brian - thanks for the review.

"...just in case I was enjoying myself too much."
-> this really made me laugh :)

Hey Dan, where can I find a cover jpg of this disc to paste in here? A Google search yields nil.

done.

Al-a-kazaam!

There's no improvisation involved at all, Brian. It's all composed. Funny, everyone prefers the second track to the first (I quite like them both). The first is more frustrating because it doesn't go the way you want it to go - put that down to the rules of the game that Tomas devised for the project. If you want to figure out how it's done, try listening with a stopwatch and making a note of when there's a sudden change of mood / texture.

To extend somewhat the comments I made to you by email, Brian (since they might as well be aired publicly), what I was interested in in this project - can't speak for Tomas, but he'll probably make his views on the subject clear himself if he feels is necessary - was exploring the more confrontational aspects of file-sharing / collaboration. The rules of the game as we devised them were such that each subsequent addition to the pieces (which were, as you pointed out, and as can clearly be heard, built up bit by bit) HAD to be included in its entirety. Each stage in the assembly process involved a clear set of choices as to whether we would try to extend the previous section according to accepted rules of musical good behaviour ("a-ha, he's sent me a strong idea there, seems as if he wants me to take that and develop it") or take the opposite tack. I tend to like taking the opposite tack. As far as "hearing little compelling reason for them to have been placed alongside each other" goes, here I'll make extra demands on your time by claiming that repeated listenings will allow you to figure out what's going on (especially once you figure out the underlying durational scheme, which is identical for both pieces) - though, as we all know too well, repeated listening is not something we can all find time to do. Hence the title, in a way: you suspect there's something going on here (there is) but you're not quite sure what it is or how to find it, or even if you have enough time to investigate it. I like that kind of paranoia (comes from reading too much Pynchon, perhaps). I also, as I said, thought long and hard about Keith Rowe's observations on "Harsh" - not that I (we) deliberately set out to make something that was in some way unlistenable (I do hope people find things to enjoy in CT even if they find the overall experience frustrating at first); I wanted to avoid the overly consensual no-surprises-here approach that (imo) too many people satisfy themselves with nowadays. As such it as a problematic release, and deliberately so. That's about all I have to say on it for the moment, but I think there are some connections here with the aesthetics Keith Rowe and Julien Ottavi et al discussed at the Erstquake forums, and I'd be curious to read what other people who were there will make of this particular project.

I find the review strange. Perhaps because I never thought of this disc as tracks, but just listened to it as a whole, that I find it exciting and wonderful. It's subtle use of jarring moves kept my ADD in check and the juxtaposition of noises and drones is endlessly fascinating. There's just enough droney repetition that it feeds me on that level yet it covers so much ground that I don't shuffle it off to the drone pile. I jumped over here expecting a rave review and was suprised to find a qualified sorta review.
I bought this disc because I tend to buy everything that comes out on l’innomable and wasn't sure what to expect. Yet I have taken such a shine to it that I hate to take it out of my player. Go figure.
This disc fucking rocks, it shimmies and shakes and since I can dance to it, I give it a 98!

I was at the Erstquake forums and yet I can hardly remember what was said there. If any one wants to give me some hints I'll probably remember. What I remember mostly was wishing someone would let Rowe answer his questions himself. I remember some whatsis about technological repro, painting and a bunch about Cardewsian aesthetics and pocket pool but that's about it. So if uh, someone could remind I'd be interested to apply my thinking cap to said discussion and this disc.....

I think I was referring to this bit (I quote from Alastair's review in Paris Transatlantic

http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/monthly2005/11nov_text.html#2

"Topics covered included the links between Rowe’s paintings and his music, his opinion that AMM were at their best in the late 60s, and the difficulties involved with releasing records of historical importance that the musician(s) involved might not like (Rowe’s own Harsh was chosen as an example). The most animated discussion surrounded Ottavi and Workman’s opinions on downloading music and how to differentiate between a “good” and a “bad” recording. Without wishing to simplify their arguments, it seemed they were abrogating all responsibility for value judgments, suggesting that their opinion of what was “good” (and as such perhaps releasable in CD form) was no more valid than that of any listener. They combined this argument with the assertion that most of their concerts would end up being fileshared anyway, reasoning that they may as well put all their recordings up to share on their website and allow listeners to decide what was “good”.

I wasn't there myself of course, but maybe Jon could refresh your memory. Would be interested to hear his thoughts on this disc too. Delighted you enjoyed it, L!

letchhausen, thanks for your nice comments. dan and i will record a follow-up to this album at some point, i'm fairly sure.

Tomas, I'll be looking forward to a new release. One thing I wanted to add (and I've said this before) was that I listen to a fair amount of no fun noise stuff and one of the things that I constantly get mileage out of is the juxtaposition twixt that crowd and the eai/taomud/improv/no-improv etc crowd. Both are heavily involved with sound qua sound and produce music that lately is sharing more and more attibutes. However the difference I find interesting is that while there is a sharing of noise and harsh or abrasive noises the latter crowd produces music that has much subtler exposition of this through a far more sophisticated use of dynamics and contrasts. So when Dan says:
"I wanted to avoid the overly consensual no-surprises-here approach that (imo) too many people satisfy themselves with nowadays. "

I'm reading it from the point of view of the wall of noise approach which for the no fun crew is a no-surpises tack that feels very played out. I think what Dan is referencing and what I am both arrive at the same place. Much of my interest in this disc lies in the varied approach brought to bear here that accentuates and cuts and yet for my listening has a sort of noir mood layered in, I'm sure, by the drone material (and probably a little by my own psychological reaction to cover art and title) and offsetting noises. Unfortunately I'm in the process of moving so listening to see if I catch that underlying scheme is going to have to wait a couple of weeks.