Cool, great to hear you lose your JW virginity, Brian! He's been playing around the NYC area relatively often these days since moving to Easton (PA), so you'll likely have some great opportunities to hear him in your neighborhood soon enough. (There's a new listserv for grass-roots NYC-area improv performance announcements you might want to hook up to.) I've seen him play in at least 80-90 sets of music in the past 6 years (each of which revealed new ideas, without exception!) and listened to at least 20-30 recordings (his recorded output is sadly very small and he's just scratching the surface of catching up with this new admirably ultra-practical CDR series). The first two discs well represent his lowercase work (and are the very first to do so!! historic!!) of recent years, but none of these three even hint at the sorts of (arguably better) pre-lowercase things he was doing in the rough period of 1998-2002 or so.

I have many pages worth of things to say about these, so I won't overload the space here, but here's a super-quick off-the-cuff summary of how my reactions to these discs were very different from yours!

1) Whoosh is easily in my 2005 improv top 3 and is to me a landmark in the emerging form of frictionally-based acoustic free improv ("the new frictionalism"). Also the fourth cut is by far my favorite on that one, a seriously transcendental extended slab of gentle yet edgy textural acoustic lowercase improv. Paul Neidhardt (easily my top favorite American percussion improvisor at this point and this side of the Atlantic's answer to Beins and Lê Quan) independently told me a while back that this track was the clear favorite on the disc for him too. I agree with you that there a few minor episodes of unnecessary activity in the first two tracks, though they didn't keep me from being blown-away by the disc from start to finish. It's not perfect, but it's the only loaf of bread to come from a certain oven at this point.

2) Nom Tom is my all-time favorite recording of free improv vocal music and the first document of Genetti's recent lowercase explorations. It is her and Liz Tonne that have opened this thrilling new chapter in the history of the oldest instrument. Free improv vocal music has been virtually my favorite form of music in the past few years and I listen to every lost drop of it I can get my hands on. I have no more or less desire to "lose" this category of sounds than any other, and the fact is that no other instrument is as timbrally flexible (close call with balloons though) or capable of as much detail and intimacy with a performer's internal state. I felt truly changed after hearing this recording for the first time a few months ago. This music has the emotional intensity of the religious rituals that perhaps we're all genetically programmed for but thankfully culturally bereft of. (Her best work in a more traditional improv style is Sense of Hearing in duo with Damon Smith.)

3) I'm not so interested in free jazz stuff either these days, but retain all the pleasure centers, which Twist and Thrall hit pretty hard. I was startled by the tightness of intertwining they achieved in these hard-blowing duos, and there's a fascinating historical relationship between these musicians going back more than two decades. Whitman's tone is also as miraculously raw and pungent as Brötzmann or DSW, whose ages I believe he's somewhere in between despite never having a release (!!) that I'm aware of until this disc and his collection of 2004 High Zero recordings released around the same time 2-3 months ago (Septemberish). This disc represents one of the most extreme cases of overdue public documentation in the history of improvised music! Hidden histories emerge!

I started a review of Whoosh (which was miraculously released less than two weeks after its recording date and fell into my hands a few days later!!) that's already several pages long, but haven't touched the disc or review in over two months, so when I get back to finishing that I'll get it up on the site and give the contextual angle and some play-by-play for the disc.

I think Nom Tom would have been ab-fab without the vocals, but I give it only a philathropic B with them. I vote for Mueller and Wright getting together again immediately for a duo.

I didn't care for the other two so much. Philanthropic C+s maybe. BWTHDIK?

I heard Wright with Whitman in Cleveland about 5 years ago and was blown away by the presence of Whitman's sound, as well as his obvious dominance on a variety of reeds (in particular, his bass clarinet sound knocked me out, just tough as hell). Weird story on that guy, evidently completely indifferent to recordings / recognition, but man, in person his tone is unmistakeable & huge.

"twist and thrall" has grown on me. I now make it better than "Nom Tom" as is, but still less good than the latter would have been without vocals. After recalculating and off-balancing the curve, my new grades are C+ (for "Whoosh"), B & B+.

Again, these are 'gentleman's grades,' cuz I'm a pushover, that's why.

You may be a philanthropic pushover, but you've still gotten the grades absolutely backwards. Keep at it.

FWIW, I understand why you like "Whoosh." Nothing sounds like an instrument, and there's very little variety of timbres or pitches. That's something, I guess.

Ouch. That wasn't very philanthropic of you.

fwiw, I enjoy the way it fills space more than the other two. Less elbowing.

Well, my own take is that it's considerably more boring than the other two--though nothing on it is as annoying as the Genetti vocals sometimes are.

IMHO, the important thing about elbows is knowing how to use them.

Walt, I beg to differ on one point. Whoosh patently has a greater variety of timbres than found on most recordings of any style of music. Its timbral innovation is central to its appeal. On the matter of pitch, I can only say it's a great thought to chew on, especially given the critical role of unpitched or diffusely pitched sounds in recent improv. On a future session with Whoosh I'll make a special point of listening from a pitch angle, something I'm extremely disinclined towards. Yours and Brian's responses are intriguing and valuable to say the least!

Huh. I've only heard Jack Wright play a sort of Fahey-esque steel-string guitar... unless there are two guys with the same name? Anyway, my 2 cents.

Clifford, I've no doubt there are hundreds of people with the name "Jack Wright" and a large percentage of humans are musicians... But Jack Wright is the American counterpart of Derek Bailey and Evan Parker in terms of iconicity for free improvisation. He's also both my all-time favorite saxophone player and all-time favorite free improvisor. Relative to fellow free improvisors in the US, and not the general listening public, he's also the most influential free improvisor in the US, certainly in the current era if not the history of the genre. Here's a review of his first solo album and here's his website, which contains essays and historical materials. Known as "the Johnny Appleseed of improvised muisc", he has probably played many shows in your vicinity, regardless of where you may have lived. To be unaware of Jack Wright is to be unaware of free improvisation in the US as an active grass-roots subculture.

Clifford is probably referring to Jack Rose [whom I've never heard].

Wright's set with Mueller/Genetti here a couple months back was mostly top flight, and he handled a shit-faced heckler with impressive equanimity.

Yep, whoops! Word to the wiseguy (WSB), Clifford - everyone's got gaps in their knowledge, but a public forum like this isn't the place to draw attention to them! I agree (for once!) with MAP "To be unaware of Jack Wright is to be unaware of free improvisation in the US as an active grass-roots subculture."
Bedtime reading for you while you work on your next PT feature :)
http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/monthly2003/04apr_text.html#1

Ah, Rose, Wright!

I'm happy to proclaim ignorance on this cat. Larnin' - that's what Bagatellen - erm, friends - are for...

Great article, Dan!

ooh, he has an LP from the early 80s'? I'm in!

Yes, you should check out Free Life Singing for sure - here's a review
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:tveq97uakrkt
I'd also recommend Signs of Life, Thaw and Places To Go, and of course the trio with Tatsuya Nakatani and Michel Doneda from:between - I think all of these should be available from Jack directly
http://www.springgardenmusic.com/recordings.html
Joyeux Noel! Santa xx

On the list of xmas presents to myself, then, which is a very long list already...

As I've made several wise-guy posts on this thread, maybe I should say seriously that I completely agree with MAP about the significant talents of Jack Wright. I even think "Whoosh" demonstrates a laudable desire to keep moving forward, I just also have to admit that (like many "lower case" things, so don't go by me) its soft and studied goal of near-eventlessness makes it pretty dull to my short-attention-span ears. As I've also said, I like dynamic range, pitch range, timbre range, maybe even tempo range. I'm special-needs.

But Jack is certainly a dynamite instrumentalist, and I don't think Mike's comparison with Bailey is hyperbole. He's also (again like DB) an interesting guy.

I'm a little worried about a few comparisons I've read regarding Wright and Joe Maneri. I'd like to check this guy out, but loathe the Maneris' music - should I be afraid, or take the plunge?

fwiw, nothing I heard in these three releases reminded me of Maneri one bit. I'm lukewarm on the Round Man's music myself but I wouldn't let your coolness toward it, on its own, steer you away from Wright. I mean, you might loathe Wright even more than Maneri, but....

I agree with Brian: I don't find any obvious connection between Wright and "Maneri music." I like 'em both, though.

There's no more connection between those two than between either and your pick of Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane, Evan Parker, John Zorn, etc.

It's rather suspicious to "loathe" music of such passion, honesty, and innovation as Joe Maneri's. Failing to enjoy it as a matter of personal taste is par for the course, but as a serious listener of related music it should be easy for you to at least recognize the features that account for its undeniable appeal and quality. I have no problem greatly admiring artists whose music repels my own tastes and I take it as an intellectual obligation for public commentators to make this distinction.

I think that, as a public commentator, one can certainly have an opinion and be really turned off by something - never did I imply that it wasn't valid, I just really, really don't like the Maneris' playing. Whatever, it doesn't affect my opinion of those who do.

apparently I'm not a serious listener if I don't care for the Maneris... whatever, dude.

Really really not liking something is entirely different than loathing it. Your second post is simply a misconstrual of my remark. My point was stated clearly and can be obtained by re-reading.

I don't know - if the only food left was a JR. Bacon Cheesburger, I would eat it, but out of necessity because I find them disgusting. It's food, but I take pains to avoid it at all costs.

Yoikes, we're back on the Maneris again! "But at my back I always hear / Joe Morris's winged chariot hurrying near.."
OH what the hell, if we're in for a bustup, I'll side with Clifford on this one, though I certainly wouldn't go as far as "loathe". But I really don't see the attraction (talking Joe here more than Mat). If we're talking Great American Originals, I find Jack Wright far more interesting. And his sax sounds better. Never got off on that Maneri sound, like trying to talk with a rubber ball stuck in your mouth. Though you could also put it down to a skepticism on my part regarding any grand microtonal theory system, especially in jazz. Walt will probably want to come back at me on this one, but I found the 72 note octave stuff a while back particularly heavygoing.

I'm always a bit behind the thread, in the time it takes me to ruminate, digest, excrete a response. Nonetheless, concerning carol and her vocal excellence, I suggest you visit the spring garden music site, specifically the mp3 page: http://www.springgardenmusic.com/sounds.html and see if it clarifies anything. THere is a solo of hers there, as well as part of the nom tom trio cd. And some of each of the other cd's under discussion.

"Walt will probably want to come back at me on this one, but I found the 72 note octave stuff a while back particularly heavygoing."

Nope I'm with you. I firmly believe that that 72-note "system" is as full of blarney as Ornette's "harmelodics" and Braxton's "theories" regarding interplanetary performances.

You missed the Jupiter-Venus-Neptune nexus Ghost Trance performance last year, Walt?!?!?!?

Just for the record, Joe Maneri DOES NOT use his microtonal system in his improvised music, which means EVERY RECORDING ever published of his work. Joe Maneri HAS NEVER claimed to be playing microtonal jazz or improvised music. This is a MYTH propagated by lazy, sloppy, uninformed journalists. Joe Maneri has REPEATEDLY clarified this point. Other people (e.g. me) have REPEATEDLY echoed this. His work with microtones is a totally separate part of his musical career than his work as an improvisor.

The 72-note system is a compositional tool introduced by Ezra Sims and like any compositional tool should be judged by the music that results from it, not in terms of any murky semantics for the word "theory".

Case closed.

Now, back to the topic of JACK WRIGHT, CAROL GENETTI, et al!!!

As I've said a zillion times, I very much enjoy the Maneris' music, and I confess to being a little confused by the vehemence with which it gets bludgeoned, especially around here. It's not that at all, but the 72-note microtonal theory that I think is as silly as that other stuff I mentioned (having missed that celestial concert Brian referred to). Also, I think Ezra Sims wasn't much of a composer. But I guess nobody actually asked me about that.

For what it's worth, I think it's the 12-note theory that's pretty silly if anything can be said to be.

Records like Whoosh are certainly a much needed relief from it!

"For what it's worth, I think it's the 12-note theory that's pretty silly if anything can be said to be."

The twelve-tone tempered scale is, as someone wrote recently a kind of cultural imperialism. It's been a straitjacket, no question, but it's not sillier than the 72-note business, which would be well nigh impossible. Furthermore, there'd have been no Bruckner symphonies without the 12-tone tempering, which is something. The 72-note "theory" hasn't even produced an Ishkabible to date.

"I think it's the 12-note theory that's pretty silly if anything can be said to be"
Are you referring to equal temperament (as Walt understands above) or to dodecaphony (à la Schoenberg et al), Mike? I wouldn't describe either as silly in any case, since the former has been the cornerstone of Western classical music for three centuries and the latter for the best part of a hundred years. I'd like to know what you find silly.

You're right, Dan. I inferred that Mike was referring to the tempered scale from this:
"Records like Whoosh are certainly a much needed relief from it!"

I mean, while that recording isn't 12-tone, it's hard to imagine anybody needing "relief" from dodecaphony who isn't listening to the New Vienna School morning to night. For good or ill, Schoenberg's theoretical work hasn't made many inroads into rock, jazz, noise, hip-hop, e-ai, etc. Too much like work, maybe.

So, I think that microtonal stuff is at least a bit rarer than non-dodecaphony in contemporary Western culture. Not really so much in e-ai or contemporary improv circles, though. Sine waves, e.g., are pretty flexible, pitch-wise.

Some of Joe Maneri's microtonal works have been performed (though not recorded I guess) and I've heard two of them. I thought they were brilliant. Neither sounded anything like Jack Wright.

I'm a big fan of Joe's, and a frequent collaborator with Jack. I think they're pretty damn different, but both almost always sound fresh to my ears.

Carol was the first vocalist I've worked with in about ten years, so it was pretty refreshing to hear these sounds while playing. The voice is extremely vulnerable on certain levels, offering a human element that can be as powerful as it can be embarassing. There's no material instrument to 'hide' behind.

I'm wondering what the opinion would be if Carol's voice were replaced with the same type of sounds coming from a material instrument (electronics, etc. using the same dynamics). Would the negative reactions remain? How would the criticism differ?

This is a topic I'm highly interested in. As I said, it's been ten years since I've worked with a vocalist, and there's probably reasons for that...

Jon, my own take (which isn't from an anti-vocal perspective--I'm an opera buff!) is that if you were to replace the vocals on that disc with, say, theramin, it would remain considerably worse than the disc with that part simply removed. As I've said, I think that 'part,' however played, generally detracts from what I take to have been some really wonderful music that you and Jack were making that day. For me anyhow, it's at least mostly not her timbre that's causing the trouble there.

But what the hell do I know?

I see your point, Walt. Carol indeed adds something that takes the music in a different direction. For me personally, this was rewarding in its own right.

A duo with Jack would of course be interesting too, for different reasons.

I see your point, Walt. Indeed, Carol's voice adds something that takes the music in a different direction. For me personally, this is rewarding in its own right.

A duo with Jack would of course be interesting too, for different reasons.

[Dan] Are you referring to equal temperament (as Walt understands above) or to dodecaphony (à la Schoenberg et al), Mike?

[Mike] Both and neither because I was referring to a more general category of systems of a conceptually homogenous relation to the 72-note system (or Walt's private interpretation of it), noting as well that equal temperament and dodecaphony are obviously not only overlapping systems, but that the former is a subset of the latter unless you're dubiously metonymizing the term to its extrinsic associations. In any case, I was referring above all to Walt's remark by way of gentle mockery and my remark shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his, which is not a whole lot. :-)

------------------------

Walt, I meant to ask you the obvious question earlier, but now's a good time as well. Given your response to Genetti's vocals, I think it would be essential to have more context about your tastes regarding experimental vocals in general. This way we can distinguish between a blanket, knee-jerk reaction against a large musical territory and a specific reaction to these vocals. Brian straightforwardly self-attributes the former case and I tend to assume you follow suit, but we can get right to the heart of the matter if you share your reactions to comparable vocalists like Liz Tonne, Audrey Chen, Lauren Newton (in non-operatic mode), Shelley Hirsch (in non-operatic mode), Vanessa Mackness, Aurora Josephson, etc. While I consider male and female voices to be different instruments, surely insight could also be gained from your responses to folks like Jaap Blonk, Phil Minton, Koichi Makigami, Paul Dutton, etc.

Given your taste for opera and my habitual cringing whenever I hear the European bel canto idiom referred to in pretty much any context, I have a feeling we're on very different pages here, if not in entirely different sections of the library. Hopefully we can at least agree on Dagmar Krause, Catherine Ribeiro, and Sandy Denny... :-)

This is a basic question I've also meant to pose to Brian: are there any free improv vocalists you do enjoy? How do you feel about Tonne's work on Zuihitsu or the BSC disc? You intrigued me by saying "I tend toward extremes in this regard, desiring either an in-your-face Galas or someone whose sound I wouldn’t recognize as having issued from vocal chords.", but the primal intensity of Galas is extremely rare and the latter category is even rarer (is there anyone besides Ami Yoshida who fits this description?). Also, I find a lot of Genetti's sounds on NOM TOM to be analogous to extended techniques on other common instruments that suppress the conventional identity of the instrument, while certainly not entirely masking it a la Yoshida. If anything objective can be said of Genetti's vocals on the disc, it's that they resist cliches to an extent matched only by Tonne and Yoshida in my experience, while also going far beyond these two in virtuosity, timbral innovation, and expressive range (where "expressive" is not meant with its conventional connotations, since Genetti's achieves as much austerity and anti-(conventional)-expressivity as Michel Doneda on this particular recording, which is why it's so exciting to me). Whereas I once gave Tonne the number one slot in my personal pantheon for experimental female voice, as of NOM TOM it's a happy tie between these two deeply inspiring people. Genetti's work here largely epitomizes the very essence of the lowercase aesthetic, revealing the hidden details of a sound source by peeling away the normal claims on our attention.

I like a lot of those people, Mike. In particular, Minton, Newton, Leandre, Dutton, Nichols, Yoshida, are all fine with me. I enjoyed "Zuihitsu" as well. I haven't heard Genetti elsewhere, but she didn't do much for me on this disc. Another example of some vocals that have sometimes seemed to me to bring down the whole biz on occasion is Anita DeChellis on those Sachimays. She just doesn't seem to me as capable an improviser as the people around her.

Hell, I don't even mind [I had to pause to get under my desk before saying this] Tom Buckner!

Walt, do you have a particular favorite recording of female voice free improv you could cite?

Is it the sing-songy, quasi-operatic moments of these vocalists you enjoy, the pitch-centrism?

You had to go say that, Walt. Jeez.

MAP, I'm not sure I can quantify the whys and wherefores, but there have been certain free vocalists I've enjoyed for whatever reason. Jaap Blonk, the one time I saw him, for instance. I've enjoyed Minton off and on though I like him most in the straighter contexts I've heard him (4 Walls, early Westbrook).

There was a singer on one of Previte's Gramavision discs...Roberta something? I forget but I enjoyed her tearing through one of his up-tempo steamrollers. Baum, maybe?

It's hard to say. I love the late Jeanne Lee. I love Don Cherry's voice. But many of the downtown and post--whatever vocalists just seem to me to be trying too hard. It's like, when you're learning to draw people, an early mistake is over-emphasizing the eyes. You figure out that the eyes have enormous psychological pull in and of themselves so it generally works better to downplay them. Similarly, the human voice generates a huge amount of emotional/psychological response--I think it's unavoidable--and so, to me, when unconstrained, comes across as "too too", as...gaudy, in a sense.

Were one to somehow substitute a saxophone for Genetti's voice it wouldn't--again, at least for me--have the same connotations.

I just received Mattin's 'Song Book' (I'll write it up here, eventually). Generally speaking, I'd prefer to hear his (presumably) unschooled voice singing bizarro Spanish songs than to hear the highly-trained Mr. Buckner improvise on a Roscoe Mitchell piece. For that matter, I'd prefer to hear Mitchell sing his own pieces....

"highly-trained"—now there's an elegant euphemism!

I don't have any particular favorite anythings! I'm not a list guy.

But, FWIW, I don't think I have a bias either toward or away from "pitch-centrism": E.g., I'm very fond both of some of the recordings Ran Blake has made with female vocalists and of what I've called Ami Yoshida's guinea pig imitations.

Brian's "I'd prefer to hear his (presumably) unschooled voice singing bizarro Spanish songs..."

That reminded me of some that Arto Lindsay Portugese stuff, which I really used to love.

Have you heard the Mattin disc, Walt? One of the (to me clear) antecedents would be Lindsay's work (both DNA and Portuguese/Brazilian).

No, but it sounds like something I'd probably like (plus, it being the xmas season and all.....)

I think I need to speak up in defense of Schoenberg here! One shouldn't blame the man for the sins of his followers (and only the most academic and mediocre ones need apply here). Schoenberg's 12-tone music is full of compromises and end-runs, in the service of keeping the music, er, musical. I believe he would have been only mildly amused and largely disgusted by the kind of inchoate row-theory dogma and hexachord hieroglyphics that peppered the pages of Perspectives of New Music in the 1960's and onward. Thank god academia's been taken over by identity politics, which is so much more meaningful and enjoyable to read! /irony

One might make the case that, through Stockhausen, the Grosse German lineage that Schoenberg hoped to perpetuate was carried pretty directly into popular culture, via The Beatles and any number of laptoppers (and off into the greater universe via Braxton). Sure, that doesn't include his dodecaphonics per se.

I think I need to speak up in defense of Schoenberg here!

But who attacked Schoenberg?! Certainly not me--he's one of my favorite composers (even if he wasn't a very nice bloke by most accounts)!

And, for the reasons I mentioned above, I don't think MAP was talking about dodecaphony at all--he was complaining about 12-tone temperament. So, that leaves Warburton, who, now I come to think of it actually has ragged on a couple of (wonderful) later AS pieces. So, on second thought, go get 'im, Tom!

Hey Tom, by all means, please make that case! I'd pay a pretty penny to read it!

FWIW, I have a steady reserve of ill feelings for any discrete pitch systems, but it pales in comparison to the unending pleasure they give me.