Cathnor
Cath004
I don’t guess it’s necessary to rehash the particulars behind this recording; hard to imagine anyone with even a passing interest not being well aware of how “Sight” got to be that way. I’ll only pause to note that one of the aspects which I anticipated being in play, a kind of Prisoner’s Dilemma variation, is, as near as I can discern from the evidence in the final outcome, pretty much a non-factor. Perhaps because with MIMEO, “cooperation” (in PD terms) is more or less automatic, perhaps more pertinently because there exists no individual “gain” to be realized when the goal is group-oriented. I’ll also leave aside the Cy Twombly inferences, only referencing the painting in Houston recently posted on IHM which, indeed, isn’t a bad visual analogue of the disc at all. Whatever the case, I’m most interested here in how it sounds as music.
And it sounds damned good. Impossible as it would have been, I do wish I could’ve heard this with no prior knowledge whatsoever, not only with regard to the structural strategy but even going so far as to not know the identities of the musicians involved. There’s no way I can say how this would have hit me if thus “blindfolded” but to the extent I can put myself in that situation, I think I’d’ve found this to be a wonderful document, a lovely and spacious hour of improvisation. I don’t think—and this is one of the central issues raised by “Sight”—that I would have found any reason to suppose that this was not a simultaneous group improvisation; a restrained one, to be sure, but no more so in that regard than any number of quiet improv performances of recent years. I’d certainly have sat thinking, “Ah, what a beautiful mix of tones there; the musicians active at that moment really chose their sounds and placement well!” When, of course, nothing of the sort occurred. Or did it? How far can one stretch the idea of communication of intent? What does this say about “communication” in group improv if I hear it when it’s not there? One of the fascinating aspects of the recording is the balance between the MIMEO members own sensitivities in choosing where and how to deploy there brief opportunities and how the listener inevitably imposes patterns on things that are, in some important respects, unintentional and patternless. One of the first mental images I had while listening was of looking down on a public area, say a park quadrangle, where various activities are taking place: people walking, dogs playing, cars motoring, etc. You start forming formal connections between actors, imputing causal character to essentially random events: “That woman and the car on the other side of the drive, walking in parallel, about to bisect the arc formed by the three cavorting dogs. Ah, how wonderfully that worked!” etc. If you were to invest these actors with a smidgen of awareness as to their interaction and impart to them the fact that someone’s watching, maybe you begin to approximate the kind of activity heard on “Sight”.
While there’s the added “problem” of not always being able to figure out (given the types of instruments in use) whether two or three individual sounds are being generated by one, two or three musicians, one of the joys of the album is when overlapping occurs, when the individual elements that have been emerging periodically from the silence abut and intermingle. Though generally (unsurprisingly) on the quiet, sparse side, there are several explosions of sound (one suspects Pita, Schmickler, etc. but who knows or cares?) that, if anything, are grouped toward the middles of the hour. You can imagine several of the musicians anticipating that the multi-country asynchronous performance might tend toward something of a quiet-loud-quiet shape and contribute accordingly. But the central point is that none of the sounds seems any more “out of place” than the appearance of an ice cream truck while looking down at that public park. Something about the intentions and sensitivity of the musicians in MIMEO worked toward ensuring that whatever the result, it would read as conceptually coherent, sonically absorbing and intellectually challenging.
I like it a whole helluva lot and find it forms a fitting companion piece to the almost simultaneously released “The Room”. Concentrated mental introspection on the one hand and intra-continental telepathy on the other, enormous amount of food for thought in each.
Posted by Brian Olewnick on June 28, 2007 3:57 PMOne of the best reviews I've read of yours Brian, many thanks for taking the time to think this one over and pose some interesting questions.
Posted by: Richard Pinnell at June 29, 2007 6:59 AMYes, perhaps none of us should have been told about the circumstances surrounding the recording of the album until after it had hit the streets - inevitably, most reviews (mine included, but happily not this one) will spend more time telling the story of the concept than discussing what's going on in the piece. I'm reluctant to compare it to The Room, though - if improv is about peaks and troughs (and I think it should be), I can find very few of the latter in The Room, but a lot of odd rough edges in the MIMEO. None the worse for that either, but, if I might be permitted to quote from the forthcoming pitifully short review I've just sent to The Wire, "one still senses MIMEO's best work on disc is yet to come."
Posted by: Dan Warburton at June 29, 2007 8:15 AMI can't wait to hear this, although the packaging looks more in line with Judd than Twombly ( that Stephen Vitiello album "Listening to Donald Judd" is not bad).
It makes sense that his Ideas would work for sound, he studied at Black Mountain College and I think Cage's ideas were pretty influencial there.
I think the drawing in the dark/left-handed/blindfolded thing was an early method he used.
I'll try to move the sight discussion to the correct thread here.
I finally got a hold of it a month or so ago. I like it, but I also think it holds up better as an art piece rather than a piece of music. I'm not trying to open up a semantic debate, so let me be clearer. While there are many musical moments during the piece, there are also a lot of long silences. These silences aren't the kind of pregnant silences you get in an improvised CD where you can figuratively "hear" the players anticipating the next sound, but are the chance silences inevitable in the conception of the product. The silences are accordingly forgivable in the context, understanding that this was accepted as a result of the process, but without the process itself to support it, the full CD falls short of the musical mark.
So it seems to me to be much more about the process than the result. Which doesn't make it bad. It is definitely worth checking out. I have to say when I initially heard about it, I didn't know whether to think it was brilliant, stupid, courageous, or arrogant, or all of the above. At the end of the day curiousity got the better of me and I wanted to check it out.
Plus it has cool packaging.
Posted by: Jacob Lindsay at January 8, 2008 10:14 AMOne reason it works is because it is far less radical than it appears.
First of all it is musicians who are known to be compatible.
Second, the time limit really allows the space for everything to breath.
It is completely within the traditions that have been in place for well over 50 years, from Cage and Brown's chance and graphic scores to Braxton's idea that any of his scores can be played simultaneously. The obvious next idea was that any of our music can be played simultaneously.
The concept of holding a line without development or direct reaction is prevalent in contemporary improvisation and composition, the Roscoe Mitchell chamber piece I played earlier this year directly addressed that.
While "Sight" is unique it is hardly a wholesale new idea without any precedent.
Even the original inspiration for "Sight" had reasons why it worked, Twombly knew his palette, he knew his basic gestures, he knew the space he was working in, he just dropped sight from the process and got something a little different that still looked like a Twombly, the same way this sounds like and MIMEO album.
Also, there are at least similarities to Twombly's work, one is the parallel with working without sight the other is small, seemly disparate events spread across a white canvas to get a larger structure common in a certain period of his work like this:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/t/twombly/twombly_1961.jpg
Or this:
http://donavanhall.net/images/art/twombly-theitalians.jpg
In all forms of avant garde music there have been many experiments with dropping various elements (harmony, tempo, rhythm) or at least keeping them out of the foreground.
All the while the party line "You must listen" is always pushed hard (for obvious reasons) and never brought in to question.
I think at this point we have plenty of room for some experiments with taking direct listening out of the process.
In the end this is beautiful album with interesting structures and compelling textures that used an interesting process to get there.
Posted by: damon Smith at January 8, 2008 12:08 PMOne reason it works is because it is far less radical than it appears.
First of all it is musicians who are known to be compatible.
Second, the time limit really allows the space for everything to breath.
It is completely within the traditions that have been in place for well over 50 years, from Cage and Brown's chance and graphic scores to Braxton's idea that any of his scores can be played simultaneously. The obvious next idea was that any of our music can be played simultaneously.
The concept of holding a line without development or direct reaction is prevalent in contemporary improvisation and composition, the Roscoe Mitchell chamber piece I played earlier this year directly addressed that.
While "Sight" is unique it is hardly a wholesale new idea without any precedent.
Even the original inspiration for "Sight" had reasons why it worked, Twombly knew his palette, he knew his basic gestures, he knew the space he was working in, he just dropped sight from the process and got something a little different that still looked like a Twombly, the same way this sounds like and MIMEO album.
Also, there are at least similarities to Twombly's work, one is the parallel with working without sight the other is small, seemly disparate events spread across a white canvas to get a larger structure common in a certain period of his work like this:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/t/twombly/twombly_1961.jpg
Or this:
http://donavanhall.net/images/art/twombly-theitalians.jpg
In all forms of avant garde music there have been many experiments with dropping various elements (harmony, tempo, rhythm) or at least keeping them out of the foreground.
All the while the party line "You must listen" is always pushed hard (for obvious reasons) and never brought in to question.
I think at this point we have plenty of room for some experiments with taking direct listening out of the process.
In the end this is beautiful album with interesting structures and compelling textures that used an interesting process to get there.
Posted by: damon Smith at January 8, 2008 12:10 PMOne reason it works is because it is far less radical than it appears.
First of all it is musicians who are known to be compatible.
Second, the time limit really allows the space for everything to breath.
It is completely within the traditions that have been in place for well over 50 years, from Cage and Brown's chance and graphic scores to Braxton's idea that any of his scores can be played simultaneously. The obvious next idea was that any of our music can be played simultaneously.
The concept of holding a line without development or direct reaction is prevalent in contemporary improvisation and composition, the Roscoe Mitchell chamber piece I played earlier this year directly addressed that.
While "Sight" is unique it is hardly a wholesale new idea without any precedent.
Even the original inspiration for "Sight" had reasons why it worked, Twombly knew his palette, he knew his basic gestures, he knew the space he was working in, he just dropped sight from the process and got something a little different that still looked like a Twombly, the same way this sounds like and MIMEO album.
Also, there are at least similarities to Twombly's work, one is the parallel with working without sight the other is small, seemly disparate events spread across a white canvas to get a larger structure common in a certain period of his work like this:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/t/twombly/twombly_1961.jpg
Or this:
http://donavanhall.net/images/art/twombly-theitalians.jpg
In all forms of avant garde music there have been many experiments with dropping various elements (harmony, tempo, rhythm) or at least keeping them out of the foreground.
All the while the party line "You must listen" is always pushed hard ( for obvious reasons) and never brought in to question.
I think we have plenty of room for some experiments with taking direct listening out of the process.
In the end this is beautiful album with interesting structures and compelling and compelling textures that used an interesting process to get there.
Posted by: damon at January 8, 2008 12:14 PMOne reason it works is because it is far less radical than it appears.
First of all it is musicians who are known to be compatible.
Second, the time limit really allows the space for everything to breath.
It is completely within the traditions that have been in place for well over 50 years, from Cage and Brown's chance and graphic scores to Braxton's idea that any of his scores can be played simultaneously. The obvious next idea was that any of our music can be played simultaneously.
The concept of holding a line without development or direct reaction is prevalent in contemporary improvisation and composition, the Roscoe Mitchell chamber piece I played earlier this year directly addressed that.
While "Sight" is unique it is hardly a wholesale new idea without any precedent.
Even the original inspiration for "Sight" had reasons why it worked, Twombly knew his palette, he knew his basic gestures, he knew the space he was working in, he just dropped sight from the process and got something a little different that still looked like a Twombly, the same way this sounds like and MIMEO album.
Also, there are at least similarities to Twombly's work, one is the parallel with working without sight the other is small, seemly disparate events spread across a white canvas to get a larger structure common in a certain period of his work like this:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/t/twombly/twombly_1961.jpg
Or this:
http://donavanhall.net/images/art/twombly-theitalians.jpg
In all forms of avant garde music there have been many experiments with dropping various elements (harmony, tempo, rhythm) or at least keeping them out of the foreground.
All the while the party line "You must listen" is always pushed hard (for obvious reasons) and never brought in to question.
I think at this point we have plenty of room for some experiments with taking direct listening out of the process.
In the end this is beautiful album with interesting structures and compelling textures that used an interesting process to get there.
Posted by: Damon Smith at January 8, 2008 12:40 PMDamon,
I think what makes Sight a bit unique is not the fact that the players did not listen to each other, but rather the fact that NO ONE listened to the product at all before it was released.
Posted by: Jacob Lindsay at January 8, 2008 4:16 PMHere's Keith Rowe on the album, from his Invisible Jukebox with me in this month's Wire:
"I was surprised how well it worked, and how closely it paralleled the emotion I felt in front of the Cy Twombly painting I saw in Houston. We're getting into a very difficult area here, listening as a function of memory. I think you can argue that in the sight project there was a form of listening taking place. Listening related to memory. At one point you can almost hear what I'd describe as a group lack of concentration! Which of course is impossible, given how it was constructed!"
I love the idea of a "group lack of concentration".. but see what he means. I like sight because it takes risks - sometimes they pay off, sometimes not.
.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................
