Al, your vantage point seems sound to me. Some very prescient, cogently-stated issues in your opening shot and a nice spieling segue from signature 'sounds' to signaure bands.

Many of your observations about Vision resonate with my own. Though the three times I've attended I've approached it in a somewhat different light. Many of the groups do indeed have the flavor of pick-up bands. But I think that focus is adopted intentionally and in some ways out of necessity. As with any kind of festival situation there's an underlying push to offer up something new & exciting in each annual incarnation. Placing players in combinations that whet audience appetites for potential fireworks and precedence. For instance, what kind of roof-raising cacophony would result if Kidd Jordan and Charles Gayle locked horns, backed by William Parker and Milford Graves? Festival-goers found out in 98'.

Often though these All-Star ensembles sound much better on flyers than they do from the bandstand. In addition, most of the musical emphasis seems to be on improv over composition. Last year's Fest bore this generalization out with only a handful of notable exceptions (Roy Campbell's Buhania the Great and Assif Tsahar's New York Underground Symphony among them) bucking this trend. But the Fest is also a Petrie dish of sorts for players to experiment, sort of a live rehearsal space. Granted, it can be a thin line between falling flat in the throes of failure and successful cracking doors to new directions.

There's also the problem of attempting to cram as much music as possible into as many nights as possible. Last year's Fest was the most egregious case of this kind of gluttony with over two weeks and 4+ bands per night. The assembly line feel of many of the nights was taxing for musicians and audience members alike. Rather than more bang for the buck it sometimes felt like an endurance test. The organizers seem to have recognized the virtues of economy this year with a trimmed down six-day schedule, but once again each night is packed to the gills with performances.

Money and the desire for exposure do seem to be at the root of it. But by association so do other peripheral concerns like the natural hierarchy within the scene that has developed. The case could easily be made that William Parker's relentless ensemble-hopping has taken a toll on the lucidity of his musical persona as a whole. Even a player of his caliber can't help falling back on the cushion of stock tricks and techniques when he's taking the stage in three plus settings per night.

I'm just kind of throwing things out here, but the sort of attention-deficit brand of industry that characterizes many of the downtown NYC musicians seems a function of the competitive vibe that long been a part of the scene. Despite the Vision Festival's credo of community and inclusiveness, politics and personal agendas certainly play a role. As to solutions, I'm not sure, other than somehow encouraging players and bands to slow down and smell the roses in what they're doing rather than rushing headlong onto the next project. In the hard scrabble reality that is niche market of creative improvised music that's probably just wishful thinking.

As Derek indicates, I've also seen and heard things about the NYC scene that make me think there's been some sort of political fallout over the breaking of certain musical associations -- the whole Steven Joerg / Assif Tsahar / Susie Ibarra / William Parker flame-out, which was made public knowledge via both major news periodicals in the city and through Internet newsgroups, springs immediately to mind. And the situation isn't helped by the publication of Phil Freeman's hyped-up, inflammatory "history" (NEW YORK IS NOW!). So that musicians who might more productively collaborate with one another distance themselves from one another themselves, and matters of taste and aesthetic preference get blown up into polarizing oppositions.

Working bands are notoriously tough concerns no matter what city you call home, though. And rehearsals take not only time and willingness on the part of all involved, but money. Economics defintely plays a role, and there's no Alfred Lion -- a benign despot if every there was one -- around to make things like this happen anymore. DIY -- but the "Y" [yourself], as Al points out, is a resource you can use none too wisely if you're not careful.

Then again, I think that a certain amount of failure and ambivalence is inevitable with a form as attuned to process and spontaneity as jazz. Ted Gioia, in a HIGHLY recommended little monograph entitled THE IMPERFECT ART, is one of the few musical observers I've ever encountered who has addressed this issue -- he refers to it as "boredom" on the part of the listener -- and without making many excuses for the artists.

Derek, I can appreciate lineup spontanaeity, and it certainly has its purpose. But it seems more the norm than resource, which can't be good. Perhaps I'm just yearning for certain elements provided in old systems, or, as Abbey suggested, maybe I'm just moving on.

If I know me (and I think I do), it's a little of both; a combination of tenets:

~Discovery is rich in new environments
~If it isn't broke, don't fix it

To me, the politics and inclusiveness of Vision is secondary. From what I understand, the Downtown atmosphere changes drastically that time of year anyway; local gigging is best heard out of season. I'd rather steer away from the idea that the festival is an ultimate representative of the scene it espouses. To do so is to pigeonhole the participants. Scrap the festival entirely and the core of what I'm saying still exists: a dearth of working bands, save for the obvious handful.

I'd also like to add that the premise and principles behind Vision are very worthwhile. But to me the organization is where it fails. Concerning the local lineups, it's a pot luck luncheon featuring only dairy products.

Al, you know I'm (at the very least) highly sympathetic to your view on the Vision fest, its main participants, etc. But I've felt that way for quite a long time about many of the musicians involved, before the fest per se existed. Lots of these guys have been active in NYC since the late 70's when I was working at Environ; many of them played there. Even then, I would mentally draw a line between those I considered to be operating on a "higher" (if you will) level and those whose ambitions and self-opinions, I thought, far outweighed their actual talents (This, by the way, included the cluster of musicians based around Environ owner John Fischer). There just didn't strike me as being as much of an intellectual basis for their work as there was in, say, Braxton or Threadgill or Muhal or countless others (something I value; others may value less). It's not a hard and fast line, of course, and there are a number of VF regulars who I admire very much (including Jarman and McPhee), but I simply have never been excited (this over a period of about 25 years) by the work of Parker, Moondoc, Duval, Borah Bergman, Roy Campbell and other mainstays. I think their admirable tenacity in maintaining a Lower East Side avant-jazz scene has provided them an undeserved qualitative aura and there's also, to me, an unsettling cult-like atmosphere at play.

I always get a sense of rote at the VF, of going through the motions, often gussied up in some cheesy mysticism (the opening Invocation, yechhh). Somtimes, as with the duo with Parker and Billy Bang a couple of years ago, it was downright embarrassing how bad they were, how utterly uninspired. Only compounded by Patricia Nicholson's woeful attempts at dance. And don't even get me started on the poetry. There very rarely seems to be any sort of *conception* on hand, anything with very much meat after you thrill--or not--to the soloing. At best, you get a few musicians who are capable enough, hitting a decent groove (free or otherwise), turning in a relatively enjoyable set, but (and this is one of my problems) nothing I haven't heard countless times over the last 30 years. Almost literally, *anything* I've ever heard at VF, I could've heard at one of many lofts in the late 70s. And played with more excitement and spirit.

Much of this, of course, is simply my taste and I'll readily admit that there's little enough new music which I feel comfortable in referring to as "jazz" that piques my interest these days. But, as I've said before in other contexts, if this (the VF scene) were a healthy situation, you'd have a sizeable percentage of young players on hand, guys and gals below 25, instead of the same insular and aging bunch year after year. If I was told that this year's line-up had such a make-up, I'd definitely attend just to hear what these folk had to say. As it stands, you'd be hard pressed to drag me there.

Brian comes out with both barrels blazing and hits bull's-eyes as far as I'm concerned. Not to knock the passion, hard work and sincerity of those involved, but the trappings & dynamics of Vision strike me in much the same way. As does the cultish iconic status afforded many of the participants. For instance Parker's King of New York mantle ascribed over at Jazz Corner. But it's something I can live with given the once-a-year frequency of the event. As a non-New Yorker it's a convenient 'turkey shoot' way for me to catch a ton of music (admittedly at times a mixed bag quality wise).

I just wish the organizers weren't so unconstrained with the scheduling. The poetry and dance aspects of the event have long been the weakest components for me (sometimes befuddlingly so), but some of the visual art has caught my eye. If I'd had the enviable access Brian's had over the years I'd probably be whistling an even more critical tune. Al makes a good point about it not really being the representative catch-all/all inclusive extravaganza it purports to be. And I agree about the perils of single-minded spontaneity, especially when it's a goal in and of itself.

But I have to respectfully disagree about much of the work of players like Parker, Moondoc and Campbell on the whole. I enjoy each one, both in the live situations I've seen him in and on record. They are sowing the same oats so to speak, but those oats are still potent to these ears. Nothing terribly intellectual going on, but the visceral thrills are sometimes enough in my book.

Hey, this is the Cranks R Us website, right? Thanks for your comments, Derek. I have no argument in terms of likes and dislikes of given musicians. Maybe one of the things that rankles is the very use of the term "Vision Fest", clearly implying some amount of forward-looking. I just don't see it as being particularly more visionary than the JVC fest. In all honesty, given a choice between going to see Spyrogyra and Budbill, well, I'll get back to you....

I know a couple of cats who perform at the Vision fest personally. And they are all very forward looking people. Just because they don't share the vision that is at the end of Brian's tunnel, don't mean they don't have any.

Wow! It's great to find such cogent criticisms. I appreciate where Joe is coming from, but with all due respect, I think he misunderstands the nature of the "downtown" scene, which is determinedly mix and match. Asking these players not to move from grouping to grouping is like asking B.B. King to stop playing the blues; it's intrinsic to their conception. Stylistically, the circle of players about whom you speak descend most directly from Cecil Taylor. They typically employ the pianist's methods; set-length, high energy free improvisations are the norm. In what is more often than not a wholly improvised music, combining different personalities and combinations of instruments is an effective way of fostering variety. In this case it's become almost a formal imperative (there are other, practical "real world" reasons, as well). That's not to say all NYC free jazz is this way, but that's the way this particular group of musicians tend to do things.

Chris, thanks. Stick around!

You said, "Wow! It's great to find such cogent criticisms. I appreciate where Joe is coming from, but with all due respect, I think he misunderstands the nature of the "downtown" scene, which is determinedly mix and match."

Assuming it is me you're referring to and not Joe, it is very possible that I've misinterpreted that scene. Either way, I'd never wish away a facet so integral to Downtown's "image." What you describe defines a good many of the musicians there, which is something I can respect. I just don't think that the central product of those relationships is for me. My thinking is that a higher sense of cohesion can be achieved with less attention to, but not surrendering, the potluck approach. I would also think it's time for some contemporary influences to seep into the woodwork over there.

As for it not being your taste, I can certainly understand that.

As for your points about cohesion, perhaps you're right, but for me cohesion isn't necessarily a product of long-term partnerships or stable line-ups. It depends more on the listening abilities and the adaptability of the individual musicians. Some of the best playing I've been involved with has come from ad hoc ensembles.

About "new blood," I don't entirely disagree, but it's probably not likely to happen. The Vision thing grew out of a cooperative thing back in the mid '90s called The Improviser's Collective. William was one of the organizers, along with Jackson Krall, Mark Hennen, and a few others. William was arguably the central figure, playing in just about everyone's band at one time or another. Many if not most of the present members of that crowd were members of the Improvisers Collective back from its beginning. The social component is important to them. They know and trust each other, are comfortable with each other. In short: they come from the same place. Newcomers will occasionally be included, but for the most part this community is what it is, and probably won't change much. Which is not necessarily bad, if you think of their community as one very large, ever-mutating creative organism. Of course, if you dislike the basic structure, you're not likely to enjoy its various manifestations.

That said, the scene will evolve, and new groups of musicians will form alliances and present their own events. The Vision crowd may seem to be the only game in town now, but in time new faces will emerge.

I hope I'm not being pedantic...

Actually, I just checked the Vision web site, and I'm going to have to correct myself; there are a lot of players scheduled this year who weren't part of the Improviser's Collective. My bad. I've been away from that scene for a couple of years and kinda lost touch. I think much of what I said stands, however. There is a certain stylistic commonality to the whole enterprise, which is to be expected. Like any curated art event, it reflects the viewpoint and taste of its organizers. It *can* be argued that the overall aesthetic is no longer cutting edge (I'm not completely convinced that's the case, myself), but, regardless, these players established their avant-garde creds long ago. It's kinda unfair to ask them to continually keep up. That's the responsibility of the next generation, which is the basis of Al's point, if I'm not mistaken.

Chris -- first all of, nice to have you participating. Now, for a question that may be impolitic... I may be viewing the whole Steve Joerg / Assif Tsahar flap out of proportion to any real significance it may possess simply because it was made public via a letter to a major New York newspaper. Do you have any prespectives you'd care to share in this forum about what may have really happened, and whether what may have really happened has any real bearing on the dynamics of the "New York" scene?

I should preface my answer by saying that over the last couple of years I've been almost totally absent from this scene, so it would be silly of me to claim any kind of inside info. That said...

Without commenting directly on that case--about which I literally know nothing other than that it happened--I would say that, whenever a group of ambitious people fight over a piece of a really, really small pie, conflicts can get blown out of proportion, causing hurt feelings and rupturing relationships. The NYC free jazz community is small. Most people get along. At some point almost everybody has a problem with a colleague. I myself have behaved badly in the past, out of jealousy, or insecurity, and in the process ruined valuable partnerships. It happens, but I'm not sure how much effect any one of these spats has on the community as a whole. For what it's worth...

Chris -- understood, and thanks. I'm just trying to work my way around a sense that the episode seems more than it is / was because of the way in which it was made known. As if the appearance of an item in a newspaper or on a Usenet newsgroup somehow guarantees both its veracity and its significance.

Though I still find the kind of comentary contained in Freeman's book rather telling...