Anthony Braxton: Search and Destroy

i've read about composed bits designed to sound like improv and vice versa, various spaces for improvisation. I like the idea of not being able to tell composed from improv (particularly, i wish completely improvised stuff was _not_ explained to the degree of being labelled as completely improvised, as it gives the game away sometimes)

i find it easier to make the leap of understanding with braxton's later compositions which come with more colourful and expansive drawings and sometimes even short sci-fi stories. I imagine the drawings collapse some aspects of what i presume the graphic scores contain, whilst including some metaphor or other 'clues'.

(i think i've heard the 'quick succession of equally timed and spaced notes' strategy too often in his music cf: other systems)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=307&item=4066600279&rd=1

$160?? damn.

But yes, Hatxxx are playing into the hands of speculators whilst letting them down periodically, but the consumers are left the more precarious and costly of options.

As the market for these expensively recorded documents swells and contracts with fashion, i suppose Hat's bottom line might be a concern, but being the hobby-expense little-brother of swiss airlines and banks, and seeing as how Hat have themselves speculated on the future value of landmark recordings (eg purchasing the Ayler European recording, bankrolling McPhee and Koglmann) i think it's fair to see them as operating like a typical main city up-market art gallery.
(The issue of limited run music in the age of CDRs/'net polarises elitism vs. labour-of-love projects).

the "Charlie Parker Project" is a great Brax-Hat (esp. as playing someone else's "standards") and "2 (ensemble) compositions" & "7 compositions (trio)" are my favourite Hat-Braxs, both featuring colouful & one-off musical casts/events.

i wonder if more people just choose to sell their Willisau 4tets of all of them, for being more boring ?

fwiw, Hats seem to find their way into (at least) the NZ public lirary system (like DGs), whereas the smaller/indie US jazz labels never appear

His liner notes to the disc "Five Compositions (Quartet) 1986" seem like they might be valuable but I also find his writing style a tad dense. I was wondering if I could run his comments and my interpretations by you to see what you make of it.

I'll give just the first paragraph with my comments/questions in caps. We could maybe look at the following paragraphs afterwards. He writes:

"The conceptual and vibrational reality [I'M GUESSING THIS JUST MEANS
BOTH THE IDEAS BEHIND THE MUSIC AND THE ACTUAL SOUNDS OF THE MUSIC] of my quartet music in the 1980s has evolved into a multi-dynamic platform for extended participation [=PERFORMERS ARE INVOLVED ON SEVERAL LEVELS?] that is quite separate (and different) from earlier quartet models (say, from the 1960s and 1970s time cycle) - and this change is not separate from the new strategies that have clarified my composite music system. Those strategies (in this context) involve the implementation of cross and divergent structural operatives that can be utilized in whole or in part throughout the total system of my
music. What this means is that any given instrumental part from any of the 230 structures of my expanding music system (or group of musics) can now be separated from its original identity imprint territory and integrated into the greater or summation system of my music (as an entity with itw own logic and focus) - in any mixture
or set. [IS HE SAYING THAT ALL THE COMPOSITIONS ARE SORT OF LOOSE AND INTERRELATED IN THE SENSE THAT YOU CAN TAKE AN INSTRUMENTAL PART FROM
ONE PIECE AND INCORPORATE IT INTO ANY OTHER PIECE??? THIS IS AN INTERESTING IDEA IF SO.] Structural material used in this manner becomes a reservoir of available logics (and focuses) that can be employed to suit the needs of the creative instrumentalist or thinker. [DOES THIS JUST MEAN THAT THE NOTATED ELEMENTS SERVE AS GUIDES FOR IMPROV?]

I've picked up Composition Notes E as well as Tri-Axium Writings but I
still have trouble understanding Braxton's scores. Looking at Composition No 110A, for example, none of the symbols appear to be among those listed in his pages-long 'legend' at the start of Notes and there is no explanation provided at all for the graphics (one looks like a silhouette of a cartoon ghost, the other maybe, er, a baby ghost).

"The conceptual and vibrational reality [I'M GUESSING THIS JUST MEANS BOTH THE IDEAS BEHIND THE MUSIC AND THE ACTUAL SOUNDS OF THE MUSIC]

Right, I think so.

has evolved into a multi-dynamic platform for extended participation [=PERFORMERS ARE INVOLVED ON SEVERAL LEVELS?]

Perhaps, and I'm not sure exactly what "multi-dynamic" means, but I interpret the entire paragraph as being related to the structure of his compositions. More on that here:

What this means is that any given instrumental part from any of the 230 structures of my expanding music system (or group of musics) can now be separated from its original identity imprint territory and integrated into the greater or summation system of my music (as an entity with itw own logic and focus) - in any mixture
or set. [IS HE SAYING THAT ALL THE COMPOSITIONS ARE SORT OF LOOSE AND INTERRELATED IN THE SENSE THAT YOU CAN TAKE AN INSTRUMENTAL PART FROM
ONE PIECE AND INCORPORATE IT INTO ANY OTHER PIECE???

Yes, and I can answer that one with some confidence. Braxton now views each of his compositions (he uses the word "structures" above) as not just pieces in themselves with clear beginnings and ends - though they can still be played that way - but as interrelated components of an entire system of music. This way, his pieces no longer have clear beginnings and ends, and can be employed in various ways by the performer. This is why one sometimes sees song titles like "Composition 304 (+91, 151, 164)" - elements of all those compositions would be used in a piece based around Composition 304, and the overall structure of the piece would be determined (probably in real time) by the performers. Because of Braxton's idea of using all his music as one system, performers can shape the music and craft very long forms, if they want - I think this is probably what Braxton means by "multi-dynamic platform for extended participation."

This concept is related to some of Braxton's grander, more ambitious ideas. In the next couple years, Innova will release a DVD or multi-CD set in which about 50 musicians played in a huge, cavernous ice rink for eight hours. There were, I'm guessing, parts or wholes of a hundred or so individual Braxton pieces present, and the musicians were organized into groups and subgroups that would form and dissolve and play different compositions while moving around the space. In addition to overhead mics, the performance was captured with mics carried around the space by "friendly experiencers" who would stop and listen to a small group for a while, or maybe play something with them. So the experience of listening to the recording should be something like walking through the space, focusing on one thing or another even though there are a dozen or more different pieces being played at once - kind of like walking through a museum.

I don't think Braxton has ever said this explicitly to me, but I think his idea of using his entire body of works as a single system is connected to deeper ideas about removing his music from traditional boundaries of time and space (that reads like I'm smoking up, but whatever) while still preserving the integrity of the music - this way, boundaries are less fixed. Braxton often talks about playing music for entire days in huge outdoor spaces, and he has already experimented some with using the internet to do interactive trans-continental projects.

Structural material used in this manner becomes a reservoir of available logics (and focuses) that can be employed to suit the needs of the creative instrumentalist or thinker. [DOES THIS JUST MEAN THAT THE NOTATED ELEMENTS SERVE AS GUIDES FOR IMPROV?]

Improvised elements are usually involved, but I wouldn't describe the compositions as secondary to improv or anything like that.

I don't think I've seen the score for 110A, but whenever I saw things in Braxton's scores I didn't understand I asked him. Sometimes I got clear answers, but often I got intentionally oblique ones. I think Braxton likes to leave a lot of things in his scores open to interpretation. He has a new series of compositions called "Falling River Musics" whose scores look much like the titles of many of his earlier pieces - they're extremely vague and the "legends" are as unhelpful as the one you describe. There are lots of symbols on them but no explanation of what they mean, and the symbols are often not obviously related to what actually appears on the scores! Braxton likes this, I think - the music is almost completely unfixed but the scores place the performer in a state of concentration that creates a different dynamic than you'd get in free improv.

George:

Charlie, i'm curious,
how did actually having things explained change/ stimulate your perception of the music ?

Well, you know how some people think Braxton is a genius and others think he's completely crazy? It intensified both those feelings for me! (I mean that in the nicest way possible.) He's a really complex person, and his motivations are often multi-layered and obscure. I know I'm not supposed to say things like this on ILM, but I think there's a lot of depth to his music, both conceptually and in his playing, that the books about him only hint at. (Even though I think the Graham Lock and Radano books are really pretty good.) Whatever, I'm sounding like his lap-dog now, but I've never met anyone like him, that's for sure.

Sometimes the prose and picturebook stuff seems more fun than the music, which has boiled down to a few set systems to my ears over the years. Oh, he's a great post-trane multi-instrumentalist, but his bands do let him down (eg Crispell, who follows orders or plays in a set only-so-far-out unengagingly academic and constant tonal area).

To me he's like Cage. If they paid me to do that, i'd be sneaking as much humour in as i could too. Trouble is, Cage represents a possibility that's just too far (for me), while Brax just seems too much a control freak (again, i'm not talking about his teaching). The pictures of hime, he always seems to be either chuckling or just looking way too serious (cool).

he still makes me laugh

This is a book by a very enthusiastic convert who was on the spot (played on Eugene). Heffley chases up many references from the notes, brings in the other two books and plenty of other sources. The various mythological clues are treated consistently. Most usefully perhaps for you Sundar, he provides plain-speak/ parallel universe walkthroughs for many of Braxton's different instrumental configurations or categories.

Given the volume of Braxton compositions out there it's a drop in the ocean, but the various categorical and individual composition assessments are pretty well organised, brief yet fair for a 400 page book.
Braxton always provides comparisons, opinions and parallels in the jazz tradition, so a fair amount of the book attempts to place him in the continuum, which may not be news.

However for a book that's both introduction and deep-end plunge it's undoubtedly sincere and a labour of love, possibly even a devotional work. Of course the enigmatic mystery mumbo-jumbo that is Braxton qua words still seems to escape, the answers typically raising more questions, but that's Braxton's edge intact i suppose.

I've heard from someone who attended a lecture of his that the graphics are symbols and there are in fact more thorough and comprehensible scores behind the pieces. Also, that it all starts to seem totally sensible once you give him time.

but i think his ideas about *music* i.e. those ideas that, in whatever idiosyncratic personal fashion, may feed into his music... and those ideas that are offered, didactically, as theories of musical history and development are two different things, or perhaps can be measured by different standards. just b/c his music often comes out as compelling doesn't mean his ideas about music history hold much water.

i guess part of this is just my extreme allergy to obscurantist writing and overtheorizing. and the familiar campus cult of personality that often develops around such figures.

Let me add some love for the Wadada Leo Smith/Anthony Braxton duo on Pi Saturn, Conjunct the Grand Canyon in a Sweet Embrace. It is a conversation between two massive souls, rivals Ornette/Cherry for cosmic connection. Some really nice moments.

And since I posted my love for Quartet (London) 1985 above, I picked up (Coventry). The interviews are great and the playing is better than on the London disc, if that is possible. It all feels less confined. Anyway from what I've heard, these two are my favorite Braxton band.

A lot of those Leo's are really good. Some faves are the duo with Evan Parker, the duo with Abraham Adzinyah (sort of a Hamid Drake-like drummer, hadn't heard of him before), and Composition No. 94 For Three Instrumentalists (1980). It's easy to listen to this stuff for days since everything is long and packed with ideas. Sometimes it can be overwhelming but there's always something new around every corner. I do see the humor in some of this stuff, but I always get the sense that Braxton is concentrating very hard.

I have fond memories of Eugene but haven't heard it in years.

Wrong.

In the "just remotely" category, maybe some of the duet/trio pieces with synthesist Richard Teitelbaum, touched upon upthread?

there's no tyondai braxton thread (his son) so here:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27698

Lolz that's terrific.

The Arista records were given a re-issue on Mosaic. Got three on LP from the years of looking at 2nd hand shops: For Trio, Duets '76 and Alto '79. The former especially has become one of my very faves, of only a handful I have from his massive discog.

Not really going to get this boxset but I was wondering about For Four Orchestras. Like how does it compare to Gruppen, for example?

Read an article or two about his time there. Seems really amazing in retrospect how they issued the guy's work for five years, obv orchestral music still gets funding from a variety of resources/foundations that support classical music but how could someone from a jazz background even begin to think of getting a project that functions in that grey area between jazz and classical funded?

Bit late in answering that but what the heck. The thing is, at the time Braxton's signing to Arista made good commercial sense for Arista. Record sales were booming, even sales of jazz records were booming. He was a marketable commodity and Arista made great play out of him in their advertising campaigns. The first few records he did for them were profitable. When he finally got dropped it wasn't because he was failing them in particular. The bottom fell out of the jazz market in general.

i don't know if it's easy find these days, but graham lock's book forces in motion is a very readable account of that quartet's UK tour in 1985 (lock travelled with them) and also an introduction to braxton's work as a whole, which i think generally squishes the "brainy yet bloodless" perception -- a lot of it is pretty funny as i recall (often at lock's expense).

https://store.doverpublications.com/0486824098.html

^^^apparently an updated edition from a couple of years back

Just found the Lock book for $9 with free shipping, so that's on its way here now.

That Important set looks great, but I may wait a bit before pulling the trigger on a box set.

I see that the Coventry disc (whose reputation precedes it, iirc) was released in full and also in a single-disc version (which of course is less expensive). I may grab the abridged version for now.

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions!

The Lock book is fucking fantastic (reissued last year). It absolutely cracked Braxton's music open for me, just because learning about him as a human being - his weird sense of humor and personality quirks - allowed me to think about what I was hearing in a completely different way.

Braxton's 1980s quartet with Marilyn Crispell, Gerry Hemingway and Mark Dresser

^^^I love this group so much but have had mixed feeling any time I've tried to venture further into Braxton's catalog. Willisau (Quartet) 1991 is probably my favorite but generally just really enjoy everything they did.

^^^ thread revive prompted me to put Willisau on tonight

always preferred the small group stuff before but duos are really working for me atm - recently released one with harpist jacqueline kerrod is great, as are the ones with miya masaoka, fred frith, derek bailey (who I don’t always love), max roach, richard teitelbaum, doubtless plenty more I haven’t heard yet

I feel like his larger scale long form compositions deserve more attention than they get, but they can be intimidating. what I’ve heard from the iridium set is great

it’s pretty shitty the treatment (or lack thereof) he’s received from classical gatekeepers- ditto for bill dixon, cecil taylor, ornette & others - for which i can think of reasons. some of the orchestral stuff I’ve heard could have been better performed/conducted/recorded. he has a right to be bitter about boulez and fucking zappa

the standards are enjoyable enough but don’t blow my mind like some of his other stuff does. maybe they’re not supposed to. idc about “not swinging” or “getting the changes wrong” as some jazz nerds complain but his playing is much more exciting elsewhere imo

Listening to the new Thumbscrew record and got the idea of cross-referencing his discography for multiple interpretations of the same composition...I'm guessing the below is the best resource for that? sadly outdated...

https://www.restructures.net/BraxDisco/BraxDisco.htm

ah.. thanks for the new Thumbscrew album alert, this sounds ace.

Listening to the two duo albums Braxton recorded with Wadada Leo Smith live at Tonic in 2002/2003, Organic Resonance and Saturn, Conjunct the Grand Canyon in a Sweet Embrace.