From the Classical message board at Mp3.com: Topic: "On Improvisation and Intuitive Understanding", (posted 14-Oct-2000 / begun by Joseph Benzola): .............................. .............................. The following quotes are all attributed to Guitarist/Improvisor Derek Bailey unless otherwise notated (Hey...that's an accidental pun!): "Improvisation enjoys the curious distinction of both being the most widely practiced of all musical activities and the least acknowledged and understood...Improvisation is always changing and adjusting, never fixed, too elusive for analysis and precise description, essentially non-academic...They (Improvisors) know that there is no musical activity that requires greater skill and devotion, preparation, training, and commitment. And so they reject the word and show a reluctance to be identified by what in some quarters has almost become a term of abuse" "Music without notation is not limited to a scriptless society. Many ancient notation systems were merely devised by priests and cantors and some were even kept secret. While in religious music notation had a definite place in order to prevent the present and future generations from breaking sacred traditions, secular music relied on free invention and memory, in Western civilisation as well as those of the East. Notation became indispensable only under the pressure of worked-out polyphony" -Curt Sachs- "The petrifying effect of European classical music on those things it touches, jazz, many folk musics, and all popular musics have suffered grievously in their contact with it-made the prospects of finding it pretty remote. Formal, precious, self-absorbed, pompous, harbouring rigid conventions and carefully preserved hierarchical distinctions, obsessed with geniuses and their timeless masterpieces, shunning the accidental and the unexpected, the world of classical music provides an unlikely setting for improvisation." "If a man plays for a certain amount of time...eventually a kind of order asserts itself, whether he chooses to notate that personal order or engage in polemics about it, it's there. That is, if he is saying anything in his music. There is no music without order if music comes from a mans innards." -Cecil Taylor "My music is as varied as my feelings are, or the world is, and one composition or one kind of composition expresses only one part of the total world of music... I decided to memorize the compositions and then phrase them on the piano and play them for the musicians. I wanted them to learn the music so it would be in their ears, rather than on paper... " -Charles Mingus "A genius uses music as a language to express fully without the help of words whatever he may wish to be known, for music can express feeling more comprehensively than any tongue...Music looses its freedom by being subject to the laws of technique." -Sufi Inayat Khan "Being musical has to do with intuitive intelligence, not just communicating intelligence... Musical training has nothing to do with musicality. You can train someone for years in a conservatory of music and develop the ability to recognize pitch constructions, harmonies, chords, melodies, intervals-all intellectually." -Karlheinz Stockhausen "A piece of improvisation is done and after it's done, there's nothing to be said about it because it affects your life whether you like it or not." -Leo Smith "Well, that is one of the main causes of this arrogance-the idea of power. Then you loose your true power, which is to be part of all, and the only way you can be part of all is to understand it. And when you don't understand, you have to go humbly to it. You don't go to school and say, 'I know what you're going to teach me' ". -John Coltrane "It is conceivable that what is unified in form to the author or composer may of necessity be formless to his audience." -Charles Ives "The original concepts of vocal and instrumental music are utterly different. The instrumental impulse is not melody in a "melodious" sense, but an agile movement of the hands which seems to be under the control of a brain center totally different from that which inspires vocal melody. Altogether, instrumental music with the exception of rudimentary rhythmic percussion, is as a rule florid, fast, and brilliant display of virtuosity...Quick motion is not merely a means to a musical end but almost an end in itself which always connects with the fingers the wrists and the whole body." -Curt Sachs- "We discover here probably the most important of all functions of music: a persons constant search or desire for communication with the unknown, supernatural, or supreme being." -Ashenafi Kebede "In my hours of gloom, when I am suddenly aware of my own futility, when every musical idiom-classical, oriental, ancient, modern, and ultra modern appears to me as no more than admirable ,painstaking, experimentation, without ultimate justification, what is left for me but to seek out the true, lost face of music somewhere off in the forest, in the fields, in the mountains, or on the seashore among the birds. -Oliver Messiaen " ~Joseph Benzola [JB] .............................. .............................. A fantastic collection of quotes about a subject to many people in Classical performance and composition forget. Improvisation was for quite some time an integral part of Western Classical or "Art" music; at times half or more of the conception of the piece. Composition, even in the most rigorously-notated form, is to me still essentially improvisation; everything the composer writes is "found", and the path is one of his or her own making. It's just that you can revisit any moment and "find" something else there, if desired, and so is filled with small regressive "loops" in time, in the composer's own experience. What is left is a record of that activity, which usually anymore is then open to the interpretation of performance. Interpretation is essentially a kind of micro-level improvisation; it has its own intensity, but within a much more compressed and regulated level. It's a little like something like baseball; there are infinite ways to execute each kind of play, some so-so and some transcendent, but there are only so many kinds of plays, each with their own pretty strict protocols. While I applaud what you've quoted, there are a couple lines that I'd offer warnings about: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The petrifying effect of European classical music on those things it touches, jazz, many folk musics, and all popular musics have suffered grievously in their contact with it-made the prospects of finding it pretty remote. Formal, precious, self-absorbed, pompous, harbouring rigid conventions and carefully preserved hierarchical distinctions, obsessed with geniuses and their timeless masterpieces, shunning the accidental and the unexpected, the world of classical music provides an unlikely setting for improvisation." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is just plain one-sided derogatory propaganda, as bad as any the Classical guys have painted Improvisers with. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Music looses its freedom by being subject to the laws of technique. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Absolutely not true. "Technique" or artifice or "rules" are what makes any collection of sounds Music, and it is impossible to create or perform in any tradition, improvised or strict, without them. Thanks for the post. (And all of you ought to thank Joe by taking a little trip over to http://www.homemademusic.com/artists/amanita and pay a visit to some wonderful, vital music. Cyberspace doesn't know any distance; he's as close as a mouse-click.) ~Steve Layton .............................. .............................. I really think this coin has two sides. I would certainly agree that the most direct expression is via improvisation, but the most direct expression is not necessarily the most thoughtful. I also think Steve Layton hit a lot of nails on the head, including going to visit Joe in Cyberspace. I'd only like to add that I improvise every time I sit down to compose. Unfortunately when I improvise moments of magic are interspersed with the boring and mundane, either can be deliberate or a mistake. As a composer I see my job as a filter, weed out the crap and build something with the good ideas. In that respect writing music is a lot like writing poetry. I don't think Robert Frost just tossed finished poems off the top of his head like today's rappers like to do. It takes thought, planning and skill (some of which is for improvisation). I have a great deal of respect for performers who can improvise a whole piece as I know some organists do. I also respect Jazz players that can improvise impassioned and virtuostic solos. Keep in mind that Jazz players usually improvise over a set chord structure so what they solo over a rhythmic underpinning that is for the most part not improvised. The best Jazz groups do play off each other. But the underlying harmony is fixed. All of these aspects of music making are skills in themselves and each has its place and role. I think it's unfortunate that some want to make this a my way is better than your way argument. There is no better, each way just is, and I personally don't believe Joe's generally excellent post went over very many people's heads at all. Not in this crowd. Cheers, Steve Chandler .............................. .............................. Steve Chandler wrote: "I have a great deal of respect for performers who can improvise a whole piece as I know some organists do. I also respect Jazz players that can improvise impassioned and virtuostic solos. Keep in mind that Jazz players usually improvise over a set chord structure so what they solo over a rhythmic underpinning that is for the most part not improvised. The best Jazz groups do play off each other. But the underlying harmony is fixed." Hey Steve, True...but not really true. Though much of mainstream jazz (swing, bebop, etc), there are many, many instances of completely improvised performances. Perhaps the first are two compositions that Lennie Tristano and Lee Konitz recorded with the addition of bass and drums in 1947 or 1948. These two performances were totally improvised from start to finish without any preconceived notion prior to performance. In the late 1950's, Charles Mingus did quite a bit of experimentation with free compositions. John Coltrane, Albert Ayler, the musicians of the AACM ( Braxton, The Art Ensemble, Leo Smith, Air, etc) Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, etc. Though these players often dealt with written material, some of their best performances were totally improvised. Don't forget Keith Jarrett and his mammoth improvised solo piano pieces!! I can tell you from experience that my methods of composition for the last 10-15 years is based on 100% improvisation...and that includes pieces that many people think are fully notated such as Portraits of the Dead: John Cage!! Do I think that all improvised music is superior...no. Do I think that it is possible to create improvised compost ions from start to finish that rival notated pieces....YES!! ~JB .............................. .............................. Considering this is the most relevant and insightful thread i have ever found on mp3's message-bored (every pun intended) i am forced to respond. i agree with everybody in some respects. first what Mr.. bailey said about western-European music has to be understood in a certain context. he is subjectively denouncing the effects of Eurocentric western classicism (perhaps more as it is taught than its 'reality')from the objective view point of his experience. being an improviser i am in complete agreement with Mr.. bailey on this count. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart...they were all revered in their times as great improvisers. they understood the immediacy of the music making experience and that gave their compositions more expressive power. it has to be understood that improvisation in the 20th century has been subjugated, labeled, commodified according to the European western classical mode of thought in which the 'tradition' has been defined. it is like all of history. (being taught about slavery by those that enslaved.) the fact remains the bulk of the most progressive thought about music, which aesthetically carries on the "western classical tradition" (i.e. Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Schoenberg, webern, cage, Stockhausen, Boulez, etc...) resides in the works of musicians who are themselves improvisers (i.e. the AACM, Braxton, Zorn, Evan parker, {this list is extensive!}. Mr. bailey is correct in his evaluation from his experience. i am in complete agreement though about the "music loses its freedom through the laws of technique"(or something like that), on the contrary music manifests itself through the technique through which it is rendered. there is no music without technique. it seems to me the improvisers main task is to refine his/her technique through continual investigation into the possibilities of sound in relationship. i feel the composer/improviser argument lies in the problems of control. who gets to decide what? this is where aesthetics plays a large role in the determination of what you hear. (meta-musical considerations?) i also agree with Joe about improvising works which are indistinguishable from "notated" scores. if this is possible it raises serious questions as to the validity and utility of through-composed writing. is the score the music or the performance? is the composers stringent command of the music's interpretation and performance necessary to render his/her vision? the other fact is improvisers have almost single handedly carried out the investigations and extensions of instrumental technique since 1960; which was considered by musicians of the post-WWII avant-garde to be the most unexplored and resourceful territory for future investigations. and the implications of the elimination of the need for a conductor as a consequence of the aesthetic basis - reliance on the player(improvisor/realizer/individual/autonomous) decision making and creative skill - in relation to an ideas actualization? (an aesthetic position rigorously opposed by the city symphonic corporation of America which states players are workers, conductors are managers, and the moneygivers are in control! ~ph .............................. .............................. Nice points, and well said. Glad to have you in on this. Just a couple things: I know the kernel of truth in the Bailey statement; it's just that phrasing it in such a dogmatic style that reflects the same kinds of abuse that comes from the other camp certainly doesn't do the cause a service. I question the term "progressive thought". This can open a whole other can of worms, but there is something more or less akin to, and just about as bad as, that "western Eurocentric attitude" mentioned before regarding improvisation, that equates certain kinds of "exploration" with "progress". New and different is not always better. Where you say: "I feel the composer/improviser argument lies in the problems of control.".... I have to stand with Steve C. on this one; that there is no real "problem"; that what is in each style, simply is. I don't see anything that would, as you say, "...raise serious questions as to the validity and utility of through-composed writing." Each way is but a different path to the same goal in the end. There are beautiful and magical things that happen in performances of strictly "composed" pieces, just as much as there are in great total improvisations. And we shouldn't forget that there are also many different kinds of improvisations; some, such as those in Indian or Turkish art music, are not so very free, and yet are improvisations from first note to last. I have many recordings of my own work that are complete improvisations, which I fully consider to be finished "pieces" with the same status of my notated work. There's the page here at MP3.com of Nicholas McNair, who does completely "free" improvisations, yet coming once again out of the Classical and Romantic tradition. It's certainly not going to set my ears on fire, yet their validity as contemporary improvisation is beyond question; and they stand every chance to be as revelatory and successful as Cecil Taylor's can be. There are two ways to judge Mr. McNair's improvisations; either they stand or fall based on their execution within the chosen stylistic constraints; or we reject something in them from the beginning, based on our own biases about "the way things should be". The last attitude is what I'd dearly like to make sure everyone stays aware of as a counterproductive force, be it within the other or within themselves. ~Steve Layton .............................. .............................. I was lucky enough to have a nearly two year weekly solo improvised guitar gig at the old Worcester Artists Group. (The long since defunct WAG was a great big bustling gallery/performance space located in an old screw factory in downtown Worcester Massachusetts.) This was a wonderful experience in many ways... I was able to play on the same bill with a lot of different improvising musicians with whose work I was already familiar; Tim Berne and Bill Frisell, The String Trio of NY (a personal fave), Hal Russell, Gregg Bendian and many others... and I was able to grow by way of a steady gig (this being a somewhat different animal than practicing, rehearsing, and the related like). I've never felt that I could better my improvised music through composerly refinement. That "problem" was pretty much encoded into the music in as much as I would play to the strengths of what I felt "worked". It would be difficult to understate the importance of context and intent... of what it is that your trying to accomplish. I could never compose a "better" solo guitar piece than I could improvise, but there's also no way that I would expect any of my groups to improvise one of my compositions -- if you want a three measure rhythmic unison across seven instruments, free-improvisation might not be the best tactical approach to solving this problem! I cherish both through composition and total improvisation. But aside from hopefully being good music <!>, I don't expect each to be able to be the other. My friend Bart Mallio studied with Anthony Braxton for a while. (Bart plays bass in the Anthony Rodrigues Trio in which I also play fretless guitar. Should anyone be interested, here's a link to Long_Hard_Winter by the AR trio) I think Braxton is a truly remarkable man. He has continually worked his music towards an organic, unified amalgamation of improvised and notated schemes. He's also the type that has no problem seeing the iconoclastic and remarkable individual achievement across any of the ideological battle lines that often churn around the improviser/composer, in/out, old/new, etc., camps... witness his heartfelt and keen appreciation of Paul Desmond and Derek Bailey... Richard Teitelbaum and Sousa... Wagner and Warne Marsh... I think it's also worth noting that Braxton's own music is an exceptionally difficult collision of improvised and notated schemes... It not only requires dynamic, intuitive players who can really think on their feet and personally contribute with a capital C, but it also demands some pretty fearsome sight-reading and the "schooled" like as well... In Braxton's music these may not be two sides of the same coin, but he certainly expects his players to be ready -- heads or tails! ~Dan Stearns .............................. .............................. WWWOOOOHOOOOO! we have a real discussion going now! i capitulate on what you say about baileys statement. i agree that nothing productive can come from as you say, "same abuses that come from the other camp". but i do understand Mr. bailey's frustration. as for the issue of control in composition i stand fast. we are primarily dealing here with aesthetic concerns. i am very deeply influenced by the "sociology of music", not only as it has to do with the relations of the music's internal composition, but also music as a social phenomenon, its history. it is strange, my thinking on the subject has been greatly informed by Theodore Adorno, the German critical theorist who studied with berg, and hung with Stockhausen and Boulez in the early years (and who oddly enough denounced improvisation!) he analyzes music and its development in accordance with the socio-historical environment in which it is created. no music can escape history, but it can oppose it. we have to see how the mechanisms of the social apparatus reach deep into the very axioms (very thought processes) of how we approach music. (i will not even go into the economy of musics production and consumption, this is dreadfully obvious to us all.) there is a hierarchy in the music arena as there is in any form of work. the hierarchy of composer/conductor/player is based on the same model of organization as the factory, schools, prisons, mental hospitals... if we look at the case of electronic music of the 50's we see an incredibly paradoxical situation which i believe is only in the last 20 years being correctly understood. composers (heavily influenced by the science of the time; Stockhausen studied with Meyer-Eppler) finally could command and control every aspect of what you heard without the aid of other human beings. a musical work which reached perfection with the ABSENCE OF PEOPLE! a technically perfected object. this mode of thought is directly related to the thinking which dominated the (hell still dominates our) time period, (cybernetics, automation, computer simulation). is this technically wrong? no. is it an aesthetic injustice? certainly! in my opinion fully notated scores, which articulate every particular of the piece are exclusionary. to have one person perform such a score is to have anyone perform it. the player is a cog and not a participant. some composer are obsessed with the notion of "reproducibility", knowing that, even if the composer isn't there, his/her piece will sound (more or less) exactly like the composer wants it. this is directly related to the problems of control. (and what composer would be arrogant enough to think a piece he/she wrote is so precious a creation!) i have been out of college now for a year and i can tell you from my experience this attitude is destroying generations of young musicians. you are not taught to play an instrument you are taught to BE an instrument. and the one who can technically play everything perfectly wins! i cant tell you how many technocrats i would hear. sure everything was played perfectly, the square peg in the square hole, but there was no MUSIC being made. i am left as cold and empty when it is over as when it is played. where is the music? this is where i find Zorn's concept of game structures to be of utmost importance. (not only aesthetically but technically). here is a way to rigorously determine the relationships and contents of a work while not having any idea what is going to be heard. (well some idea.) a method by which the composition is completed by each players decision making and creative skills. it is inclusive. it explodes the existing social hierarchy while pointing out the inadequacy of our current social model of communication. next, let us not get bogged down by this word FREE. i don't like using it because most of what i improvise is based on certain materials. (just like improv from other parts of the world.) what is FREE is how this material is interpreted and formed by the players in the moment of play. but as we know to be free you need a context to be free in. i use the term creative instead of free. the only thing free about it is that you don't make any money playing it! now it seems the discussion is more about mediums of the transmission of a musical idea. i myself have notated sections in works that are placed in the context of improvising to give more coherence to the idea I'm trying to get across, but never have i wrote a piece of music that does not leave something for the player to complete in the act of performing. i look to the models put forth by both Anthony Braxton and john Zorn (70's) to be of great interest here. this is one of the biggest challenges facing us today. how to integrate all of these disparate elements? how to place the decision making of the work in the hands of the players while still retaining a certain rigor of organization? this too is the question facing corporations, governments, organizers of 'work' of all kinds. i see no value in composing only strictly notated works. that period of music is over. but notation in an improvisational context? sure. I'm sure there was more i was going to say but this post is way to long as it is! ~ph .............................. .............................. I love it when obviously capable minds look at the same situation and come to different conclusions. So KNOB you put this at the end of an otherwise well considered post: "i see no value in composing only strictly notated works. that period of music is over." With all due respect I disagree. The fact that there is much new music being produced in notated form and being performed today takes issue with your conclusion. Your mileage, route and vehicle obviously are at variance with mine, but it's specious for you to tell me mine doesn't exist. I drive it every day. I hate to sound patronizing, but since you've only been out of school a year I'd like to remind you that your opinions may change over the next decade or two or more. Or as the cliche says, "The mind is like a parachute... it only works if it's open." ~Steve Chandler .............................. .............................. A most interesting and excellent thread, all around. Much to absorb. KNOB's comment about "music as a social phenomenon" reminded me of a quote I saw in, of all places, the Farmer's Almanac: "What is the greatest invention of the past millennium? Western Classical music, as epitomized in the compositions of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and above all Mozart. Classical music has probably given more pleasure to more individuals, with less negative fallout, than any other human artifact." -- Howard Gardner, professor of education, Harvard University. ~Fara Shimbo .............................. .............................. Steve c, this is what i love about life; we come to different conclusions based on our experiences. and as for only being out of school a year...i have transferred and taken so many periods off in between it is hard to say if i was really in school. i left the music dept and got another degree to get out because i was picking up so much work playing and because i was not learning squat from the majority of "professors" (not to mention all the $$$). but i agree that maybe in 10 years i might completely change my mind! unfortunately your acerbic comment about not having an open mind was unnecessary (and quite reactionary). it goes to reinforce what we were talking about earlier; "same abuse from the other camp". i think the fact that we are exchanging ideas on this level confirms the fact we all have open minds. it is through having an open mind that i have come to my conclusion about strictly notated works; based on what i have learned from my experiences as an improviser and how i perceive the situation we are in, and not just musically. when i said that period of music is over i meant for me! now, do you see each of your compositions as autonomous products? separate ideas worked out and formalized; a "thing in itself"? or do you see each composition as an idea, process, material or structure which can enter into certain assemblages with other compositions as strategized for a given performance? also does improvisation, no matter how determined or indetermined, play a role in your notated compositions (in any parameter)? i ask this purely out of curiosity. it seems that sometimes "differences in views" are more a semantic, word usage and definition of terms, problem. ~ph .............................. .............................. I think improvisation is getting much more credit than it deserves here. Improvisation is best when played under a set chord structure. Anything else is just the chance to hear someone dinker around. Go ahead, and try to make it such a big thing, but it never has been in classical music, and never will. How do you like that? If a classical improvisation sounds like a finished song, doesn't that defeat the purpose. Then it just sounds like a song, doesn't it. What is so original about that? Nothing. As a matter of fact, it is a song composed at a fast rate of speed. I think an improvisation has something equivalent to playing "live." It gives you the chance to hear a mistake and also just someone playing around with ideas. ~James Combs .............................. .............................. Ha, Ha, Ha....now I understand that famous Combs humor that you were talking about! You are not only a composer of much means, but a fabulous orator and musical philosopher. You said it best yourself Mr. Combs in your previous post, you do need a dose of acid and a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. You are a funny man!!! He, He, He!!!! I mean, such a grasp of the language and of the history of the music you so dearly love. What a pleasure mate!! ~JB .............................. .............................. A couple MORE things: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by ph: (.....) It is strange, my thinking on the subject has been greatly informed by Theodore Adorno, (.....) No music can escape history, but it can oppose it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've had twenty-five years to mull over Adorno, and I still can't buy into him. There's a certain "imperative" line that runs through his argument, that I think is very much of his time and place. (You're right, we CAN'T escape history...) I had just recommended Leonard B. Meyer's book "Music, The Arts, and Ideas" to someone, and that got me rereading it these last few weeks. I find his take on the "current" scene to be about the best I know; and the fact that he could see what was happening then (1967) and essentially NOW, makes it all the more stunning. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have to see how the mechanisms of the social apparatus reach deep into the very axioms (very thought processes) of how we approach music. (.....) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some places in music are reached deeply, but some are not reached at all. The role of the musician in relation to society changes; the role of the musician in relation to himself (meaning both the personal, and the "milieu" he chooses) stays relatively stable. What Meyer argues has changed from a hundred years ago, is the ever-accelerated unlocking of previously-closed stylistic doors, combined with the essentially-finished "discovery" of every culture on the planet, and the recovery and retention of "history" (what was done, whether 2000 years ago or yesterday, all available in the present moment), led to a period of "fluctuating stasis". This stasis began long before anyone recognized it as such; and to many, the previous "imperative" view of the arts has persisted, such that they don't see it even today. There is no "problem" with finding the "true" way; because ALL ways have become "true". What Meyer argues is that this is not a period of confusion, or "searching" for the next big answer; this "fluctuating stasis" IS the answer, and could very well be for some very long time to come. Postmodernism without the irony, I suppose. And given that the general area most of us explore is much more marginalized by the current vernacular, with much of it becoming even more so, the broad, hazy stylistic "wash" that we swim in makes smaller and smaller ripples. None of that makes much difference to us though, personally, except insofar as each carries the echo of that "imperative" way of thinking to a greater or lesser degree. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we look at the case of electronic music of the 50's we see an incredibly paradoxical situation which i believe is only in the last 20 years being correctly understood. composers (heavily influenced by the science of the time; Stockhausen studied with Meyer-Eppler) finally could command and control every aspect of what you heard without the aid of other human beings. a musical work which reached perfection with the ABSENCE OF PEOPLE! a technically perfected object. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, I think this was a false assumption then. That IN THEORY you could command and control every aspect of a piece, yes; but the technology was so primitive that what they ended up producing fell far short of the expectation. That didn't start to change much all the way into the 80s. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this mode of thought is directly related to the thinking which dominated the (hell still dominates our) time period, (cybernetics, automation, computer simulation). is this technically wrong? no. is it an aesthetic injustice? certainly! in my opinion fully notated scores, which articulate every particular of the piece are exclusionary. to have one person perform such a score is to have anyone perform it. the player is a cog and not a participant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't see it. How is it an "aesthetic injustice"? An injustice can occur only within a certain defined order of things. Yet there is no "one" order. Within the group of composers, performers, and listeners who accept that particular defined order, each particular aspect offers many rewards. And the same listener, performer, or composer has the ability to move within many different "defined orders". This difference does not have to be thought of as "opposing" in any way (unless we want to make a style that uses the element of stylistic opposition within it's OWN style). quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some composers are obsessed with the notion of "reproducibility", knowing that, even if the composer isn't there, his/her piece will sound (more or less) exactly like the composer wants it. this is directly related to the problems of control. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again you say "the problem"; what problem? For who? The composer who writes this way is happy; the performer who enjoys the challenge of executing AND INTERPRETING (because there is interpretation in every performance) this music is happy; and the listener who enjoys what the piece is saying and how it is said is happy. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (and what composer would be arrogant enough to think a piece he/she wrote is so precious a creation!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I must be that "arrogant" one, because I DO treasure each of my pieces. I happen to work in the same mind-set as the painter, sculptor, ceramicist; I make a beautiful object. (Where "beauty" in no way needs to imply "pleasant"!) That object sometimes requires performers, and sometimes doesn't. It's not the only way, by any means, but it is my way. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have been out of college now for a year and i can tell you from my experience this attitude is destroying generations of young musicians. you are not taught to play an instrument you are taught to BE an instrument. and the one who can technically play everything perfectly wins! i cant tell you how many technocrats i would hear. sure everything was played perfectly, the square peg in the square hole, but there was no MUSIC being made. i am left as cold and empty when it is over as when it is played. where is the music? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd think the music was "right there" for many of them. Who would deny them their own pleasure? I am not much of a supporter of the academic scene, either, as it relates to what I and others like me wanted to accomplish. Almost everything meaningful that we did there came because we made it happen ourselves. Yet the university seemed to be accomplishing for many others precisely what they'd come there for. Most came to get technical skill in their chosen field, whether that related to performance, teaching, or research. It's up to each from there to put their own "spin" on what they're given. Usually where the problem comes in for a lot of people (myself included at the time) is that besides giving you the tools they tend to give you specific ways to use them. This can be argued to be evil and repressive; or it can be seen as the old "strict master and pupil" approach. The point with that is NOT to be "free" while you are there; that time will take you on your own course, and you'll still become who you want to be. As much as it does seem pretty repressive and evil, it also does seem to work; in many disciplines, times, and cultures. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is where i find Zorns's concept of game structures to be of utmost importance. (not only aesthetically but technically). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good. I do, too. But only as an aesthetic "way". All art (in music, including Boulez and Ferneyhough) is play. But when you say: (...)it explodes the existing social hierarchy while pointing out the inadequacy of our current social model of communication. "Explodes" for who? "Inadequate" for who? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- next, let us not get bogged down by this word FREE. (....) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm with you all the way on this one. "Creative" is better, in a sense (though all art is creative). Only I don't see it as a necessity that must be called on to override any existing order. It's just a different "game". quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i see no value in composing only strictly notated works. that period of music is over. but notation in an improvisational context? sure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, sure. But Steve C. was right to slap you on the first part of your statement. Of course it only means that YOU see no value in that way; but in the context, it can be taken as a kind of general imperative, one of those things that closes minds and dialogue. ~Steve Layton .............................. .............................. this is why i don't post threads on message-bored's. nothing is personal, i don't want to get into a discussion of this is better than that, or this is more important than that. i am just trying to discuss music. everybody's conception of music is different, informed through varied sources and everybody puts things together in different ways; heterogeneity is good. i didn't intend for the discussion to open up the age old can of worms - improv vs composing, i believe a good deal of this dichotomy has dissolved over the last twenty or so years in the work of Braxton, Zorn, Leo smith... and i love the music of Schoenberg, Boulez, Nono, Berio, Xenakis. i had to understand Bach to get Mozart and Beethoven, Wagner and Strauss to understand Mahler, to Schoenberg to Messiaen to Stockhausen; Varese, Cowell, cage... i support creativity in all its expressions, i was only trying to initiate a discussion about music. thank you! good night! (KNOB exits stage left to the sound of bombs and crickets.) ~ph .............................. .............................. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Improvisation is best when played under a set chord structure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ugh, I totally disagree. Whether composing or improvising, I do not think in terms of "chords". Scales and motifs are the most important aspects for me and never pre-determined. I consider the purpose of "chords", or rather harmonies, is to support the musical material, not govern. They can always be added in afterwards, or sometimes not at all. (I think of "chords" as an application of harmony rather than an interchangeable term.) quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Go ahead, and try to make it such a big thing, but it never has been in classical music, and never will. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where did cadenzas evolve from? Where would Beethoven be if was not such a great improviser? Improvisation has always been a part of all music. However, improvisors die whilst compositions remain immortal. ~Thom. .............................. .............................. J. Benzola and Dan Stearns: Why do I get the impression that you are snobs? I find it very interesting how you two, being composers of experimental music, can be so judgmental of others. If your music was played to the general public, wouldn't it be booed? I don't agree that truly makes it bad, and you understand that too, so how is it that you critique so often with generalizations of what "inspired" or "good" music is? Are you just a couple high-brow phonies?? Joe: I like your One-Hand Clapping very much. You are truly gifted at percussion. I wish I could slam your music, but I like it. ~James Combs .............................. .............................. Snob...believe me, I'm anything but a snob. I mean like anyone else, I have my likes and dislikes but what I don't have is this demarcation of tonal/atonal/composed/improvised/realtime/sequenced/overdubbed/notated/blah..blah...blah. I truly do not like to setup this artificial hierarchy of who is better than who. To me, Johnny Cash is no different than Bach who is no different than a Wiks player in Nigeria who is no different than Monk who is no different than Mississippi Fred MacDowell who is no different than Morton Subotnick...well you get the picture. I will only go on the attack if attacked or if I find a statement to be either inane, inflammatory, insulting, or biased via extreme prejudice. In particular, I am very sensitive to the issues of improvising musicians because not only am I one, but I have dealt with a lifetimes worth of prejudice towards this art form. I will always set the record straight when this topic is concerned. As far as being booed by the general public is concerned, who cares. My wife boos me, my children are frightened by my music (In particular The Conversation but there is an audience for this music and I have at times reached it via radio, the internet, festivals (for both live performance and tape music), and magazines. As far as inspired music is concerned, I find as much inspiration in the Sex Pistols as I find in Webern. I am not looking at music from the realm of entertainment or even musical theory...I am looking at music as part of a very real mystical tradition, one that incorporates all mystical traditions. My musical building blocks and what I want to accomplish are probably very different than others but with that said, that does not make them anymore valid or invalid as others. ~JB .............................. .............................. Whoo guys - another great discussion. Too bad we have descended to the old BB sniping crap. Hell yes making music is intensely personal, but personal attacks are not productive in a public forum (are you listening Mr. Bush? Mr. Gore?) I think Dan has mentioned some really good points - if we are involved in "experimental" music - notated or not - we want to find something out in the process of making the work. The choice of method has very much to do with what you want to know and what will be the most effective way of getting there. For example my Five Movements for Electric Guitar is improvised within the parameters of some very broad questions about microtonality and beat patterns. My string quartet "White" has some nearly identical questions but with much more specific focus that I would not be able to get to in an improvised context. Hearkening back to Mr. Zorn his card method of composition was one way of dealing with one of the on-going problems of improvisation - that of long-term structure, while keeping the freshness of sound and personality that would have been the unlikely outcome of handing out a notated score. (I know I've heard a Zorn orchestra piece!) Good/Bad I dunno - but am I different before or after I've experienced the piece. ~Doug Kolmar .............................. .............................. Kudos to Dan and Joe for their well considered comments in support of improvisation. I understand the appeal of improvisation because I really enjoy when I indulge in it myself. I'm less enthusiastic as a listener however because I haven't heard much improvised music (including my own) that satisfies my own quest for deeper more complex music. This may be more an issue with my inner ear than anything else. I will say I pulled up a patch on the old EX5 a few nights ago and for a while I was in "a whole 'nother place." I have no idea what it was like from a listening perspective (don't know if anyone was even listening) but I was engaged in making music that brought joy to my heart and mind, albeit temporarily. I believe even the improvisation proponents would agree that the perspectives of performer and listener are very different. Most performers find the experience eminently satisfying, I'm pretty sure the average listener does not get as much enjoyment as the performer. Too bad for them I guess. Through composition and improvisation are different sides of the same coin. As a listener I enjoy through composed music better because as I get to know a piece I develop emotional associations with it that enhance my enjoyment. As a performer I get more thrill from improvising because when I'm on it's a peak experience. Neither is better than the other until the perspective of the participant is applied. Cheers, ~Steve Chandler .............................. .............................. It is my humble opinion that experimental music is what pushes music forward into accepting new ideas. I know the statement I made about improvisation was inflammatory and not very eloquent. I don't know how to put this into better terms (I am not a great orator and musical philosopher): Certain composers could write music in their heads within minutes or as they played. It would sound like an arranged piece because of their skill at composition. So, what I am wondering is, if someone isn't blatantly "dinkering around" and is so skilled at making a piece fast, what is the difference between composition and improvisation? I am basing this mostly on Mozart's composition. There are not many corrections to be found in his original score. It is not a fact, but I would surmise he was writing the music down of what was already there in his head in a very little period of time. Would there even be such a thing as improvisation as far as he was concerned. Take a crude analogy of a computer. If one computer upload a song 100 times faster than another computer, the uploading process flies by too fast to notice. Of course, on the slow comp, you can watch every file go by. With the human brain, it is similar, but there are the corrections and mistakes. If a composer such as Mozart could correct whatever mistake before he played it, and compose it, where is the improvisation? This is not a rhetorical question and I am not trying to be inflammatory THIS TIME. Please correct me. ~James Combs .............................. .............................. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by J. Combs: It is my humble opinion that experimental music is what pushes music forward into accepting new ideas. I know the statement I made about improvisation was inflammatory and not very eloquent. I don't know how to put this into better terms (I am not a great orator and musical philosopher): Certain composers could write music in their heads within minutes or as they played. It would sound like an arranged piece because of their skill at composition. So, what I am wondering is, if someone isn't blatantly "dinkering around" and is so skilled at making a piece fast, what is the difference between composition and improvisation? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey, there's a good one. The "actions" in an abstract sense are the same, except for TIME. Mozart could write very quickly in a particular style that he knew inside-out; but never as fast as a actual performance; In his mind, which could already see a bit farther and surer into a particular line of musical reasoning even during improvisation, he would still have even more actual time, while writing, to look down the paths and choose his way. The important bit is that he still had an indefinite stretch of time to create a definite length of music. Improvisation (and more generally "performance") is all absolutely of the "NOW". The consideration has to happen in almost the exact moment. Use the game analogy again: You could imagine yourself creating on paper (read "compose") a perfect baseball game from start to finish, with all the greatest players, incredible moves, twists, drama, and resolution. But once the umpire says "Play ball!", a real baseball game happens non-stop; Every action and decision anybody can make during the game changes, influences, shapes, and decides the whole; and there is not even one moment of "going back". And at the end, you might have seen some good plays; or maybe something to talk about the next week; or, just maybe it will be one that people will talk about for decades. Another thing: Even with his skill as an improvisor, Mozart still composed on paper, and found both things absolutely necessary. And leaving Mozart for a sec for another thought: There's quick improv and quick writing that are CORRECT; and then there is quick improv and quick writing that's inspired. Nothing has only one side, remember that. ~Steve Layton .............................. .............................. I think James is on the right track here. Composition is governed by rules. If there weren't any rules at all I could write a computer program to select a random integer between 1 and 12 and associate these with pitches of the scale. I could do a similar thing with the time values of each note. Now the computer may come up with a lot of ideas, but only us humans could decide what sounds like Music to us. Imagine a computer that ran for an infinite amount of time and created every possible combination of pitch and time. We’ll call what the computer comes up with The Musical Ether. The part of The Musical Ether that isn’t Music will be called "Non Music". The filters that we put The Musical Ether through in order to weed out the Music are the rules of composition. Composition is the filtering out process. It helps us separate the Music from the "Non Music". Different people have different ideas on what these filters are, but there existence cannot be disputed. Also, there are different filters for different genres of Music. Some people can apparently apply these filters instantly, without hitting a “wrong note”. In other words, they can take the Music from The Musical Ether instantaneously, or what seems like instantaneously. This is what the great improvisors do. Beethoven had a “classical” filter, Miles Davis had a “jazz” filter, and John Williams has a “film music” filter (well, maybe John Williams can’t apply his filter instantly, but u get the idea anyway). These people can apply their filters very quickly and still get 99% Music out. Others cannot apply their filter quite so quickly without getting mostly "Non Music" out. They hit “wrong notes”. In short, the only difference between composition and improvisation is the speed at which these filters are applied. The greatest improvisors are those that get the highest percentage of Music out of their filters. It’s interesting to note that the only genre that you regularly see filters being applied DURING the performance is jazz. However there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to see filters being applied during performance in other genres such as classical music, country, folk and rock. In these genres the filters are typically applied by one or more people well before the performance. ~Anthony Lombardi .............................. .............................. Lennie Tristano and Lee Konitz proved to be able to toss off a completely improvised performance , but their music did not make a statement. Maybe Debussy was not such an impeccable improviser, but his music did make a statement. Improvisation is light , a direction , but not a " crossing duty " to art. ~Carl Simoni .............................. .............................. Nevertheless, Improvisation could be described as a form of composition that allows a composer to free himself of concrete rigid rules of classical. It just dawned on me what Dan and Joe have been saying. If you were brought up into classical and had tons of schooling, it would be difficult to free your mind of everything that you were taught of other composers works, and would be a vital way of exploring ones inner musical ideas. If I study my work on paper, I will filter it until I make something that to me "is classical." But what is that but just a fragment of all the music I have heard. Mistakes, therefore, would be the most important element of improv. Aha. I take back everything I said about improv in my previous posts. ~James Combs .............................. .............................. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Carl Simoni: Lennie Tristano and Lee Konitz proved to be able to toss off a completely improvised performance , but their music did not make a statement. Maybe Debussy was not such an impeccable improviser, but his music did make a statement. Improvisation is light , a direction , but not a " crossing duty " to art. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- May I please ask you this...what are you talking about? Who is to say what a valid statement is. So in other words, a profound, valid, non-light musical statement can only be made via notated composition? What is a crossing duty? Please define your terms. So improvisors by and large "toss off" musical passages while the composer, suffering with pen and tablet and universal angst produces music of incredible beauty and lasting value. Thank you for setting the record straight. ~JB .............................. .............................. Great thread ... Just thought I'd throw this into the pot: All music is the result of a marriage between the conscious and subconscious states of a creators mind ----> sometimes the one more dominant than the other. As an addendum, I recently saw an interesting program about the human mind in which an experiment revealed that we may not even be in control of our 'free-will'. A human subject was asked to press a button only when they had the sudden desire to do so. The time the 'thought' of pressing the button was recorded, and the time the button was actually pressed was recorded. However brain readings taken from an electroencephelogram indicated that the desire to press the button occurred just before the subject was aware of the desire ... ~Michael J Stewart .............................. .............................. In reading the various posts, I have two comments: 1) We have to make a distinction between our understanding of musical styles of the past and the composition process. There are always "rules", but they are codified after the fact by academics (theorists) who may know nothing about how to compose, but everything about what a composer may have been thinking when he/she composed. The rules keep changing but there are always rules. They have to exist or expression is incomprehensible. It is romantic nonsense to think anything else. Show me a piece of music that follows no rules. I can't think of any. So, while many post-ers make the mistake of thinking one style is rule-bound (e.g. classical, in the loose sense of the word's meaning) and others are free of rules (e.g. jazz, as an improvisatory art as distinct from arranged or composed jazz pieces) others seem to realize the fallacy of this notion. 2) Whoever wrote the following is getting at the truth: {In short, the only difference between composition and improvisation is the speed at which these filters are applied. } Marcel Dupre, an organist considered by many to be the greatest "classical" improviser of the 20th cent., said that the mental process of composition and improvisation is the same-- you define your limits, or rules, if you prefer (what instruments, who's playing, what form, how long, how free, etc...) and go. The ultimate rule, or filter if you like, is Ellington's , for me. "If it sounds good, it IS good." ~Nicholas .............................. .............................. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Nicholas: In reading the various posts, I have two comments: 1) We have to make a distinction between our understanding of musical styles of the past and the composition process. (.....) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather, there are two kinds of theory: 1)descriptive (what has been done); 2) projective (what might be done). The first is by far the oldest, and equates more or less with the "traditionalist" approach. The second is a more recent phenomenon, and relates to "experimentalism". It's important however, to see the the distinction between and interplay of both kinds of theory with actual "performance" (that word here including the act of composition). The means and shapes of performance can either come first, with no conscious stylistic intent, or be derived from existing descriptive or projective theories. Once the actual performance is a completed FACT, it is open to further descriptive or projective theory, which in turn can influence some future performance. In this way the structures we call "styles" are born. Of course, this in no way implies that all of this is meant to lead to some eventual "grand unification" or "ultimate" style; rather, the tendency is just for "more trees to pop up in the forest"; an ever-increasing multiplicity of perfectly valid creative approaches. In a sense, all styles have been present from the first moment; what changes is a successive opening of permissible "doors" in that (read "our") culture. An once open, whether some, most, or almost nobody goes into that "room", it will always be open for anyone to visit. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Whoever wrote the following is getting at the truth: {In short, the only difference between composition and improvisation is the speed at which these filters are applied. (....) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What he calls "filters" are what we normally call "style". ~Steve Layton .............................. .............................. Improvisation is at the heart of the creative process. I made the mistake of thinking it was not a big thing. But, the more one thinks about the significance of it, the more difficult it is to understand. After all, we would have to know exactly what is occurring in the brain to understand this phenomenon we call "improvisation." At the very least, it brings out the most unique and original ideas of the brain. I am gaining much admiration for those who undertake improv as their way of composition. ~James Combs .............................. .............................. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rules keep changing but there are always rules. They have to exist or expression is incomprehensible. It is romantic nonsense to think anything else. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I like yourself are a firm believer in the "Ellington rule" that you close your post out with, I think you might be missing some of the distinctions between idiomatic and (so-called) non-idiomatic improvisation. I certainly see both as being rule-bound, but one certainly opens doors and especially asks questions that the other, by its very nature, simply can't. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Show me a piece of music that follows no rules. I can't think of any. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well this begs the question of exactly where one draws the "what's music" line... Are you familiar with "nonlinear hotwiring"; as in the Qubais Reed Ghazala circuit-bending "school"? Things aren't always so simple, or so easily answered anyway. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If it sounds good, it IS good." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amen. But what if we disagree... De gustibus non est disputandum!, ~Dan Stearns .............................. .............................. You'll have to explain idiomatic and non-idiomatic improvisation to me. I can guess what you mean, but I need definitions and descriptions of examples. You'll also have to explain to me the "hot-wiring" school. I submit myself to the possibility of amazement that someone has, at this point, really come up with something fundamentally new. You ask: "But what if we disagree?" But that is a form of the question Ellington answers. ~Nicholas .............................. .............................. Dear JB, the problem is not what I'm talking about , but what do you understand of what I'm saying , it's difficult for me (I'm from Paris )to write in your language , but at least try to comprehend me. I don't say that a valid musical statement can only be made via notated composition , I say that either approach to music can be useful and also synergic , eventually , to express the feeling of the artist. However , being not an artist (I'm a musicologist) I have to point out that history of classical music is full of great composers that were not great improvisers (Grieg , Ravel ,Brahms for example)and great improvisers ( think about Saint Saens or Anton Rubenstein) that were not great composers. In Mozart concerts many of the cadenza are ad libitum of the pianist , and this is the only place where the greatest composer free the improvisation of the performer. ~Carl Simoni .............................. .............................. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You'll have to explain idiomatic and non-idiomatic improvisation to me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Idiomatic improvisation being pretty much self-explanatory, I think it was Derek Bailey who coined the term "non-idiomatic improvisation" in an attempt to disassociate this form of improvised music from the "jazz" in free-jazz which was pretty much inexorably tethered to the term free-improvisation... Of course once this ideological distinction is understood, non-idiomatic improvisation is just another form of idiomatic improvisation! Anyway, are AMM or Derek Bailey familiar territory? If so, then I'm sure you get the idea. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You'll also have to explain to me the "hot-wiring" school. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Essentially it's the often ultra bizarre use of short-circuited audio devices as "musical" sound sources. For more fun than a hundred barrel o' monkeys go HERE. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I submit myself to the possibility of amazement that someone has, at this point, really come up with something fundamentally new. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well "fundamentally" sure seems like a slippery slope, but I'm personally of the opinion that there are plenty quietly happening and countless yet to come. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You ask: "But what if we disagree?" But that is a form of the question Ellington answers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, agreed! But I'm not the one saying 'it's romantic nonsense to think anything else' <!>, so I thought I oughta at least check... ~Dan Stearns .............................. .............................. Yes, agreed! But I'm not the one saying 'it's romantic nonsense to think anything else' ( ! ), so I thought I oughta at least check... I was referring to what I think is the errant notion that there exists music without rules. One can like or dislike this or that set of rules, perhaps, but to say that improv is different from composition, or jazz is different from classical music because this one doesn't follow rules and that one does is, I say it again, nonsense. I have a feeling that what some want to say is that improv seems more mysterious than composition. There is certainly mystery in the creative process, and I think all of us posting here would agree with at least that. Maybe all we're doing it attempting to clarify differences in what are in the end variations on essentially the same process. Regarding "hotwire" and other kinds of discoveries being made quietly, I have come to believe that once Schoenberg, Cage, and Boulez made their musical statements, there was nothing left in terms of fundamental musical discovery. Every bit of music that I've ever seen or heard is an incorporation of ideas developed one hundred years ago or earlier. Possible exceptions, one would think, would be alternative tunings (dividing the octave into more than 12 steps), but that was thought of in the 17th century. Electronic devices are producing new sounds, but, again, they don't introduce new rules of the creation of music. That is what I mean when I say I submit myself to amazement at some truly new discovery. But I blather, so I'll stop and listen. ~Nicholas .............................. .............................. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding "hotwire" and other kinds of discoveries being made quietly, I have come to believe that once Schoenberg, Cage, and Boulez made their musical statements, there was nothing left in terms of fundamental musical discovery. Every bit of music that I've ever seen or heard is an incorporation of ideas developed one hundred years ago or earlier. Possible exceptions, one would think, would be alternative tunings (dividing the octave into more than 12 steps), but that was thought of in the 17th century. Electronic devices are producing new sounds, but, again, they don't introduce new rules of the creation of music. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't quite agree with this. Musique Concrete and Eleckronische Musik completely altered the entire concept of music making. It was now possible to think of music in multi-dimensional, a-linear terms. It was possible to produce music of pure color, timbre, and rhythm...a music that does not lie under the constraints of pure acoustic sound, though Varese and Cage, and even Scriabin (with his music/organ of colored sound) did think along these terms, there thinking being very electronic along. To be honest, I feel that both Partch and Xenakis were truly more radical than MR. Boulez, but that is neither here nor there. Do you not think that minimalism (especially the works of LaMonte Young, Riley, and Reich) were not a radical rethinking of previous musical thought? I think that many of those early pieces produced very new music. Also, the music of George Russell, Cecil Taylor, and Sun Ra produced compositions and sounds previously unheard in music. Regarding improv vs. formal composition, my contention is that it does not matter what one chooses to use to create music, the bottom line is the music produced. My argument has always been that most improvising artist (and this includes the text, graph, oral, intuitive compositions of Cage, Brown, Wolff, Stockhausen, etc)are not taken serious because we as a culture have come to think that the only valid way to produce music is to have it notated and preserved for posterity in manuscript. I for one have never and will never subscribe to this train of thought. My belief is that great music is great music because it is great music. ~JB .............................. .............................. My standpoint would be that, agreed, notated music performed as written removes the artistic identity of the performer, to a certain degree. But you have to view this argument from different angles. If I improvise a piece of music, that is my identity, my tastes, preferences and (hate the word) "style". And the music I produce celebrates that in me. And, if I perform that piece live, again improvised, with different flares and flurries of notes, again, that is my "fingerprint" for all to see. But, if I then listen to what I have produced, and score it, for someone else to perform, then they have two choices. One: perform it with their own slant on the work - stick to the score, more or less, but add a little color where they feel appropriate. Two: perform the piece exactly as written by me, religiously, with no musical meanderings (to quote Wendy Carlos). I believe that either method is valid, as each has a different purpose. The first, celebrates the musician to a greater degree (e.g. Nigel Kennedy performing the "Four Seasons"). The second celebrates the composer, without interference from the artist (the word "interference is not meant in a negative sense there, I just couldn't place a better word). This means that neither method is right OR wrong, they just have a different raison d'etre, and therefore should both be considered valid and legal. Occasionally, both occur at once - for example, Wendy Carlos's recordings of Bach on the Moog Synthesizer in the late 60's and 70's. Whilst the music was performed as written, the nature of the performance and the instrument meant that both approaches were inevitably going to be conjoined. Doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it's a wonderful thing. There is also one other side to this peculiar three-sided coin. Some people ignore the arguments, conventions and "rules", and make music based purely on what they like, what they feel, and what works. I myself sit down at the keyboard, bugger about a bit, and, if my spastic meanderings produce something that clicks, I'll use it. Improvisation? Not really. I have never been trained in any musical form or theory, and so I don't think the word "improvisation" counts, as this suggest quasi-random patterns based on a pre-learned set of information (i.e. to me the act of "improvisation" is a conscious act of ignoring what you know, but not completely, as you (most times) stay within key, and so therefore are creating a "random" sequence based on a fixed set of parameters). I just fiddle about and see what sounds good. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I just do what sounds good to me, and hope that it will touch someone, somewhere. Keep this thread alive, it's worth it. ~Foxx Wolf .............................. .............................. I'm not going to add a whole lot more just now; but I thought regarding Joe's comment on electronic materials, that I'd add that one of the most important and novel (as well as dangerous) elements that's been introduced into modern music is the ability to create musical structures not just with specific musical instruments, but all of recorded sound as well, a la musique concrete, or "acousmatic" music. Though this started in the late 40's/early 50's, the technology and procedures were developed much more slowly; with pre-sampler high points being the work of Tod Dockstader, 60's-70's Stockhausen, and of course Francois Bayle. With the advent and growth of samplers, midi control, and accessible studio capabilities, this has slowly spread back up into serious work from out of the popular music field to become one of the dominant mediums at work today. Regardless of whether these resources are employed "live" or in a purely recorded composition/performance, the goal is still to create a complete formally and aesthetically "whole" musical experience. Yet the resources of traditional, and even much modern, theory and practice are useless in this context. In such a work, there may be no place to implement any of the practices that have evolved to deal with melodic, harmonic, or even much of traditional rhythmic sequences. The fundamental elements of Sound and Time remain, but a substantially new "grammar" and "syntax" has to be explored and implemented in order to articulate some kind of really meaningful structure. Of course, it's all too easy to simply string together almost any succession or overlay of sounds, and rely on whatever pictorial associations the listener's mind might come up with. But the attempt to instead create pieces that work AS MUSIC is much more rare, even in our current time. This area is ripe for a lot more exploration and discovery. ~Steve Layton .............................. .............................. i agree with the last statement about integrating instruments and electronics in a meaningful way AS MUSIC. some recordings i have heard that have most interested me in this regard have been Evan parkers electro-acoustic ensemble:drawninward, and paul lytton/philip wachsmann:some other season. it is primarily "real time" sound processing, transforming what the instrumentalist are doing in the moment. i thought the words "grammar" and "syntax" were appropriate because, (although i usually don't like to use the metaphor), improvisation is like language. (i am starting to discover that it is becoming less metaphorical now.) any other suggestions of music to check out that has an interesting balance of instruments and electronics? ~ph .............................. .............................. Hey ph: You probably know these, but I'll list them anyway: Stockhausen: Ceylon & Prozession & Mantra,& Mixtur, & Hymnen Braxton & Teitlebaum: Silence Timezone, Live Creative Orchestra Music Andrew Cyrille & Teitlebaum: Double Clutch Xenakis: Kraanerg Miles: On the Corner, Get Up With It George Russell: Electronic Sonata Varese: Deserts Milton Babbitt: Philomel Alex Karis: Secret Geometry, Music for Piano & Tape Herbie Hancock; Sextant-YOU HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT!!! George Lewis: Voyager, Homage to Bird Plus..a whole bunch of music that I have heard, but are either unofficial recordings, bootlegs, live, etc by the MVE (Teittlebaum, Rzewski, Alvin Curran), LaMonte Young (with Marian Zazeela, etc), Alvin Lucier, Gordon Mumma, Joel Chadabe, Pauline Oliveros and Deep Listening. ~JB .............................. ..............................