the collage works of Braque or Picasso can be fairly straightforward/recognizable in their process - Matthew has posted an image of 'chair caning," a piece that is perhaps a bit more mystifying in technique than some of the works to which I'm referring (think Glass and Bottle of Suze, 1912) - but what happens to this methodology with somebody like Marcel Broodthaers?

http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/P/P07/P07214_9.jpg - Daguerre's Soup, 1975

I think what I'm getting at here is that, like "chair caning" (albeit through a different way), a work like this could disrupt preconceptions of what "collage" entails as well as how we experience it. From here it might be useful to consider how collage functions within sound works as well - I'm not sure that we should give visuality the upper hand.

[jon abbey]

a work like this could disrupt preconceptions of what "collage" entails as well as how we experience it.

it's like you think no one has ever tried anything like this before. I've cited a few, I can cite others. this particular attempt is poorly conceived, poorly executed, and is only being discussed here at all because you insisted on doing so with some ludicrous rhetoric. again, a few dozen hours with the work of John Wall are recommended.

[jon abbey]

Richard P chimes in:

http://www.thewatchfulear.com/?p=2903

[faster]

I kinda feel like the real problem is that it's being described by its makers as something world-changing. I mean, it can hardly come as a surprise that people have reacted with skepticism and scrutiny to statements like these:

"Through these processes, I endeavor to question the relationship between the performer and trusting listener in recorded improvised music," "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," "questions... the collapse of the sense of individuality from which these [improvisatory] practices have devolved," "a call to reconsider the aesthetic possibilities of improvisation in general," "it becomes increasingly difficult for artists to assert their autonomy while utilizing a medium which tends to negate such personalization inherently," "That edge wherein a listener hears a potential ghost of what he/she has heard in the past, but can’t for certain pinpoint the source. In doing this, the nebulous nature of this area of music is emphasized and utilized towards a new sound object."

When such self-important art-school language comes alongside a piece of conceptual music, I for one am sure to hold both the concept and the music up to the claims. Like some others here, I'm just not convinced the concept has the nuts to fill out out that enormous banana hammock.

Then how about the music? I can't say it blew me away, but it will certainly be interesting to some people, and that might just be all that can be expected from a piece of music.

[anasara]

Pinnell's review was a nice read and discussed the work deftly in its criticism and praise - thanks for calling attention to it.

I kinda feel like the real problem is that it's being described by its makers as something world-changing. I mean, it can hardly come as a surprise that people have reacted with skepticism and scrutiny to statements like these: "questions... the collapse of the sense of individuality from which these [improvisatory] practices have devolved," "a call to reconsider the aesthetic possibilities of improvisation in general," "it becomes increasingly difficult for artists to assert their autonomy while utilizing a medium which tends to negate such personalization inherently."

fwiw, I was not involved in any way with the production of this piece and didn't hear it until it had been published at Homophoni.

Also, Jon - that quote was regarding the Broodthaers collage, not Non Group.

[faster]

I kinda feel like the real problem is that it's being described by its makers as something world-changing. I mean, it can hardly come as a surprise that people have reacted with skepticism and scrutiny to statements like these: "questions... the collapse of the sense of individuality from which these [improvisatory] practices have devolved," "a call to reconsider the aesthetic possibilities of improvisation in general," "it becomes increasingly difficult for artists to assert their autonomy while utilizing a medium which tends to negate such personalization inherently."

fwiw, I was not involved in any way with the production of this piece and didn't hear it until it had been published at Homophoni.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were involved somehow. I apologize for including some of your statements. I don't think that changes anything, though.

[anasara]

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were involved somehow. I apologize for including some of your statements. I don't think that changes anything, though.

It was just to clarify.

[Dan Warburton]

this particular attempt is poorly conceived, poorly executed, and is only being discussed here at all because you insisted on doing so with some ludicrous rhetoric.

Well, if that isn't "insulting" I don't know what is. Though then, it seems one man's insult is another's "telling it straight". Personally, I think opinions such as this are best left to PMs. I can think of several releases on Jon's label I'd desrcibe as poor, but what's the point of just sitting around like kids in a sandpit throwing dirt at each other?
Talk about non group.. this is more like non thread. It's a whole load of bullshit non-discussion on the subject of a competent, pleasant (if not outstanding) piece of music. Mr Mullane's only mistake, if mistake it was, was to provide those liner notes.

a few dozen hours with the work of John Wall are recommended.

I quite agree - spend twenty minutes with cphon instead of twenty minutes wasting your time here.

[faster]

I guess this is probably done, but I wanted to add one more thing, against my better judgment, probably

I think this kind of work isn't a bad idea, that there's fertile ground to be worked by making sample-based compositions this way. I'm afraid, though, that using that entire way of working as a one-shot conceptual piece does a disservice to the method (if not the sources of the samples themselves).

To the composer of the piece: If you got something out of the piece, why not keep working this way? Find methods and processes that enrich your music-making experience. Otherwise, it runs the risk of coming off as a "gotcha" or even a sort of half-baked critique (there's LOTS of room for critique--if that's underlying this work, I hope you continue to pursue that, as well. We need people doing that and giving it the attention, dedication, and sustained thought it deserves).

I'll definitely keep listening to homophoni releases (because I think Kirby's up to something there) and to future work in this vein (because I trust that extended interaction with working methods will yield more interesting results).

[p_ano]

wow, interesting to see such a response from this release. it didn't occur to me that it would be controversial. like jon said, there have been a number of other artists who have explored this territory, so it's certainly nothing new.

my reasons for releasing it? it is no secret that i'm a fan of appropriation, so i immediately felt that homophoni was a good home for this piece. but, despite liking the concept, i did wait 6 months before releasing the piece, wanting to be sure that i liked it purely based on its aesthetic merits. i will admit that it was a tough decision. hearing the distinctive and intimate voices of my favorite improvisors all smashed together is sort of upsetting. but, in the end i decided that it sounded neat, so there you have it. all the 'talk' that has come afterwards is news to me.. :)

[AlbionMoonlight]

On “newness”: It appears that some of my admittedly confusing verbiage has spawned the notion that I believe the Non Group piece to be wholly unique, or even worse, some sort of conceptual sui generis. Such an art work is utterly impossible, and I’m sorry that my words have been construed as such.

On reflexive writing: Joe pointed out my “art-school language”—and I do in fact come from an art historical background. I have encountered much of this sort of language in the past, and I was really aiming to avoid some of the more egregious mistakes the writers of this stuff make. I have worked in contemporary art galleries and have waded through applications dense with unnecessarily verbose artist statements. I’m disappointed that perhaps I missed my mark.

In light of this, I would like to thank Mr. Pinnell for his insightful words. Here is a case of a keen critic who is able to synthesize elements of a work far more coherently and efficiently than the artist’s own statement.