FTN wrote:i think when it comes to art, there is no right or wrong. on any level.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GMHl7bmlzw[/youtube]

Philly the Kid wrote:
I'm saying that while I still derive "pleasure" as someone brought that word in to it, from listening to music or consuming art -- that I cannot get a certain sensation nor can I see anything newly presented that can show me "a way" I haven't seen before. That's the best I can do to explain what I'm saying.

It doesn't make it de facto true because I assert it. But I don't feel I've gotten here without some serious consideration or on a whim.

Kid, I can well appreciate your regrets at experiencing a sensation you welcome less frequently now than you may have in the past.

I just think you're making more of that regret than it merits. Because with respect to artistic discovery, most of those determinations are at best a product of uneasy, unratified consensus, their narratives emerging months & years after the fact.

It's ALL new; whether it's formally "new" is practically never authoritatively determined.

PtK, you've made a fetish of the new, decided there isn't anything new (and that you've heard everything, but I showed you something that wasn't all that obscure that I discovered living in the middle of nowhere Arkansas) or even that anything new is possible (which is prima facie unprovable) and said it's a crisis. Why is innovation important? Why does it matter at all? Perhaps the problem with the 20th century was the over-emphasis on innovation which lead to a lot of shit being made. I mean, does anyone care about Keith Haring anymore? Might it be the case that Copland's tonal less innovative works are much better than his experimental stuff? Did Woody Guthrie care about innovation when he wrote This Land is Your Land?

The assumption that newness is valuable is but one criteria that people could use to evaluate art, and one that really wouldn't have occurred to anyone as all that important until fairly recently. Some stuff sounds dated and may not be easy to connect to today--I think Elvis sounds that way to me. On the other hand, a lot of Buddy Holly or Beatles recordings sound timeless. Nik Drake is another performer who still sound pretty fresh, but he wasn't a huge innovator.

But then there's also a contradiction, because while you mourn the loss of inventiveness, you also criticize people who make music that isn't authentic to their demographic, that they adopt styles like a brand. So on the one hand you yearn for inventiveness, and at the same time insist that we can only be authentic if we make music that comes out of a tradition that we have some organic connection to. But if we're limited to tradition, we can't very well innovate. If we boo Dylan for plugging in and call him a sell out, we can't very well blame him when his art stagnates.

But this part of your argument is most condescending--some fourteen year old doing something because he thinks it's cool, but it's disconnected. Who are you to say that? I'm not Brazilian, but I love Brazilian music. First, there's a ton of great music. But it also reminds me of when my dad was playing those great Jobim records, along with Sergio Mendes and Stan Getz.

Finally, you're wrong. One thing I could see really becoming exciting are using gaming technology for aesthetic purposes--rather than killing zombies, the you use various tools to create new works of art. There have been some crude things along these lines using java and flash, but interactivity at a high level would be really innovative.

Finally, on Wynton--I'm not a huge fan, but he's obviously a major talent. I think in some ways though the criticism you're leveling at him for not being a real innovator misses the point entirely. It's sort of like what happened in the 19th c. when orchestras started playing works by dead composers, something that had been quite uncommon before that. The idea at the core is that music (especially jazz) needs to be performed--the old recordings aren't enough to keep the form going. Recorded improvisation misses the point of improvisation.

Soren wrote:

FTN wrote:i think when it comes to art, there is no right or wrong. on any level.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GMHl7bmlzw[/youtube]

I would contend, that the Cathy Berberian is much better than the Yoko.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J3IvLQ4Pbk&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBiz2EYUnUA[/youtube]

Thought some of you would find this one interesting:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLqVioiDldc&feature=related[/youtube]

Barry Jive wrote:welp, PtK completely missed my point, so i feel even more justified.

FTN, I disagree. this is an entirely different argument. but imagine a 4-year-old girl who's learning to play violin. Let's say she's pretty talented for her age and level. She can bang out "Mary Had a Little Lamb" without any trouble. is that better than a professional violinist playing along to a symphony? it's clear who the better artist is, right? but ask that girl's parents: Who would you rather listen to, some classically trained violinist, or your daughter?

Subjectivity would clearly change each of those answers. But any objective source would know the classically trained violinist is better than the 4-year-old.

You went from right n wrong, which FTN said, to "better n worse". Then you said "its clear who the better artist is", but really that's not clear. That's an assertion you put out, and assume that there is an implied consensus that would support it. It's not objective just because you assert it.

Remember -- there are facts, assertions and interpretations.

My take on child prodigies is a little different than some other people. I don't think a 4 year old has the maturity, or life depth to share with me what a more mature person has to offer. But it may not be universal. This view has been put to the test recently as one of my oldest friends has a child prodigy painter. She's 8 years old and is blowing up in the art world. She's sold over $100K worth of art (paintings) since she was 6. She's very articulate -- she just did a riff on Warhol and Barbie.

What we like -- is very subjective, but it is possible I believe, to deepend ones understanding about an artist, genre, style -- or technique. Greater familiarization and experience may end you up in a different place and more or less interested in something you encountered eariler.

As I suggested before, it may be possible to reach some semi-objectivity via a consensus of experts on what is or isn't better.

I feel confident in my assertion than John Tesh makes terrible art and adds no value. I believe I could surround myself with experts to support that view. We could reach consensus, but can we prove it? Or if someone's definition of good or bad is linked to popularity or ability to reach the largest audience? Or sincerity or passion?

How many times have people thought something was great because the performers seemed to have "energy" or "be really in to it" ...

For the most part, I try to stay away from "my tastes are better than your tastes". Obviously I have strong opinions, not just on what I like - but why I like A over B. Within myself, I am fairly consistent and have a pretty good understanding of my own tastes and how they have evolved.

Not everyone is interested in evolving at all, nor uses music/art in their lives in the same ways. I can tell from many MANY of the music threads on BSG that I come to music and use music in my life and think about music very differently than many of you.

drsmooth wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:
I'm saying that while I still derive "pleasure" as someone brought that word in to it, from listening to music or consuming art -- that I cannot get a certain sensation nor can I see anything newly presented that can show me "a way" I haven't seen before. That's the best I can do to explain what I'm saying.

It doesn't make it de facto true because I assert it. But I don't feel I've gotten here without some serious consideration or on a whim.

Kid, I can well appreciate your regrets at experiencing a sensation you welcome less frequently now than you may have in the past.

I just think you're making more of that regret than it merits. Because with respect to artistic discovery, most of those determinations are at best a product of uneasy, unratified consensus, their narratives emerging months & years after the fact.

It's ALL new; whether it's formally "new" is practically never authoritatively determined.

Not exactly.

There is an archive os historical artifacts. As one goes on their journey they encounter things and discover things that had been "new" perhaps hundreds of years ago, or even just 5. Eventually a person begins to explore everything they can find that is out there now.

In my case -- I can see via history -- where there are lineages, time-lines of evolutionary advancement. You can't have Mahler without having Liszt without having Beethoven. You can't have Coltrane without having Armstrong without having Parker etc... You can't have Roots without having Disco soul rnb, and a decade of Hip Hop that preceded it. There is no Kurt Cobain or Ian Curtis is there are no history of the 60's ....

I really have made one assertion. That art-forms have hit a wall. I have my own feelings about that, and how that plays out in my life and my own aspirations as a creative and as a consumer of art.

TenuredVulture wrote:PtK, you've made a fetish of the new, decided there isn't anything new (and that you've heard everything, but I showed you something that wasn't all that obscure that I discovered living in the middle of nowhere Arkansas) or even that anything new is possible (which is prima facie unprovable) and said it's a crisis. Why is innovation important? Why does it matter at all? Perhaps the problem with the 20th century was the over-emphasis on innovation which lead to a lot of $#@! being made. I mean, does anyone care about Keith Haring anymore? Might it be the case that Copland's tonal less innovative works are much better than his experimental stuff? Did Woody Guthrie care about innovation when he wrote This Land is Your Land?

Woh that's a mouthful .... It's not a fetish. I'm hardly obscure to be someone drawn to the evolution of art forms. To either study it or consumer it. To be excited about it. The example you showed, while very cool and resonating with my tastes and well conceived and crafted, was still not something put together or approached in a way I hadn't experienced before. That the elements it juxtaposed were also familiar to me, perhaps made it easier to connect with.

I don't think the 20th century over-emphasized innovation, it simply necessitated it because of how rapidly populations grew and technology advanced. You could not have Freud emerge, or post Nietcshe or WWI or WWII or the splitting of the atom, without it impacting the arts. TV, Movies, Telephone, Air Travel ... it's all connected.

What do you mean by "better" when you reference Copland? To use a term like better, not unlike others in this thread, you assert something or assert the possibility of something that appeals to what consensus? Is that how its verified , (your assertion)?

It may turn out that Coplands' importance lies in a role he played historically, or an innovation he made a certain time. Or it turn out in the larger scheme his importance is minimized or his output less worthy of the "test of time" test than others.

Woody Guthrie or any artist, folk or high brow may not be concerned about innovation at all. They are just doing what they do, but that doesn't preclude it from being innovative. The notion of traveling the land and singing songs that workers could relate to was nothing new. See, Troubadours and Minnesingers from the 1300's-onward ... doesn't mean Guthrie wasn't influential, important, authentic or passing the "test of time" test ...

I'm not rejecting great work or past innovation.

TenuredVulture wrote:The assumption that newness is valuable is but one criteria that people could use to evaluate art, and one that really wouldn't have occurred to anyone as all that important until fairly recently. Some stuff sounds dated and may not be easy to connect to today--I think Elvis sounds that way to me. On the other hand, a lot of Buddy Holly or Beatles recordings sound timeless. Nik Drake is another performer who still sound pretty fresh, but he wasn't a huge innovator.

Newness has been valuable and even necessary. As I gave in the example of Money or Beethoven, coming up with that today doesn't matter. It may relfect some skill or talent, it might even on its own merits be beautiful or engaging, but it isn't of its time. And it isn't a new invention or further development. It's not even an homage. It's distilling something out of history and learning to mimic it. It's another exercise.

You then admit that things become dated and use your own personal reference and tastes. I think Elvis is an important historical moment, some of what appears dated today has been instrumental in influencing 1000's of future performers. For me, the Beatles are dated. The fact that you assert these distinctions at all, comes from your experience and expertise. You could probably in time, explain why you feel as you do and perhaps even make a reasonable good case. But it requires a certain experience level, and some broader context. A kid of 15 arriving from small town africa who has never heard the Beatles before isn't going to be able to discuss this with you in a meaningful way. A kid from small town Calif., just getting in to Beatles or Holly won't either.

TenuredVulture wrote:But then there's also a contradiction, because while you mourn the loss of inventiveness, you also criticize people who make music that isn't authentic to their demographic, that they adopt styles like a brand. So on the one hand you yearn for inventiveness, and at the same time insist that we can only be authentic if we make music that comes out of a tradition that we have some organic connection to. But if we're limited to tradition, we can't very well innovate. If we boo Dylan for plugging in and call him a sell out, we can't very well blame him when his art stagnates.

Slow down there. (You guys are really riled up on stuff I'm not actually saying)

I am not mourning the loss of anything. I'm asserting that we are at a moment in history that is stuck. I doubt it is forever, but it is right now. I am processing what it means for me personally to recognize that and how it impacts my relationship to art consumption and or art creation.

I talked about "authenticity" more from the consumer side. Again, it wasn't as loaded with judgment as you seem to infer. It's a simple fact, that just as Beethoved was of his time, and his importance is not only in the skill and talent, but in its historical context, same could be said with Punk rock. Punk rock grew out of conditions and reflected an authentic experience of an authentic group of people in a time and place.

It's a much different thing, years after to "adopt a brand", particularly from a menu of brands. I've taught high school and watched some kids devour and work there way through many brands in their 4 years.

I don't care whether Dylan plugs in or not, nor did I care when Miles Davis plugged in.

I can step back and recognize why/what may have influenced Miles Davis to move the way he did. Some artists need to keep trying new things or moving forwards in their minds. Some just do one thing. Miles like Picasso went through many periods. I'm not equally interested in them all now, after the fact and after years of exposure to them all. While I was not old enough to be living in NYC in 1958-59 when Miles was literally inventing somethings and being part of the culture that it spoke to and reflected, mlike many generations after, I've been able to grasp something about it and find my way in to it and recognize its intrinsic interest. In that regard, I'm no different than the kid who adopted Punk for a summer (though it would be a deeper comparison if I wore the clothing and used the lingo of the period too)
[/quote]

TenuredVulture wrote:But this part of your argument is most condescending--some fourteen year old doing something because he thinks it's cool, but it's disconnected. Who are you to say that? I'm not Brazilian, but I love Brazilian music. First, there's a ton of great music. But it also reminds me of when my dad was playing those great Jobim records, along with Sergio Mendes and Stan Getz.

What I'm saying, is that the 14 year old in Manchester or Liverpool in '63 was part of something that was being invented. The 14 year old today who goes to a menu of accepted teen brands and adopts one, is having a different experience. Different generations were able to reflect their time with things that belong to them. They were struggling to find their voice. Go look at interviews with teens in the 60's and think about the times and what the counter-culture trends were reacting to.

Today, kids are inculcated in a fabricated media rich reality that pummels them with narratives and manipulates their thoughts and emotions and sets them up to be good obedient consumers. They are offered any brand to choose from, because at the end of the day, they will become good little consumers.

it's not radical to be a punk today. Just as it would be anochronistic for me to walk around like a Greenwich Village Jazz hipster circa 58 today.

[/quote]

TenuredVulture wrote:Finally, you're wrong. One thing I could see really becoming exciting are using gaming technology for aesthetic purposes--rather than killing zombies, the you use various tools to create new works of art. There have been some crude things along these lines using java and flash, but interactivity at a high level would be really innovative.

I'm totally open to the possibility of new forms. I think some of what you allude to, is and has been happening. And it may be seen in retrospect that it was going on all along. These are areas I'm actually involved in somewhat professionally and it may well be that new kinds of interfaces or ways of "doing something" will invent new forms and experiences in shape. So far, the stuff I see -- whether its Burning Man, or whether its information design -- and interactivity -- is building off of existing art ideas and content. Guitar Hero leveraged nostalgia and the fantasy of a rocker with a simplistic game experience.

TenuredVulture wrote:Finally, on Wynton--I'm not a huge fan, but he's obviously a major talent. I think in some ways though the criticism you're leveling at him for not being a real innovator misses the point entirely. It's sort of like what happened in the 19th c. when orchestras started playing works by dead composers, something that had been quite uncommon before that. The idea at the core is that music (especially jazz) needs to be performed--the old recordings aren't enough to keep the form going. Recorded improvisation misses the point of improvisation.

My criticism of Wynton is partly subjective and personal, because we are close in age and I was on the Jazz scene as her arrived and I followed him closely. He interviewed a lot from age 19 forwards and he was super arrogant and pretentious. He said a lot of nothing for a long time, and I and others in my peer group and elders all kind of chuckled. he earned the right to get to say that stuff, because he had come from a family of musicians, because he was a virtuoso on his horn, but he didn't have the depth or experience.

I remember reading interview with Lester Bowie the trumpet player from The Art Ensemble of Chicago who really ripped young Wynton a hole. He hadn't earned the place yet to pontificate about "everything".

As well, though Wynton could rip notes like few, at age 22, he did not have the harmonic advancement of Woody Shaw, he didn't have the feel of a Bobby Bradford, or tone of a Lee Morgan. He was to many, somewhat robotic - cold n blasting notes.

I would easily contend now, that he is the equivalent of a classical master now. A scholar of Jazz. He's been running the Jazz at Lincoln Center, and a PBS icon. He's like a Michael Tilson Thomas or some other high art celebrity and he backs it up with his raw talent, virtuoso skills and access to resources. he has studied and many things he stands for and represents now, are cool. He isn't 19 or 22 anymore and he has earned some things. I find more of music interesting now than I did 20 years ago.

My comment though -- or criticism, was that I saw Wynton as trying to position himself as the Duke Ellington of this generation, and my point was, that you don't get to be a Duke Ellington by trying to be. you either are, or you aren't. Duke is important not because he was a virtuoso, but because he was someone who advanced an entire art-form. Invented "ways" of doing stuff.

Very few artists are completely disconnected and spontaneously combust. They don't all operate within a continuum or recognized pocket of culture, but no one is in a vacuum. Everyone learns and draws from the past in some ways, or re-discovers journies people have taken before them.

I'm not putting value judgments out as my main thesis. I am asserting that every single art form right now, has hit a wall. And of course its important, because every one of these genres and sub-genres that you all continue to consume and engage, were a product of some innovation and new moment, new direction, next step, next leap, paradigm shift -- and grew out of time and place.

To an extent, we have the largest Chinese (that's racist - insert here) menu of art choices in the history of the world. But my interest, was -- where's the next new movement? What's the next idea. Or in music, which I'm most intimate with -- what comes next? Is it with ways of performing? Technology. Micro-tuning. Large form. Will we develop a music that people participate in in large groups over many days?

Someone can sit down today and write a beautiful song for voice and guitar. The words can be prescient and wise and relfective of todays themese. And there is still great value in that. I said all along that newness in terms of story -- narratives - and the actual "doing" of art -- is still fresh and relevant and valuable. But from a different vantage, the concept of a singer songwriter and writing a tune in the key of G minor and talking about feelings of loss and love ... none of that is a new form or sensation or idea.

Philly the Kid wrote: I'm asserting that we are at a moment in history that is stuck. I doubt it is forever, but it is right now. I am processing what it means for me personally to recognize that and how it impacts my relationship to art consumption and or art creation.

and we're attempting, perhaps too gently or elliptically, to point out for you that while you may personally feel that way, your feeling does not equate to the way it is, and that that determination is something made retrospectively, some time from now, and won't necessarily be universally agreed upon even then.

because, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Philly the Kid wrote:What do you mean by "better" when you reference Copland? To use a term like better, not unlike others in this thread, you assert something or assert the possibility of something that appeals to what consensus? Is that how its verified , (your assertion)?

Better as in who wants to listen to Copland's atonal work today? Lots of people want to listen to his 3rd symphony, and few really care that it's not really all that innovative and indeed may even be reactionary. You could say the same about John Adams.

Philly the Kid wrote:I talked about "authenticity" more from the consumer side. Again, it wasn't as loaded with judgment as you seem to infer. It's a simple fact, that just as Beethoved was of his time, and his importance is not only in the skill and talent, but in its historical context, same could be said with Punk rock. Punk rock grew out of conditions and reflected an authentic experience of an authentic group of people in a time and place.

It's a much different thing, years after to "adopt a brand", particularly from a menu of brands. I've taught high school and watched some kids devour and work there way through many brands in their 4 years.

But this really is insulting. Basically, you're sitting there calling pretty much every 15 year old who listens to a lot of different kinds of music a poser, trying on styles like a pair of jeans. You're not just saying there's good and bad music, you're saying that only some people can really here some music.

Here's how I would put it--30 years ago, your choices were limited to what was imposed on you from the outside. Your taste in music had a lot more to do with your social status and position in life than your tastes. To venture beyond what was "acceptable" for your peer group was to risk ostracism and ridicule.

Today, things are much better. Kids have access to tons more music, they can discover it on their own, find others who share their interests and listen to music because they like it.

Beethoven really wasn't of his time. He certainly isn't really representative of what was going on around him--he couldn't even fucking hear it, being deaf.

drsmooth wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote: I'm asserting that we are at a moment in history that is stuck. I doubt it is forever, but it is right now. I am processing what it means for me personally to recognize that and how it impacts my relationship to art consumption and or art creation.

and we're attempting, perhaps too gently or elliptically, to point out for you that while you may personally feel that way, your feeling does not equate to the way it is, and that that determination is something made retrospectively, some time from now, and won't necessarily be universally agreed upon even then.

because, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

I already said, things may be in play that I'm not aware of or can't see, but from the standpoint of what is still dominating in output and filling venues (in the broadest sense of the word venue/outlet) -- there is no boundary pushing that I can observe. Not in the academy and not in the 'hood. Yes, it is one man's opinion (isn't part of the purpose of a forum to exchange thoughts, ideas, opinions and info?) -- but my opinion is not that of a casual observer nor formed quickly.

A master vintner may say that "chianti is dead", that doesn't mean it is literally dead or that no one will drink Chianti anymore, but the master vintner is not a frat boy who mostly drinks Budweiser and two-buck chuck and has never thought about wine making or wine nuances, nor cares one way or the other.

I asserted a view point and explained some what how I got there. And rather than go, "heh, well that's interesting..." or "heh, I don't see it that way but how'd you get there kid?" ... instead people seem to be thinking that I'm rejecting all the artisan-ship or people's enjoyment with enagement in the arts in whatever way... or even calling one thing better than another. And that's not what I was saying at all.

Since this is the Jazz thread, I'll assert again, that a kid growing up on the west coast and on certain records in the early 40's, could have heard about or stumbled upon the scene in New York where be-bop was fomenting ... and found it exciting and compelling and mind-blowing. Jazz has been around long enough now, to step back and see a historical progression. We can debate some details and argue Bix Beiderbeck and Chick Webb and Duke vs Count or whatever -- but there is a body of work and a history to observe and understand.

I contend that in the early 60's the main continuum of jazz split off in to several directions. These are defined by approach to rhythm, harmony, improvisation -- and continued to spawn more sub-genres. In some cases, things leaped to a meld with other things going on like the "fusion" movement of the 70's where some Jazz players were dropping acid too and wanting to be more like rock stars, or where the Afro-centric movements hit and all the bands went from suits to dashikis.

When Wynton and Branford and Terrence Blanchard showed up in the early 80's, they brought a return to the Miles Davis, ESP circa 64-66 and Wayne Shorter aesthetic. People like Geri Allen and Steve Coleman tried to do some things.

but now, here in 2010. Tell me where does Jazz go from here? What is the next step in the line? And if those steps are now removed from the very people and tradition that invented the art form, then what does it mean at all? if its just getting lost in a sea of contemperorary cross-over, hip hop, free improv whatever --

I suggest that right now at least, there is nothing being created and no scene that is pushing forwards. There is re-combinations, and their is great artistry but it didn't take a lot to find out about Monk, Miles and Trane in NYC in the 50's ... and there was a lot of excitement and it took in some cases decades for those innovations to proliferate far and wide. But now they have, when a white-boy like Ken Burns makes a seminal PBS series on Jazz, you know things have changed and reached a new place. So -- now what?

If Jazz was the music of Black America -- people danced to it, the songs and lyrics expressed something about the community and experience, and the harmonies, textures, and timbres were connected (some ethnomusiclolgists have found the roots of the very sounds of saxophones going back to ancient cultures in various regions in Africa) -- and as it became a higher and higher art-form, it got further and further away from the community -- new popular more accessible forms that could still be sang along to and or danced to filled in, right up to Hip Hop. And I'll absolutely call Hip Hop a huge innovation and new form and invention of great import.

Something may come behind that? BUT -- as we live in a certain era with certain dynamics and thinks become approriated so quickly and comodified -- for many now, "Jazz" = some kind of pseudo-sophisticated hipster that is white and digs a jazz brunch at Larkspur landing -- even here in SF which has the largest Jazz fest in the world now based on total year round programming, the audience is largely white, older affluent and the venues and the way its promoted and presented feels very far removed from the roots of the tradition. Doesn't mean there are no great concerts or that the audience is insincere or not getting it, but it mirrors moreso the symphonic crowd now, and it surely is not about innovation and exploration and new creation.

Coltrane and Miles were not interestedin standing still and just offering the same discoveries they made earlier.

You act like the notion of a fertile fomenting nexus for an art forms growth is obscure and only known after the fact. That people in the scene at the time or others around or nearby or getting word -- didn't happen.

In my case -- I'm drawn not to necessarily one scene or another (though I could be) but to the idea that scenes are going and trying to encounter them in some way and explore what they are thinking about and doing. That's part of art enagement for me.

Not merely to put my favorite record on, while I dick around the house. Which is cool too, but something else.

But I'm just one opinion, I'm open to someone trying to make the case for where the Jazz scene is most fertile now and making forwards progress -- or innovating by your definition of innovation? Hip me?!!!!

All that follows is my riff on what precedes it, from the last couple of days anyway....

*************

TV's taking the conversation on an interesting walk:

Why is innovation important? Why does it matter at all? Perhaps the problem with the 20th century was the over-emphasis on innovation which lead to a lot of $#@! being made.

I spend a lot of business days fetching buckets of innovation, which I find are a lot like pails of steam. I share TV's apprehension that innovation may be overemphasized, but I come to that from a sense that it's overemphasized because it's not either well-defined or understood.

Many dictionary definitions of innovation suck. Dictionary.com's, for example.

People are engaging with one another, or not. They've engaged with one another, obviously, and literally, well prior to any historical record. So 'engagement' is never 'new'; it is, if anything, <i><b>necessary</b></i>. So what, as regards cultural activities (music, painting, sculpture, theater, etc), <i>can</i> be substantively new, for us contemporary humans? It strikes me anything new is new only in degree rather than kind.

For example, in music I can choose to perform alone or with others; and (as a separate set of considerations) play louder, softer, faster, slower, from a broader or narrower tonal base, or by employing heretofore unavailable contraptions (pianos, saxophones, synthesizers, recording samples); but arguably it's not 'new' to vary one's contribution to the mix in any of those ways.

In this light, innovation is a highly subective qualifier. I may devise a way of organizing how people accomplish a particular thing in a way that hasn't been employed recently, and it may be so distinctive that to many of my contemporaries it is 'new' in the sense of 'I haven't seen/experienced/done that before', but in fact people <i>may</i> have done that before, or something much like it. My innovation may 'change the game', in the sense that people start doing something familiar in a new way ("hey, they're using my cell phone invention AS THEIR PRIMARY WAY OF COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE NOT RIGHT NEXT TO THEM. Whoohoo. How "new" is that - really?)

Human agency is "improvisation", is "innovation". In that way the term is descriptive without being of much value. Ryan Howard hits a low outside pitch on a rope OUT OF THE PLAYING FIELD off some random "new" Mets frontline pitcher - that's "new" in the sense that "man I haven't seen that done by anyone in my memory", but it's not "new" in the sense of "wow that guy just invented a heretofore unseen way to score a run in the game of baseball", because guys have hit home runs before. Granted, very,very, very few have hit them to the opposite field, on a line, to that kind of distance - but those are details, not NOVELTIES - or aren't they?

Tenured Vulture wrote:I think in some ways though the criticism you're leveling at [Marsalis] for not being a real innovator misses the point entirely. It's sort of like what happened in the 19th c. when orchestras started playing works by dead composers, something that had been quite uncommon before that. The idea at the core is that music (especially jazz) needs to be performed--the old recordings aren't enough to keep the form going. Recorded improvisation misses the point of improvisation.

Recorded improvisation is obviously not improvisation itself but a <i>record</i> of improvisation which is a jarring interposition and in itself is pretty fucking cool, and which does indeed skew one's appreciation of improvisation - because it allows a person to read MUCH MORE into what a particular improviser did than what that individual - than what that group of collaborating improvisers - intended at the time they were doing their improvising. It absorbs, and distorts, simultaneously.

So I guess I would only amend TV's comment to say that recorded improvisation is BESIDE THE POINT of improvisation - and thank goodness for that!

Soren wrote:Kurt Rosenwinkel yay guys

Can you guys help me out on this one? I'm trying to be open-minded but it's just a dude playing his guitar.

this page has to have the longest PTK post ever right?

Just for PTK, I have created a new genre of music which I think truly pushes the boundaries of any modern or past form of music.

It's loosely based on 3 rules:

-It's in 5/4 time
-The main accompaniment is a piano but only using notes above or below the standard 88 key piano range
-The vocals are a synthesized reading of one of PTK's posts.

I think I'll call it PTK Bop:
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" width="335" height="28" id="divplaylist"><param name="movie" value="http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=12526120-e96"><embed src="http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=12526120-e96" width="335" height="28" name="divplaylist" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

CalvinBall wrote:this page has to have the longest PTK post ever right?

I feel confident we haven't seen that one yet.

Philly the Kid wrote: my opinion is not that of a casual observer nor formed quickly.

so.

fucking.

what.

bleh wrote:Just for PTK, I have created a new genre of music which I think truly pushes the boundaries of any modern or past form of music.

It's loosely based on 3 rules:

-It's in 5/4 time
-The main accompaniment is a piano but only using notes above or below the standard 88 key piano range
-The vocals are a synthesized reading of one of PTK's posts.

I think I'll call it PTK Bop:
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" width="335" height="28" id="divplaylist"><param name="movie" value="http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=12526120-e96"><embed src="http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=12526120-e96" width="335" height="28" name="divplaylist" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

Well I appreciate the effort, and its actually somewhat entertaining - but once again, it's not a "new way". Just a "new instance".

I was processing speech and adding in assymetrical rhythm 20 years ago. Also, the idea of taking some text even from an internet blog or forum and re-contextualizing it or adding musical accompaniment, is not a new device either.

I can't believe you took the time?!

I want to say something about "improvisation" in Jazz. Improvisation is not just "do whatever you want", or "make something up out of nowhere on the spot". Jazz is a language and people learn the language and how to communicate within the language. And if you start doing a certain kind improv in the wrong context, you will be rejected. Improvisation in Jazz involves a certain freedom and feeling because its not a musician just reading off a page the same exact way ever time, but this thing gets over-romanticized a lot. Musicians know what belongs and what doesn't, and when someone is trying another approach. There is a term in Jazz, "playing in" or "playing out", when a guy is taking a solo. There is free improv and other kinds of structures for doing improv.

It's more like a rapper that "free-styles". And sadly, even in Jazz, there are many musicians who in fact do sound uninspired or immitative or lack their own sound -- or leave the music cold. Even though they are speaking the language and have some skill.

As for recordings versus live, that's another conversation. But because something is captured in a recording doesn't mean that the improv at the time wasn't rivetting. Nor, that it can't translate from recording to listener.

I do believe people experience music differently from recordings than live, and for that matter experience differently if they are just listening or hearing music while also seeing images. Perception is effected by many things including what you know or think you know, or how your body feels. You come to any experience with you personal baggage and expectations and experience.

Kid, I'm right now listening to a Jackie McLean performance of Charles Tolliver's Right Now, and thinking to myself that I've almost certainly listened to that piece at least twice as many times as either fellow did in their lifetimes (Tolliver still lives, so he might catch me, but...).

And for me, it's still new.

what are we to make of that?