Onwards!

Rather than write a 'best of 2009' blog like everyone else seems to around this time, I'm going to use this opportunity to talk about my plans for the next few years, namely in my development as a musician.
I love playing and listening to many different kinds of jazz/improvised music (Jazz from here-on in). Some of them I can come back to again and again, in both playing and listening. Some I need only a small fix. My point is, there are very few, comparatively, that I can come back to over and over again and never be sick of. This is by far more true of the jazz made in the last 20 years or so. I don't see this as a negative thing, as a slight on the music that has been made during this time, all it means to me is that I need to fill that void for myself. I need to create that music that I want to hear, to come back to over and over.
This music is rhythmic, it deals with phrases, it deals with texture in a polyphonic way.
It is not completely improvised (if that is even possible), but is based on a developed language amongst the band members, and hopefully, a whole community of players. It will probably have an element of formal composition, but these compositions will rarely dictate an entire, maybe not even the majority, of a piece. They are points of departure, that are not so contrived that they seem sonically separate from the act of spontaneous group composition. In fact, these compositions should be created using the exact same tools we use for improvising.
Lofty ideals maybe, but what else can I have when trying to create the music I want to hear?

Should.....

Oh boy it's been a long time since my last post......

"we're all in trouble, you know",

a fellow musician said to me last night.
We were on the topic of improvised music, and he mentioned an article he'd read that "all music should appeal to the composer, player and improviser in everyman". My friend's point being that he thought we were all screwed, due to the usual moderately well attended gig.

Two thoughts about this...the first, probably my least favorite word: 'should'.

This is a word usual used by people trying to sell an idea. Occasionally it's used out of genuine consideration for someone else. Usually, and particularly in critique circles it seems, the word is used because someone feels that something is 'wrong'. If you've ever checked out Cognitive Behaviour Therapy you'll know this already. For those of you that haven't, 'should' is something people often use to make others, or themselves, feel bad about what's happening currently.

The second, the assumption that 'everyman' is the goal towards which artists strive. Obviously for someone who's ever thought about the role of art seriously must realise how ridiculous this statement seems. As I said at the time: "that presumes that 'everyman' is right". Rather than dwell on whether they are or not, why not just work on making the most honest and informed art you can? I think when artists become concerned with what other people think more than what they think themselves they are doomed. I can't imagine this existence ending in any other way than hollowness and unhappiness.

There are plenty of people who create art that's enjoyed by much of the mainstream, but true artists don't create art to appeal to a specific demographics, they make art, and they make the art they make, because they can't imagine it any other way.

End of rave.

For anyone who's interested, I have a youtube channel, which has a couple a clips of me playing, including my latest trip of trying to play Elliott Carter's "Two Diversions" in time......here it is.

Bye for now...