K wrote:
>I think that--whatever you call
>it--solidarity/frat--in art is not necessarily
>crucial to group-produced art. I know several
>musician groups who think fraternity is bad for
>their music. They, instead think that tension,
>discord, hate, disgust works best.
But I'd say that tension and discord could be a source of solidarity for the performers and listeners. I'm not fond of fraternities to begin with; sororities either. A metaphorics of music is interesting in this context, and I think it's an understudied model of political dynamics.
And I think one should consider big differences between the group dynamics in "free" improvisation and those in, say, hard bop. Just like there are big differences between John Cage and Arnold Schoenberg, his teacher. For instance, free improvistation welcomes "mistakes"; error, such as it is in this context, is often the most "musical" thing; and a slip is not a personal thing, it's a part of everyone's work. And then there's no more error, in the sense that one can lose the form in a bop tune, and gain the guilt, and scorn from other players. There's no pre-set program against which each player tests their mastery, and tests each other. There is a much greater sensitivity, it seems to me, to power dynamics in free improv. But some of it is kind of pablum noodling, too.
I'm rambling . . .
You mention the group consciousness of a concert. This is something I'm wary of, this kind of group interpellation, but it's a complicated thing. I think it's about autonomy: one should be able to cough during the quiet part, and leave when one gets bored, or just fall asleep. It's interesting to consider the autonomy/solidarity question .
-Alec
"This life is lit with all the sleep it can absorb." --J Ashbery
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com