Re: process threads . . . or what have you

[Mike.Biffle@wj.com (Mike Biffle)]

Miko wrote...
>> It seems that *most* of us improvise... some completely, other's not 
>quite
>> so much... How do we create meaningful work of this nature which will 
>endure
>> and still retain that free spirit?

Steuart Liebig...
> For me, I guess it's the same kind of process (though slightly different
> aspects of it) as writing. A lot of it comes down to accepting what one
> likes, yet being able to have a somewhat objective perception as to what
> works, what doesn't and what I'd like to change. In other words, 
>examination
> and reexamination of strategies and vocabularies. 

Nice thought... I might do well to assess the difference between what I 
personally like w/what I'm actually capable of doing. Taking better stock 
of my 
"tools" (Derek Bailey's term which IMO is a collection of basic and 
extended 
techniques for improvising) and treating them more formally.

Compositionally I've found that there are people who just rage with their 
own 
style and *still* manage to sound conceptual, indulgent soloing etc... 
Then 
there are people who don't really solo or have "trademark" sounds and 
sound 
conceptual right out of the gate with a seemingly well thought out 
progression 
of ideas. This intrigues me and seems to function more artistically for 
me. 
While I love to solo and be a "guitar guy" I want to find a broader 
approach 
which has more musicality and artistic merit. (Without losing the soloing 
of 
course! 8->)

> Often I try to approach different situations with different mindsets. 
>Some
> bands/situations get the full McGilla (effects/loopers, etc.), some get a
> different set of parameters (say bass and amp only).

Embarrassingly, this sounds a little intimidating to me. If I was actually 
playing more often with a larger variety of people, maybe it would be 
different.
Again... food for thought.

> I tend to like composers that use finite rules for certain pieces 
>(Stravinsky 
> as noted, Webern, etc.) so I try to bring a little bit of this 
>sensibility to
> the table during some of the improv situations that I get involved in. 
>Some
> might say that this sort of thing verges on NOT BEING free improv. 

John Zorn's game theory described in Bailey's book sound very interesting 
to me.
Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Coming up with arbitrary 
contexts which define various moments during an improv?

One last note/question: I keep hearing the non-idiomatic banner being 
waved and 
wonder just how removed from an idiom you have to be to have people not 
dis you 
for your references? E.g.. Rock grandiosity and tone; Jazz chords and 
voicing; 
Blues; Drum styles and grooves...

Thanks for the comments Stig...