Nice review Brian. I have had this spinning a lot over the last few weeks and its kept a number of other recent releases away from the Cd player as its so enjoyable.
Some great releases from Potlatch lately, and also a good few nice discs involving Denzler, this one follows Stralau and Metz on Creative Sources, both very nice indeed

Phil has been avoiding the violin for a while now (like I avoid the word "eschewing" - which along with David Keenan's beloved "to birth" is one of my least favourite Wire-isms - but as it's you Brian I'll let you off :). Do you really think Bertrand is all that unobtrusive? I hear him all over the place. From what you say about Phil it seems it's hard to make out what he's up to as well - which gives the impression it's a Beins showcase with embellishments from the other two. Whereas I hear it as a genuine team effort, and a very fine one too.

Dan, no I didn't mean to imply a Beins-led set, although I do think his contributions "stick out" the most. It's more like: when I listen (as I try to, often unsuccessfully) to the *music* and not to the individual musicians, I can easily "ignore" (too many quotes!) Denzler, which is a good thing--he doesn't interfere. I do find it difficult to isolate Durrant's parts which, again, is a good thing. I'll further contradict myself by saying that, although I do unavoidably hear Beins all over, I don't mind it at all. So there! ;-)

btw, I haven't read WIRE for about two years, so I eschew any guilt by association!

Hope you'll check out my forthcoming Wire piece on Ralf Wehowsky though (due all being well in September) - should be up your alley, Brian.

Here's a mini-review of the disc I belatedly wrote a few days ago (for a different discourse context—hence the generic closing remarks). I have various other thoughts about the disc and I'd like to expand this to a proper review soon and post it here, but it would be nice to learn a bit more about what's happening technically on the album, especially in the way of Beins' contributions, if anyone has any insights to offer. I've never seen Beins live, and I've only seen Denzler live once in duo with Hans Koch, where he played his saxophone fairly saxophonically—it was roughly similar to their excellent duo disc on Ambiences Magnetiques.

_________________________________________

Listening to this disc is like walking around in a huge ultra-modern automated factory where the machines run smoothly, a place where you could pass a few hours and not feel queasy from any jarring or excessive noises. Assuming you're a fan of contemporary electroacoustic improvisation, that is. The key is that you're walking. Instead of static repetition, you're hearing shifts in the soundfield as different machines become audible and others recede into the background. Some machines are louder than others and every once in a while you pass a guy (Phil Durrant) sitting in front of a laptop who plays with some music software and makes cheesy generic electronic sounds instead of doing his job when nobody is around to notice. You think "hmm, that's weird", and then move along to a new blend of luxurious mechanical textures. The sounds are mostly in the low-mid range. They are unpitched or diffusely pitched. They tend to move in circles, like the sound of slowly dragging something in circles on a drum head. In fact, that could be what Burkhard Beins is doing rather often here. He is credited with percussion. Bertrand Denzler is credited with tenor saxophone. Yes, as far as I know, this fascinating and exotic soundscape of abstract moving textures is created largely with percussion and saxophone. You could play the whole disc and not suspect there is a saxophone or percussion instrument being used at all. This is a superficial aspect of what's happening here, but it's pretty amazing and helps account for my feeling that really fresh musical territory is being explored here. Somehow or another, these three musicians have managed to suppress the conventional identities of their instruments and blend their sounds together in an incredibly focused and sympathetic manner. When I listen to this disc I usually hear blocks of sound moving in space-time, not individual instrumental lines. I've played this disc at least ten times and I keep returning to it with rapt fascination and hearing new details that reveal the inner workings of these unified textures that continually shift and realign. Sometimes it's like watching a screensaver continually permute its geometry. This is a rare example of music that deals equally with texture and motion. Again, the key is that you're walking. All three of these musicians have large and influential discographies and represent the cutting-edge of new improvised music for which the gap between notation and improvisation has become small enough to be irrelevant. These musicians know exactly what they want their music to sound like and by refining their personal sound vocabularies to suit these intentions and choosing partners with shared intentions, they can realize new concepts of sound organization that elude both notationalists and traditional improvisors. I think of this disc as a brilliant premiere of a tremendously innovative composition that deserves a better performance sometime in the future because of my objections to about 10% of Durrant's laptop contributions, but which is engaging and revelatory enough to be essential listening for anyone interested in the state of contemporary music. Potlatch is a French label that only releases a few discs per year and they tend to be landmark documents that earn the attention of most improv connoisseurs. Based on the vigorously enthusiastic responses to Three Dances that I've seen, despite the flooded market of improvised music, this is one of the discs that will make a lot of year-end best-of lists.

Hi Mike

Thanks for sharing that, really interesting to read your perspective on this one.

I personally really like Three Dances, it would have been the subject of a page of my hyperbolic drivel if Brian hadn't got here first ;)

I can actually tell the three instruments apart quite easily on this one though, perhaps the result of listening to far too much of this kind of thing. If I didn't have the sleeve notes to hand I would probably have been able to identify the three instruments involved.

What I like so much about this recording is the way the three musicians work together. It is very natural and fluid with noone really tripping over each other. at any one moment there is just enough sound involved to make things really work nicely but with enough restraint and space left within to keep things from blending into the kind of long dronely splurge we get so often.

I actually really like Durrant's occasionally off the wall inputs as well, he gives an edge to the music and constantly challenges the other two to accomodate him.

And you are right about this one ending up in people's end of year lists!

ii don't know if it helps, but in terms of the stereo spread, my sound spans left to centre, Burkhard is in the middle, but with a stereo split either side, and Bertrand is on the right.

Is the percussion amplified? It's hard for me to imagine how he creates such even sound layers. Am I correct in assuming he does a great deal of circular dragging on drum heads?

I'm planning to spend a good many more hours in the near future indulging in this recording. Like From Between, it's both immediately appealing and continually elusive, rewarding repeated efforts to get inside its novel structures. In terms of the great divide between recordings that I can enjoy only if I put special effort into accomodating the aesthetic at hand and recordings that don't require any special effort to enjoy, but require special effort to discern the nature of the pleasure, it's squarely on the latter side. In practice, it's also the difference between a recording I'm happy to shelve away for good once I've finished a review, and a recording I feel I've just warmed up with after finishing a review. Archives vs Rotation. Three Dances is in rotation. Ultimately, that's the most meaningful statement I can make about a disc, the concrete facts of my listening relationship, something rarely reported because the truth is usually unflattering.

Phil, I'm aiming to figure out exactly what's bugging me about some of that electronic stuff. A spelunkering crew is already en route to my ear canal... I will report my findings as they become available! I'm aiming for conceptual profit I can spend elsewhere more than any special fixation on this recording. I love these kinds of 90/10 discs because it's such a pleasure to ponder the 10%!

Michael,

Nice comments indeed !
I am glad that you enjoyed this CD.
When I first heard Trio Sowari playing live in a parisian apartment in november 2004, I was blown away and I promptly organised a recording session with them.
I was not in the studio when they recorded, but I believe Burkhard is not amplified. But the mikes must be very close to him. His playing is always fascinating and it paradoxally seems so easy to do when you see him… which is surely not of course! He is rubbing many materials on the snare drum :styrofoam, stones and a lot of things. He is bowing the cymbals too. He is a master of textures. And always changing but in a very quiet/calm manner.
But several times I thought it was him playing some particular sounds and in fact it was Bertrand on tenor !

When you write :
" I usually hear blocks of sound moving in space-time, not individual instrumental lines… Sometimes it's like watching a screensaver continually permute its geometry… This is a rare example of music that deals equally with texture and motion… "
I think you make an excellent description of this music. Screensaver is a good metaphore.

What’s important for me in their music is the method they use to improvise.
Of course with new sounds as you pointed out.
And they try to escape from a linearity dominated by narrative playing (as in so-called old improv). They don’t focus on phrasing even in a free way. They always change their sounds. So I have this feeling of a new concept of continuity. Bertrand analyses it as if it were different sounds in the space placed on different plans.

hi, i've enjoyed reading your piece brian olewnick. my questions are for michael anton parker's (fine) contribution:

"The sounds are mostly in the low-mid range. They are unpitched or diffusely pitched."

"...for which the gap between notation and improvisation has become small enough to be irrelevant. These musicians know exactly what they want their music to sound like and by refining their personal sound vocabularies to suit these intentions and choosing partners with shared intentions, they can realize new concepts of sound organization that elude both notationalists and traditional improvisors."

when mentioning 'unpitched' coming from the musican's laptop, does this refer to singularly unpitched tones or notes, or multi-toned or noted in some way so as not to be able to distinguish a single pitch or one from another? or pehaps are you describing some form of orchestral intensity emanating from a single source. would you say a laptop because it is electronic has the ability to reveal, more so than "instruments" -- a complexity of overtones that might be defined as pitch?

does 'the gap between notation and improvisation' refer to the fact that it is impossible to notate such pieces after they've been created? or does this phrase describe a kind of universal on-going discussion concerning these kinds of recent out/transitional modern (contemporary?) (electronic?) recordings.

i find the varying perceptions of the instrumentation interesting. much is always personal, but also could have to do with the variousness of gear upon which each individual is listening. speakers of hi-end or low-end; woofers & tweeters; availability of personal mixing facilities & devices and stuff like that - no?

[merry]-when mentioning 'unpitched' coming from the musican's laptop, does this refer to singularly unpitched tones or notes, or multi-toned or noted in some way so as not to be able to distinguish a single pitch or one from another? or pehaps are you describing some form of orchestral intensity emanating from a single source. would you say a laptop because it is electronic has the ability to reveal, more so than "instruments" -- a complexity of overtones that might be defined as pitch?

Merry, with all due respect... does any of this really matter?

I'm not sure if you've already heard the disc or not, but if you haven't I just recommend you pick it up, find some quiet time and have a listen.

By far the best way to really get to know this kind of music intimately :)

www.potlatch.fr

And Jacques; yet another real winner from Potlatch, thats four or five on the trot now, how long can you keep this run going?! ;)

[MikeP] The sounds are mostly in the low-mid range. They are unpitched or diffusely pitched.

[Merry] when mentioning 'unpitched' coming from the musican's laptop, does this refer to singularly unpitched tones or notes, or multi-toned or noted in some way so as not to be able to distinguish a single pitch or one from another? or pehaps are you describing some form of orchestral intensity emanating from a single source. would you say a laptop because it is electronic has the ability to reveal, more so than "instruments" -- a complexity of overtones that might be defined as pitch?

[MikeP] Hi Merry, thanks for these engaging questions! I think about these topics often, and it's nice to have a chance to clarify the mud in my brain. What I meant by "unpitched or diffusely pitched" was sounds from a single source, and "some form of orchestral intensity" is a nice way to put it, given that I take it to refer to sounds that have a broad pitch spectrum and no isolatable dominant pitch, like dragging stuff on a drum head or moving air through a metal tube without making conventional musical tones. I've been thinking that these kinds of sounds are very important for recent improv, since obviously the pitch parameters have been excluded by many even more than the considerable degree they have been for decades.

I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of a laptop, but rather something that applied equally to the laptop sounds and the acoustic percussion and saxophone sounds. I suppose that in the case of a laptop it's common and especially easy to generate sounds that are heavily layered and resist pitch perception. I'm not sure what you mean in the last part above. Given that a sine tone gives a pitched sound event without any overtones (though the absence of overtones could be considered an example of "complexity of overtones" if "complexity" is taken as a neutral scale and not the more linguistically common sense of "non-trivial complexity"), the persistence of pitch perception in spite of dense overtone structure doesn't seem relevant here. Instead, it seems like the presence of a large set of fundamental frequencies that perceptually cancel each other is what would give the effect of unpitched sound, if I understand the matter correctly given my very limited to nonexistent background in acoustics and such. I assume that what we're dealing with is basically a medium-sized subset of white noise.

My awkward disjunction of "unpitched or diffusely pitched" reflects my uncertainty about the specifics of this stuff and the observation that even putatively unpitched sounds still have a broad pitching of some sort. For example, on Three Dances I noticed many sections where coarse shifts in pitch were significant to the music even when the sounds lacked any narrow pitch. I suppose it's a distinction between narrow and broad pitch then. I was thinking that if you drag object A in manner X across a drum head and then drag object B in manner Y across the same drum head, you get two sounds that will probably sound coarsely different in the overall range of frequencies they occupy, while still resisting any kind of ordinary pitch perception. Maybe this is a kind of coarse melody that hasn't been explored so much in previous music?

[Merry] does 'the gap between notation and improvisation' refer to the fact that it is impossible to notate such pieces after they've been created? or does this phrase describe a kind of universal on-going discussion concerning these kinds of recent out/transitional modern (contemporary?) (electronic?) recordings.

[MikeP] First, I should explain that the terminology is somewhat idiosyncratic and doesn't reflect any broad ongoing discussion that I'm aware of. In my opinion, record reviews are equally useful as a testing ground for theoretical deliberation as any specific consideration of the musical example at hand. In recent times, I've adopted the term "notation/notational/notationalism/notationalist" as a replacement for "composition" in many common contexts. It reflects my ever-growing dissatisfaction with the conceptualization implicit in much discourse about music, specifically the weary dichotomy of "composition vs improvisation". Because I consider most improvisation to be a form of composition and not an alternative to it, I simply cannot use the word "composition" in the common way that implies mutual exclusivity or contrast. I find this practice highly problematic and sympotatic of sloppy, knee-jerk, cookie-cutter music commentary. I don't wish to suggest that notation and improvisation exhaust all methodologies of music creation, though; I think we'd all be better off using more specific terms and three-way divisions like "improv/rehearsal/notation" or more fine-grained methodological conceptualizations instead the misleading and problematic two-way division of "improv/composition".

So actually my answer to your question would have to be "neither", because "notation" refers to a method of musical creation there, and I didn't mean to address in any way the separate matter of which class of sound events are within the realm of notation independent of any processual aspects. In fact, this matter seems rather obscure, irrelevant, and uninterestingly dependent on arbitrary technological conditions that define the state of notation at a given point in history.

It's almost the inverse of that issue that I was referring to, the idea that different methods as we know them in current practice inherently lend themselves to different musical results. One of the reasons I favor free improv so highly for the sake of my own pleasures as a listener is simply that it delivers music that is different than anything delivered under other methods like notation, idiomatic improv, or rehearsal. I suppose a notationalist with certain tendencies could generate similar music in principle, but so far noone using this method has even remotely approached the complexity of some free improv (despite some hot air that one catches now and again). In a few decades I would expect that non-real-time methods will routinely address comparable aesthetic possibilities to the free improv of today and tomorrow. In theory, I don't consider free improvisation musically superior to other methods in terms of certain aesthetic desiderata, only in current practice.

I think that musicians like the Trio Sowari members represent new methodological developments in music creation that make our entrenched concepts of improvisation and composition somewhat useless and counterproductive. (I believe Keith Rowe has addressed similar concerns, but I haven't gotten around to plugging into his thoughts yet because I'm not especially interested in his circle of musical activity (definitely interested and I have and moderately enjoy many recordings, but just not especially interested)). So the gap between notation and improvisation is simply a reference to contrasting methods. The term "composition" is widely used with very specific and somewhat arbitrary connotations of certain relationships between pre-existing aesthetic intentions and sonic products (homomorphisms between desire and structure), or, alternatively, a degree of control over musical results. I would suggest that the recent activity in free improvisation that Trio Sowari is a handy and ideal exampe of is somewhere midway between the arbitrary connotations of "composition" and the arbitrary connotations of "improvisation".

[Merry] i find the varying perceptions of the instrumentation interesting. much is always personal, but also could have to do with the variousness of gear upon which each individual is listening. speakers of hi-end or low-end; woofers & tweeters; availability of personal mixing facilities & devices and stuff like that - no?

[MikeP] Hmm, good point. Perhaps this kind of issue is becoming more important these days in the more extreme ends of free improv. Surely there are some Erstwhile discs that will sound very different on depending on the quality of one's stereo system and seriously bias the types of musical structures one perceives. In general, I find I need to use my moderately audiophile headphones occasionally instead of my substandard speakers, but it's usually because of volume issues and the very loud crickets and birds that inundate me in my heavily wooded isolated rural setting. Right now I can even hear a serious chorus of frogs from the pond rather far away. I often close my windows for the sake of certain records.

Merry, thanks again for the stimulating discussion.

Hmm, "orchestral intensity" might refer to a set of simultaneous pitches as in an orchestra, not a lack or flattening of pitches as in a subset of white noise? And "multi-toned or noted in some way so as not to be able to distinguish a single pitch or one from another" might be referring to the latter subset of white noise case?

(Richard) "Merry, with all due respect... does any of this really matter?
I'm not sure if you've already heard the disc or not, but if you haven't I just recommend you pick it up, find some quiet time and have a listen.
By far the best way to really get to know this kind of music intimately :)"

Richard, to quote your friend Brian - 'disrespect me; i won't flinch.' in a sense nothing matters i guess but i prefer to behave in a manner that suggests that some things do matter. so yes, it matters to me. :-).

i think i mentioned somewhere that i find the discourse and communication (the off-shoot of which is poetry, in fact) on this site completely beautiful and the translating of music into words also beautiful as well as challenging. writing about music is an experience completely other than listening to music - no? yes.

i hope it's alright for me to occasionally drop in. if this is a closed forum i would appreciate someone simply letting me know. as great as it is i do not have any desire to be where i am not welcome. i'm not feeling particularly paranoid but i'm uncertain how to interpret some of these seemingly discouraging comments.

michael anton parker - thanks for your great response. for certain it is something to wrap my mind around and thanks for appreciating my questions.

Merry

You don't need me to say this, but return & post away, fer crissake's. It can be like this on a churlish day, like the *real* world.

No one can undermine you, anyway. That's our own responsibility, auto-undermining. You'll see it on any bbs, anywhere, on a churlish day.

Best
Jesse

Merry, this is definitely an open forum and you're welcome to participate as much or as little as you wish. Discouraging comments, brickbats, well, we all receive some of those, but in the overall scheme of things it's no big deal.

You don't have to dodge a brickbat at The Wire, do you Brian?

+ +
/
. .
...

Poor man's emoticon.

Merry- Apologies if my post to you was a little harsh, I was very tired and probably should not have posted anything as whatever I wrote was bound to come out wrong.

Reading back now I came across pretty condescending, apologies for this, not my intention.

What I was trying to say, very badly, was that sometimes you can really over analyse music. In your case you were analysing someone else's analysis that was posted to follow someone else's analysis! Occasionally we can get so tied up talking that the listening gets forgotten. I am as bad as anyone for this really, so I can't really talk. We have two ears and one mouth but all too often we don't use them in the correct proportion....

Trio Sowari is a great disc, and I just wondered if you had heard it. Its a recording that seems to come across differently to different people, so your perspective would be interesting.

Please continue to post, your comments are very welcome, and please just ignore miserable old farts like me!

jesse, brian and richard — big thanks! restoring faith in humanity is a good thing.

richard, i see the humour in analysis of the analysis of the analysis. i expressed as much on the henry grimes' thread: "see you in the school yard of musical analysis" is how i put it, there was so much duking out. the criticism was ridiculous and as usual revealed more about the state of the indvidual driven to say such crazy things (yes, i do this too). i spoke up because something vital was being over-looked about henry grimes' reemergence and tenacity. he also is no kid and the road, any and all road, is not easy.

i have no ipod and presently am very dependent on what gets played on wnyc and wkcr, and live music WHENEVER i can get it. nothing beats a live show featuring real live present & thinking musicians. this stuff time is tyranical sometimes as well as a great misunderstanding but impossibly i want to hear EVERYTHING i've been reading about — the writers do such good work describing it all.

i have not heard this disc but it's now, after all, probably one of the first i will get to. i've never heard the silver apples and am entirely curious after reading michael anton parker's really great specifically historical, clear & compelling account. so, nothing like the real thing and something still to be said for the struggle to put music into words; both things are true. i maintain that analysis is challenging — BUT I LIKE IT!! neurotic, yes, but it has to go somewhere, keeps 'um off the streets. besides which, personally in real life i verge but am not so bad on paper.

thanks for real and i truly look forward.
best, merry

"something vital was being over-looked about henry grimes' reemergence and tenacity. he also is no kid and the road, any and all road, is not easy."

I defy you to find anyone who overooked any of that on that thread....unless you're referring to those who seemed to be implying that it was easy, i.e., that one could go without touching a horn for 20+ years, and then just be fab the next day. But, again, I don't think anybody actually meant to suggest that either. The dispute was about something very different from what you've d suggested.

hi walto —

i comprehend fully the content of the grime's thread. my response (in this thread) was to richard pinnell and directly related to our discussion which involved resolving a misunderstanding. i appreciate much of your commentary and analysis (on the grime’s thread).

[Merry] "something vital was being over-looked about henry grimes' reemergence and tenacity. he also is no kid and the road, any and all road, is not easy."

[Walto] I defy you to find anyone who overlooked any of that on that thread....

i'm not saying there was absolutely no acknowledgement. what i am saying is that some of what was said, in my opinion, was unnecessary and could have been phrased in a different manner. that's my opinion. personally, for some reason which apparently is not being understood, i was uncomfortable with the content of the thread and so were some others. some of us were uncomfortable and some were not.

apparently i hold my own tenacious belief that the vitality and potential i came away with regarding grimes' (is) well worth mentioning again. regarding my discussion with richard i felt compelled to refer to the grimes thread — inspired by a particular aspect of a particular discussion.

[Walto] unless you're referring to those who seemed to be implying that it was easy, i.e., that one could go without touching a horn for 20+ years, and then just be fab the next day. But, again, i don't think anybody actually meant to suggest that either.

no, I am not referring specifically to this and I am not of the opinion that anyone was suggesting this either.

[Walto] the dispute was about something very different from what you've suggested.

i’m not sure i was suggesting what the dispute was about though my comments (inherently) implied that a certain aspect of the thread got my attention. it did seem like the schoolyard of musical analysis to me at times and at times it was very funny and human and again, i said what i said becuase it seemed appropriate to this other discussion. if you are of the opinion that i don’t know what the dispute was about why don't you tell me. :)

re: grime's playing — i like the spiritual unity cd. it's very different than ayler's original. at the moment I don’t get the electric shaver remark. i've heard grimes play several times, once with spiritual unity a year or so ago at tonic. the performance of the group as a whole that night was exceptionally kinetic and alive and each and every musician did great work and it was a memorable evening for certain.

apologies for any comment that may have offended (anyone); it was not my intention. communication is often difficult and emotions (though they should not be denied or ignored) are by nature often knee-jerk occasions.

Thanks. No sweat on this front.

thanks.

btw, Burkhard Beins does not amplify his percussion with an electronic amplifier. BUT,
he does use drums and cymbals as resonators. meaning, he can play a small object resting on the skin of the snare drum
and this will cause resonation that blurs and adds to the original sound. sometimes this can sound 'electronic'.

Thanks for the info, Phil, very helpful! By the way, over in the UK do you see any percussionists using the rubbed dowel technique invented and disseminated by Sean Meehan (and taken even further by Paul Neidhardt who discovered it independently a few years later while attempting to come up with something similar to Greg Kelley's timbres)? Have you had a chance to hear or play with someone doing this? It's a great example of using a drum as a resonator. And maybe the cymbal too, because cymbals are usually involved, but I'm not sure what their precise acoustic function is and whether it's a resonator. I imagine it very well could be, but I think something else is happening with friction...

"do you see any percussionists using the rubbed dowel technique invented and disseminated by Sean Meehan"
Whaddya mean 'invented and disseminated by..', Mike? Did he take out a bloody PATENT on it or something? Are we going to get into trademarking now like Bill Dixon? I wasn't around in the early 70s (well I was but I was in primary school) but I'm prepared to bet a large sum that you'll find Messrs Bennink Lovens and Lytton doing this on early 70s albums. Perhaps some of our, ahem, older Baganauts can confirm this.. I seem to remember seeing Dominique Lentin doing it too. BTW Pascal Battus uses the technique on a table guitar. Nobody "invented" anything. Who invented circular breathing? Some guy in a tribe in central Africa about 16000 years ago. Shame he couldn't have copyrighted the idea, n'est-ce pas?

As an [ahem] reader/listener around when Lytton perversely introduced countless sensual & violent techniques to the drum kit, and seeing first hand it's *dissemination*
[ugly word that, connoting some sort of clinical seed-sowing] into the Midwest, via Milo Fine, two things: [1] there actually is very little new under the sun [at least as re: those many artistic wrinkles perceived as newly invented, as they are new to US]. This is what makes the new so bracing, welcome &, generally, arguable; so, [2], we should have a care before imputing intellectual or aesthetic property rights.
Not picking on you, MAP, I see this done alot. Done it myself.
Plus, how much [shudder] dissemination can be attributed to Meehan, or anyone laboring in fields of 8-20 listeners, not a scientific number, don't atart with me...

Rats, the last sentence's last 4 words should read,...don't start with me...

Dan, I think the word "invent" is perfectly appropriate; a person brings something into existence on the basis of their own ingenuity that is new with respect to what is known previously. I really find the response from you and Jesse annoying and gratuitous considering that I was making a minor remark that is 100% factually correct and terminologically reasonable.

I have in the past consulted with Sean to learn of the origins of the technique and verified that it was his invention. To elaborate on the topic, he was searching for an improvement or variation on the lion's roar technique familiar in avant-garde academic music (used in Cage and elsewhere). In the case of Neidhardt, the spark of inspiration came from Kelley's trumpet work (a turn of events I never fail to marvel at), and this is something I've verified through careful inquiries to Paul.

Just like "discover", the word "invent" is obviously relative only to a given set of knowledge, so it's certainly possible someone else invented it earlier. In using a term like "invent" the intention is simply to honor the creative act of an individual. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with giving someone a little credit for something! Yikes, no need to get all huffy about it.

I'm not attaching any more significance to the historical origins of techniques than they deserve, but accurate bookkeeping is just a simple responsibility we all have, nothing more and nothing less. It's no different than the countless words spent in other domains tracing the flow of musical ideas from musician to musician, certainly an obsession for jazz historians.

[Jesse] we should have a care before imputing intellectual or aesthetic property rights

[MikeP] My statement wasn't speculation, it was previously verified with adequate care. Further, there is no imputation of intellectual or aesthetic property rights. "Invent" here refers only to a creative act and the historical pathway of musical materials. The matter of "property rights" is extrinsic to these concerns and certainly was not broached or worth broaching here.

[Jesse] Plus, how much [shudder] dissemination can be attributed to Meehan, or anyone laboring in fields of 8-20 listeners, not a scientific number, don't atart with me...

[Mike] Plenty of dissemination, and I don't share any unpleasant connotations from this neutral word. Within the relevant community, which is in fact all that's relevant to me, Sean's work is widely known and admired, specifically for the dowelling technique, which has been adopted by others in the community, and even moreso of course for the musical depth he achieves with his novel and minimal techniques. "How much dissemination"? Enough to be worth mentioning for sure.

Lighten up guys. If I used the word "discover" instead of "invent" would it've bypassed these objections? The semantic difference refers only to the state of mind of the agent at the time; with respect to issues of historical precedence and "property rights" you raise, there is no semantic difference.

If Bennink, Lovens, or Lytton used dowelling in the 70s, that's something that demands to be brought forward with some documentation for the sake of historical accuracy given the importance of the topic nowadays. (It is important to me and more than just a few other people.)

To use this silly sidebar constructively, it's a good juncture to raise a point I've been meaning to raise in connection to Burkhard Beins. I think the practice of instrumental credits should be revised in the cases of electronic and percussion. The former case has often be remarked upon. To wit, the range of specific devices that are referred to as electronics is so radically diverse that the term is essentially useless. In fact, it's akin to giving up any current practices of crediting a musician for oboe vs trumpet or violin vs drumkit, and instead saying they play "acoustics". It's clearly vacuous, and specific types of equipment should be listed in album credits and reviews.

Likewise for the case of percussion. In the past I've ranted about the insidious and numbing synecdoche of "drums" as a conventional term for drumkit/drumset/traps/trapkit, but the general case is far more disturbing. Given that any instrument can be used percussively, the term is essentially vacuous in contexts without clear background conventions. For experimental improvisors, it would really be in the best interest of our discourse to specify each instrument used or adopt new categories of percussion to capture certain classes of implements, gestures, timbres or dynamic envelopes. From time to time, one does see a good specific list, but too often we are given the vacuous "percussion" instead. Otherwise, it's not only worse than using a term like "wind instruments" to conflate dozens of instruments, it's entirely akin to crediting a saxophonist or violinist as playing "acoustics" as above.

Truly, the materials and methods of many experimental improvisors constitute distinct instruments and ought to be recognized as such in the interest of alleviating the rather oppressive murkiness of discourse on this music.

Mike: "the lion's roar technique familiar in avant-garde academic music (used in Cage and elsewhere). ... but accurate bookkeeping is just a simple responsibility we all have, nothing more and nothing less."

FWIW, the use of the lion's roar predates Cage. To my knowledge it was first used in Western composition by Edgard Varese, Henry Cowell or William Russell in the early 1930s. (They can fight among themselves over who got there first.) In other cultures its use may go back hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Who is this 1930s William Russell?

Oh, and I agree with you about the accurate bookkeeping bit. But isn't it amazing how often our knowledge, filtered through skeins of cultural consciousness, is downright wrong or badly off-kilter. 'Facts' are rarely, if ever, facts, and even when they are they're somewhat whiffy. Fair makes you want to see life through nothing but the upturned end of a whisky bottle.

Hi Walto

Check out:

WILLIAM RUSSELL
Made in America: the Complete Works
(Mode 34)

A very fine CD.

the dictionary definition of "invent" is "to produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination". I think it's implied that the "previously unknown" is to the world in general, not just to the inventor. I think it's probably true that Sean is the one who originated this approach as a singleminded way to create sound (and he sure is good at it), rather than one of many tools in an arsenal, but I wouldn't use the word "invent" either.

as for this:

"For experimental improvisors, it would really be in the best interest of our discourse to specify each instrument used or adopt new categories of percussion to capture certain classes of implements, gestures, timbres or dynamic envelopes."

musicians tend to be more interested in people listening to the overall sound, not to break down and microanalyze who's creating what sounds and how. if anything, there's a trend in the opposite direction, in which musicians don't want to list their instruments at all. I personally don't especially care either way, and I think the "discourse" can do just fine without that kind of specific analysis, which I tend to not find very interesting personally.

I wasn't getting huffy, you daft bat. Lighten up and go listen to some samba.. you'll find plenty of totally unknown Brazilian chaps all rubbing dowels or bits of string and making a splendid noise in the process. Serve yourself a batida de coco and listen to Tatsuya's bossanova band again. Cheers.

wow. I "invented" teh rubbed dowel teknique myself with a chopstick like a couple years ago before I heard meehan. I also invented lots of things! I'm going to put it on my resume.

Jon hit me on the head re: crediting instruments. I stopped doing so last year. Makes no sense to have a long Alan Bishop - style list; I'm no more interested in bookkeeping than I am in secrecy.

Thanks, Brian. I'll look into that: I'd never heard of the guy.

[Jon] the dictionary definition of "invent" is "to produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination". I think it's implied that the "previously unknown" is to the world in general, not just to the inventor. I think it's probably true that Sean is the one who originated this approach as a singleminded way to create sound (and he sure is good at it), rather than one of many tools in an arsenal, but I wouldn't use the word "invent" either.

[Mike] Well, you and me are both native speakers and what's in our brains counts more than any dictionary, so there's no need to deliberate on the implications of a lexicographer's turn of phrase, which, incidentally, matches almost exactly my paraphrase above. It's clear to me that the "previously unknown" part of the meaning is neither relative to the world in general nor the inventor themself, but rather to a group of people comprised of the participants in the discourse in which the term is used. This group of people would include the inventor and the word-user at a minimum, and would rarely extend to the world in general because discourse is rarely that general. This is an observation that follows from nothing specific to the word or situation at hand, but rather the basic nature of language as a system relativized to its own users. Distinguishing between the world in general and its specific subset of discourse participants is a trivial matter I'm only mentioning because I enjoy such trivial matters, and it's not that there's any disagreement between us here because as far as we know at this point the dowelling wasn't new only to Sean, but also to the rest of us.

The disagreement, albeit also trivial (and again, I pick nits for a hobby), is elsewhere, because you say you wouldn't use the word "invent", whereas I think it's a perfectly appropriate word and don't see a reason not to use a word if it matches a situation exactly. There's no debating personal lexical preferences, but I can only note that you haven't given any reason not to use the word.

I will need some recs for Brazilian music with rubbed dowels! And I'll take any excuse to consume coconut, food of the gods...

[new topic]----------------------------------

[Jon] musicians tend to be more interested in people listening to the overall sound, not to break down and microanalyze who's creating what sounds and how. if anything, there's a trend in the opposite direction, in which musicians don't want to list their instruments at all. I personally don't especially care either way, and I think the "discourse" can do just fine without that kind of specific analysis, which I tend to not find very interesting personally.

[Mike] Surely we can all agree that there is something desirable in placing our first priority with the listening experience and not auxiliary analytical information, but what you're outlining is a stronger, restrictive and exclusionary proposition I wouldn't agree with. It seems like an arbitrary restriction to favor a certain style of listening over another, like global vs local. Further, why place restrictions on the discourse? There are so many angles from which to approach the music that I would be uncomfortable with an a priori exclusion of one or other. Ideally, various people adopt different listening strategies and different discourse criteria, with results that are shared for each other's benefit. Further, any given individual ideally shifts between different modes of listening and analysis.

In fact, whenever I write a review, I consciously force myself to use more than one experiential disposition, whether the variable-tweaking is Oliveros-style global/local shifts, foreground/background shifts, environmental modulations, or any of the many other possibilities. The motivation is to improve the scope and relevance of the textual response.

The breakdown of individual sound fields and other microanalysis seems like a perfectly valid and potentially illuminating approach to be used in conjunction with other approaches. Further, the discourse isn't strictly limited to individual sound objects and their attendant listening experiences, but also includes considerations of relationships between different performances by a given individual, relationships between the intentions and end-results of performers and listeners, and other topics that refer to instrumentation and other methodological specifics. So why preempt these content domains?

As far as not listing instrumentation at all, I hadn't heard of such impulses before, but can immediately identify the shortcomings of this approach.

For starters, people will be vividly aware of which instruments are being used in some cases based on background knowledge about instruments or background knowledge about the performers, so it's not possible to eliminate the entire category of instrument-identification events in listener's brains on the basis of an unwanted aesthetic bias they might introduce. The resulting gap in instrument-identification experiences would be arbitrary.

My next concern is that it would arbitrarily restrict the possibilities for analysis of the music. I'm not suggesting that analysis is essential or as important as the listening experience, but it's a basic component of an overall human experience with its own role and rewards that should be accepted and nurtured, not resented or sabotaged. It's no different than accepting and nurturing the social dimension of playing music with others, participating in creator/experiencer aesthetic feedback loops, going to concerts, developing community structures, etc. It's part of the total human experience of art.

What's more, withholding methodological information short-circuits the essential impulses of communication and community-formation as they take form in musicians sharing ideas and reconceptualizing sound-generating devices that they may adopt in their own creative work. To me, the idea that a certain instrumental method would be the sole domain of its inventor is an absurd and selfish proposition that runs counter to all historical precedents and would be no different than objecting to anyone who has attempted to play saxophone besides Aldophe Sax. The proprietary and anti-emulatory impulses of experimental musicians are trite and counterproductive, yet frequently attested in my observations. Translation: come on y'all, play some balloons, daxophones, dowels, styrofoam, no-input-mixing-boards, sine tones, etc—everything is a tool to be used by anybody!

Generally, to deprive the listener of information about an arbitrary subset of instrumental methodology is to arbitrarily bias the listener's overall information-processing ecology as it impinges on aspects of the wholistic art culture comprising a network of multi-modal participation extending far beyond the listening experience itself as a cognitive singularity.

[Joe] Makes no sense to have a long Alan Bishop - style list; I'm no more interested in bookkeeping than I am in secrecy.

[Mike] It's makes plenty of sense to have that information available in an accurate form (inaccurate forms are of course inevitable and easily acquired) if you're crossing the line between private art creation to insert your work into a public domain, for reasons suggested above. You may not be interested in bookkeeping, but you may have listeners who are, and it's not likely that anyone else will be as qualified as you to perform this lowly but vital task.

If you record a solo album of your chopstick-rubbing, sign me up for a copy. Also please accept my vigorous encouragement to do so.

Michael, suffice it to say many of our ideas about music are as different from each other as the lengths of our posts here.

Yeah, but don't tell me you're not a big fan of the Partridge Family or Black Sabbath like me? That would be too much to take.
:-)

Michael, suffice it to say many of our ideas about music are as different from each other as the lengths of our posts here.
- jon abbey

Proust/Basho.

"Alan Bishop - style list; I'm no more interested in bookkeeping than I am in secrecy"

alan bbbhishop i snot sew much to mention in context of secrecy as sorcery

ironic "native instruments" ha ha ha ha ha

beins...hmmm...snot the prima diva to st(r)oke drumheads...

rainey sd somewhere th practices are ancient not new, tho heez no ezRA lb. and tis' a western fib obsessed w/ novels writes them anyway, for housewives

ergo, invention schmention, btw, chas gocher's already there in parisian sandwich percussing yr jambon jawbone and symbol resonating

sehr avante le sean ("empty casette box") meehan

consciousnes of TIME is legato al posto

hmmm..."market psychology"

knee jerk control yogic

>what's in our brains counts more than any dictionary

Who are you and what have you done with Michael Parker, who's so quick to criticize others for using words he's familiar with in ways that are unfamiliar to him, or don't match the definitions he uses?

Phil, I can only note that you completely sidestepped and failed to address my well-reasoned impugnation of your idiosyncratic usage of "indie", assuming that's the sole specific case this puerile general remark is referring to. If you care to provide evidence that there is such a third meaning of the word accepted by some subset of English speakers larger than yourself, kindly insert that in the relevant thread and spare us the tasteless and vacuous distractions here. Please don't waste our time provoking me on linguistic topics, as I have enough grad-level study and research in the field under my belt to fire as many rounds as necessary to obliterate any nonsense that crosses my path. I would rather not have to amplify the harshness of this brief response.

Damn words like ''discourse'' and precise list of instruments, sounds, sound events, etc ... ring too much like a fucking smelly academia analysis to me. I must say to Mike (and back up Jon on that) that in my experience as a non-propper-publisher-of-music-on- cdrs that it is true that many of musicians nowadays don't want to speak bout ''instruments'' or how certain sounds or even ''structures'' were produced. And to add more we had many cases of reviewers asking us how things were done, so they were capable to write their reviews- like they need sort of a manual instructions or something along the music ...

Oh we are having fun, aren't we? Mike, you must be the world's fastest typer. Surely the time it takes for you to keypunch in one of your entries could be better spent on actually listening to the music you're talking about.. Proust? Claude Simon, more like. As for Jon as Basho..!

O.K., insert [as Dan did] your favorite prolix writer/typist. As for Jon, maybe Ikkyu, then.

Do you read the haiku, Dan?

Clark Coolidge vs TE Hulme.

Definitely not even in the same ballpark as world's fastest, but I'm upwards of 100 words/min, so it works out okay.

Lukaz, allow me to modify in brackets the ever-invigorating and comforting thoughts of Denis Diderot circa 1762 (from Addition to Philosophical Thoughts):

"Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light[personalized ad hoc residue of the primitive, naive, reductionistic, and delusionary Euro-centric theoretical and descriptive vocabulary about the aesthetic significance of sound events thus far proffered by human beings] to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: "My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly." This stranger is a theologian[discursively-blinkered experimental musician]."

After the chimes fade

Cherry fragrance continues

Jazz is dead

(Jon Basho)
:)

>[mike] You may not be interested in bookkeeping, but you may have listeners who are, and it's not likely that anyone else will be as qualified as you to perform this lowly but vital task.

something went wrong. Here's teh poste:

[mike] You may not be interested in bookkeeping, but you may have listeners who are, and it's not likely that anyone else will be as qualified as you to perform this lowly but vital task.
__________
That's fine, but first, I don't often remember what I used in the music by the time someone asks what should be in the credits, and I don't really want to. It also creates annoying issues with levels of specificity:

Should I list guitar, water, and clotho-on-one-side/rubber-on-the-other gardening gloves? should I list "stringless guitar, rubbed" should I list the brand of guitar and gloves? should I list *every* preparation and modification to my trumpet? should I describe the signal chain to my mixer? should I include a schematic of connections used in my open-circuit instrument?

Second (third? I don't know), to me it's all just music whatever I'm playing.

Furthermore, for those so analytically inclined, they can probably have more fun trying to figure it all out for themselves.

I hope you understand why I'd rather not do so. If not, that's also okay.

>I'm upwards of 100 words/min, so it works out okay

If you say so. Reads to me like the writerly equivalent of Yngwie Malmsteen Syndrome: "I can play 150 notes per measure, therefore I should." Try spending an hour editing for every minute you spend typing - in a couple of years you'll probably be doing all right, and be ready to return to talking about music in public.

Yngwie Malmsteen Syndrome - must remember that one. Meanwhile I'll leave you two gents to slug it out - I'm off to watch a Werner Herzog DVD. Cheeribye.

Phil, that's a deep insight ranking right up there with whoever complained that free jazz musicians were just making random noises. You know, Microwaved-Cat Syndrome. If there's any free room on your crowded table of groundbreaking treatises in progress, you should compile a reference volume called 1001 Cliches for Every Situation, the front cover boasting "Authentic examples of real-life usage!!!!". Just a tip to help with the cash-flow to finance all those Burkhard Beins CDs you're always talking about.

You can't just leave it at that, Dan. *Which* Werner Herzog DVD?

**herzog neophyte signing in**

Haven't seen a one of his films, except for maybe Nosferatu but that would've been long ago. Using a handy Borders 30% off coupon I dropped the cash on the Herzog/Kinski set a couple of weeks ago, mostly because I hear/read Herzog's name all over the place lately. Still trying to decide what to watch firs.

Start with Aguirre (it was on my Top 100 list), move to Nosferatu (also listed), then Fitzcarraldo. And don't forget to check out God's Angry Man, available here.

My Herzog suggestion: start with Aguirre, The Wrath Of God, go directly to The Enigma Of Kaspar Hauser ['...O, mother, I feel so far away from everything...'}.

After that, there's a raft of also-excellent, to very good choices. Herzog is the shit, Al.

Hi Al

Aguire - which is, I suspect, included in the box you've bought - is probably the best of Herzog's films. Kaspar Hauser runs a close second. But I really love his remake (or perhaps revisioning) of Nosferatu, a film which rarely gets mentioned; certainly, it features Klaus Kinski at his ugly-eerie and utterly compelling best. But if it's the box I think it is, start with My Best Fiend, a documentary about Kinski's relationship with Herzog, it's a jaw-dropper.

kasper hauser...yeah. (the simplicity and peace in something agreed upon.)

I got a copy of that 5 minutes to live bootleg of God's Angry Man a couple of months ago. Wish it looked better-- probably a dub of someone's VHS copy of the movie. But if that's the only way to see it, I'll shell out the 25 bucks. Amazing.

The other real masterpiece that 5 minutes to live put out was a 1960's Japanese television show called Gimme Gimme Octopus. "An octopus and a peanut are in love with the same walrus."

Stroszek, actually. Bought both of those 4DVD boxes a while back. Awesome stuff. Unfortunately neither contains a short film that I really enjoyed called "Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe".

Isn't the short included as a DVD extra on Fitzcarraldo or something? It really should be, if it's not. In fact, somebody should put together a 2-DVD set of Fitzcarraldo paired with Les Blank's Burden Of Dreams (documentary about the making of the movie) and Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe...

Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe is an extra on Criterion's recent release of Burden of Dreams. it didn't really live up to the hype for me, but it was worth seeing once.

thanks Brian, all. Chronological is a safe route for the box, I guess. I'll jump in that way.

And listen to Herzog's commentary tracks as well. Easily some of the most interesting director's commentaries I've ever heard. The guy is a madman.

WH Eats his Shoe is worth watching to see Alice Waters (easily the SF Bay Area's most famous chef) calmly cooking up a leather shoe without any irony or indication that what she's doing is rather silly.

"WH Eats his Shoe is worth watching to see Alice Waters (easily the SF Bay Area's most famous chef) calmly cooking up a leather shoe without any irony or indication that what she's doing is rather silly."

and just to bring the thread full circle, might we suggest jacques oger eat an unburned sirloin cd and burkhrad beins a frosted drumhead?

"and just to bring the thread full circle, might we suggest jacques oger eat an unburned sirloin cd and burkhrad beins a frosted drumhead?"

Dear gigalo,

Thank you for this much needed clarification.
But you forgot Bertrand Denzler and Phil Durrant.
As for myself, I would prefer my favorite: calf's head; can you hear it ?

For UK :

TRIO SOWARI
phil durrant - software sampler/synth/treatments
bertrand denzler - tenor saxophone
burkhard beins - percussion/objects

Live:
Nov 03, 2005 - LMC Festival of Experimental Music - Bridewell Theatre - London - http://www.l-m-c.org.uk
Nov 23, 2005 - Frakture Festival - Cornerstone - Liverpool - http://www.frakture.org

Well that's jolly nice for the folks in London and Liverpool, but if everyone on the site, especially the musicians who read it, starts using Bags as free advertising space we'll soon be in biiiiig trouble. Should I take the opportunity of announcing my November tour dates here? No - you can find out about that elsewhere. Pas de pub STP Jacko :)

software sampler, synth, treatments, tenor saxophone, and percussion: rather remarkable non-objects, eh?