Sirr
023
Kahn drew his inspiration for this recording from contemplation of the Sihl River, from his description a slow-running, rather stolid stream whose languidness he grew to appreciate as he crossed it going to and from his studio. While the pieces, performed on percussion and analog synthesizer, certainly dwell in pools of stasis, their number (twelve), brevity (3-4 minutes) and truncated aspect act—intentionally?—somewhat against this semi-programmatic context.
There’s an appealingly similar feel to all of the tracks, rather like snapshots of the same river at different points—here muddy, there reflective, there eddying but each with an underlying aqueous character. As stated above, they are all pretty much steady state, with various hums and drones receiving the odd inflection during the course of the piece. The feeling is far more overtly electronic than percussive though, on occasion, you can pick out a soft mallet tapping on a small gong, some bowed metal or a quiet rattle. The pieces are quite attractive on its own and often very lovely; listeners to Kahn’s previous work with find themselves in fairly familiar territory. In particular, the ringing tones of the sixth track and the final cut, with its muted, insistent gongs over a jangling sizzle are stunning little episodes. My major quibble, and it’s a strong one, is that each and every one of these selections is abruptly snipped off, ruthlessly amputated right around the four minute mark. It’s as though your meditative view of the portion of the river you’re examining is suddenly interrupted by a passing freight train. Whap! Gone. While this is clearly intentional on Kahn’s part and one imagines he’s making a point on the necessarily transitive nature of such musings, I couldn’t help but want to hear at least half of these tracks continue on at far greater length. This ends up making “Sihl” a frustrating experience to some extent even if I have to presume that the frustration is one of the intended effects.
http://www.sirr-ecords.com/cat/023.html
Posted by Brian Olewnick on January 16, 2006 6:17 AMThis is one of those cases where allowing each individual journalist the keys to the kingdom (ie the Moveable Type utility) sometimes means new reviews are instantly swamped - it's interesting that what you found frustrating Brian is one of the things I like most about Jason's work, not only on this album but to a lesser extent on Drumming and to a greater extent on Songs for Nicolas Ross. I think the key (for me) to Jason's music lies in that line of Taku Sugimoto's about wanting to make music that was like photography.. I remember the fun and games we had arguing with Jon a couple of years ago (re AMPLIFY box) about the word "snapshot": but if you were ever in search of beautiful EAI snapshots, this is where to look. Stick with it, I really started digging this one after about half a dozen listens, three of which coincidentally were in the same place, a dentist's waiting room. Nothing better than a shot of Kahn before that fucking root canal work.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at January 16, 2006 7:59 AMDan, as I alluded, I'm partially guessing that a sort of "snapshot" aesthetic was at work here. But if part of that implies a cropping, almost arbitrary, of the borders, I'd wonder why it occurs only at the end of the pieces, not at the beginning. Dunno, maybe Jason will chime in.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at January 16, 2006 8:21 AM"Nothing better than a shot of Kahn before that fucking root canal work." I'd vote for Moslang's Capture instead. Precise onomatopoeic equivalences. Thanks for the review.
Posted by: william Ashline at January 16, 2006 9:00 AMNah, Capture DURING the dental work, Bill! And, yes, Brian, it'd be cool to have Jason chip in to this thread. I'll drop him a line.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at January 16, 2006 9:40 AMhi brian
first off, thanks for taking the time to listen to "sihl."
about the length of the pieces, i can only say that this had less to do with snapshots or thoughts about the transitive nature of things than the feeling that these were the right lengths. i wanted to try and compose pieces which represented a kind of distillation of each compositional idea, and hence the duration.
it's interesting that you found the edits of the pieces as almost arbitrary because i did in fact spend a lot of time deciding where the pieces should be cut. (they were not just cut at the end but also at the beginning).
the pieces were recorded live in studio and usually i did 15-30 minute takes. i then went back later and listened through to the takes and tried to find a section which for me represented best the compositional idea i had been going for in each particular piece. there were in fact around twice as many pieces initially recorded.
in terms of frustration being one of the intended effects of sihl, i'd have to say that i've never thought of using my work to make people feel uncomfortable or frustrated.
Hi Jason--thanks for the elaboration.
See that? I'm totally off on most of the things I supposed were going on. Ah well, paging Mr. Morris...
It is interesting, generally speaking (imho) that, given Jason's explanation, I'll likely be finding myself relistening to "Sihl" differently somehow, now that I have this information. I'm not sure whether or not that's "fair", but it's unavoidable, I think. Of course, it also makes one wonder about the edifaces that one has built in one's head about this or that work of art where one hasn't had the benefit of any extra input from the artist (and where the goal of the piece is less than obvious).
Thanks again, Jason.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at January 16, 2006 10:42 AMBrian O: "See that? I'm totally off on most of the things I supposed were going on."
Brian M: Me too, Brian. I've just been asked to review Sihl for The Wire, and I thought to ask Jason a couple of questions about his working methods. Just as well. Seems my assumptions about how he made these pieces were almost entirely incorrect. Jason, with very good grace, put me right before I made a damn fool of myself (again).
Posted by: Brian Marley at January 16, 2006 10:58 AMI like the CD, by the way!
Posted by: Brian Marley at January 16, 2006 10:59 AMNice review, Brian, and thanks to Jason for chiming in with his own input. My interest is definitely piqued.
Posted by: David Jones at January 16, 2006 11:02 AMBrian, in a way, I don't mind at all "getting things wrong". As I've said here before, I prefer to approach a work of art (music or otherwise) as "innocently" as possible and make my evaluations in that state (not always possible, by any means). If I'm wrong, fine, no big deal (to me, of course; if I annoy the artist involved, that could be another matter!).
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at January 16, 2006 11:15 AMHmmm, this is interesting... I have to say I have really struggled with Sihl so far after I think three listens. I do keep coming back to it though as I sense I am missing something, but every try so far the record has only served to really grate at me as many of the drones are pitched right at that point that they get under the skin and make my skull vibrate... making the listening experience uncomfortable and making it hard to really pick up on the nuances of the music.
However having read the opinions of everyone above I'm giong to try it again, as clearly I am missing something!
Also to echo everyone else, nice to read your comments here Jason, its always good to hear directly from the musicians, so thanks.
hello! i am enjoing the discussion and it's good to get this different perspectives on the cd. just a brief note to say that, as the publisher of 'sihl', it's not the label intention to release any frustrating experiences. on the contrary, we hope to provide always engaging and enriching ones. if a release - this one or other - implies somehow deceiving the listener's expectation that should be seen as a deliberately creative gesture anyway. something out of choice and accordance with the work own set of rules. i think that this present work discussed here points rather to a different level of awareness and listening. and its singular quality emerges from the structure itself, not despite it. it happens that contemporary sonic agitation is full of arbitrary long and pointless drone works, that nevertheless provide a sense of comfortableness. that doesn't make them any better... just easier... cheers, paulo
Posted by: paulo raposo at January 23, 2006 9:14 AMHi Paulo, welcome in. Just to be clear, even if it was yours or Jason's intention to frustrate, that would've been fine with me. Hell, I'd like to hear more frustrating music, that is, if I can manage to determine whether it's being intentionally frustrating or not. Hmmmm....tough one, that. As to the music requiring a "different level of awareness and listening" well, maybe yes, maybe no. If I haven't achieved this particular level, I wouldn't know anyway, I suppose. I *do* think this occurs, at least for my ears/consciousness; most recently in things like "Good Morning, Good Night".
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at January 23, 2006 9:56 AMwhen i was mentioning this "different level of awareness and listening", it was regarding something that is opposite to values or formal properties such organic unity, formal development or evolution... and particularly here, hmm...the absence of graduation: transitions from one quality to another that introduce change within a basic steady unity. of couse the subject is a tough and tricky one... and vast... :) maybe soomeone will put more arguments in the table. i look suspicious if i say more ;)
Posted by: paulo raposo at January 23, 2006 10:19 AM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................