COMPETENCE VS EXPERIMENTATION

And yes, I know you are all going to go "Good old Gerry" or some such...

Madness on the level of "you must make a record before you can criticize them."

Because he brought up improv free jazz and how annoying it can be, because he saw some free jazz saxophonist shuffling across the street on our way home from the Tavener concert.

Most free jazz players have a knowledge of music which is far more expansive than sound artists or bubblegum poppers, sorry. Even the most out-jazzers learned chops playing straight before going free. Albert Ayler was known in his Cleveland days as "Little Bird" (ie. compared to Charlie Parker).

Experimentation is one thing. It doesn't mean you have to like it.

Competence will always get more immediate appreciation/more coins in yer hat.

Basically, HSA was trying to explain about how free jazz bods often talk about improv in terms of a "conversation" between two musicians. He was laughing at this notion, because on the several occasions he's collaborated with free jazz types, there's been no "conversation" - he just makes a load of noise and the free jazz type makes another load of noise - the only conversation taking place is when HSA nods at them to warn them he's about to stop or something. Yet still, free jazz fans would approach him after the set, and say "yeah, man, that was a great conversation" with this mindview about what was happening onstage with no relation to what had actual occured.

Which brought up the whole topic of improvisation - HSA was saying that 80% of it is utter rubbish, but the 20% of it that is good is SOOOOO good that it almost (but not quite) makes up for having to wade through the bad.

I disagreed, and stressed that the key to having good improv, the key to having good "jam" consistently was for the players involved to not just know music really well, but to know each *other* - or rather each other's playing style - really well. A band I was in in NYC, we used to play together once, even twice a week, and after a year or, two we could get away with improv-ing onstage so that it looked totally natural and spontaneous. We got to the point where 80% of the improv was consistently good! But it was the result of lots of hard work and practice, and well, competence. It just *looked* like experimentation to the outsider.

There's this idea that improv is some kind of "magic" conversation that will just happen if you put two players together. And that's bollocks, it happens a tiny fraction (HSA's 20%) of the time!

Anyway...

I don't really see improvisation as an end in itself anymore, more a method of doing things. It's great when it clicks, and as a musician I think it's really useful for developing various sorts of ability, but the fact that something is improvised doesn't make it better or worse.

Basically, HSA was trying to explain about how free jazz bods often talk about improv in terms of a "conversation" between two musicians. He was laughing at this notion, because on the several occasions he's collaborated with free jazz types, there's been no "conversation" - he just makes a load of noise and the free jazz type makes another load of noise - the only conversation taking place is when HSA nods at them to warn them he's about to stop or something. Yet still, free jazz fans would approach him after the set, and say "yeah, man, that was a great conversation" with this mindview about what was happening onstage with no relation to what had actual occured.

that's just a bad cliche that some free jazzers use. I don't see how anecdotal evidence necessarily has to be extrapolated into free jazz as a whole. Not to mention that the best/most major players were at their peak 40 years ago, and most of them are dead now.

Which brought up the whole topic of improvisation - HSA was saying that 80% of it is utter rubbish, but the 20% of it that is good is SOOOOO good that it almost (but not quite) makes up for having to wade through the bad.

I kinda agree with this, at least from a recording standpoint. Nobody needs every Derek Bailey record, y'know?

Also, I'd argue that first-time encounters can sometimes be better than familiarity. At least, I've seen/heard some great ones.

Good ol' Gerry Hemingway.

*falls*

if you actually go there, you might discover that this requirement is not necessary.

I hate how free jazz always comes up as the example when discussing this stuff.

(it does, doesn't it)

I love Hamid, and I know he's way fucking better than me, obv. I was just joking around with the fact that my main concern on this gig is not giving in to the temptation to try to sound all Chicago/Hamid free jazz (which I'm not).

convo happens everytime, whether its any good or not.

I've seen good improv where people are playing together for the first time, or ppl who don't play together very often and its triffic!

also: company week to thread!

Can I use this for a song title though?