From: hsu@sp24.csrd.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)
Subject: Re: Improvisation where has it gon
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:36:58 GMT

M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

>I know that *real* flamenco players rarely if
>ever surprise themselves by coming up with new stuff on the spur of the
>moment in performance

Me:
>>Read the chapter on flamenco in Derek Bailey's classic text Musical
>>Improvisation, recently back in print.
>>

M23231 again:
>Excuse me, but who is Derek Bailey? I never have heard his name mentioned
>before among flamenco cognoscenti. 

That's because Derek Bailey is not a flamenco guitarist. However he is
one of the most respected improvising guitarists active today. 

>If he says that flamenco players do truly
>make up amazing new licks on the spur of the moment, he is simply repeating a
>common misconception that has been printed over and over again...
etc. etc.

He interviewed a flamenco guitarist, about the role of improvisation in
flamenco. (And no, it's quite different from the role of improvisation in
jazz.)

M again:
> Why is this such a prized talent (if it really exists at all)?
>...For every truly brilliant lick one invents--spontaneous or otherwise--
>there are **many** that do not deserve to be repeated.

Me:
>So? The point of improvisation is not that it's *perfect*. It's the
>excitement of observing the process of invention, the development of
>ideas, the real-time interactions with other performers and the
>environment, and the *danger* of taking risks and negotiating unmapped
>territory.

M:
>You extrapolate beyond my context here. 

The boundaries of your context was not clear from your article. And
I assume you're going beyond your original, limited context when
you continued:

>However, the listener doesn't participate in the "excitement" and "danger" 
>since he has no way of knowing how close to the edge the player is. 

Of course he does. I know many, many listeners and music lovers who are
just as knowledgeable about the repertories and discographies as most
musicians. You hang out with lousy listeners.

>When 99% of what emerges is banal and
>trite it doesn't take long for a listener to get bored. 

That's why *good* improvisers are so revered. Because they are able to
steer away from the banal and trite, most of the time.

>So for a pro I
>guess such improvisation could be really exciting--a matter of career risk
>would be exciting, wouldn't it?

(Boy, talk about banal and trite.) 

Most of the improvising musicians I know (personally or through their work)
are not able to make a living from their music. They do it because they
love it, because it's something they *have* to do. And a big part of
the rewards of improvised music is taking the risks, and *delivering*
a good performance despite putting yourself in danger.

M:
>I suspect that a lot of the hype about "playing
>one's own music" comes from recording company executives who know that
>recording already copyrighted stuff is not as profitable as recording new
>stuff that is copyrightable.

And to clarify:

>Well, I'm sure not talking about the role of improvisation in the history of
>music. Where did you get that idea?

When you asked "why is improvisation such a valued skill, if it exists
at all?".

>I'm simply mentioning one reason why there
>is so much of a fixation on the importance of playing one's own stuff today
>and since the end of the folk music era (ca 1966-70). 

I'm not sure what 1966-70 has to do with the end of the folk music era.
What small part of folk music ended? Folk music is alive and well today,
it just doesn't appear on major labels a lot.

>When I was a kid in the
>'50s nobody "played their own songs" or "improvised" or or drooled over the 
>idea of it. 

Well maybe you should have hung out with more interesting people.

>You got a guitar or banjo and played songs you heard on records or
>found in books. Many of the songs recorded were public domain or composed by
>some professional composer who didn't perform his own stuff. The level of
>importance given to originality today is a new attitude and a new phenomenon 
>in music--not historical.

The most revered musicians have always been the ones who brought an
original touch to what they played, whether they worked with their own
material, or older material. Peggy Lee, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez etc all
worked with other people's material, but they were respected not because
they sounded like any old kid on her/his porch doing the same song, but
because they sounded like *themselves*.

Bill
Xref: sparky alt.guitar:6255 rec.music.makers:8410 rec.music.bluenote:5795