pure improvisation

[jon abbey]

"pure" is an end state and unreachable, "puritanical" is trying to get as "pure" as possible. I can fully understand the mindset of the latter (even if I don't agree with it, much of my aesthetic intertwines and overlaps with that perspective), "pure" makes no sense to me.

[Jesse]

just d'l'd this behemoth, i got all winter.
thanks for making this available for the broke, massimo!

[Charon]

just d'l'd this behemoth, i got all winter.
thanks for making this available for the broke, massimo!

Cheers, Jesse! Many thanks for giving it a go, I think you might find something of value there. Happy listening/reading!

[Gerardo A]

"puritanical" is trying to get as "pure" as possible.

"Purist" is closer to the meaning you're trying to get.

[Jesse]

i have zero interest in the language-based distinctions, so from my perspective that leaves some baseless hostility and that bane of all philosophical inquiry, what Herbert Benson called "contempt prior to investigation." listen or don't - if you opt for the latter, opt out of the sarcastic jibes, christ.

[jon abbey]

"puritanical" is trying to get as "pure" as possible.

"Purist" is closer to the meaning you're trying to get.

if it was solely about the music, you'd be correct.

[Charon]

i have zero interest in the language-based distinctions, so from my perspective that leaves some baseless hostility and that bane of all philosophical inquiry, what Herbert Benson called "contempt prior to investigation." listen or don't - if you opt for the latter, opt out of the sarcastic jibes, christ.

Thanks for this, Jesse. I know of course that a fair hearing is the most I can hope for, but at the same time it doesn't feel like it should be too much to ask....

"puritanical" is trying to get as "pure" as possible.

"Purist" is closer to the meaning you're trying to get.

if it was solely about the music, you'd be correct.

Jon, it is solely about the music, to the extent that the 'music' is influenced/created by the totality of the improvisor's life at that point and inseparable from that.

[jon abbey]

Massimo, you speak for yourself and for what you understand of this approach, you are not the sole spokesman for a tradition that dates back a generation before you were born. would you also like to tell Trevor Watts that he was wrong to use the word puritanical in the interview snippet above?

maybe I should stop, I've probably made my point.

[jon abbey]

I know of course that a fair hearing is the most I can hope for, but at the same time it doesn't feel like it should be too much to ask....

no? you don't think that asking someone to spend a full day of their life listening to your solo music is too much? that's pretty damn egocentric IMO, good luck with that.

[Charon]

Massimo, you speak for yourself and for what you understand of this approach, you are not the sole spokesman for a tradition that dates back a generation before you were born. would you also like to tell Trevor Watts that he was wrong to use the word puritanical in the interview snippet above?

maybe I should stop, I've probably made my point.

I never claimed to be the sole spokesman for anything. Certainly not 'a tradition that dates back a generation before born', since you're the only one of the two of us who has ever mentioned that in these discussions. I am simply talking about my own improvisational praxis, which is all anyone ever can do when it comes down to it (or a particular group's praxis). Making grand sweeping statements about 'traditions' in improvisation is largely pointless, in my view. It's a process that some people choose to follow, simple as that.

I know of course that a fair hearing is the most I can hope for, but at the same time it doesn't feel like it should be too much to ask....

no? you don't think that asking someone to spend a full day of their life listening to your solo music is too much? that's pretty damn egocentric IMO, good luck with that.

egocentric, me? Jesus. Pot, meet kettle. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to anything. The project is simply available for those who are interested. Hell I'm not even making payment mandatory, despite the amount of work I put into this thing (not that I'm bitter about that, but it's about as much of a laissez-faire approach to the release of a creative work I can think of). I decided on a longer solo release for very specific and thought-out reasons (which are explained in the text), and it fulfilled those purposes admirably. If you've got a problem with how long it is, don't listen to it. In any case (as I explicitly say in the preface to the journal) my intention with this project is for it to be able to be approached like a long novel - it takes time to get to the end, but it can be read/listened to over whatever period of time is comfortable. Is Pynchon egocentric for writing Gravity's Rainbow when he could have written another Crying of Lot 49? I doubt it.

[jon abbey]

I was solely riffing off "it shouldn't be too much to ask" when to me that's a pretty big commitment to ask from a listener, you won't find much of a bigger fan of epic attempts in this area than me.

of course, then you went and compared yourself to prime-era Pynchon...

[Charon]

I was solely riffing off "it shouldn't be too much to ask" when to me that's a pretty big commitment to ask from a listener, you won't find much of a bigger fan of epic attempts in this area than me.

of course, then you went and compared yourself to prime-era Pynchon...

it shouldn't be too much to ask for people to stay off 'contempt prior to investigation' . A fair hearing involves the understanding that you can't reasonably expect to criticise what you have not heard/read. If you're not going to listen/read, then indeed 'opt out of the sarcastic jibes', and if you are going to listen, then wait until you've at least digested a reasonable amount before starting with the contempt.

As for 'comparing myself to prime-era Pynchon' you (should) know full well that wasn't what I was doing. I was simply drawing a parallel between your equating of extra length with egocentrism in the context of a music release with the same approach taken in the context of novels, and thereby showing it is absurd. Regardless of the quality or otherwise of the novels in question, to say one is more 'egocentric' than another simply because it is longer is patently ridiculous, regardless of who is writing.

[jon abbey]

"contempt prior to investigation" is different from "contempt prior to experience", but since I have neither contempt for nor interest in this specific project (and since Jesse presumably wasn't addressing me anyway), I'll drop it.

[Charon]

but since I have neither contempt for nor interest in this specific project

well you clearly do have some contempt for it hiding somewhere, otherwise why the 'egocentric' comment? The mask of neutrality has already slipped, no point denying it now. But dropping it is a good idea too.

[jon abbey]

I have contempt for you citing Gravity's Rainbow, not for your release itself.

and I have no mask, I'm very interested in what I feel should be the true subject of this thread, the puritanical component/s of free improvisation as rooted in the sixties London scene, and have no interest in actually listening to any of your work although I do kind of admire the chutzpah of this one. you'll note I'm not posting on your IHP threads.

[Charon]

I have contempt for you citing Gravity's Rainbow, not for your release itself.

Well, I'm sorry for stepping on your sacred cows. I deliberately chose something I knew was important to you to illustrate the absurdity of the point that extra length = egocentric. By the way you still haven't answered the question. Was Pynchon egocentric for writing something the length of Gravity's Rainbow when he could have written something the length of The Crying of Lot 49?

the true subject of this thread

Very interested too in where this comes from, seeing as this thread originally was split off from another discussion about something else and then didn't really touch the issue of 'puritanical' improvisation in so many words in its 12 or 13 pages, that term only came up in a completely different thread. Even since it has been revived it has gone through several different topics just in a few short pages. From what then can we deduce its 'true subject'?

But thanks for not doing this on the IHP threads

[jon abbey]

Well, I'm sorry for stepping on your sacred cows. I deliberately chose something I knew was important to you to illustrate the absurdity of the point that extra length = egocentric. By the way you still haven't answered the question. Was Pynchon egocentric for writing something the length of Gravity's Rainbow when he could have written something the length of The Crying of Lot 49?

heh, good call, since I've never read Gravity's Rainbow and thought the last Pynchon book I read was embarrassingly awful (check IHB for details).

as for the question, pretty sure the 35 set festival I put on and triple CD I released earlier this year speak for themselves, but if not, my taste in art is always towards the epic (and I started a thread on long-form pieces here a year or two back).

Very interested too in where this comes from, seeing as this thread originally was split off from another discussion about something else and then didn't really touch the issue of 'puritanical' improvisation in so many words in its 12 or 13 pages, that term only came up in a completely different thread. Even since it has been revived it has gone through several different topics just in a few short pages. From what then can we deduce its 'true subject'?

I said "I'm very interested in what I feel should be the true subject of this thread" because I feel there's an actual discussion to be had under that topic, as opposed to 'pure improvisation' which to me is a no-starter.

also, this thread left off two years ago, and this is a topic I've done a fair amount of thinking about in the interim, how the puritanical mindsets that so many people in this area of music have (again, including myself in certain ways) affect the music, the development of the music over generations, etc, etc.

[Charon]

heh, good call, since I've never read Gravity's Rainbow and thought the last Pynchon book I read was embarrassingly awful (check IHB for details).

You're the one who mentioned 'prime-era Pynchon' here........

as for the question, pretty sure the 35 set festival I put on and triple CD I released earlier this year speak for themselves, but if not, my taste in art is always towards the epic (and I started a thread on long-form pieces here a year or two back).

Then why dismiss my work out of hand without having listened to a single second as being egocentric simply because it is long (and that is the only reason you could have dismissed it for since you have nothing else to go on, not having downloaded it)?

also, this thread left off two years ago, and this is a topic I've done a fair amount of thinking about in the interim, how the puritanical mindsets that so many people in this area of music have (again, including myself in certain ways) affect the music, the development of the music over generations, etc, etc.

I can feel another 'canon' coming on, excuse me while I throw up.

[jon abbey]

Then why dismiss my work out of hand without having listened to a single second as being egocentric simply because it is long (and that is the only reason you could have dismissed it for since you have nothing else to go on, not having downloaded it)?

that is not what I said, your poor reading comprehension is making this exchange go on far longer than necessary. I'm not repeating myself again for your benefit, my initial statements were clear and either you understand them or you don't.

I can feel another 'canon' coming on, excuse me while I throw up.

actually not at all, any canons along these lines have already been loosely set and continue to evolve.

what I've been talking about (or trying to) is the people who helped establish this tradition and the ones who continue to attempt to keep it alive, and how their sometimes extreme belief systems impact the results. I don't really know the answer/s, which is why the topic is interesting to me, as opposed to the concept of free improvisation/purist improvisation, which is a simple and straightforward way of working that probably everyone reading this fully understands.

[Charon]

Then why dismiss my work out of hand without having listened to a single second as being egocentric simply because it is long (and that is the only reason you could have dismissed it for since you have nothing else to go on, not having downloaded it)?

that is not what I said, your poor reading comprehension is making this exchange go on far longer than necessary. I'm not repeating myself again for your benefit, my initial statements were clear and either you understand them or you don't.

no? you don't think that asking someone to spend a full day of their life listening to your solo music is too much? that's pretty damn egocentric IMO, good luck with that.

Riiiiight.......

You called my release egocentric because it takes a 'full day of [someone's] life' to listen to. Therefore for you, if a musician releases a work that requires a significant investment of time from the listener, that musician is being egocentric. Or is it just because it was me who released it? If so I would very much like to know what your reasoning behind that is.