An interesting and thought-provoking article. But I don't understand your title, with its potshot at Zorn. Maybe you could explain yourself.

"Maybe someone would be willing to tackle the concept of "strange attractor" and its applicability in music"

U Totem did in 2004, although probably in a slightly different way from Al's intention.

Check this:
http://www.progreviews.com/reviews/display.php?rev=ut-sa

Also recalling Bobby Previte and Eliott Sharp's 2002 "The Prisoner's Dilemma" on Grob. Don't know if that's just a name or if the music obeys to some of that logic. I wouldn't bet my house on implications.

Dan: Cobra, et al.

Al, I don’t get the Zorn slam either. Are you saying that Cobra, etc. are just feeble/faux stabs at real game theory? I’m planning to sit down soon with the article on your rec, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s going to my make cranium ache.

Unrelatedly, what's been in the Jones foot locker rotation?

no, Derek, it's not a slam. It's meant to be cute. Read the article, which is of far more interest.

I hate anagram-laden writing like what's in that article. You can consider that a slam.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting article about warfare.

I don't think one can be really 'true' to the mathematics of game theory when playing music, just because the outcome (however you choose to define or label it) cannot ultimately be quantified except by the composer.

There are two problems with this. First, while the players are subject to the composer's instructions (no matter how they may comparatively restrict the player's freedom to make independent decisions), as long as they are given some choice in the process those choices will likely be made using parameters other than the composer's. Zorn encourages this in some of his compositions, such as Cobra. But even though Zorn thus tries to include any outcome as acceptable, that applies only to the process. The outcome still involves an output of sound, which sometimes sucks. I've seen and heard this happen where the players and conducter largely agree on what sucks and what doesn't suck.

Second, where is the audience in Zorn's game of Cobra? Any outcome which includes the audience seem to be dependent on their reactions and judgements as to relative levels of suckiness (RLOS). They are thus deemed not players. It seems this argument is veering close to declaring audiences at John Zorn concerts to be Strange Attractors, when all logic tells us the opposite is the case.

By "player" in that penultimate sentence, I mean "game players."

fwiw

I don't know flap about game theory, I'm "just" improvising.

Unfortunately for your Brightman dude (maybe he's bright indeed), war's not a game ... US should have listened to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys in the first place

enlightening, Vincent.

Tom- I was actually thinking along the same lines... audience as strange attractors. That said, I don't know why game theory can't be perfectly applied in music, with the expected environmental influences playing an acceptable role. Laying down the conditions would seem to be the tricky part, especially considering RLOS.

Al, why would one want to "perfectly apply game theory" in a musical setting? Seems like a really flawed objective to me, unless all the musical content was pre-determined.

Meanwhile, I agree with where Tom starts out with this, but what the hell does any of this have to do with Zorn?

Game pieces like Zorn's aren't operating with that objective at all. The point isn't to perfectly apply game theory. The point (say, in Cobra) is to use the "rules" or "systems" as a way to make a music whose content is decided by the players in real time, but allow various musical events and coordinations to occur that would be nearly impossible in total improvisations by a group so large. (Cobra is designed for 12 players + prompter.) Yes, the musical outcome is not built into the piece, nor was it even desired by the composer at the time of its writing. Since then, I have seen John try to urge his players to be cooperative, to follow each others' ideas, and to try to be compositional. I think he found (as many of us have) that the potential for having fun with conflict and competition in the piece is far less interesting musically than when people cooperate.

I'd trade all my Masada albums for any one of those early Parachute game pieces. Far from being weak, I'd say they were among the strongest things in the entire sprawling Zorn discography. So, again, I think the title of thread is misleading and annoying.

Another message from the parallel dimension of this thread:

"Ooops...U Totem's "Strange Attractors is of course from 1994, not 2004. Sorry for the blooper."

Anyone here thinking that John Zorn is better as a sax player than composer? Just asking.

I'd say his pretty talented at both. His soundtrack from Invitation to a Suicide and his Cartoon/S&M album keep finding their way into my ears, along with his second Masada Album.

I think any Game Theory should at some point include water balloons.

I'd say he's pretty talented at both. His soundtrack from Invitation to a Suicide and his Cartoon/S&M album keep finding their way into my ears, along with his second Masada Album.

I think any Game Theory should at some point include water balloons.

I can't stand the sound of his saxophone, especially on his more "straight" outings. It's horrible. The most cutting, bloodless, bad-taste-in-the-mouth-after-vomiting tone I ever heard, even worse than Willie Smith. Much better composer than sax player. Especially the early Parachute pieces.

Thanks for asking, Max. *phew* -- I feel better!

Tom:

I am not a Zorn zealot as you might have imagined, and - for one - think that a piece like "Redbird" is a joke. Yet I often do like his most extreme sax playing, for example in Fred Frith's "The technology of tears".

Your "bad-taste-in-the-mouth-after-vomiting tone" definition is something that I would have been proud of inventing. Five stars to that!

Used to be really into Zorn, some things of his still interest me, mostly the Parachute Years box, which I think is fantastic, actually. Interesting you pick Redbird as an object of your ire, Massimo, that was one I liked, though I haven't heard it in years. Definitely goes to show that there are as many opinions about Zorn's work as there are people.

I liked, and still like [I think, haven't listened to it in a while] the guitar pieces, Book of Heads, and the 69 Paroxysms for Marcel Duchamp. Don't check out much else these days.

Nice to see a mention of UTotem here.

-mm

Matt

as it always happens with hyperactive artists, there's too much music around to evaluate and, of course, a particular album is variously appreciated depending on personal taste and life periods. "Redbird" is just an example, I do like segments of Zorn's work - I just tend not to overhype him like many people do (not here, I see - good thing). Still, I'm not an authority on his body of work, just because my knowledge of his discography is still partial. I just keep a "basic" respect for him intact, based on the records that I listened to, but I'm not an adorer.

On the other hand, the whole Motor Totemist Guild/U Totem/5 UU's lot is one of the most shamefully underappreciated bunch of bright-minded, technically advanced artists that I know of (www.rotarytotem.com to dip the toe in a pool of great stuff)