"The presence of Krieger’s screaming sax (sometimes recalling Zorn) often pushes things further into an “ecstatic jazz” direction than I enjoy although fans of that area looking for access into noisier, less idiomatic music might be well served."

hehe, the *great* Sankt Olewnick, always interested to increase his flock.

I think this is one your lamest reviews. Reviewing everything against EAI doesn't help either side. It makes you come off as only pushing an agenda instead of as an interesting writer, which you are.
Whining about any cd that isn't strictly within the bounds of EAI
is getting really tired.

For one thing, EAI is no longer new. It's musicians have find a way to make crackling around and slow development relevant just like someone who wants to scream on a saxophone.

I have not heard this particular recording, but this is an interesting project and I think it is safe to guess none of the musicians involved share the same musical goals of your faovrite EAI musicians.

Taking Damon's comment a step further, the weakness to today's electronic music is already centuries old.

You or I could strike a Buddhist bell, and simply make a noise. It takes a very wise man to make a single note, or a drone, interesting.

Therein lies the downfall of today's soi-disant eai.

My point is I don't think a for/against argument about EAI is productive, there is a decade of great music in that format and it's variants.
It is no longer the underdog and it no longer needs people "pushing" it. Like the rest of the forms improvised music has taken it just needs to done well and somehow kept fresh interesting.

Sniveling about a "screaming saxophone" is just really unbecoming of an otherwise a refined writer.

Hmmm...didn't think I was "pushing" eai at this disc's expense. It simply falls into a category that I hear around a bit which I consider (you may disagree) to be straddling the fence somewhat between an improvised approach that has free jazz of the ecstatic variety on one side and more eai (however you want to define it) orientation on the other. I prefer when people go one way or the other and found this effort a bit unfocussed in that regard.

I only mentioned it because I could see some listeners who enjoy free jazz digging this one but not so much the reverse. It's not such an uncommon view that, for instance, that a free sax squawker tends to sound out of place in your average post-AMM ensemble. Had this been an out and out free jazz performance, there would obviously been no reason to mention eai at all.

Just my opinion; you're free to disagree.

Now that AMM is no more all improvising ensembles are post-AMM, even the ones with saxophone. Remember Lou Gare?
Holding to a particular artistic line or context is fine, but it is still improvised music we are talking about.
Good improvising musicians should be able to make music together.
If Keith Rowe and Joe McPhee ended up on stage together I would think they would be able find a place to meet and make music together even if it would obviously fall outside of either's ideal setting.

If EAI can withstand Prince lyrics and back-up singers without wilting, a little screaming saxophone once and a while won't hurt it.
Holding to stupid, outdated "rules" like swing, silence quotas, how electronic it is or any other bullshit does not help the music or listeners.

Let's be honest here: your reviews fall into two catagories EAI and music that you complain about not being EAI or EAI enough, even if very subtly it is still obvious that is what you are driving at.
I just don't see that attitude as mature or productive. The only thing I personal find un-apealing about EAI is the high-school clique mentality, that I am accussing you of continuing.

Another part of my argument is that at this point EAI's influence is way more wide-ranging than those narrowly following it's "rules", and that a large chunk of it's audience can handle a screaming saxophone without you needing to protect their precious ears.

I review stuff people send me. In the past year, that's included a bunch of things that don't fall under my definition of "eai", things I liked a bunch (Reuben Radding, Feldman, Cage, etc...). If you saw my write-up of the sets I attended at Vision Fest this year, you'll see I gave glowing accounts of Bill Dixon/George Lewis and Joe Morris/Barre Phillips, both far more into the jazz end of the spectrum than any "eai". The previous year, I loved Nicole Mitchell and before that, Fred Anderson/Harrison Bankhead. Hell, I've spent much of the last few weeks listening to my Art Ensemble of Chicago LPs and heaping praises upon them. I greatly enjoyed Robert Ashley's "Concrete: a couple weeks ago (write up to come in PT) and am looking forward to Diamanda Galas on the 14th, neither remotely having anything to do with "eai".

Sure, there are plenty of things I don't particularly care for. So what? Readers by now, I think, generally know my tastes and can probably use my reviews as one element when making their judgment as to whether or not they'll enjoy the disc in question. Sometimes I can just (boringly) list the musical elements encountered. Sometimes the music hits me as a misfiring of intent or execution, a sense I received here. Could I be wrong? Sure. Might you think my perceptions are bullshit? Of course. What's the big deal?

Whoa, Damon. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you’re reading way too much of your OWN agenda into Brian’s piece. I haven’t heard the disc in question, but it’s clear from his prose above that Brian didn’t think the particular combination of players worked that well. How that opinion is an indictment of “screaming saxophonists” writ large, I’m failing to follow.

This donnybrook does bring up an interesting tangential topic, that of reviewers reviewing work that falls outside their personal preferences & tastes. Brian’s gone on record as stating that a lot of recent jazz-based improv doesn’t really light his fires. I’ve said similar things about eai. Do these partialities make either of us less suitable to review music in either “genre”? I dunno, but my knee jerk response is “No” as long as the writer in question is willing to judge the work on its own terms as well as his or her own.

Yeah, it can be an issue. If asked beforehand (doesn't usually happen) I sometimes demur. A guy from out Damon's way (I bet he knows him) recently wrote and asked if I'd like to review some of his work. I checked out what I could find on the web and pretty much gained the idea that it fell rather outside of my range of interest. I told him the impression I had (which he said was accurate), was pretty clear about my current areas of interest and non-interest but absolutely invited him, if he would still like to, to send something my way. He decided against it. Chances are this was the right decision but, who knows? I could've missed out on something.

otoh, I do have a working knowledge of about 35 years of listening experience with regard to free jazz, still hear a fair amount on radio and a few times a year in live situations. I'm by no means entirely "up" on a lot going on in the sphere and maybe Text of Light's work is simply beyond my capacity to appreciate at this stage. Readers who think that may be the case are more than welcome to draw their own conclusions from my write-up or to dismiss it out of hand.

I wasn’t trying to knock your knowledge of/experience with free jazz --hell, you were digging the live sounds of loft jazzers when I was still dancing around in my Underoos-- but instead suggest that your diminished interest in certain circles of the sphere sometimes colors your written opinions. Seems only natural to me.

Derek, sure, no problem. That's what I meant above about, by now, most Bags readers knowing pretty much where I stand on this matter. If they don't, they do now.

btw, next time you're in town enjoying yourself at Viz fest, I think I'll come over and harangue you as to why you shouldn't be. :-)

FWIW: The Brakhage film doesn't have time-lapse photography shot through an ash tray, it's all 24fps. That's not to detract from the fact that Brakhage made an hour long film of the refraction of light through ashtry that doesn't seem a frame too long.

It's very well worth seeing, though I'd imagine it's much better without the aforementioned band playing with it; projector hum and the occasional audience yawn/snore is enough.

Hey, welcome back, Nirav. Stick around why don't you?