Re: Free improv and conversation

[Matthias Grob <matthias@grob.org>]

>> Personally, I don't think you should be too shy about speaking your mind
>> about the effectiveness of these dubious rules/non-rules regarding free
>> improvisation.
>> As I read these postings I found myself thinking:-
>> "And you expect people to listen to this?
>> Why not let a bunch of kids jump on your instruments?
>> They have fewer preconceptions than us adults.
>> I've nothing against new music ideas but lets have ideas that work, (i
>> know your going to say I'm being judgemental) but I function on the
>> premise that there IS good music and bad music.
>
>I agree with your last sentence.   Just as there is good rock and bad 
>rock,
>good jazz and bad jazz, etc. there is also good free improv and bad free
>improv.
>
>Good free improv has a conversation going on between two or more musicians
>(which is why, I think, it is a tough assignment to do good free improv
>solo because you're basically talking to yourself).   If you think about
>it, conversations in real life are never pre-planned.  I do not have a
>script that I read from and memorize before I talk to you and I bet you
>do not have one either before you talk to me.   Good free improv is like
>good conversation.

I love this comparison, but I think there is more to it. I even had the
impression that musical comunication is unnecessary or "distracting" once
all members listen to the same inspiration source.

Its really like in a good conversation: you end up saying things you did
not know before.