I will try to suspend judgement before I read it.

The new Aum Fidelity large ensemble work is beautiful I have it on now.
I really wish more of his work was available. He is one of my very favorites.

Phil did indeed do a wonderful job. The photos from Mark Mahoney, taken at Bill's house and in his studio are a rare treat.

Your wish for more will soon become a reality, Damon.

We are going into the studio in July with Bill for a three-day recording residency at Firehouse 12 in New Haven, thanks to Firehouse 12 Records and the LEF Foundation. The finished work will see the light of day early in 2009 as a multi-CD/DVD set with commissioned essays and original art from Bill.

Bill Dixon/trumpet, electronics, piano; Taylor Ho Bynum, Graham Haynes, Rob Mazurek, Stephen Haynes/trumpets, cornets, flugelhorns and electronics; Michel Côté/conrabass clarinet; Glynis Loman/cello; Ken Filiano/bass; Warren Smith/drums, vibraphone, percussion.

Robert Haire/videographer
Nick Ruechel/photographer
Nick Lloyd/engineer

Sounds incredible, Stephen, love the brass-tilt to the band. Thanks for the heads-up.

Good article. Let's hope it helps get Intents & Purposes reissued - after all, PDF's waxing lyrical about Borbetomagus' Allentown was instrumental in getting that one back out.

Also, keep yr eyes out for a cover story in the Fall STN from yours truly.

Let's not congratulate phil freeman too much for success of the interview. Over the course of the few words he actually mutters, phil manages to insult Mr. Dixon (and improvised music) and conflate his own ego by wasting time with pointless interruptions, various irrelevant and flimsy personal opinions and self-congratulations.

Bill Dixon is an eloquent subject. A monkey could have been asking the questions and the interview would have been great. The fact that Mr. Dixon so gracefully handled phil's numerous faux pas and passive-aggressive attacks reveals great restraint and compassion on the part of the interviewee.

In the fourth section, phil intimates that academia is Mr. Dixon's "shelter from market forces" and that because of this Mr. Dixon doesn't have to worry if his "records don't sell." how insulting! Has phil researched Mr. Dixon's sales figures? Is Mr. Dixon's financial situation any of phil's business? This is just rude behavior coming from an interviewer.

In the fifth section, phil awkwardly tries to plug his book about Miles Davis. Interrupting Mr. Dixon to randomly blurt out that he "came into out jazz from heavy metal", phil mentions his book, deliberately stammers out the title when Mr. Dixon does not acknowledge it, then beats it into the ground reminding us and Mr. Dixon (again) how he "went from heavy metal to 'On The Corner'" as if that has any relevance to the matter at hand. Mr. Dixon immediately changes the subject and moves on. The sequence is a totally unprofessional and inappropriate plea for validation. I'd expect this kind of amateurism from a high school newspaper reporter.

The coup de grace comes in section ten when phil goes on a tirade about how he thinks that mass media does not control the tastes of the status quo - a stance totally ignorant of American sociology - and how he finds improvised music to be elitist, or "condescending" as he puts it. In section four, phil alludes to "market forces" - apparently these are powerful enough that someone like Mr. Dixon needs "shelter" from them, but they're not powerful enough to dictate culture? What a totally inconsistent viewpoint! phil freeman may have chutzpah, but he is no intellectual.

The measured and kindly slapdown Mr. Dixon delivers during the tenth section is as beautiful as it is subtle. Just because phil freeman feels left out of the "conversation" of improvised music, he feels that it is looking down its nose upon him. perhaps it's just not for him - he should just stick to his Meshuggah records. However, Meshuggah is not trying to "communicate" to him any more than a band of free improvisers is - he just happens to relate to them more. phil freeman often pontificates from the center of the universe and we shouldn't be surprised at this kind of knee-jerk drivel he spews.

After Mr. Dixon establishes that he is an artist and not an entertainer, phil wraps up by asking Mr. Dixon what he does to entertain his audience, vis a vis stage gestures. phil's listening and comprehension skills have reached an all-time low by the conclusion.

Now, that sounds like the pdf I remember...didn't he used to be the Alan Kurtz of Bagatellen?

I presume Timothy Johnson is referring to the stream of the actual interview; I was referring to the printed article. I don't know why he wanted to keep it; I usually make a point of getting rid of audio recordings of interviews I do, because they're invariably totally embarrassing. Sounds like this one could be, from what I read above. Print versions are much better, because you can edit yourself out of the picture. But the "Mr. Dixon"s and the "phil freeman" (ya don't deserve capital letters, Phil, dig?) seem to indicate which side of the fence Mr. Johnson is sitting on.

I agree almost completely with Timothy Johnson.

(And while I like me some of his records, I'm no Bill Dixon(tm) loyalist.)

I'll skip the live streaming bit, then. Not that I wasn't going to anyway.
The actual printed article is good, imo. Dixonistas may disagree, but I think it gets the message across well enough.
Never understood that trademark, either.

The point of conducting an interview is not to sit around with your subject talking about how much you agree with him about everything (as was the case with, for example, Frank Rubolino's hilariously sycophantic Dixon Q&A on One Final Note). The point is to yield something that will, in its final form, allow the reader some new viewpoint on the subject and/or his/her work. Thus, civil disagreement is very often the key to drawing out an interview subject. I feel this interview gave Mr. Dixon the opportunity to dispute my premises, and in the process say things that people might want to hear, many of which didn't make it into the final piece for space reasons. That's why it was posted online, in its unedited form. If people who already dislike me and my work can't get past that to some kind of intelligent response to what he had to say, well, life goes on for us all. My response will remain what it always is: I'm working and you are quite clearly not. What's stopping you?

My response will remain what it always is: I'm working and you are quite clearly not. What's stopping you?

Great! Are we back to the "I get paid to write and you don't, therefore you can't criticize my writing" schtick?

And considering the last time this hole-ridden logic was utilized by Mr. Freeman he was in a battle with obvious pseudonyms? Thus, how would you know, Phil, that Timothy Johnson is "not working," as you are probably aware that Timothy Johnson might not be said poster's real name?

I actually found the rest of your response fairly reasonable, but then we get the tired "I'm a paid professional" gambit. So the "market forces" have anointed you a professional writer. Congratulations! They have also anointed Brittney Spears a professional singer. And these market forces require the sheltering of Bill Dixon.

Now I'm not a professional teacher of rhetoric, but I would suggest perusing this site might help you out here:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html

>"I get paid to write and you don't, therefore you can't criticize my writing"

You misunderstand. All criticism is welcome, even knee-jerk elitist buffoonery (paradoxical, no?) like that offered by Timmy upthread. But life is short, and doing original work is a better use of one's time than posting snippy critiques online. I'm not saying "I get paid to write and you don't, therefore you can't criticize my writing"; I'm saying "Why are you wasting your time bitching at me, when you could be doing work of your own?"

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding, Phil. I hope you consider it an honest mistake, considering back in February you stated (in a comment thread that has since been deleted): "Leave the reading and thinking to those of us who do it for a living."

I'm glad that you've grown past that line of thought and are more open to the work of gentleman amateurs.

On the other hand, perhaps Timmy is an editor or proofreader? Those are worthy occupations, even though they don't necessarily produce "original work."

Sounds about right. I have to admit when I first read this I thought,
"Poor Mr. Dixon, first the Mazurek CD and now this!"
Not that dislike Mazurek, it is just light years behind Bill's Savoy recordings, not to mention "intents and Purposes".
I have been pleasantly Surprised by Tigersmilk.

The Mazurek date is serious business; I think you need to give it another listen. I also think you're assuming that it is somehow a step backward or to the side - considering that Dixon himself was very pleased with the recording and would probably regard it as heresy that his early recordings are better than his contemporary work. There is no way he could make music like that on his Savoy and RCA recordings now, and why would he?

I listened a few times, and I just don't agree. Sorry. I think those guys could have prepared for Bill more and done a lot more to enter his world.
I don't think is a bad record, but I think had it focused more on what Dixon has been working on for the last few decades it would have been more of the landmark recording it should have been.

What, Bagatellen is no longer dead?

Man! Phil's got stones, I'll give him that. I've given up recording my interviews, mainly because (like Dan) I find it incredibly embarrassing to listen back when I transcribe. I'm now a devoted note-taker.

I'm not going to listen to Phil's Dixon thang; I'm afraid what I hear will hit too close to home.

I should say it isn't Dixon's solos I regard as behind, but the Exploding Star Orchestra's overall concept.

Considering that "17 Musicians in Search of a sound" bears little resemblance to it and is very much inline with Bill's work makes me more sure of my assessment.

I don't the think we as musicians always need to bow down to established masters, but I often see an obvious lack of preliminary research to find out how everyone involved might get the most out of the situation.

We'll have to agree to disagree, Damon. Maybe you'll enjoy reading the STN cover story that I'll be doing for the Fall issue. Dixon himself was very impressed with Mazurek's crew. My judgement of the record preceded my discussions with Dixon about the recording, of course. The AUM Fidelity disc is fantastic as well.

>I don't think is a bad record, but I think had it focused more on what Dixon has been working on for the last few decades it would have been more of the landmark recording it should have been.

Why? That seems like a one-sided way of looking at things to me. I don't think a recording in which a well-regarded group with a unique sound, welcoming a collaborator, subverts its identity in order to sound more like what a small subset of the audience expects from that collaborator, would be any kind of "landmark"; instead, I think it would be regarded as a disappointment and a missed opportunity by the majority, including the artists involved. Seems to me this was a case of the ESO wanting to play with Bill Dixon, and Bill Dixon wanting to play with the ESO. I mean, obviously he likes what they do or he wouldn't have agreed to participate.

That is a nice, egalitarian view point that is ultimately not productive. Hippy idealism and great music are rarely compatible.
The ESO and Dixon are not equals by any stretch. It is a good group of much younger, less experienced and less refined players than DIxon.
They are also working with much older concepts than Dixon is.
A more equal meeting is what happened, and the music that resulted is just not as compelling as the "Darfur" recording.

"Elitist" is phil's codeword for "person I don't understand or agree with". It's difficult to take that sort of namecalling seriously.

Why did I bother to comment, phil? Because a nauseatingly self-congratulatory nature pervades your work and commentary and someone needs to stand up and let you know that since you obviously can't see it yourself. Ponder this while you are spending time marvelling at all the mp3s you've downloaded and haven't listened to yet.

You're a rude, insensitive, egocentric interviewer, not the radical, provocative one that you think you are. My suggestion is not to post your interview tapes anymore because you look like less of a moron when you don't.

Take a bit of criticism. It could help you. You're not a lost cause but you do need to get over yourself sooner or later.

"If people who already dislike me and my work can't get past that to some kind of intelligent response to what he had to say, well, life goes on for us all. My response will remain what it always is: I'm working and you are quite clearly not. What's stopping you?"

Having listened all the way through, I can agree with this up to the point of you claiming to "work". Asking a few questions that range from rudimentary to unprofessional and then taking time out to awkwardly drop that you like metal and then to plug your book isn't really work, IMO.

It is a solid interview, only due to Dixon's lengthy answers. He discusses what he wants to discuss and keeps it from being a waste of time as he promises in the beginning.
Just like his trumpet playing makes the most of the ESO's middle of the road grooves and boring arrangements.

As always, you make your distaste and unwillingness to engage beyond a certain point with creative music abundantly clear.

To hell with the miserably ignorant English. Spoil your eyes and ears on this, gentlemen:

http://ofmirroreye.net/blog/2008/03/blow-it-up/

A 27 minute Polish TV broadcast of Brotzmann, von Schlippenbach, Kowald and Lovens, live in Warsaw in October 1974.

It's worth your download time … for those who don't already know it.

And you'll never need the wire again.

I have read Phil Freeman's book, "New York is Now!," and I too found it deeply problematic and dissatisfying. The book buys into and reifies the "star-system" that has emerged in the music, among many other issues that I know have been addressed. As well, I have listened through the whole Dixon interview and regretted that such general questions were asked by Phil, most of which overlooked the particularities of Dixon's distinct contribution to the music and its history.

However, I somehow remain grateful that both the book and the interview exist, and appreciative that the deficits of each have garnered a good bit of critical response that enriches the general discussion. I suppose I just appreciate the work inasmuch as it catalyzes reflection and conversation.

Am I missing something? I am not sure I see any cause for anger at Phil, the denegration of his work as even being work at all, or for any vitriol. Is there some good reason why Phil, and not his subjects, ends up the object of so much attention?

"Am I missing something? I am not sure I see any cause for anger at Phil, the denegration of his work as even being work at all, or for any vitriol. Is there some good reason why Phil, and not his subjects, ends up the object of so much attention?"

What made the Jeky Boys great IMO was how long they would keep the caller on, playing along they were on his side, often they would stretch it out 4 or 5 minutes only to have Frank Rizzo or Puma drop the bomb at the end.
PDF takes this same concept to Feldmanesque proportions by masking his contempt for the music Mr. Dixon spent his life working on for nearly an hour before dropping this bomb (transcription not by me):

"Freeman: The one statement that I really disagreed with from Mr. Rubelino was this idea that the media forms the opinions of the people and people are told what they will like and respond to this domination of their ability to make choices.

Dixon: You don't believe that?

Freeman: I think it's a very condescending view. Um, especially now . . .

Dixon: Why did you think it was a condescending view?"

Freeman: I find any sort of top-down authoritarian view of people's aesthetic choices to be very condescending toward . . . it seems to me that he's speaking of "straw man" - you know what I mean? "I'm a smart, hip, educated guy unlike the herd of people over there who just take what they're given." That seems to what he was saying. and, in a way it's very self-flattering, I think, in an unhelpful way because what I kept returning to in some of the questions that I emailed you, and in my reaction to a lot of (voice ramps up a perfect fifth in pitch, showing sudden enthusiasm, or perhaps a perfect opportunity to be insulting towards improvised music) "avant-garde" music, "creative music", whatever term you want to use is . . . it seems like a lot of it that I encounter is a small group of people on a stage having a conversation to which the audience is not privvy. and, then, when they realized that their, that the audience is drifting away, it's "blame it on the mass media for not helping us get our message across", but they are not helping themselves to get their message across."

In the end you will see I do share some of your opinion, if you re-read my posts.

Yes, Damon, you are right, and to make it even more explicit: Phil's "non-elitist populism," in the above part of the interview, ends up blaming the musicians, and nothing within the broader culture, for some (but not all) people's distate for the music. Another way to put this would be to say that if the musicians were less creative and more conformist they would be more popular, which is a criticism of popular opinion as "herd-like" in and of itself. Many folk musicians understood this and chose to play simple repetative tunes that would resonate widely and mobilize people to a cause. But if creative musicians followed that dictate and played in a way that would immediately resonate with people everywhere, the music would become less challenging and less creative, and would be far more constrained. So up to this point I agree with you. Dixon's work and vision are so unmistakably singular, so inimitable, that Phil's remark reveals his lack of understanding or respect for the overarching project.

On the other hand, when I see some of the attacks on Phil above, and the comments about his unwillingness to go beyond a certain point, I just want to say: Who cares? Phil is a journalist who often writes like an op-ed columnist. So what? I don't get very upset with Ann Coulter even though I find her writing hateful and disgusting, and Phil is nowhere near as backward as she is. He doesn't need to go the distance with creative music. Other people do and will continue to go the distance.

Anyway, perhaps we basically agree here. I just found it surprising how much fury was sent his way (and not, by the way, by you alone Damon).

"My response will remain what it always is: I'm working and you are quite clearly not. What's stopping you?"

The most cliched, snide, bankrupt and redundant defense one can possibly offer of anything, beloved of chancers and bullshit artists of all stripes. So someone being paid counts as an irrefutable validation? Don't go blind considering the implications of that statement. As a critic your "work" is in the public arena and therefore may be subject to criticism just like the work of those you earn your living criticising. Someone expressing frustration at a tool like you writing on a subject they care about isn't necessarily bitter, just disappointed. That said this site is getting as dry as a moth cracker without you and/or Jon Abbey airing your knickers out at every available opportunity.

Jon airs his knickers out (what a charming expression, I must remember that) more often over at IHM, as you probably know, and Phil is obviously too busy working :). FWIW, I'll carry on airing mine if someone wants a sniff. Bring back Joe Morris too! He was good for a few rounds!

I just find it rather alarming that this thread has sought to concentrate on Freeman rather than Dixon. Put that down perhaps to Phil's talent for putting himself centrestage. A career in politics no doubt awaits. I see nobody's commented much on the actual Wire article, which as I said above, I find well-written and intelligent.
New York Is Now! is water under the bridge, Richard. Phil Freeman's moved on since then (just as well); his Miles Davis book is more fun.

>I just find it rather alarming that this thread has sought to concentrate on Freeman rather than Dixon.

I couldn't agree more.

>Put that down perhaps to Phil's talent for putting himself centrestage.

Or other posters' unhealthy obsession with me...

>A career in politics no doubt awaits.

Been there, done that. In high school, I ran for Student Council President, ripping my campaign poster from the National Lampoon ("Vote for Phil or we'll shoot this dog"). I won, and resigned a month later, explaining that the point had not been to be the president (which, after all, involved showing up for meetings and working and stuff); the point was simply to win the election. I couldn't run for anything in the "real world" without feeling sorely tempted to pull the same stunt (assuming my years of employment in the porn industry didn't render me wildly ineligible for U.S. elective office).

"Or other posters' unhealthy obsession with me..."

Don't flatter yourself, dude. All of us here have an obsession with Creative music unhealthy or not, and poor quality yet high profile "journalism" is never going to sit well.

Why is the "C" in "Creative music" capitalized? And what do you consider "uncreative music"? I figure if there's to be any real discussion (hey, a guy can dream), we ought to start with first principles. After that, we can get to my "poor quality but high profile 'journalism,'" assuming you've read the article by then.

I'm phil freeman, blah blah blah, I did this and that, I'm so great, blah blah blah.

And he wonders why people want to take him down a notch . . .

Creative music is just a term that encompasses music that has requires improvisation to realize it. Wadada described it as music needing the creativity of each musician, rather than just their skills to realize the music.
I think Wadada Leo Smith first used it. It has never been meant to imply other music is uncreative, although if you want to twist semantics to prove how elitist we are, have at it.

That is the other issue, you have made it clear that you you are the enemy of this music. It is fine if you don't like as Dixon says it is not for everyone.
If you continue stick around after making clear you hate the music, the musicians and listeners, don't expect a warm welcome.

It would even go as far to guess your choice to interview Dixon has to do with your dislike for this "Elitist music".

I am sure the article is better edited, but the unedited mp3s have been posted so they will be discussed.

I figure if there's to be any real discussion (hey, a guy can dream), we ought to start with first principles.

Okay, first principles, Phil. As I said before, you use an opportunity to interview a highly-respected figure in improvised music to insult improvised music, dismiss it as elitist, because it doesn't entertain you or you don't "get it."

You come across, consistently, as aspiring to be the fabled little boy in the crowd pointing out the Emperor is, in fact, naked ... or to use an example from popular culture, the nasal-voiced kid in the Simpsons cartoons whose primary purpose in life is pointing at something and saying, "Haw ha!"

But, Phil, you can't be so stupid as to think you're the only one who sees himself as possessor of an astonishingly accurate bullshit detector.

Fables are simple things, Phil, (see, I'm capitalizing your name, I don't want to be perceived as rude and insensitive) and the Emperor's New Clothes doesn't have room in its simple narrative for another kid in the crowd pointing out that the first boy's fly is down, he's wet his pants, and he has a very large booger hanging out of his nose.

As far as the print article goes, I'm sure that as a result of Bill Dixon's insight and well-articulated thought, as well as the work of an editor, that it is not as objectionable as the raw interview. I haven't received my issue yet ... mail is slow in this part of the woods, but it's a quiet pleasant place to get work done.

>you have made it clear that you you are the enemy of this music

The most cursory glance through my CD collection, or my iPod, would reveal the presence of an assload of "creative music." What bugs me isn't the music itself, which can be taken or left on its own merits. Some of it's great, some of it's boring, some of it's crap. That's all fine, though. The world is full of music; I don't expect all of it to be good. What bothers me is the vastly overinflated rhetoric surrounding it. Your (and others') insistence that improvised music is somehow of a higher, purer order than music that employs traditional tonalities, rhythms, and compositional strategies is absurd and, yes, elitist. It also bespeaks an insecurity about your place in a capitalist entertainment society.

>I would even go as far to guess your choice to interview Dixon has to do with your dislike for this "Elitist music".

I wanted to interview Bill Dixon because he seemed to be a hell of a lot smarter than his defenders (something this charming exchange has proved beyond doubt), and thus - in addition to everything I wanted to know about his own work and his own history - more likely to be able to provide interesting and thoughtful answers to the questions I had about the societal role of "creative music," given his own past published thoughts on the subject. I also thought he deserved more attention than he'd been receiving from the music press, and if I could help bring his music to the attention of more people than were aware of it already (whether they wound up liking it or not, whether they agreed with my ideas about his music or not), that would be an indisputably good thing. With what part(s) of that do you disagree?

The interview also certainly proves that Bill Dixon is much smarter than his interviewer.

Two thoughts, Phil:

First, while this may sound "elitist" to you, I think it is a good thing for an artist to feel some insecurity about his or her place in a capitalist entertainment society. You may choose the term elitist to describe this position, or, as I would suggest, you could instead call it "anti-cpitalist," "socialist," "critical," or any number of other terms. I, and many in the history of this music (including Mr. Dixon I think), would be comfortable with some of the latter characterizations.

Second, I agree with you that your interview will help "bring his music to the attention of more people than were aware of it already." This is why I appreciate what you have done and refuse to categorically reject the value of the interview.

I too have had some problems with improv people acting like their better than every body else and I think its' something that needs to be broght to light in the scene. Good for Phil for fighting the snobs that overflow the scene. I'm also into metal but I like a few improv players like Tim Berne, Ken Vandermark and Carla Kihelsted. Carla wrote me back on myspace and definitiy is not a snob!

Like Phil, I pretty much think most of the improv scene think their music is the greatest thing going, but really only a little bit of it is genious. If we don't critisize the elitists, they just go onj ruining things.

Charles G.

From Phil Freeman's blog:

Saturday, May 24, 2008
DON'T DO IT
Really interesting post by Simon Reynolds on improv and why he doesn't get it. I don't get it either (the music or the social scene and rhetorical fog that surrounds it), and only recently decided that I needn't feel guilty about that fact (which I have, in the past, and Reynolds' phrase "because some smart people with otherwise sharp taste are really into this shit" pretty much sums up the reason why - it's related to the peer-pressure/inferiority-complex I have suffered under in the past that's compelled me to buy Dizzee Rascal and M.I.A. albums, or to worry that maybe I should give a fuck about Vampire Weekend or the Shins or whoever, and it's only recently that I've accepted that it's my job to know stuff those people don't know, and vice versa, and that's perfectly OK). So I must extend this public warning to Reynolds, who at the end of his post writes "I have been thinking of giving that whole area another 'go.'"

Don't do it.

Don't let yourself get cultural-snob-guilted into wasting your time dicking around with non-idiomatic improv, or eai, or whatever it's called this month. The only one of the lot who's worth even a moment's consideration is Bailey, and he's best heard in duet/duel with a drummer, preferably one with some kind of jazz perspective, because then he's got to struggle with his partner's innate desire to create steady rhythm. (I would have loved to hear Bailey battle it out with Ronald Shannon Jackson.) I recommend the following Derek Bailey discs as a beginning and end point:

Daedal (Incus; with Susie Ibarra, drums)
Ore (Arrival; with Eddie Prévost, drums)
Mirakle (Tzadik; with Jamaaladeen Tacuma, bass & Calvin Weston, drums)
Derek & The Ruins, Saisoro (Tzadik; with Masuda Ryuishi, bass & Tatsuya Yoshida, drums)

That's all you need. On each of these albums, Bailey is dragged out of his shell by his partner(s) and forced to actually play something approaching conventional music, but at the same time his highly individualistic style remains clear and present. You should also maybe hear him as a sideman on Peter Brötzmann's Nipples, MOre Nipples and Fuck De Boere (all Atavistic). But you could live a long and happy life without ever listening to an Evan Parker or John Butcher album all the way through. I know I have.

http://blissout.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-got-most-peculiar-sensation-reading.html

Also, read this original post by Simon Reynolds because Phil, the great intellectual he is not, has stolen all his rhetoric from it lock-stock-and-barrel.

When you rip other writers off, have the decency to at least hide your tracks a little, you idiot.

Great! Grow some balls anonymous and use your rel name!! Phil's using his! I think hat alot of these improvosors need to stop being so boring ... and could learn sumthing from a band like Sleepytime Gorila Museum who makes cool wierd music with sereous chops and entertaining too!

P.S. I'm also a loyal suscriber to Metal Edge! Don't let these morans get you down, Phil!

"...his [Freeman's] Miles Davis book is more fun" - DW - Dan, I take it you meant, good for some laughs.

For somebody who purports to be a journalist, pdf seems to often skip the research part of the gig. The Miles book is a case in point. (see Miles-beyond.com/freemanerrors.htm for a long list of mistakes therein) This betrays either a lack of respect for the subject (to Damon's point) or just plain incompetence.

Further, the idea that somehow 'creative music' or 'improvised music' or whatever you want to call it -- that any genre or style has a supersized share of "vastly overinflated rhetoric surrounding it" -- this idea would seem to indicate that pdf hasn't perused much music criticism of any stripe. Try reading the Nietzsche-Wagner correspondence, my boy, or Virgil Thompson, or Adorno, or Rolling Stone, for that matter, if you're afraid of losing your precious anti-elitist bona fides.

Smacks strongly of elitism to me.

If Phil Freeman embodies what it means to be the opposite of an elitist, "elitist" would be a compliment.

Maybe we should start calling people like Phil "pretentious" - grab a dictionary and look it up, the shoe fits.

For all of his salt-of-the-earth yearning and his various social "insecurities", he is more than willing to exclude and condemn entire idioms and groups of people in toto, as if his stumbling, evasive non-edicts were swords of objective truth. His self-importance is the blinding beacon that leads whatever endeavors he partakes in.

Phil, I'm curious as to why you write about improv. Is it mainly to bring everyone involved--musicians and listeners alike--down a peg? Does the fact that they take it as deadly serious as they do bother you so much that you feel compelled to devote a great deal of time debunking, etc? It's such a powerless community in the larger scheme of things, it seems odd that anyone would devote so much energy to tearing it down.

Understand, I'm not dismissing your point of view out of hand. I've had my struggles with free music and it's adherents over the years, though I've always found exhilarating to play. Indeed, I cannot imagine a time when I won't enjoy a good skronk.

Seems like both sides of the argument open themselves up rather nicely to charges or elitism--and Phil, with all due respect, your anti-elitist stance seems to me just another manner of elitism.

I enjoyed the Reynolds piece, btw. I think it pretty much embodies the idea that some people just can't get with improv. Nothing wrong with that, unless you extrapolate your own feelings on the matter to include all of human kind.

As for me, I've got no feel for poetry whatsoever, but I'm not inclined to write articles calling it bullshit. If I don't get it, it's on me. Who the hell am I to tell condemn an art form for which I have no feeling or affinity? Better I just leave it alone.

(I suppose there are some that might find such a statement ironic coming from me, but there you are. I freely acknowledge that I've stepped on my wang more than once as a writer over the years. As a confirmed non-ideologue, I reserve the right to evolve in my attitudes.;-))

A Note to Phil Freeman:

After reading this thread, I told myself I wouldn't get involved, but I feel compelled.

Apologies for the length, but I would rather just post one thorough reply.

I don't think there is anything wrong with challenging someone when interviewing them, if it is done with respect. Asking the "hard" questions is what good interviewers do. Bill doesn't need defending -- he only requires a venue that allows him to do what he does, and say what he says, which this was, more or less. I've not listened to the audio of the interview, so my comments are related to what I read in print.

My issue with the article is related to what Tom Djll mentioned - inaccurate reporting.

In the article, the recording of "17 Musicians in Search of a Sound: Darfur" is discussed musically by Mr. Freeman for one paragraph, and that musical discussion is limited to the first section, "Prelude".

Freeman's description of "Prelude" reads:
"For its first few minutes, it builds slowly. Individual instruments declare themselves -- Glynis Loman's cello, John Hagen's saxophone, Dixon's trumpet. But by the end of the three minute "prelude," the horns and reeds and strings have all made their presence felt with a massive, graceful swelling like the inflation of a blimp."

"Prelude" is three minutes long. For the first two minutes of those three, the only musicians playing are myself (soprano saxophone), followed by Warren Smith (timpani), Michel Cote (contrabass clarinet), and later joined by Will Connell (bass clarinet). After that, at about the 2-minute mark, the rest of the orchestra enters in larger numbers for the final minute (I could outline just about every musician's individual entry, but I don't think it's necessary).

In Freeman's description of this section of the work, none of those musicians are mentioned.

In fact, I honestly can't pick out John Hagen (who has a wonderful warm sound) specifically in that section at all. Glynis Loman is there, around the 2-minute mark, though in somewhat of a "background role", and Dixon did not play until much later in the composition.

So my question is, if a writer cannot correctly identify who/what is happening in the first three minutes of an hour-long work, how can he write about the music with any authority?

If you don't know, why not ask? Why not do research? Search the New York Times archive and pull up Nate Chinen's review of the performance, or David Adler's review for JazzTimes, both of which identify the entry of instruments in "Prelude" correctly (and they only heard it once -- no rewind)...

I freely admit that part of the impetus for my post here is for egoistic reasons -- "Hey Ma, that's me" (like what I do or not) -- but the real issue is that this is an all too regular occurrence in the criticism/journalism of this music (whatever you want to call it -- capital "C" or not) and is an issue that has been tossed about for at least 50 years, and has yet to really be addressed.

If someone's path of "success" or "failure" in the music business is defined by critics, recordings, judgments, and a teleological view of art production (and I use "if" intentionally, with weight) and those critics can't hear what is happening, that is a fundamental problem with the system.

I know it's not easy to write about music, but we have to try harder.

A Note to Phil Freeman:

After reading this thread, I told myself I wouldn't get involved, but I feel compelled.

Apologies for the length, but I would rather just post one thorough reply.

I don't think there is anything wrong with challenging someone when interviewing them, if it is done with respect. Asking the "hard" questions is what good interviewers do. Bill doesn't need defending -- he only requires a venue that allows him to do what he does, and say what he says, which this was, more or less. I've not listened to the audio of the interview, so my comments are related to what I read in print.

My issue with the article is related to what Tom Djll mentioned - inaccurate reporting.

In the article, the recording of "17 Musicians in Search of a Sound: Darfur" is discussed musically by Mr. Freeman for one paragraph, and that musical discussion is limited to the first section, "Prelude".

Freeman's description of "Prelude" reads:
"For its first few minutes, it builds slowly. Individual instruments declare themselves -- Glynis Loman's cello, John Hagen's saxophone, Dixon's trumpet. But by the end of the three minute "prelude," the horns and reeds and strings have all made their presence felt with a massive, graceful swelling like the inflation of a blimp."

"Prelude" is three minutes long. For the first two minutes of those three, the only musicians playing are myself (soprano saxophone), followed by Warren Smith (timpani), Michel Cote (contrabass clarinet), and later joined by Will Connell (bass clarinet). After that, at about the 2-minute mark, the rest of the orchestra enters in larger numbers for the final minute (I could outline just about every musician's individual entry, but I don't think it's necessary).

In Freeman's description of this section of the work, none of those musicians are mentioned.

In fact, I honestly can't pick out John Hagen (who has a wonderful warm sound) specifically in that section at all. Glynis Loman is there, around the 2-minute mark, though in somewhat of a "background role", and Dixon did not play until much later in the composition.

So my question is, if a writer cannot correctly identify who/what is happening in the first three minutes of an hour-long work, how can he write about the music with any authority?

If you don't know, why not ask? Why not do research? Search the New York Times archive and pull up Nate Chinen's review of the performance, or David Adler's review for JazzTimes, both of which identify the entry of instruments in "Prelude" correctly (and they only heard it once -- no rewind)...

I freely admit that part of the impetus for my post here is for egoistic reasons -- "Hey Ma, that's me" (like what I do or not) -- but the real issue is that this is an all too regular occurrence in the criticism/journalism of this music (whatever you want to call it -- capital "C" or not) and is an issue that has been tossed about for at least 50 years, and has yet to really be addressed.

If someone's path of "success" or "failure" in the music business is defined by critics, recordings, judgments, and a teleological view of art production (and I use "if" intentionally, with weight) and those critics can't hear what is happening, that is a fundamental problem with the system.

I know it's not easy to write about music, but we have to try harder.

"Daedal (Incus; with Susie Ibarra, drums)
Ore (Arrival; with Eddie Prévost, drums)
Mirakle (Tzadik; with Jamaaladeen Tacuma, bass & Calvin Weston, drums)
Derek & The Ruins, Saisoro (Tzadik; with Masuda Ryuishi, bass & Tatsuya Yoshida, drums)
That's all you need."

Why, is that because they're the only Bailey albums you have, Phil? You may have a complete set of Art Ensemble discs, as you bragged about here a year or so ago, but I can't believe you own every album Derek Bailey ever released, or have even heard more than two thirds of them (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there, because I don't think I've heard that many myself). So why post such a dumb statement? I know jack shit about Metal - I'm sure there's some stuff there I'd like but I haven't found much yet, and don't really feel like spending the time looking to be honest - but how would you feel if I picked out three or four relatively atypical albums by the likes of Meshuggah and effectively dismissed everything else? Rather pissed off, I would imagine, as a self-confessed Metal head (at least you never miss a chance to tell everyone that's where you came from, but not knowing much about the genre myself I wouldn't know if you were bluffing there too ).
Please think twice before making such bland pronouncements, especially in a public forum, Phil. We both happen to write for the same magazine, and I've been informed that online bunfighting between Wire journalists is not what the powers that be like to read, so I'll conclude by saying it gives the profession a bad name.

The thing that is continually hilarious about Phil is that he seems to think all this hubbub is coming about because he's such an outspoken, radical renegade. It's simply not so.

People are clearly sick of the hubris, laziness, arrogance, etc. of the man's writing, personality and agenda. He's basically just a drag.

Seriously, if all of this controversy actually makes you proud Phil, I pity you even more than I did before.

Please, quit your day job. Go back to "porn" or whatever. We beg of you!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DAN WARBURTON !!!!

Now all the world knows, hahahaha

Maxxx

This is hardly the time or the place etc etc etc
Thanks anyway chief
And, no, there won't be a top 45 :)

I thought that a demonstration of pure love amidst all of this cat fighting could bring some sort of John Lennon-ish sugar amidst all of these hard, hard men.

shit, what's the kind of politics going down here? In this interview, Bill Dixon comes across. I absolutely love half a dozen or so of his recordings, I had no idea of the man behind them, now I have. Whatever pdf's motives were, he managed not to interrupt, there's loads of history in the stream. The article in the Wire is ok to good, the stream really gets you to know the musician. Why would anybody have any problems with the egotisms the interviewer might have indulged in? Is superior material around for the broad public? Why would the interviewer have to understand what I can now thanks to him understand for myself? I find Dixon impressive, I do get a feeling of why he kept "cutting-edge," so what's the problem? Some kind of etiquette that hasn't been observed? Does the interviewer have to be on a par with the artist? I as a listener am definitely not, I as a late-born am thankful for anybody who bothers to record what's still left to be recorded ... even if they don't properly understand from the viewpoint of the chosen few. Even if they love themselves best as we all do.

Nice to seem some folks familiar and fresh sound off & beat their chests, but isn’t it really just a tempest in a teapot yet again. Bags seems to be a magnet for this sort of thing, for better & worse. Derek, why is that?

In the end, like everyone else’s, Phil’s opinions are his own. Was his Dixon interview a missed opportunity? Maybe, but why work up such lather about it. Clifford’s piece is coming down the pike in a short while and there are sure to be others to follow.

We both happen to write for the same magazine, and I've been informed that online bunfighting between Wire journalists is not what the powers that be like to read, so I'll conclude by saying it gives the profession a bad name.

This stance surprises me, Dan. First in its undercurrent of self-importance, and secondly in the suggestion that you would capitulate to the “powers that be”. Bunfight away, I say, and let the Wire suits whoever they are be damned. And if Phil would somehow be “pissed” by your off-hand dismissal of metal after sampling a few morsels, he has far thinner skin than I figured. All it takes is one tiny edit to neuter the “offensiveness” from his designed-to-incite Bailey reduction.

[fixed]

Daedal (Incus; with Susie Ibarra, drums)
Ore (Arrival; with Eddie Prévost, drums)
Mirakle (Tzadik; with Jamaaladeen Tacuma, bass & Calvin Weston, drums)
Derek & The Ruins, Saisoro (Tzadik; with Masuda Ryuishi, bass & Tatsuya Yoshida, drums)
That's all I need.

A Bill Dixon thread and an online fight breaks out. Who'd a thunk?

Great edit, raw sham ner/shawm rear n/rash new arm or whatever yr name is. "You" becomes "I", a tiny yet telling existential shift encapsulating the terrifying reality that all criticism is doomed to fail on account of its inevitable subjectivity, hawhaw. Nice. Fancy doing some guest editing for PT? I could use a hand. FWIW, Wombatz says it like I think it is above - if Phil's Wire article gets some of the spotty dubsteppers, free folk weirdies and sweaty noise freaks listening to Bill Dixon instead of Burial, Sunburned and Wolf Eyes, it's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And with end in mind, Phil and I are on the same team, whether I approve of everything he says or writes or not.

Great edit, raw sham ner/shawm rear n/rash new arm or whatever yr name is.

Great copping of Thurston Moore-approved hipster shorthand. What’s PT pay? If it’s more than Bags (as in bupkis), I’d happily sign aboard on an editorial stint. That is, if I’m allowed to keep my infinitely variable alias & you ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie on the promise of a PT renascence.

PT probably pays the same as Bags but in Euros, so you get 60% more bupkis.

Yes, the interview is great to have around in the end. But, is it better than the spoken word disc in Odyssey? Where he basically interviews himself.

While I do get the free associative/conversational quality (augmented in this case by blog-specific relationships/"community") that characterizes much of blog commentary, I do find that staying on subject makes for more interesting reading, at least for me.

Where is the response to what Bill actually said in the interview (written or audio)? Has anyone listened to the recording (other than Damon) enough to have something to say about the work?

Perhaps someone should start a new thread that is devoted to Phil Freeman and a critique of his work.

While we are at it, how about a review of the recording?

The thing that is continually hilarious about Phil is that he seems to think all this hubbub is coming about because he's such an outspoken, radical renegade. It's simply not so.

People are clearly sick of the hubris, laziness, arrogance, etc. of the man's writing, personality and agenda. He's basically just a drag.

Seriously, if all of this controversy actually makes you proud Phil, I pity you even more than I did before.

Please, quit your day job. Go back to "porn" or whatever. We beg of you!

Timmy, you're starting to remind me of an elementary-school boy who shows his inchoate affection for a girl in his class by punching her on the playground. If you want to ask me on a date, just come out and do so. It won't happen - I don't step out on my wife - but at least you'd have some kind of closure and could move on to more productive pursuits than your obsession with me as the apparent locus of all evil in the universe.

As for the rest of you, why not take Mr. Haynes' advice? Take a deep, cleansing breath, and consider having an intelligent discussion of the work of Bill Dixon. Or, if you don't feel you're up to that, you can keep right on burying your own shortcomings under an avalanche of bitching about what a rotten writer, journalist and human being I am. Whatever makes you happy.

Yes darling, I'm in love with the class president and we're both still in grade school. Kisses.

Once again, you envision yourself at the center of the universe! No, you're not the locus of all evil - you just suck very much and this was a great opportunity to let you know that. I love a parade.

If we're going to discuss Mr. Dixon, let's make another thread, because this one is clearly a monument to the great genius of that late, great Rex Reed of the New Thing, Phil Freeman!

Please consider locking this thread

Yes darling, I'm in love with the class president and we're both still in grade school. Kisses.

Once again, you envision yourself at the center of the universe! No, you're not the locus of all evil - you just suck very much and this was a great opportunity to let you know that. I love a parade.

If we're going to discuss Mr. Dixon, let's make another thread, because this one is clearly a monument to the great genius of that late, great Rex Reed of the New Thing, Phil Freeman!

I'm sorry for the intrusion into this forum, but I am quite upset, as you shall soon understand. I am Timothy Johnson's mother.

Unlike most boys his age (16), Timothy is a very earnest student of free jazz and improvised music, as well as an avid researcher of the music that is his passion, that I and his father are learning to appreciate courtesy of Timothy's internet research : ) It is my personal hope that he will grow up to be a librarian like his mother. : )

I have read some of the writing on this blog, and I am very impressed with the scholarship and smart use of language, especially the posts by Derek Taylor. If Timothy does well on his verbal SAT's when he takes them this fall, I know we will have you to thank!

As a mother, I am also glad that the majority of this site is free from "adult" language and discussions. While, as a librarian, I champion free speech and access to information, as a mother, I was quite upset to read the poster pdf (does pdf = Phil Freeman?) suggesting that my 16 year old son ask him out on a date.

While I'm sure that Timothy, who is quite precocious, might appear through his writing to be an adult, it is always important to remember that on the internet you never know the person behind the screen-name, and that said person could be a 16 year old (or younger!) boy or girl.

And Timothy, if you are reading this, please remember what your father and I taught you about being polite and respectful, to all people, even if they behave like jerks!

And P.S. Timothy, there's a nice salad in the fridge for you to eat with your lunch.

Cindy W. Johnson MLIS

oh my god, please lock this now. this is the ultimate.

Lock it?! Are you kidding, this is great!

Yes, now we're getting somewhere. As Sly Stone said, it's a family affair. "One child grows up to be someone who loves to learn...another child grows up to be someone you'd just love to burn."

??? wait a minute. Timothy do you go to Passaic HS? I've seen you in gym class dude. I"m going to kick your ass tomorrow in the locker room. You loser. Blood will be shead for the honor of PHIL FREEMAN!

Charles G.

First, I don't think anyone is defending Bill Dixon, he has a lot of beautiful things to say, and it is amazing he is still at the forefront of the music.

I'll talk about Bill Dixon's music any day of the week. I listened to Vade Mecum one last night, I have had it since it came out and listened 1000s or at least 100s of times (in case Jon Abbey is doing math, I saw him bust someone on IHM for such a claim), and I still find new things in it.
The one that has really been doing it for me is Son Of Sisyphus, I have all the Soul note work on lp, so I just recently put it on my ipod.
That is an incredible album. The orchestration is beautiful. What I really love is the environments Bill sets up with his choices of musicians and the instrumentation.
The clarity allows actual different tempos and lines to exist without interfering with each other.
Of course I always admire how Bill is never in a hurry no matter how dense his ensemble gets.

So, Charles, what did you flunk that you have to take summer school for? I, uh, passed all my classes and have the summer off. I'm so sorry that you weren't capable of such a simple task.

This thread isn't really respectful to Dixon's music. It's rather pointless.

I love it, have 98% of what's been issued of his music, and think he's a wonderful guy. I don't think this is the place to really get into dissecting the work(s), but if we want to do that, I'll gladly enter into such a discussion.

I remember the last time Bags got heated on the work of Dixon, it was in response to the Victo disc and a lot of non-fans slagging away. For some reason Dixon inspires a lot of people to digress and get in arguments about nothing, like surrounding an ageless ziggurat with a pile of trash. Pretty stupid, actually.

This thread can join the Kelsey/Hill imbroglios in the Bags aether.
Al Jones is spinning farther away than ever.

Ain't no shortage of high horses around here, that's for sure. Hi ho, Silver, Jesse!

Derek, maybe locking this thread ain't such a bad idea.

Shut up jerk! None of your business!

"This thread isn't really respectful to Dixon's music."

Agreed. But the reason is mainly due to the fact that the thread is not about Bill Dixon's music, it is about Phil Freeman interviewing Bill Dixon and have the unedited mp3s posted.

Ah Ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.

Phil Freeman, I don't know you in person and I'm not qualified to comment about your writing, but thanks for existing. This thread has gone to become the most hilarious thing I've seen since Joe Dante's "Amazon Women On The Moon" and Mr.Creosote's scene in Monty Python's "The Meaning Of Life". Thank you all indeed.

All it needs now is a wafer-thin mint...

All it needs now is a wafer-thin mint...

Wow, y’all sure have been busy. Can’t say I concur w/ Jesse that this thread is on par with past Bags pie fights, & its title does place Phil ahead of Bill so the skew is sort of understandable. But it’s still surprising how long certain folks can keep flogging the proverbial expired equine. If he even knows or cares about this “discussion”, Bill’s probably having a good chuckle, at least I hope so.

I haven’t heard the Darfur disc yet, but did enjoy the ESO set on Thrill Jockey. The excellence of Bill’s back catalog speaks for itself, IMO.

Elsewhere on site folks can find a handful of new reviews w/ more on the way. Probably not as exciting as the feeding frenzy here, but check ‘em out & comment if you’re so inclined.

Oh, and I miss Al too!

Nice post, Wombatz.

Damon -

Agreed on Sisyphus. I think one of that album's great virtues is that the pieces are almost all relatively short. Not that I have a short attention span or anything, but they communicate ideas in concise and precise ways that I find really beautiful. I love that bowed note at the very end of "Silences For Jack Moore" and the way it leads into the uproar of "Vecctor."

I've also been listening to Thoughts a lot. All that bass rolling and rumbling around...

Thoughts is a big one for me, being so close to Marco Eneidi and all those great bass players.
I can pick them out pretty well, too. It is easy to hear Kowald, that is for sure. Pavone is an underrated bassist, what is does on SoS is really beautiful.

I played a very nice gig last night with Josh Berman, who played trumpet on the Exploding Star Orchestra, in addition to just playing his ass off, he said the CD was really directed by Bill and that everything they did was what he wanted, so I'll have to eat some of my words up thread and give that one another listen.

Isn't that what I said earlier, Damon? ;)

Yeah, you did. I don't mind being wrong about something like that.

Josh gave me the Chicago Luzern Exchange cd on Delmark. I have it on now, I'd say it is very related to Bill Dixon's work, both in instrumentation (trumpet, tenor, tuba, drums) but the music as well.
There is an AAJ review here:
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=17641
I wouldn't be surprised if there is one on Bags, too.

it looks like the smoke has cleared, so i can come here and actually talk about bill dixon, whose work i happen to like a lot.

i first heard his work 20 years ago with "intents and purposes". i loved the clarity of those long, winding unison lines snaking through fields strewn with percussion shrapnel and the frightening gasp of the man's brass instruments. i've listenened to pretty much everything he's released (and then some) and i'm psyched to hear darfur - hopefully my copy has come in the mail today.

i have to say that the exploding star thing is easily the only forgettable piece in his discography. it's really just a throwaway - in particular "constellations" goes nowhere and accomplishes very little over its 18+ minutes. the vamps are glib and trite and there are no solos of any major interest. it's a flat line in terms of tension, dynamics and mood. very disappointing. i have expected more from something with the man's name on it. c'est la vie. i'm sure darfur will be a much better document of dixon's large group work considering the impressive list of stalwarts on it. i'm always game to hear more karen borca, in particular.

i could never really get into "thoughts" because it's so poorly recorded . . . there's just no clarity there. the music may be great, but the sonics are so ugly, i can't really penetrate it any further. there are so many better quality recordings of bill dixon that "thoughts" is one of the last things i tend to reach for. the other soul note records are fun and dense listenings. "november 1981" is a particularly hyper jam.

re: this whole phil thing, i gotta say that even i'm shocked by his blog post about "improv sucks, yadda yadda". dunno.

i'm not going to beat this dead horse too much - phil already knows what my attitude is towards his writing - but i don't really understand why phil insists on constantly letting everybody know in particular how much he hates improvised music. okay phil . . . we get it! it seems like most of the rest of us like it and we've heard you say it before, so give it a rest. it's as you say, very "self-flattering". if you're against elitism (or reverse elitism, in your case), just let it go!

i listen to the goddamn heaviest metal and i listen to improved music too. i don't see either one excluding me from their conversations. when they are good, they're both speaking to me loud and clear. i hear good metal, mediocre metal and bad metal. i hear good improvisation, mediocre improvisation and bad improvisation. since i'm not a kid anymore i don't have to say things like "country music sucks!" or whatever. ponder that. i don't waste time anymore dissing other people's stuff because i found out that it got me (and them) NOWHERE. i finally realized i was being a drag, so i stopped being a drag. join the club if you dare.

if there are improvised music artists you think you need to cover, consider that venting your opinions about their artform might not be the most endearing thing in the world. if you just don't care - you do like playing that old rebel card - and are ready to deal with the landslide of bullshit that is left in the wake, so mote it be. it's your life bro.

ww

I listened to thoughts today, the cd version is way better than the lp and I think it might be one of the few instances where the compression of mp3s actually help it.
So I'd try it again, WW.
It is a weird, murky recording, but in the digital versions all the separation is there.

I've written less than a half dozen articles about non-jazz improvised music over the course of a writing "career" dating back to 1996. I've reviewed less than a dozen non-jazz improv CDs in that time. The only places where I have written about my feelings regarding non-jazz improvised music are here and on my blog, and maybe a sentence or two in a review or an article in The Wire. All of these are extremely rare occurrences. Shit, it's not even the thing I've talked about most on this site; several months have passed since the last time I posted anything related to the subject here. So the use of words like "constantly" is frankly bizarre. Bagatellen ain't the world, and some of you need to broaden your scope a bit.

I have no problem with improvised music, jazz-based or otherwise. I listen to as much of it as I choose, and if it works for me, then I enjoy it. What I have a problem with, what I have repeatedly objected to, is the rhetoric surrounding it and the demands its partisans attempt to place on reviewers and journalists. When people bitch me out for being "anti-improv," they are confusing my antipathy to their bullshit for an antipathy to the music.

Improv is just music, like any other kind of music. It has no innate qualities that lift it above country, or metal, or jazz, or techno, or hip-hop, or anything else, in any genre-wide qualitative sense. I also don't believe it requires any more study than any other form of music. Indeed, since it rejects traditional notions of rhythm and compositional technique, it probably requires less study than other forms.

When I choose to listen to improv, I listen to it with open ears, just as I listen to all the above-cited forms of music with open ears. If a specific piece trips my aesthetic trigger, I respond. If it doesn't, I don't. But I'm not going to listen to something five or six times, in the hope that repeated exposure will convince me that something has merit, if the first listen hasn't done the job. Life is short. There are a lot of other records I could be listening to. Plus, I find the idea of devoting multiple focused listens to a record the participants themselves played once kind of absurd. You played it once? I'll listen to it once, and we'll be even.

Some of the reviews I've written, to which people here have objected, were favorable, but they were seen as insufficiently studious or irreverent. I only listened to the records in question once, or maybe twice, and even though I liked the music, I didn't like it for the right reasons, or I didn't describe it in the terms the participating musicians or the label head would have chosen. That's not me being an enemy of improv; that's someone else being a nitpicky douchebag.

I hope this clears some things up.

ww -

I've only ever heard Thoughts on CD, but as Damon says, everybody's clearly audible. You should definitely invest in the disc.

This is in reponse to Damon and Clifford re: Exploding Star.

I was present at the recording and the mixing. Bill certainly directed his own two pieces but not Rob Mazurek's "Inner Constellations." Bill was the sideman on that piece, and Rob graciously let him play where and when he wanted throughout. It was a composition dedicated to Bill and composed and rehearsed in advance of Bill's visit to Chicago. Bill heard the composition for the first time a day or so before the recording and concert. I might also add that Rob and the orchestra members were very respectful and gave their all to Bill. It was a too brief, yet powerful and satisfying encounter. Bill enjoyed himself immensely.

As for 17 Musicians... I did try to post something yesterday (before the train wreck) in response to Andrew Raffo Dewar's post. (My post never appeard, and I don't know what happened to it.) In short, I thanked Andrew for identifying the musicians who played in the "Prelude" section and mentioned that those reviewers who had been at the concert had the advantage of seeing as well as hearing who was playing. Reviews of the CD have also contained identification errors. For example, Michel Cote's contrabass clarinet has been erroneously identified as Karen Borca's bassoon in more than one review. Like Andrew, I think identification is very important.

I thank Phil for writing a very good article. Bill is pleased.

May I also add that like Mrs. Johnson, I, too, am a librarian. (Smile)

Sharon

Addendum to my previous comment:

Basically, I'm just sick of improv proponents making the music seem like esoteric knowledge available only to those willing to furrow their brows and buckle down for a lifetime of reverent study. It's not. It's just music, and if it was presented as such, more people might be willing to listen to it. When I review something, I'm generally trying to get as many people to listen to it as possible. Sometimes I do that by attempting a "de-mystification" process. Only whenthe music in question is improv do people get all up in my shit. Is the problem with me, or with others?

PDF-

I disagree with the not wanting to put repeated listenings for improv. The reason I prefer recordings over concerts for improv (or best case seeing the concert and then hearing the recording) is the details that cannot possibly be digested in one sitting.
Bill's music is prime example, as I said earlier I am still finding things in his recordings I have lived with for over a decade.

I would say if it might not be a bad Idea to separate your listening into work and pleasure - I know I have to.
IMO, both of our jobs require that.
I am not saying you need to go in and listen to every single improv album 20 times, but if something seems like it relates to an area you write about give it a good listen and consider it work.

I'd relate it to me not caring for show tunes, but the skills I have been able to get from the ability to play 32 bar forms has really done a lot for my ability to work with jazz based improvisors.
It also makes it possible to shut down that kind of material if it shows up in improvisations.

Just like sitting through the major works of Evan Parker and John Butcher's discographies will make you sure that you don't care for them (or you may find out you do), and more able to hear the effects of their work on other music and vise versa.

I think you are confusing things a bit. For me improvised music is the music I listen to most, like most and know most about.
I am not dumb enough to think that inherently makes it any better than other music. I think that is the case with a lot of the posters that take issue with you.

I think you have some good ideas, in the post above.

This:
"Improv is just music, like any other kind of music. It has no innate qualities that lift it above country, or metal, or jazz, or techno, or hip-hop, or anything else, in any genre-wide qualitative sense. I also don't believe it requires any more study than any other form of music. Indeed, since it rejects traditional notions of rhythm and compositional technique, it probably requires less study than other forms."

Is logical, but what I would say is that much improv, especially good improv has more complex Rhythm and structures than traditional music.
I played two sets last night, one with KJell Nordeson on drums and one with Weasel, both had very clear and very different rhythmic concepts that morphed throughout each set.

Back to Bill Dixon's music, the rhythm ideas are extremely complex and interesting, particularly on both Vade Mecum volumes.
Not mention the structures.
I am not saying these elements make improvised music any better than other music, but I will say they are a big part of why it holds my interest more than any other music both as a listener and a player.

It took me FIVE YEARS of regular listening to say whether I "got" Intents and Purposes. That was a good canvas from which to base further assertions on Dixon's music, some of which has taken a good deal less time to digest because my ears, mind and heart have now become very attuned to his mode of working. However, I reviewed the Thrill Jockey disc after only a couple of months working with the music and about two or three months AFTER writing it up, actually felt like I "got" it. I'm sure I'll be working on Darfur - a very demanding piece - for months to come. There are small group recordings of his that I've amassed over the years that I'm still spending time and mind with, and don't get me started on Odyssey - a life's work for a listener, let alone a player.

There surely is "easier" music than Dixon's, but this is all to say that pdf's curtness in approaching the subject as a listener and critic would do well to be overturned. The players probably didn't "get it" on the first rehearsal, so why should a writer "get it" on first listen?

Anyone here ever read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink? I recommend it highly.

Clifford -

I'm not saying you can access all of a piece's worth in a single listen, but you can certainly decide "Hmm, this deserves further exploration" or "Next!" after one play. I've been listening to On The Corner for about 15 years now, and I still hear new things in it all the time. I'll absolutely be returning to Bill Dixon's work a lot in the future. But if something doesn't work for me on some immediate, visceral level, I move on, and the fact that there's a lot of information there to be processed, or that the musician in question has invested a lot in his or her artistic concepts, means nothing to me if that information and those concepts are unappealing. (Just because someone spends twenty or thirty years working on an idea doesn't mean that idea is a good one.)

PDF –

Are you really so sure of your judgment that you can confidently say “Next!” after a single listen? I like to think of myself as a fairly arrogant person, but even I wouldn’t go that far…

The first time I tried to listen to Joe Maneri (“In Full Cry”), I thought “This is the ugliest thing I’ve ever heard.” I think I got through about two tracks. Nonetheless, because the record got a good review from Morton & Cook, I periodically pulled it off the shelf and gave it another shot. And one day I said, “Hey, what was I thinking?? This is great stuff!” Since then I’ve tracked down pretty much everything Maneri has released, and I’ve loved it all (well, aside from the one with the elephant on the cover). So, yeah, life is short, but do I regret the amount of time I spent listening to a Maneri record I didn’t even like? Given the amount of pleasure that I’ve gotten from his music in recent years, and expect to continue to get for the rest of my life…nope, no regrets. (Not even factoring in the amount of time I’ve wasted giving multiple chances to musicians I finally gave up on.)

So why not consider the possibility that you might be depriving yourself of similar discoveries? If you’re so inclined, you might start with, say, John Butcher. How much of his music have you heard? Enough to dismiss his entire oeuvre as casually as you do above? Really? Have you heard his trio recording with Christoph Irmer (violin) and Agusti Fernandez (“Clearings”)? It sounds more like improvised New Music than any kind of jazz, and it’s totally fantastic. Or how about his duet with Paal Nilsson-Love, which is probably as close as he’s ever gotten to good, old-fashioned free jazz? Or the trio with Fred Lonberg-Holm and Michael Zerang (“Tincture”)? Or “A New Distance” with Roger Smith and John Stevens? If you haven’t heard these recordings—especially “Clearings”—give them a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised.

PDF –

Are you really so sure of your judgment that you can confidently say “Next!” after a single listen? I like to think of myself as a fairly arrogant person, but even I wouldn’t go that far…

The first time I tried to listen to Joe Maneri (“In Full Cry”), I thought “This is the ugliest thing I’ve ever heard.” I think I got through about two tracks. Nonetheless, because the record got a good review from Morton & Cook, I periodically pulled it off the shelf and gave it another shot. And one day I said, “Hey, what was I thinking?? This is great stuff!” Since then I’ve tracked down pretty much everything Maneri has released, and I’ve loved it all (well, aside from the one with the elephant on the cover). So, yeah, life is short, but do I regret the amount of time I spent listening to a Maneri record I didn’t even like? Given the amount of pleasure that I’ve gotten from his music in recent years, and expect to continue to get for the rest of my life…nope, no regrets. (Not even factoring in the amount of time I’ve wasted giving multiple chances to musicians I finally gave up on.)

So why not consider the possibility that you might be depriving yourself of similar discoveries? If you’re so inclined, you might start with, say, John Butcher. How much of his music have you heard? Enough to dismiss his entire oeuvre so casually as you do above? Really? Have you heard his trio recording with Christoph Irmer (violin) and Agusti Fernandez (“Clearings”)? It sounds more like improvised New Music than any kind of jazz, and it’s totally fantastic. Or how about his duet with Paal Nilsson-Love, which is probably as close as he’s ever gotten to good, old-fashioned free jazz? Or the trio with Fred Lonberg-Holm and Michael Zerang (“Tincture”)? Or “A New Distance” with Roger Smith and John Stevens? If you haven’t heard these recordings—especially “Clearings”—give them a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Ooops, the Dreaded Double Post strikes again...

Anyway, one more to add to my list of reccomended Buchers: "Spellings", a quartet date led by Georg Graewe, with Martin Blume on drums (I forget who was on bass).

phil,

i found your response very reasonable.

i got darfur in the mail yesterday and listened to it while taking a walk. my immediate reactions were that i vacillates bewteen succinct written unisons and (mostly) short designated small group improvisations. it's definitely a brooding, slowly unfurling piece and there's a consistently brittle, careful pacing in all of the playing. it's not "fire music", but something more crystalline, for sure. i have to listen to it again to get some more grasp on the structure and what the arc means, but what immediately appeals to me about it is the harmonic information and how it is rhythmically abstract and elongated all the way through. when i hear non-pulsed music like this i immediately start pondering the logic behind it. it's there, obviously, but it's going to take at least another listen for me to start piecing it together.

i suppose that's the fun of listening to improvised music - discerning and identifying the various logics that make it a whole. sometimes the logic just doesn't work and that's what might make me pass on it. there's a lot of factors. i personally prefer music that has a certain level of momentum . . .

ww

"Anyway, one more to add to my list of reccomended Buchers: "Spellings", a quartet date led by Georg Graewe, with Martin Blume on drums (I forget who was on bass)."

- Hans Scheinder, a wonderful but underdocumented bassist:
http://www.efi.group.shef.ac.uk/mschneid.html
"Spellings" is one of the greatest improvised music recordings ever.

Listening close to find the details in improvised music is an activity I personally enjoy. I doesn't have to be inherently intellectual, in the end it is just kind of a sonic "Where's Waldo?"

Schneider, actually - though I'm sure your typo was due to pure enthusiasm, Damon!
He's still tearing it up too - I see he popped up on a Creative Sources disc last year with Stefan Keune.

Meanwhile, nice to see peace has broken out on the Dixon front.