[NewMusic] W.A. Mathieu

[David Slusser]

On Nov 1, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Jon Raskin wrote:
> I really meant form though as opposed to aesthetic.  There is a  
> place where there is form in improvisation and the games are at  
> that line area which is formed by the boundries of the individual  
> interaction.
> Free Jazz, Free improvisation was move away from an over used form  
> but rules have evolved and the language has mutated.
>
> From: Matthew Goodheart <matthew at matthewgoodheart.com>
>
> I've heard the recording several times, and I'd agree with you,
> although I'd use the term "aesthetic" rather than form; the aesthetic
> intent follows Mathieu's change since the early 70's, which seems to
> focus on a certain "spirituality" which might be perceived as "new
> age," though certainly far more sophisticated and technically complex
> than what one would normally associate with that term. Knowing what
> little I do about the aesthetics of folks on this list, I think that
> Game/No Game would not be greeted well, but that Ghost Opera could be
> of interest in some quarters. Also, GO involves a greater number of
> people, so it's interesting to hear how the games play out in that
> more complex scenario.

Any relation to Ghost Trance Music?  Perhaps so in terms of formula.

Thanks for posting the link to the games.  They jibe with my Improv
Derby collection, and are like individual operations in Zorn's game  
theory.
Mr. Raskin pointed out form as the point of these things.  The aesthetic
is not on the paper - that comes with the particular individuals.  Games
should get respect for what they are, and what the name implies.   
They're
totally unnecessary in the few long-running improv ensembles I've had
the pleasure of continuing with - we don't need help improvising form
since longevity has built mutually recognizable cornices.  However,  
they're
totally great as introductory tools.  The strongest point is that  
each is just
one simple idea.  That's more than enough when you're working with
substantial talent. It's especially helpful when the talents are  
idiomatically
diverse.  I think we need to play with people outside our safety zones.

I actually ran across a W.A. Mathieu quote days before the posting.
 From a jazzrag archive snippet:

Atonality In Jazz	By Bill Mathieu		May 10th, 1962

Most so-called atonal jazz of today has been at best inconsistently so.
There have been some notable exceptions, especially in the work of
Lennie Tristano, and some of the newest music, all of which I haven't
heard.  On the whole, jazzmen today are not eager to master the vast
new disciplines necessary to gain the freedom of intentional disregard
of key.

(The really outstanding example I've found of this is Duane Tatro's
1955 recording titled Music For Moderns.  By the book, it's totally
atonal, yet the formal structure and improvisation lean to jazz.)

another archive snippet (and another thread, indeed):

The Further Adventures of Sonny Rollins
	     by Joe Goldberg				August 26, 1965
"The average Joe knows just as much as I do," Rollins said.  "I'm the
average Joe, and I think people recognize that.  That's why I play
standards.  Everybody knows "Stardust".  These guys who play their
own tunes, they can cover up a lot of things, but if you play the
melody of "Stardust", everybody can tell whether you're doing it
right or not."

(Something about my earlier posting suggests we need to make the
malleable outre more de-riguer in the average Joe's musical diet.)