Aging Avant-Garde

[clifford_thornton]

Thread police - where are the thread police?

[clifford_thornton]

The Bagatellen site is down - that says a lot!

[rostasi]

I've only time to look at the first and last page of this topic -

seems to have taken a nasty nosedive BTW -

so forgive any redundancy here, but:

"avant-garde" just refers to anything "of the vanguard"

(or outside of the accepted "norm" or expected)

and has only real meaning to those that stand outside the creative artist

(audio/visual/dance/text/etc) and judge their efforts, abilities and the possible histories.

It's a futile attempt to try to be avant-garde, because it's not in your hands - never was.

If you're young, you can get excited about new discoveries, but it doesn't mean that

just because they're new to you means that they're actually new.

(David Byrne discovers African music in the 80's)

...and as you get older, you begin to realize (if you get wiser as well) -

that it's fruitless to think that you're doing something that hasn't been done before.

You therefore begin to question what the term "avant-garde" really means

and discover that it's just a appellation given, from outside, to your work.

Some of the most pretentious players, composers, et al., for me, are the ones that

put on the hat (with shiny trim) of thinking that they're doing something new -

the self-consciously artistic elite.

...but the best, I think, are those that, with time (and that's what it takes),

have really created a distinctly personal way of creating their art

and don't have to crow about it. There'll be the fashions and fads

(Phill Niblock, I'm sure, is pleased as punch for this these days),

but history sorts it all out. In our work, "history" takes longer than our lifetime,

so you're gonna be disappointed if you're wanting the glories now.

Best work, best people, and best ideas come from those who just DO

what their heart and minds suggest without concerns of legacy.

I don't think John Cage, Anthony Braxton or Mark E. Smith

ever gave more than a passing second to such notions of legacy.

Rod (who has a date with a piano and some electronics - all three of which are not new)

---

Now playing: Luciano Berio - Sequenza VIIb for Soprano Saxophone (also not new)

edited to make more sense!

Edited October 26, 2006 by rostasi

[jon abbey]

"avant-garde" just refers to anything "outside of the vanguard"

I think you probably meant to type "outside of the mainstream", no? avant-garde does literally mean 'vanguard' in French.

the rest of your post makes some sense to me, although I think it's a pretty simplistic reduction. first of all, no one really uses the term 'avant-garde' anymore, and I think it's completely healthy to try to do something "new" within your own work as an artist. obviously you can't be totally sure that no one else has done a similar thing before, no one's heard everything. but that doesn't mean you can't try, you may think it's a fruitless pursuit, but I don't think that's true, and neither do plenty of others.

anyway, my original point was that there is a lot of groundbreaking going on in the EAI world over the last 6-7 years, no matter what Clementine/D. Strauss babbles to the contrary, so if someone is looking for an "avant-garde" which has some roots in jazz, that might be one place one might look. I wasn't proclaiming anything more than that, I was just surprised it wasn't mentioned in the first nine pages. that's it.

[jon abbey]

it's spelled Lilburn, not Lillburn.

yr boy Rowe (who in his Stanley Turrentine on CTI phase, let's say)

ok, silly rabbit, you win, not sure how I can argue with such a skewed perspective as that one. it did make me laugh, though...

[rostasi]

"avant-garde" just refers to anything "outside of the vanguard"

I think you probably meant to type "outside of the mainstream", no? avant-garde does literally mean 'vanguard' in French.

Yup, you're right - I meant to leave out the word "outside" - just "of the vanguard" (should make more sense now).

[jon abbey]

Matmos blow you way away, ersatz Abbey... waaaaaaaaay... "oh but they're composers, we improvise, improvisiation is holy... uh-huh.)

oh, man, now I know you're either just busting my chops or deaf. or both? Matmos? really? I don't even think Drew Daniel would agree with you there.

[clifford_thornton]

Other than the typo, I agree with you (Rod).

I try to refer to avant-garde jazz within a specific time frame, though admittedly did reference some young players whom I feel are doing some interesting and (maybe-nearly- ) vanguard things, earlier in this thread.

I can't speak for through-composed music or aleatory music as I know very little about the fields; ditto AMM/MEV/Gruppo/etc. (some of whose work I really, really like a LOT but stake no claim to it)

Edited October 26, 2006 by clifford_thornton

[jon abbey]

the rest of us for looking & listening a LOT harder, & also being way funkier

nah, you're a white boy, just like me, sorry. I listen to plenty of Fela and hiphop and whatever also, but I don't go around claiming ultra-funkiness, or trying to pretend to be something I'm not (feel free to take that on multiple levels).

[clifford_thornton]

White boys can't swing? Is THAT what you're saying?

Fuck that. Even AMMMusic (EUK-265, beeyotch) swings!

[jon abbey]

White boys can't swing? Is THAT what you're saying?

Fuck that. Even AMMMusic (EUK-265, beeyotch) swings!

nope, I'm saying that clementine/D. Strauss isn't very funky, no matter what he listens to. that's all I'm saying.

[clifford_thornton]

I think you've taken this to a whole new level, man. Clem too, but jeez, it's definitely Bags-level shit. Where's Derek Taylor when you need him?

[rostasi]

the rest of your post makes some sense to me, although I think it's a pretty simplistic reduction. first of all, no one really uses the term 'avant-garde' anymore, and I think it's completely healthy to try to do something "new" within your own work as an artist. obviously you can't be totally sure that no one else has done a similar thing before, no one's heard everything. but that doesn't mean you can't try, you may think it's a fruitless pursuit, but I don't think that's true, and neither do plenty of others.

I think that we agree here, but there may be a difference in

the subjective/objective outlook. It's fine for folks to try something new for themselves -

otherwise a creative artist could quickly become bored with his craft -

I'm speaking of the idea of creating something that proclaims itself to be new in the creative artistic culture. Some folks will create with their "eyes on the prize" - so to speak...other's will give up, because "there's nothing really new under the sun" while other folks will press on doing what they enjoy without regard to it's current or future possibilities. It's those folks that I enjoy the most.

Edited October 26, 2006 by rostasi

[jon abbey]

I think you've taken this to a whole new level, man. Clem too, but jeez, it's definitely Bags-level shit. Where's Derek Taylor when you need him?

not sure why I get the blame, I was only talking about music. Mr. Strauss was the one who made it personal.

[jon abbey]

Some folks will create with their "eyes on the prize" - so to speak...other's will give up, because "there's nothing really new under the sun" while other folks will press on doing what they enjoy without regard to it's current or future possibilities. It's those folks that I enjoy the most.

again, I don't really agree with the way you divide things here. first of all, there really is no "prize" in this world, even many of the biggest names have to take a full-time job or rely on others for financial support. the only prize is in funding institutions or the academic world, and people generally have to water down their art a fair amount to get those, that's not the artists I'm talking about.

but more importantly, what plenty of artists enjoy doing (or more strongly, need to do to live with themselves) is trying to create something genuinely new. you may think that's fruitless or a waste of their time, and you may even be right (although I don't think so), but that's what they feel compelled to do, just as much as the "folks you enjoy the most".

[jon abbey]

we

you, just you, silly rabbit.

[rostasi]

again, I don't really agree with the way you divide things here. first of all, there really is no "prize" in this world, even many of the biggest names have to take a full-time job or rely on others for financial support. the only prize is in funding institutions or the academic world, and people generally have to water down their art a fair amount to get those, that's not the artists I'm talking about.

"Prize" doesn't necessarily mean money or financial gain.

but more importantly, what plenty of artists enjoy doing (or more strongly, need to do to live with themselves) is trying to create something genuinely new. you may think that's fruitless or a waste of their time, and you may even be right (although I don't think so), but that's what they feel compelled to do, just as much as the "folks you enjoy the most".

Ok, read my last post. I didn't say that it was fruitless to try to create something new. I welcome artists to try to do something that's new to themselves. There's far too many that stay in a rut doing the same old routine.

[jon abbey]

none of us, most of us, tell us

seriously, man, this "us" conceit you insist upon is about as accurate as 2006 Bruce Springsteen thinking he speaks for the working-class.

I'd say I've heard a fair amount of classical electroacoustic music, although nowhere near as much as someone like Keith Whitman has. it tends to not interest me very much, with a handful of huge exceptions (Xenakis, Stockhausen-Telemusik, Ashley-Automatic Writing, Riley-You're Nogood, Dockstader-Apocalypse and Quatermass, Parmegiani-De Natura Sonoorum and La Creation Du Monde, Ferrari-Presque Rien, probably a few others). I don't think it's so directly connected to EAI, though; I know plenty of people who like one of those areas quite a bit and not the other (both ways), my darling Clementine being a local example.

[7/4]

again, I don't really agree with the way you divide things here. first of all, there really is no "prize" in this world, even many of the biggest names have to take a full-time job or rely on others for financial support. the only prize is in funding institutions or the academic world, and people generally have to water down their art a fair amount to get those, that's not the artists I'm talking about.

"Prize" doesn't necessarily mean money or financial gain.

The prize can be as simple as folks enjoying ones work. Or at least an article or a review. When they're raving about ones work, that's good.

Money or may be even lots of of it would be nice, but that ain't always happening.

And back to some early posts, if folks think the so called avant-garde sucks, take a break. Listen to some other shit for a while and come back with a fresh new perspective.

Edited October 26, 2006 by 7/4

[jon abbey]

none of us woulda cared if you just said, oh, there's this branch of (mostly) '50s/'60s codified music that's still going on, if you like the textures/timbres, it's an enjoyable ride, tho' i'll admit it's kinda uptight & NOT what i'd recommend to anyone as a primary music.

see, this is where you show your ignorance in your haste to write off an area you know little about. you're making connections that don't exist, not to mention just making shit up. I'm sure there are plenty of areas of music you know a ton about, and plenty of areas you know way more about than I do, but this isn't one of them.

and your three card monte style of posting may work with some people, but I can tell there's nothing under any of your shells on this topic, sorry.

[Chuck Nessa]

I'd say I've heard a fair amount of classical electroacoustic music, although nowhere near as much as someone like Keith Whitman has. it tends to not interest me very much, with a handful of huge exceptions (Xenakis, Stockhausen-Telemusik, Ashley-Automatic Writing, Riley-You're Nogood, Dockstader-Apocalypse and Quatermass, Parmegiani-De Natura Sonoorum and La Creation Du Monde, Ferrari-Presque Rien, probably a few others). I don't think it's so directly connected to EAI, though; I know plenty of people who like one of those areas quite a bit and not the other (both ways), my darling Clementine being a local example.

Did you misread this? "noooooooooooooooooo... ersatz Jon Abbey, who seems very eager to deflect attention from the fact he seems relatively uneducated in pre-electronic western classical (let's call it from Perotin to Present, tho' we can go further back than that w/appropriate degrees of conjecture) has to posture Significance."

[jon abbey]

Did you misread this?

you're right, I did. that's certainly true, although even more pointless to this discussion, in my opinion. you can't be an expert on everything, even if you think you are (ahem, Mr. Strauss).

[jon abbey]

also, when it is relevant, it tends to be in projects involving musicians who have forgotten more about classical music history than Mr. Silly Rabbit will ever know (Tilbury, Rowe).

[JSngry]

How old is Ras Moshe?