EAI in 2007

[bryan]

EAI in 2007: adolescent, which is why there's a strong appeal to self-restraint. and not to encourage the music, but to ease the listening.

You know you can't just drop this and not elaborate, right? ... please explain. What would be the "adult" as opposed to the "adolescent" in this case?

[user_826]

however, if there is indeed a current tendency of improvised music (more specifiacally, "EAI") to be "blurring together into a kind of grey porridge", i don't think that it can be blamed on excessive releasing, or excessive "freedom". a lot of this "grey porridge" stuff seems to me to be tied up exactly with desires to "stand out" and to achieve a greater singularity in expression.

Exactly, somehow I missed this point - exactly.
This weak points in contemporary improvisation are direct manifestation of the desire to make enjoyable sonic objects, made out of "weird sounds" that easily find place one near the other - language is going thru the "firm consolidation" because musicians are playing on that card which reads "end result - enjoyable sound object" - and that's where the problem comes from.
This is directly tied with the tries to make contemporary improv just a bit more "adventurous" subgenre of experimental electronica, where traces of improv would be just a pendant, nowise a core of the music, a gist of the music, because of the well-known fact "this improv got boring, why all the bothering anyway, really ?".
But as I said - certain number of improvisers (previously) already are pretty deep down that road.

[jon abbey]

honestly, I don't think you kids (future/brain) could be more mistaken about your perspective on that. cor wrote a few pages back:

it's the vision I think from the person that makes (improvises, composes, developes etc) that is decisive.

now this is dead on. you guys seem to believe that every free improviser has something interesting to say, and sadly that just isn't the case.

[user_4655]

"This weak points in contemporary improvisation are direct manifestation of the desire to make enjoyable sonic objects, made out of "weird sounds" that easily find place one near the other - language is going thru the "firm consolidation" because musicians are playing on that card which reads "end result - enjoyable sound object" - and that's where the problem comes from."

I'm pretty sure that not one of the many improvisers I know would subscribe to this view. Making interesting music is the point, and interesting music is often enjoyable, but who's to say what will prove to be enjoyable? And to approach this from another direction: should musicians deliberately try to make their music unenjoyable - would that make it, in some obscure way, better music?

[flies]

I think it's silly to say that EAI being 'one among many possible styles' is regressive, since that's what it is and always has been, simply because it is a style.

I'm not at all sure about this (you confusingly changed the wording of the original comment in your response from improvisation not being a style to EAI not being a style, by the way). In case you were using the terms synonymously, as you seemed to be, plenty of improvising musicians would disagree with you. Like Le Quan Ninh:

"The practice of free improvisation, not as a form nor a style, but as an evacuation of the will of making music to get closer to sound. From the poetical necessity to put in action egalitarian relations in sound" -- from a workshop last year.

i was confused about future's quote and so it led to confusion in my post. I definitely don't mean to use EAI and improv interchably, let me be clear about that. It seemed to me that EAI (not improvisation as such) was what the reviewer meant was becoming one style among many. If that's not what s/he meant, then i'll have to ask that the statement be explained.

Because it's not clear to me what you/others mean when you say 'improv'. Clearly you're not referring to dixieland, or free-style rap, jam-bands, any of which in other contexts would be considered 'improv'. You're referring to some sort 'free improv', but exactly what defines this category i'm not sure. The way you talk about it, I know you don't mean EFI and EAI (edit: what i mean here is that EFI and EAI are included but not the only members of the category), since those are styles, but i'm still unsure of an example outside those two... So if someone could clear up what is the improv whose philisophical origin is being squandered (and what that philisophical origin is) then i think the discussion would benefit.

Regardless, it is clear that if we were to describe a category of music that includes improvisation, and then a category that includes the 'improv' that you're speaking of, however you define it, then the latter category would have much fewer members, on the order or 2%, perhaps even 0.1% (one could count by fans or practitioners or any other reasonable metric). It is therefore consequent that the 'improv' you're talking about actually is highly specified and (negatively) prescriptive form of artistic expression. There's certainly a huge range of expression within that space, but it is not limitless: there are musical choices which are forbidden.

My point is that your 'improv' has rules, and so it's not that much of a stretch to say that it's a style.

Future quoted the reviewer as saying

Since ifs formation in the 60s, improv has remained on the edges; it's simply too dangerous to handle. With the blurring of improv with trendy electronica (of most varied kinds), I suppose it hopes to capture some of the crossover with he kinds of music covered in the Wire magazine. That, after being "uncool" for so long, improv can finally be trendy, and just become one among many possible styles. With this regression, the reasons for improvising in the first place, its philosophical origins, can be quietly swept under the carpet.

So perhaps my question about EAI being a style is missing the point, but if so then i really am missing the point and need a helping hand to get me on track. I'll say it again, how can you can claim that improvised music was at some point immune from being 'one among among many possible styles'?

[Jared McKinley]

As listeners, unless you are a critic, or massively obsessive purchaser of music with a lot of time on your hands, I think it is too early to pick up any trends unless you are involved in the scene on the level that someone like Jon is. Even then, even this tiny corner of music is hard for one person to judge.

I am also somewhat hesitant to listen to too much talk before listening to anything because I feel like it poisons my listening experience. Especially with abstract music, extra-musical moods/factors can too easily be imposed on the listening experience. That is why many of these albums change so much for me.

It is almost silly for us to judge the output as a whole. It is imposing base judgments at best, at worst dropping a haze on the music which only distracts from the artistry.

I accept only judgments from the likes of people like Jon who try to avoid these baser taxonomic filterings. The output from his label (for me) has been quality enough that his words seem to have more weight than hit and miss listeners.

or maybe I just have the hots for him...

(BTW jon did you get my email yet?)

[jon abbey]

As listeners, unless you are a critic, or massively obsessive purchaser of music with a lot of time on your hands, I think it is too early to pick up any trends unless you are involved in the scene on the level that someone like Jon is. Even then, even this tiny corner of music is hard for one person to judge.

actually the point that Richard made earlier is relevant here: with this music (still) moving at a reasonably fast pace, CD releases tend to lag behind what's actually happening now by at least a year and sometimes 3-4. (I also am still far from sure that the quality of CD releases does justice to the level of music out there, but we covered that issue pretty well in the 'EAI in 2006' thread).

anyway, without access to seeing a range of these musicians live on at least a semi-regular basis and/or receiving unreleased work-in-progress CD-Rs from them, it's hard to get much of a bead on what's going on right now. I know that right now I have 8-10 projects in the works that I'm excited about, which is as many as I've had at any point since I started Erstwhile.

[franz bieberkopf]

As listeners, unless you are a critic, or massively obsessive purchaser of music with a lot of time on your hands

which, incidentally, could probably be said for a lot of people speaking their mind in this thread.
which is not to say that the original question doesn't seem incredibly futile.


on what has been said more generally, i think i can sympathize with the impulse to call for more composition and perhaps intention, because that's something i've been craving/looking for in music in general of late. but i guess the critique of that which jumps to mind for me is that this privileges "single-mindedness". in conventional artspeak, you might shorthand it as championing the "individual creative genius", but maybe that's a bit of an impoverishment of what Sexes (for example) is saying. Nonetheless, even in a more collaborative compositional process, i don't think it's unreasonable to find a similar aim toward some sort of singular coherence. perhaps it is a more *social* thing that comes of this process but that hardly means it will be better (could very well end up being the sort of compromise that effaces the more risky choices of the individuals involved).

i certainly appreciate enough music created in this way that i would never knock it as a method, but what seems to make improvisation (as process rather than any specific genre) interesting is its capacity to stage the sort of exciting accidents that don't arise in the aforementioned more hermetic form of creation. two (or more) minds (and hopefully not just minds!) *never truly coming together* seem to be just as likely to stumble across something beautiful and new for those of us who experience it from within a cultural milieu that is still very much embroiled in the aforementioned "individual vision".

this privileging of "vision" even seems to leak through the rebuttal to this call for composition, via Cornelis, for example. on a semantic level at least.

but i figure the "vision" that a "successful" improvisor has is of a different sort. less of an idea about how things are to sound, instead simply an awareness of how to communicate with one's collaborators in a way that hopefully enables things one doesn't already know or expect to happen.
obviously you can't knowingly create the unknown. but i think you can have a sense of what strategies might *push yourself* up against it.

if such instances seem to be more rare in the proverbial swamp today, i don't necessarily see how returning to composition helps. i mean it could never hurt to have more composed music, because the form isn't exhausted by any stretch.
but it seems like if improvisations aren't successful, then maybe people aren't *improvising enough*.

anyhow that's enough blather from me.

edit: slight edit upstairs but mostly i just want to mention that i don't actually know shit about EAI in 2007, as i've heard next to none of it.

[jon abbey]

it's not just a question of choosing between composition and improvisation (letting that false dichotomy stand for a minute), sometimes it's a question of finding new collaborators to push someone into different areas that they wouldn't necessarily get to on their own, or with their current collaborative partners. even new groupings amongst current collaborators can sometimes work for this energizing effect.

[user_4575]

I want to back away from the notion (that some people are attributing to me) that composition is "the answer." As Jon says above, there is no binary dichotomy between improvisation and composition.

My main point is that in a situation where lots of experimental music is beginning to blur together into a shapeless improvised pudding, I am a fan of works that have a singular and striking presence. A way of achieving that presence might be a renewed focus on form.

I like what John Luther Adams says in this interview:

Q: Could you explain your concept of "formal rigor and visceral impact"? Is this concern related to your interest in mathematics and chaos theory as well as your commitment to nature?

A:We humans are pattern-making animals. Mathematics and music are expressions of our impulse to perceive and articulate patterns in the world around us. Like human intelligence itself, our sense of form derives from the natural world.

Form is a kind of discipline that gives the music a presence of its own, independent of the composer. Form extends beyond the limitations of self-expression and protects the music against the composer's lapses in taste. Form isn't a container for music into which I pour notes. It's an all-encompassing space that the music inhabits. If the music is an organism then form is a place in which the music lives and breathes.

I don't rely on form to generate ideas. It's more of a means to filter out ideas, to distill the most essential ideas and protect the music from being cluttered up with too many clever little ideas. Whenever I feel the music demands it, I break the form. Otherwise I try to follow its discipline as faithfully as I can. I often conceive of an entire piece or a section of a piece as a single breath, a single complex sonority. So form is as integral a part of the music as the notes, the moment-to-moment sounds. Form and material are one and the same.

The critic James Mellow said about the sensuous formalism of Dan Flavin's art: "Purism one begins to feel, is the ultimate form of romance." Virtually the entire body of Flavin's work is composed from four standard lengths of fluorescent bulbs in a handful of stock colors. The formal restrictions of his chosen medium are extreme. Yet the presence of his work is, quite literally, radiant.

One of the great wonders of music is that it's so physical and yet so ephemeral. I want to have it both ways at once. I want my music to have formal integrity. And I want it to be as physical as it can be, to touch the listener as directly as possible. It's that ageless balancing act between the classical and the romantic, the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Maybe I argue for the classical because, fundamentally, I'm such a romantic.

Q: How does your concept of form relate to compositional process?

A: Good question. Like biological or geological processes, compositional processes determine the way things evolve over time. I use compositional processes to keep the sound in motion from moment to moment.

If process is the behavior of forces, then form is the course that those forces trace in space and time. I value both process and form as elements that give the music continuity and coherence. But the primary focus of the music is always the sound. "

[maRi]

parts of that interview are ridiculously vain.

What would be the "adult" as opposed to the "adolescent" in this case?

fortunately, i'm not aware of any self-proclaimed 'eai musicians', so i suppose it depends on the audience that insists on using this term. to me it seems that they want the music to be subservient and/but godly.

highly specified and (negatively) prescriptive form of artistic expression.

what exactly are you talking about?

it is not limitless: there are musical choices which are forbidden

again, what do you have in mind?

My point is that your 'improv' has rules

and what are those rules? that non-improv isn't improv?
so, it has a meaning, yes. it's that simple.

[flies]

the 'improv' referred to by fearandpanic is a small subset of music as a whole. tiny one might say. So if one is going to practice it, then one deliberately limits his expression to confine himself within the space of 'improv'.

it is obvious that improv is not non-improv, but the fact is that people who practice 'improv' don't suddenly break into salsa. Such would not be idiomatic, would not be well received, would be out of place. There is an idiom, is all i'm saying. However loose and free you wish it to be, it requires a deliberate choice to do improv and not to do improv punctuated with salsa.

Salsa is a rather silly example, but raster-noton's clicky rhythmic/dancey sound might work well with the likes of nakamura (if somebody knows of such a collab plz pm me ), and i wonder if 4/4 rhythm and 'improv' can coexist?

If anybody could bring up an example of 'improv' that is not EFI or EAI that would help me understand what the term 'improv' means. Or if it is possible to explain positively why 'improv' was (or is) immune from being a style.

[jon abbey]

raster-noton's clicky rhythmic/dancey sound might work well with the likes of nakamura (if somebody knows of such a collab plz pm me

not precisely, but not too far off:

http://www.myspace.com/alles3" onclick= "window.open(this.href);return false;

[mudd]

improv is a short version of improvised music.

heck, early 20th century organ music is largely improv.

how could a technique be the same as a style?

m

[barry]

If anybody could bring up an example of 'improv' that is not EFI or EAI that would help me understand what the term 'improv' means. Or if it is possible to explain positively why 'improv' was (or is) immune from being a style.

ok a few very different examples...downtown ny improv: john zorn, ikue mori, zeena parkins, Jim staley, shelley hirsch, etc. and...

paul bley's cd "paul bley quartet" with bill frisell.

the ny folks - improv although sounding nothing at all like EFI or EAI and the bley cd which was improvised in the studio. Both improv with a capital I yet sounding nothing alike nor like the other styles. Improv is an approach, not a style.

[carlos]

raster-noton's clicky rhythmic/dancey sound might work well with the likes of nakamura (if somebody knows of such a collab plz pm me.

a few years ago i played a track (track 7) from the first Repeat cd (nakamura + kahn) during a 2 hour radio set of mostly raster-noton / mika vainio / ikeda clicky beats music. this track has a clicky beat (of sorts!) running through the whole thing. worked great

also- stilluppsteypa has done some really rhythmic 4/4 (almost house) tracks

[mudd]

i think i heard part of that set, that was with maria wasn't it?

i've mixed nakamura with that sort of material once or twice before as well. i consider it a sweet match.

m

[carlos]

i think i heard part of that set, that was with maria wasn't it?

yep- all my radio time was maria's doing- her voice, my tunes

[Jared McKinley]

As listeners, unless you are a critic, or massively obsessive purchaser of music with a lot of time on your hands

which, incidentally, could probably be said for a lot of people speaking their mind in this thread.
which is not to say that the original question doesn't seem incredibly futile.


on what has been said more generally, i think i can sympathize with the impulse to call for more composition and perhaps intention, because that's something i've been craving/looking for in music in general of late. but i guess the critique of that which jumps to mind for me is that this privileges "single-mindedness". in conventional artspeak, you might shorthand it as championing the "individual creative genius", but maybe that's a bit of an impoverishment of what Sexes (for example) is saying. Nonetheless, even in a more collaborative compositional process, i don't think it's unreasonable to find a similar aim toward some sort of singular coherence. perhaps it is a more *social* thing that comes of this process but that hardly means it will be better (could very well end up being the sort of compromise that effaces the more risky choices of the individuals involved).

i certainly appreciate enough music created in this way that i would never knock it as a method, but what seems to make improvisation (as process rather than any specific genre) interesting is its capacity to stage the sort of exciting accidents that don't arise in the aforementioned more hermetic form of creation. two (or more) minds (and hopefully not just minds!) *never truly coming together* seem to be just as likely to stumble across something beautiful and new for those of us who experience it from within a cultural milieu that is still very much embroiled in the aforementioned "individual vision".

this privileging of "vision" even seems to leak through the rebuttal to this call for composition, via Cornelis, for example. on a semantic level at least.

but i figure the "vision" that a "successful" improvisor has is of a different sort. less of an idea about how things are to sound, instead simply an awareness of how to communicate with one's collaborators in a way that hopefully enables things one doesn't already know or expect to happen.
obviously you can't knowingly create the unknown. but i think you can have a sense of what strategies might *push yourself* up against it.

if such instances seem to be more rare in the proverbial swamp today, i don't necessarily see how returning to composition helps. i mean it could never hurt to have more composed music, because the form isn't exhausted by any stretch.
but it seems like if improvisations aren't successful, then maybe people aren't *improvising enough*.

anyhow that's enough blather from me.

edit: slight edit upstairs but mostly i just want to mention that i don't actually know shit about EAI in 2007, as i've heard next to none of it.

I am aware that we have some freaky listeners here. At times I am one of them. But what I meant was more the ability to hear almost everything, see all the shows, be involved with recordings, etc...which even people who are dedicated to the music their whole day are incapable of doing, especially with this music where the musicians involved are spanned out throughout the globe.

I respect people's opinion here on this forum more than any other. But I am also queezy at attempts to gauge a music "scene", particularly of this sort of improvised/abstract music.

As listeners, unless you are a critic, or massively obsessive purchaser of music with a lot of time on your hands, I think it is too early to pick up any trends unless you are involved in the scene on the level that someone like Jon is. Even then, even this tiny corner of music is hard for one person to judge.

actually the point that Richard made earlier is relevant here: with this music (still) moving at a reasonably fast pace, CD releases tend to lag behind what's actually happening now by at least a year and sometimes 3-4. (I also am still far from sure that the quality of CD releases does justice to the level of music out there, but we covered that issue pretty well in the 'EAI in 2006' thread).

anyway, without access to seeing a range of these musicians live on at least a semi-regular basis and/or receiving unreleased work-in-progress CD-Rs from them, it's hard to get much of a bead on what's going on right now. I know that right now I have 8-10 projects in the works that I'm excited about, which is as many as I've had at any point since I started Erstwhile.

I personally can only keep up with certain dependable labels, and dependable listeners who have consistently lead me to great albums. I personally am unable to "keep up" with the music in the sense mentioned above since I live in Tucson and am unable to see the music live very often. I would imagine even with our best fans of this music the same is true. Even those living in NY, or Tokyo or wherever it is still somewhat the same. Unless you are intimately involved in the music (playing, producing, etc) understanding the "scene" is a bit difficult.

I have to approach it with my given limitations. And I find that there is often a "fan vibe" that people put out there that comes from a place unrelated to the music itself-not just with this music but any music. And my point is that it is often unverifiable, often even totally some critic's opinion recycled by listeners. And i find it bothersome as a fan of the music because I am just trying to enjoy the music. Case in point: the 5th triple CD erstlive album took me so long to get into because of all the opinions I heard about it (even though i tried to avoid them), and all the reviews. I already had to get over my own expectations of the album which I was very excited about. But I had to also overcome what everyone else said about it. I STILL don't trust my impressions.

I do, however, respect what a lot of people here say, since many of them are involved intimately with the music. I am not so much against record reviews, just reviews of an entire "genre" and where it is going. Really it seems what we lump together into one "genre" is really a multitude of intents that are somewhat unrelated. I find that, for example, what someone like Sean Meehan is doing, is totally unrelated to what Toshi Nakamura is doing. But somehow we got them intimately involved in the same scene (now watch, someone is going to tell me that they are going to play together or that they already have). Regardless of the fact they might someday play together, their intents are very different, and I don't think these artists think of belonging to a genre more than just interacting when they play together.

[jon abbey]

I find that, for example, what someone like Sean Meehan is doing, is totally unrelated to what Toshi Nakamura is doing. But somehow we got them intimately involved in the same scene (now watch, someone is going to tell me that they are going to play together or that they already have). Regardless of the fact they might someday play together, their intents are very different, and I don't think these artists think of belonging to a genre more than just interacting when they play together.

yeah, that's not the best example, they've toured together more than once, have a CD out on quakebasket, played in trio with taku unami in erstquake 2, and are playing as a duo in the philly quake in september. you could go maybe with something like pita and taku sugimoto, that might work better.