Why Improvised Music is so Boring

[diegochamy]

you don't want to spend energy with talking into a microphone on a stage to get attention for your (confusing) opinion about a particular subset of art.

I noticed that most of you still take what I said in this performance as my opinions. I wonder why you guys can't (or don't want to) make a difference between a text used in a performance and the personal opinion of the person performing. It's very confusing to me. You are free to believe whatever you want, but it seems to me that you wanted that those were my personal opinions. Otherwise I don't understand why you insist with the same thing over and over.

I would swear that you were deliberately trying to dance awkwardly and sing un-tunefully. Was this the case?

Every time someone asks me this I become speechless... I don't know how to answer you. (Sorry.)

"Why do you think the song was better than the music?"

My answer would be that it wasn't. But it could have been if you'd not approached it so ironically.
Unless you really were trying your best, in which case I apologise for suggesting otherwise.

There is no irony in my singing/dancing.

It doesn't even need the crutches of an explanatory text.

I wrote an article in which I speak of "explanatory texts". It might be interesting for you: http://sites.google.com/site/diegochamy ... pts-in-art

how much were you paid to perform, where did the money come from, and do you think the expense was justified?

We got paid the same as always within these contexts (around 300/400 pounds? I can't remember, but it's always around the same arbitrary amount). The money probably came originally from the State. The expense was not justified. Expenses can be never justified, since there are no fair exchanges. Exchanges are unfair by nature. But I don't even take this as an exchange (a performance in exchange for money). I give something and the festival gives me something, we both give what we can (and take what we can). The exchange exists only at a symbolic level (in the mind of whoever wants to think of that as an exchange).

Diego, did one of the earlier, unsuspecting participants really throw a chair at you? Do you smooth things over after or f 'em if they can't take a joke?

No one threw a chair at me. In fact they were all very kind. Although they might have felt uncomfortable or confused or a bit fed up or pissed during -and a bit after- the performances, later I felt that they were supportive and happy about having done it (but I can't speak for them.) I always smooth things over because I know - as it happens here - that many people in this scene can't make a difference between the text used in a performance and personal thoughts. But as long as the people I work with understand that, then everything is fine and we think together about what happened. In very few cases people can't take it, and when it happens, I don't feel good because I feel that I should have seen it coming and should have done things differently, since it's not my intention to make people angry. But it's very difficult, because some times the same action is taken very differently by different people. Maybe that's why I stopped doing things that were "surprising" for the people I work with.

“what is your motivation for doing this?”

The initial motivation is always the feeling of not knowing what or how to think about an action that I image. I mean, I imagine many possible actions, and most of the times I feel I can understand them, their possible effects, intentions, interpretations, etc. Then I don't feel like doing them. But when I imagine things that I can't really understand in full, or that many aspects of them are elusive to me, then I feel the need of doing them, and usually I'm happy about the results. They not only inspire new thoughts on me (and on people around me that I'm interested in), but I can also feel that they are somehow more alive than the ideas that I can somehow understand before doing. These actions about which I don't know what to think of before happen to be more intense when I perform them than the already-clear ideas. In the case of this performance, I had the idea and it sounded so silly that I didn't know what to think of it. Of course this is very personal, and for many of you the idea is very clear and not useful. This is understandable. Each of us has different interests and is affected by things differently. But for me, I still have a lot to think about this performance (both about the original ones and about the re-enactment, which are very different things) and I was very happy with what I felt from the audience afterwards (or at least from the part of the audience I'm interested in.)

why do you repeat yourself? And could it have made better sense to illustrate the fallacy of the assumptions behind the rhetorical questions by approaching 'Yo te avise' with a dignity to match...?

I enjoy repetitions and get a lot from them, especially when you repeat something under different circumstances/contexts. I also like to see a material developing, its small differences, how it affects differently different audiences, etc.
The alleged "fallacy" is not what is interesting for me about rhetorical questions.
I think the song's approach, during the performance, was matching in "dignity" what Jean-Luc and Seijiro played. But I don't think the video is good in that part. The frontal camera didn't work well (it was too close) and the other cameras were too much on the side (awful). Therefore I understand if you don't get much from the video. I expect the video stand on itself, but I agree on the fact that the song/dance is its weaker part (but only on the video).
(While recording Brilliant Corners, Orrin Keepnews heard Thelonious Monk telling Clark Terry: "Now... don't pay too much attention to what I'm playing behind you, because on the record I might play something completely different and it would only confuse you.")

[Dohol]

This whole thread reminds me of what Borges said about the Falklands War...

"It's two bald men fighting over a comb.."



Of course improvised music is boring most of the time. That can't be helped..

It's the activity itself that has value. Not the product.

[RFKorp]

I always smooth things over because I know - as it happens here - that many people in this scene can't make a difference between the text used in a performance and personal thoughts. But as long as the people I work with understand that, then everything is fine and we think together about what happened. In very few cases people can't take it, and when it happens, I don't feel good because I feel that I should have seen it coming and should have done things differently, since it's not my intention to make people angry. But it's very difficult, because some times the same action is taken very differently by different people. Maybe that's why I stopped doing things that were "surprising" for the people I work with.

I'll admit, I'm still really having trouble with your use of the text. Maybe this is something I'm just unable to process but I don't understand at all why you would chose to recite a text in which you do not believe. Especially as your manner of performing it does not seem to let the audience in on your ulterior agenda (of which I am still unclear... to surprise? to confuse? to entertain?).

The initial motivation is always the feeling of not knowing what or how to think about an action that I image. I mean, I imagine many possible actions, and most of the times I feel I can understand them, their possible effects, intentions, interpretations, etc. Then I don't feel like doing them. But when I imagine things that I can't really understand in full, or that many aspects of them are elusive to me, then I feel the need of doing them, and usually I'm happy about the results. They not only inspire new thoughts on me (and on people around me that I'm interested in), but I can also feel that they are somehow more alive than the ideas that I can somehow understand before doing. These actions about which I don't know what to think of before happen to be more intense when I perform them than the already-clear ideas. In the case of this performance, I had the idea and it sounded so silly that I didn't know what to think of it.

On the other hand, this makes a great deal of sense to me. I too improvise because I love the thrill of TRYING to do things even when they fail. Suddenly finding a new idea and deciding "fuck it, let's see what happens." My aesthetic doesn't personally lean towards doing things because they seem "silly" but if that's what works for you, great!

However if none of the other audients or participants fully understands the silliness of your action (especially with regard to not agreeing with your own text) how will this have any impact on them? It seems an extremely personal, insular work. Which I guess is why the context of its presentation makes it so confusing for all of us here.

[jkudler]

I'll admit, I'm still really having trouble with your use of the text. Maybe this is something I'm just unable to process but I don't understand at all why you would chose to recite a text in which you do not believe. Especially as your manner of performing it does not seem to let the audience in on your ulterior agenda (of which I am still unclear... to surprise? to confuse? to entertain?).

richard - he says at the beginning that it's an email from a friend (it's obviously not, but that's the conceit). i viewed it as him responding to his friend's "honest" query.

reciting a text in which you do not believe is called "acting." there's a pretty long tradition of this in the performing arts.

However if none of the other audients or participants fully understands the silliness of your action (especially with regard to not agreeing with your own text) how will this have any impact on them? It seems an extremely personal, insular work. Which I guess is why the context of its presentation makes it so confusing for all of us here.

again, this seems to describe pretty much all art? or humor for that matter.

-jesse

[Dohol]

again, this seems to describe pretty much all art? or humor for that matter.

Yup..

[RFKorp]

reciting a text in which you do not believe is called "acting." there's a pretty long tradition of this in the performing arts.

Except that it's always done with the intention to communicate SOMETHING. an actor might just be doing a job but a director doesn't pick a play because its message is one in which he isn't invested.

However if none of the other audients or participants fully understands the silliness of your action (especially with regard to not agreeing with your own text) how will this have any impact on them? It seems an extremely personal, insular work. Which I guess is why the context of its presentation makes it so confusing for all of us here.

again, this seems to describe pretty much all art? or humor for that matter.

No, I'd disagree with this completely. If there is "content" on a level below the obvious surface materials, most good artists aspire to communicate it with their audience, right?

[grisha]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

[billygomberg]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

+1

[Dohol]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

+1

++1

[diegochamy]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

Hey Grisha. Many artists take what you called the explanation as a part of their pieces. So, would you accept a situation like this, if the explanation (on the catalog, program, internet or wherever it's placed) is also part of the piece? It's just a question. I myself don't even have a problem with "explanations" that are not meant to be part of the pieces. I believe the important thing is to make something happen, no matter if the piece requires a text or not. Besides, I don't think things have a "worth" in themselves. I think the only value of an action is the effects it produces in the world. Therefore, if in order to make an impact, a piece requires a text, I don't see any problem with that at all.

I wrote a text about this, if you are interested: https://sites.google.com/site/diegocham ... pts-in-art

[anonymous999]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

+1

++1

The point is try to understand:
What does it mean to do something like that today?
What are its repercussions?
What are the conditions in which the piece is produced in?
What is the position of the artist within these conditions?
What type of ideologies are being expressed by the people discussing the piece?

The more that we discuss the piece the more that we are expanding its meaning,
and in the process the artist intentions or his/her own authority becomes less meaningful.
To make a distinction between the piece of art and its signification is in my humble opinion a fiction that is only based on dubious notion of authorship.
If you only discuss a piece of art on its formal sense, that says something only about your own personal taste (which I personally don't give a fuck). If you discuss about the essence of the piece of art, that says a lot about your ideology (which by your comments I find very dubious)

[patois]

I would swear that you were deliberately trying to dance awkwardly and sing un-tunefully. Was this the case?

Every time someone asks me this I become speechless... I don't know how to answer you. (Sorry.)

"Why do you think the song was better than the music?"

My answer would be that it wasn't. But it could have been if you'd not approached it so ironically.
Unless you really were trying your best, in which case I apologise for suggesting otherwise.

There is no irony in my singing/dancing.

Sorry, Diego. I mean no offence, really. I think my initial reaction was out of respect for the song (as if pop music needed me to come to its defence!) and how it seemed as if your approach was of parody. "Every time someone asks me this..." implies to me I would not be alone in this interpretation. I must say that in your 'noise music' performance, when you suggested you could learn to play pop music in a week, I was sceptical. I've seen episodes of American Idol where they work for months and still don't get it.

“what is your motivation for doing this?”

The initial motivation is always the feeling of not knowing what or how to think about an action that I image. I mean, I imagine many possible actions, and most of the times I feel I can understand them, their possible effects, intentions, interpretations, etc. Then I don't feel like doing them. But when I imagine things that I can't really understand in full, or that many aspects of them are elusive to me, then I feel the need of doing them, and usually I'm happy about the results. They not only inspire new thoughts on me (and on people around me that I'm interested in), but I can also feel that they are somehow more alive than the ideas that I can somehow understand before doing. These actions about which I don't know what to think of before happen to be more intense when I perform them than the already-clear ideas. In the case of this performance, I had the idea and it sounded so silly that I didn't know what to think of it. Of course this is very personal, and for many of you the idea is very clear and not useful. This is understandable. Each of us has different interests and is affected by things differently. But for me, I still have a lot to think about this performance (both about the original ones and about the re-enactment, which are very different things) and I was very happy with what I felt from the audience afterwards (or at least from the part of the audience I'm interested in.)

why do you repeat yourself? And could it have made better sense to illustrate the fallacy of the assumptions behind the rhetorical questions by approaching 'Yo te avise' with a dignity to match...?

I enjoy repetitions and get a lot from them, especially when you repeat something under different circumstances/contexts. I also like to see a material developing, its small differences, how it affects differently different audiences, etc.

This makes sense. It doesn't challenge assertions that [insert artform here] is 'boring' but anyways, moot, I guess. You've made your intentions clear and I think your philosophy and approach allows for pretty much all, everything and the kitchen sink (where every action is a success?) Further, there are already plenty of threads herein debating innovation/repetition/stagnation.

More to the point, and a positive at that, I was quite struck by my perceptual difference of the two performances based on their setting. For me, the tail end of the Install performance didn't work (and not only because of the camera work) but the gallery version was very effective (was it the resonance of the room?) Something as simple as whether it was supposed to be a 'song' or a 'poem' affected my interpretation. Through the whole 'this is not a pipe' motif of the gallery performance i could feel my expectations being played with and I did enjoy that.

The alleged "fallacy" is not what is interesting for me about rhetorical questions.

Granted - the allegations are entirely mine and your friend is entitled to his/her opinion. The rhetorical questions succeeded in pulling me into a discussion, and that doesn't happen all that often.

(While recording Brilliant Corners, Orrin Keepnews heard Thelonious Monk telling Clark Terry: "Now... don't pay too much attention to what I'm playing behind you, because on the record I might play something completely different and it would only confuse you.")

Sorry to keep harping back to the song, but in retrospect, would you entertain the idea that you (too) could have performed the song differently than you originally intended, given you were blessed with the suggestion to try a song from a member of the audience? From my perspective, it would have been quite risky and exciting to have changed tack given that you were 'playing' the audience, and may even have been in the spirit of improvisation. Not that I'd expect you to perform in the spirit of anything in particular, but 'improvisation' being an approach not a genre, I wouldn't personally be concerned about any pigeon-holing effect. You've alluded to some kind of reflective process in your explanation above - I'd be interested how you'd judge the relative merits of a performance, from your own perspective; it all seems very Chuang Tzu

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

the point is that it's the point the artwork wants to make. the amount of explanation required doesn't say a lot about the artwork itself. some art requires lots of explanation, some art doesn't.

sure, generally I tend to favor art that requires less explanation, since that's easier, but there sure are brilliant pieces of art that only work, or work better, if you read the explanations.

[bkudler]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

+1

++1

Is this really what the view of art is around here?? I think it's crazy that no one around here sees the irony in all of these comments. These are exactly what people say about the genre that IHM mostly discusses. I don't mean just the listener of top 40, who never got into weirder music. I have taken classes with heavy jazz dudes, and whenever they start to talk about "lowercase" or "non-idiomatic music" they begin saying things very similar to what is being said here; "what is the point??" "are they trying to say that music can not be loud?" "do they really thing they can get rid of all rules?" I find one success of the piece that it was able to get these sort of foot-dragging reactions from people on here. This fact also goes in line with the fact that good discussions almost only happens on here when someone does some sort of performance piece that involves improv.

Grisha, your original comment could point to any piece of art. If someone doesn't get the point of a piece, and someone writes something on the piece --the artist or otherwise-- then one could make your statement. The "possible meanings" of this piece are wide and varied, which is usually good, IMO.

However, I think the meaning of this piece is pretty clear, especially with the accompanying text, which I see as part of the piece. Do people get upset when the liner notes of a record help one understand the music? The piece to me is important and relevant at this time because of the recent discussion over "whether improv is dead or irrelevant." These recent assertions that improv is dead, or whatever, are based on improv losing its ability to be challenging, losing its ability to ask important questions. The EAI --or whatever you want to call it-- that was put out this year that was largely seen as the best, were records that posed the best questions. I'm sorry to pick on Motubachii, which was a very important and great album for me, but a big reason people went so crazy for was because it made people ask questions about improv. We are taught for so long that "good art asks questions," what Chamy's piece says to me is that these questions are often not questions at all, but merely loaded statements disguised as questions. Chamy's question "why is improvisation so boring" is obviously not a question and the audience answers by refuting the premise rather than answering the question. This makes me look at a piece like Motubachii and rather than seeing it as asking questions such as "can these structures be incorporated into improv?," or any of the other questions it maybe ask, I see the questions it is asking as loaded statements disguised as questions. In a year where everyone is praising improv only if it is asks questions of other work of the genre, Chamy points out that the questions being asked are not questions at all and really makes me, at least, question the idea and capability of art to ask real questions. There is A LOT more the piece that involves, ideas about improvisation vs composition, audience performer relationship, postmodernism, capitalism, and high art vs low art, among other things, but those I think are better kept to each viewer as these subjects usually lead to nonsense. What I want to say here is that this piece points out that the idea of asking questions in music, is pretty much the same as making statements, and to end with a question, can art really do either?

[billygomberg]

I just think there is a significant difference between a piece that invites interpretation, essay, and discussion, and something like this, which while it does these things, does not seem to have an essential fulcrum around which we can discuss. Instead we spin around and around, get huffy and sassy.

I don't the quality of a "good" artwork is that enough of us "get it" the first time, but I think anything that remains this opaque, and frankly frustrating, with little aesthetic reward for us as participants (if only 2nd hand participants), is problematic in a detrimental way.

I think that Diego's "character" is not very helpful here, and deliberately so, and this confuses me greatly. It saddens me a bit also, as there is the possibility of great insight here, but this "stupid" character intentionally denies it.

[jkudler]

I just think there is a significant difference between a piece that invites interpretation, essay, and discussion, and something like this, which while it does these things, does not seem to have an essential fulcrum around which we can discuss. Instead we spin around and around, get huffy and sassy.

I don't the quality of a "good" artwork is that enough of us "get it" the first time, but I think anything that remains this opaque, and frankly frustrating, with little aesthetic reward for us as participants (if only 2nd hand participants), is problematic in a detrimental way.

I think that Diego's "character" is not very helpful here, and deliberately so, and this confuses me greatly. It saddens me a bit also, as there is the possibility of great insight here, but this "stupid" character intentionally denies it.

dude, we get it. you don't like it. continuing to reiterate this (on either side) is fairly tedious. everything you said above could apply to all the music we discuss here all the time, plus tons of avant garde classix like cage, duchamp, michael snow, etc., etc. some people didn't find it to have "an essential fulcrum"; some did. "aesthetic reward" is by definition subjective. your focus in this thread, at least, on the side-gag about porn seems to demonstrate some pretty serious misapprehension of what the piece actually did, in the most basic, objective sense.

-jesse

[RFKorp]

However, I think the meaning of this piece is pretty clear, especially with the accompanying text, which I see as part of the piece.

except it's not so clear to most of us. and this thread has only confused matters, wherein Diego has seemed to describe it as a purely aesthetic experiment rather than an attempt to communicate something beyond.

Do people get upset when the liner notes of a record help one understand the music?

I don't really read liner notes, they're generally either too shallow or too didactic....

The piece to me is important and relevant at this time because of the recent discussion over "whether improv is dead or irrelevant." These recent assertions that improv is dead, or whatever, are based on improv losing its ability to be challenging, losing its ability to ask important questions.

No, at least at this board, they're based on Robert's rapidly narrowing personal taste. Furthermore, various streams of improvised music grow stagnant and die or are born every year.

The EAI --or whatever you want to call it-- that was put out this year that was largely seen as the best, were records that posed the best questions. I'm sorry to pick on Motubachii, which was a very important and great album for me, but a big reason people went so crazy for was because it made people ask questions about improv. […] This makes me look at a piece like Motubachii and rather than seeing it as asking questions such as "can these structures be incorporated into improv?," or any of the other questions it maybe ask, I see the questions it is asking as loaded statements disguised as questions.

I don't know which of us is off base but I have never heard Motubachii as being such an album of great questions. it's just amazing improvised music proudly reveling in a set of aesthetics most people don't risk exploring. If you heard it as asking questions before, I'm glad you've realized they're just statements. If they seem "loaded" I think that says more about you than the music. It's incredibly raw to me. Sound laid bare. (but like I said, maybe everyone else agrees with you, and I'm revealing some bizarre personal prejudice of my own)

Chamy points out that the questions being asked are not questions at all and really makes me, at least, question the idea and capability of art to ask real questions.

I mean, I could write a whole essay on this part of your post but I'll be succinct. I'm glad you've finally had this epiphany. I don't know how I feel about it being this piece that brought you there. I've been sick for years of this idea that art is responsible (or even ABLE) to ask questions. There's a reason I quit studying any form of art in an academic setting. I don't WANT art to ask questions. I don't even want it to SAY anything.

what the piece actually did, in the most basic, objective sense.

I'm really impressed by the fact that both Kudlers think it's so clear what the piece objectively did. Because the rest of us are on our fifth page of attempting to figure out exactly that. Please, fill us in.

[grisha]

when a piece of art, whatever that art is, requires so much explanation and narrowing of its possible meaning or of artist's intention to be properly understood (if such thing is possible) and to show it assumed "worth" (for a lack of a better word), what's exactly the point of it?

Is this really what the view of art is around here?? I think it's crazy that no one around here sees the irony in all of these comments. These are exactly what people say about the genre that IHM mostly discusses. I don't mean just the listener of top 40, who never got into weirder music. I have taken classes with heavy jazz dudes, and whenever they start to talk about "lowercase" or "non-idiomatic music" they begin saying things very similar to what is being said here; "what is the point??" "are they trying to say that music can not be loud?" "do they really thing they can get rid of all rules?" I find one success of the piece that it was able to get these sort of foot-dragging reactions from people on here. This fact also goes in line with the fact that good discussions almost only happens on here when someone does some sort of performance piece that involves improv.

Grisha, your original comment could point to any piece of art. If someone doesn't get the point of a piece, and someone writes something on the piece --the artist or otherwise-- then one could make your statement. The "possible meanings" of this piece are wide and varied, which is usually good, IMO.

However, I think the meaning of this piece is pretty clear, especially with the accompanying text, which I see as part of the piece. Do people get upset when the liner notes of a record help one understand the music? The piece to me is important and relevant at this time because of the recent discussion over "whether improv is dead or irrelevant." These recent assertions that improv is dead, or whatever, are based on improv losing its ability to be challenging, losing its ability to ask important questions. The EAI --or whatever you want to call it-- that was put out this year that was largely seen as the best, were records that posed the best questions. I'm sorry to pick on Motubachii, which was a very important and great album for me, but a big reason people went so crazy for was because it made people ask questions about improv. We are taught for so long that "good art asks questions," what Chamy's piece says to me is that these questions are often not questions at all, but merely loaded statements disguised as questions. Chamy's question "why is improvisation so boring" is obviously not a question and the audience answers by refuting the premise rather than answering the question. This makes me look at a piece like Motubachii and rather than seeing it as asking questions such as "can these structures be incorporated into improv?," or any of the other questions it maybe ask, I see the questions it is asking as loaded statements disguised as questions. In a year where everyone is praising improv only if it is asks questions of other work of the genre, Chamy points out that the questions being asked are not questions at all and really makes me, at least, question the idea and capability of art to ask real questions. There is A LOT more the piece that involves, ideas about improvisation vs composition, audience performer relationship, postmodernism, capitalism, and high art vs low art, among other things, but those I think are better kept to each viewer as these subjects usually lead to nonsense. What I want to say here is that this piece points out that the idea of asking questions in music, is pretty much the same as making statements, and to end with a question, can art really do either?

but that's what you think, isn't it? the anonimous entity several posts above you seems to draw different conclusions, and your brother seems to draw conclusions diffrent to both of yours. so, you could do your thinking on your own, without Diego explaining what he intended, couldn't you? maybe the discussion just took the wrong direction from the beginning, then? if the point of this piece to make you think, then it should probably be able to do so without this discussion. i don't think all of the audience at Instal is reading this discussion board. so i guess they got the wrong thing out of this performance now? that's what i am asking. i am not against discussion, but maybe a piece that is so concerned with meaning really should or either come with a leaflet or be bluntand in your face like a Dave Philips action? "thank you for your attention, and now here's the url where you can go to find out what it was all about. i don't think improvisation is boring and i've got tons of text to prove it". well, i think that's it from me on this part.

what i am annoyed with, generally, with pieces like this, is not meaning or lack thereof, but with the fact that to me question asked (if and when) are just misguided and futile, to me. an average Mattin performance is fun, for sure, but what does he want? i why is it all so hermetic and self concerned? and why the things he's talking about are important at all? all the stuff he does is akin to having one's head up his ass complaining that it stinks. to me, the impact of Diego's performance, at this high profile festival, for which he was paid something like a half of my monthly salary, and then posted on the internet for people all over the word to see, is still lesser than three or four anonymous guys/girls getting together at some small non-profit place doing their boring/not boring improvisation. because they are a part of something that, to me, is important. i am not saying an artist shouldn't ask question about art, i am just really not sure it's the way to do it. to site Duchamp or Cage once again, who managed to shake cores much more fundamental really without that much talking and posturing. and that's it from me on this one.

i am not really trying to convince anyone, you see. i've made up my mind about many things in this life, social, moral, political. art is something i'm trying to leave open.

tons of sympathy for all involved,
bye for now.

p.s. thanks to Richard for asking all the questions i really wanted to but just didn't feel like going into.

[yonhosago]

The piece to me is important and relevant at this time because of the recent discussion over "whether improv is dead or irrelevant." These recent assertions that improv is dead, or whatever, are based on improv losing its ability to be challenging, losing its ability to ask important questions.

No, at least at this board, they're based on Robert's rapidly narrowing personal taste. Furthermore, various streams of improvised music grow stagnant and die or are born every year.

Totally. Bitterness. "Sad passion".

The EAI --or whatever you want to call it-- that was put out this year that was largely seen as the best, were records that posed the best questions. I'm sorry to pick on Motubachii, which was a very important and great album for me, but a big reason people went so crazy for was because it made people ask questions about improv. […] This makes me look at a piece like Motubachii and rather than seeing it as asking questions such as "can these structures be incorporated into improv?," or any of the other questions it maybe ask, I see the questions it is asking as loaded statements disguised as questions.

I don't know which of us is off base but I have never heard Motubachii as being such an album of great questions. it's just amazing improvised music proudly reveling in a set of aesthetics most people don't risk exploring. If you heard it as asking questions before, I'm glad you've realized they're just statements. If they seem "loaded" I think that says more about you than the music. It's incredibly raw to me. Sound laid bare. (but like I said, maybe everyone else agrees with you, and I'm revealing some bizarre personal prejudice of my own)

One of the things that make Motubachii something so singular, is an intense way of no asking questions at all. A music (sound laid bare) totally silent (to talking, questions, even ideas laid out in words).

Chamy points out that the questions being asked are not questions at all and really makes me, at least, question the idea and capability of art to ask real questions.

I mean, I could write a whole essay on this part of your post but I'll be succinct. I'm glad you've finally had this epiphany. I don't know how I feel about it being this piece that brought you there. I've been sick for years of this idea that art is responsible (or even ABLE) to ask questions. There's a reason I quit studying any form of art in an academic setting. I don't WANT art to ask questions. I don't even want it to SAY anything.

This. Duchamp, Artaud, Cage, Feldman, Beckett..(....).. Unami. There are many (infinite?) experiencies to have apart from talking, speaking, asking, been asked or questioned. Art (music) is (has to be -maybe now more than ever?) another whole experience, not fixable, not catchable, not completely (not at all) explainable, not transferred or translated to words (or a language made of words), or signs (or capital). If I, for one, want to talk, or question anything, then I call someone (a friend for instance), or out to the street or get to IHM or slsk, or write, but not at all I think about a piece of music, or a performance, or a play.

[yonhosago]

to me, the impact of Diego's performance, at this high profile festival, for which he was paid something like a half of my monthly salary, and then posted on the internet for people all over the word to see, is still lesser than three or four anonymous guys/girls getting together at some small non-profit place doing their boring/not boring improvisation. because they are a part of something that, to me, is important.

art is something i'm trying to leave open.