Re: [microsound] striated and smooth (was: music is the ultimate incorruptible)

[Stephen Hastings-King <roachboy@xxxxxxxxx>]

i have been doing improvisational music for a long time now.
i am interested in pieces that move--i am not interested in drift.
i dont "doodle" nor do i know any serious improvisors who "doodle"
if you see improvisation as doodling, then you are correct in not doing it.

"spontaneous composition" seems to me another term for improvisation, a
particular approach to it.  the question of whether you find the term
compelling leans on what you imagine yourself to be reacting against.  in
what i am involved with, structures are a significant emergent feature of
group work---i am dispositionally inclined to work with structures---because
i am interested in development---not drift.

i suspect that  if you liked the outputs, you would call it "spontaneous
composition" and if you didn't, you'd call it improvisation.

as for the earlier question of "access to process"---process is not a thing,
is not a possession---you cannot really explain  the process whereby you
wrote the question concerning access to process--this follows not from any
mystery connected to process--to making/doing--but rather to problems that
forms of visual representation encounter when trying to represent phenomena
that unfold in time, that unfold experiences of time.   you dont have access
to the compositional process through the artefacts that process results in
either---in pieces like steve reich's tape pieces, you have part of the
process of generating the sound staged directly as an asepct of the piece
itself---but this still does not give you access to the compositional
process--rather to a recursive structure that doubles compositional process
and in so doing basically transforms it.

if you want "access to process" you have to be content with parameters and
metastatements.  this obtains for practice in general, it seems to me.

stephen


On 3/19/06, rinus van alebeek <rinusfiles@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> (hello jeff)
>
> "improvisation is
> interesting in and of itself. there shall be no
> result. but constant rervision."
>
> (revision? or rearvision? i like rearvision)
>
> could you please explain this,
> the part with 'no result', i mean.
>
>
> maybe improvisation is
> you start with a theme and then you doodle away.
> if this is so
> you're right
> and I do not improvise.
>
> but i do something like spontaneous composition during my concert
> (i use tapes - four at a time - that i play at random,
> i have to react to new sounds right away,
> continuously,
> because i change a lot)
> and the result is a good fullfilling performance,
> as it is for me, so it is for the audience.
>
> you also wrote:
> "whereas improvisors just
> dont care to explain anything to anyone,"
>
> the running gag after my performance is
> (when the space is intimate enough)
> to ask if anybody has questions,
> and this often leads to long explanations and stories from my side
> and good questions from the public.
>
> don't know about other performers.
>
> greetings to you all,
>
> rinus
>
>
>
> --
> activities, releases, downloads http://emc.yserv.com/103
>
> The no-budget Foundation http://no-bf.blogspot.com/
>
>