Support |
> (the notion that there are boundaries to 'free' improvisation is > surely a misnomer, no? though I suspect that the explaination would be >that > adherence to strict western metric rhythmic forms and melodic structures >was > not expressing freedom but rather pedaling the western musical hedgemonic > paradigm or something... :o) > > ** well i agree with you - - it is a misnomer. i find it tedious when > people feel the need to lok down on those that might integrate groove or > tonality into their improvs. though, as a caveat, my opinion is that it > can't really be only about those things because it becomes more of a "jam > band" situation . . . semantics to be sure, but my 2 cents. ..but to be truly free it has to have room to morph into a jam band if that's where it goes. If the jam band tag becomes a stricture, or those things start to excert an influence beyond the music, the freedom has gone... :o) > though the only time I've ever seen him live was > perhaps the most godawful cacophany that I've ever had the misfortune to >be > in the same room as - none of his usual expressive weirdness, just three > blokes twatting about with a laptop, turntables and a guitar... I >thought it > was just me until the review in the Wire said the same thing, and > anecdotally I heard that Derek wasn't mad keen on the evening either... >:o) > > ** this is the nature of free improv, no? there is always the >possibility of > failure. at least that's what i like about it. Absolutely - hearing him be a bit rubbish didn't in anyway diminish my respect for him, it just meant that I was made rather starkly aware of the suppositions that I'd brought to the gig as a listener, and was left wanting... I guess if they'd all fallen about laughing, said 'sorry, that was crap' and started again, I'd have enjoyed it a bit more... :o) Steve www.steve-lawson.co.uk