Wednesday, April 23, 2008

THIS IS FOR YOU

ANOTHER ANOTHER ADDENDUM---All this speaking of self sustaining environments got me literally thinking about self sustaining environments. Self sustaining environments both literally, metaphysically, and metaphorically are basically totally foregin ideas to Americans. We're were too spread out, too divded who knows. I feel it is a noble thing to strive for. I start with my art. Anyway, Iceland literally has a self sustained environment. Family owned farms which feed the family and the community and what they dont consume goes back into the animals which goes back into the land and on and on. Much in the same way I consider boxing to be a physical manifestation of all this stuff, its possible that Iceland is a functional social manifestation of some of these ideas. Even the name Iceland is interesting. Ice and land...two seemingly diametric opposites side by side, yet one essentially feeds the other. You can read a little bit about Iceland here http://www.gpiatlantic.org/conference/reports/2107.htm

ANOTHER ADDENDUM---The fascinating Julian Cope wrote a great essay on Miles Davis' electric years. Miles used the RIGID PARAMETERS to create semmingly infinite music of breadth and scope holding the ability to divide and combine pretty much all forms of concept form and content. One again on the lengthy side so heres the link to this insightful piece of writing

http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/albumofthemonth/359

Also, over on the right is a link to perfect sound forever. in their archives is an interview with greatly missed Teo Macero. Teo talks at some length about the editing of Miles' tapes and creating new compositions out of endless variations ont he raw material. Once again not point and shoot, but FILMING THE PHOTO. Miles and Teo's ability to use both studio and live recordings to combine aesthetics to transmogrify raw materials all within the system of downbeats landing on the ONE combined with Miles' visionary "voodoo chords" (back to elements and self sustaing environments and also putting elements into direct opposition of each other) makes these two FUCKING GENIUSES perfect examples of all this stuff.

AND NOW THE ORIGINAL POST

To anyone creatively inclined in any area, Bob Dylan provideds a great gift in his book Chronicles. It explains the Lonnie Johnson "Triplet Theory" in detail. MOJO magazine among others have said things like the theory is "vague and meaningless to the layman". Which is bullshit. Various message boards claim the theory is an elaborate hoax. More bullshit. It's about perception, people! Long before reading about Dylan's theory I developed theories and techniques of my own in regard to poetics. My mind did sommersaults when I read Bob's thoughts on this subject. These techniques and applications are certainly not exclusive to Bob Dylan or Lonnie Johnson. And god knows Im not the first writer to stumble upon this stuff. It's quite obvious (FUCKING OBVIOUS)that the following people operated in very similar areas of methodology and aesthetics---Orson Welles, William Burroughs, Andy Warhol, Pablo Picaso, John Cage, Sun Ra, Miles Davis, Frederico Fellini, Bryon Gyson and many many many others. At any rate from a musical standpoint here's a link to an interesting breakdown of Bob/Lonnie's theory in more or less practical musical terms. I didnt just cut and copy cuz its pretty lengthy.

http://www.dylanchords.com/professors/lonnie.htm

Added ten minutes later---

oh yeah theres this

http://www.skytopia.com/project/scale.html

11 comments:

Mr Bigpants Cock (of the) Walk said...

oy yoy yoy

Mr Bigpants Cock (of the) Walk said...

To a large extent this kind of thinking makes me think of being exclusionary, like if you dont "get it", you should just go off and get happy about sitcoms, get off on paying yr bills, get excited for the new cheddar blah blah burger at apple bees and the 80gb ipod, get fat get old and die. like my instinct was never enough; it needs to be coupled with systems like the kinds that caused me to flunk classes in high school cause ample grief and keep me from doing the things I wanted to do.

Mr Bigpants Cock (of the) Walk said...

well, so maybe i wont reach for the cheddar burger bleach filled 80GB syringe anyhow. numbers can be yr friend when they are limited to the "RIGID PARAMETERS" of 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9.
to anyone else still suffering the vertigo of the dylan article, although I dont want to speak for him, Rich put it into a few pinpointed wonderful words---

DIVIDE:
form
content
concept
:COMBINE

Richard said...

This topic could take over the entire blog. We could go super fuckin deep on this. Those Rigid Parameters are one's best friend.

Richard said...

For what I like to refer to as THE PERCEPTIVE INDIVIDUAL

Richard said...

also in addition to the numbers thing---numbers form patterns, and the whole real crux of this is you can go ON or OFF. ON pattern/rythym/meterstructure/etc or OFF. you can set the on and off against each other or set them in harmonious counterpoint (for instance 3 & 4), it goes on and on. Its a creative persons best friend. You can basically create at all times. The dylan book talks about how enthusiasm or inspiration do not become the main vehicles for getting something expressed or getting it across. the power lies not in the emotion but in the structure or anti structure if thats whats happening at the time. like i said last night its like waiting for the storm to come or if you orient yourself with what were talking about the storm becomes irrelevant as being the only source it becomes part of the pattern. Youre creating with the sun or with the moon or whatever lunar or seasonal cycle. youre ont he fuckin grid. and when youre on you can always go off cuz you always have something to come back to. and a 3 is always a 3 a 6 is always a 6 so if you off into abstraction or being esoteric or whatever you need to go into you wont get lost or confused or uncertain cuz underneath or to the side of it youve got 2 3 4 5 6 7 etc that you can jump RIGHT BACK ONTO.

simply put EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING ive created from radar/grain onwards would be IMPOSSIBLE without this. Scatter would have been a disaster. it simply wouldnt be possible. all of it wouldnt exist.

and this stuff can work for you.

as tim and i talked about alot of people do this stuff and dont even realzie it

Deanna said...

I'm increasingly becoming a fan of perimeters. Thanks for posting this, Rich. I haven't had time to read all of either article yet, because work keeps getting in the way...but I will.

Richard said...

Oh and Tim remember that one in depth conversation we had about 4 or 5 months ago talking about creating things as building environments? self sustaining environments? well thats ALL TOTALLY FUCKING RELATED to this stuff. thats kinda of a abstract extension way of approaching it. Last night we talked about elemnts, sesonal lunar etc but also burroughs creating a self contained mythology with western lands etc. he was building an environment. I really meant to bring up the building creating self sustaining environments last night and was kicking myself that at two different points i failed to. its actualyl a very fucking important component. remember the bit about telling you that one splish is on the one? well yes it is and patr of whatmakes it one the one and on the grid is that those little elements up at the top are like the topsoil or dew or rain etc whereas the indian woman is trees, the text is a lake or ocean or land mass etc. and the environemtn fits inbto the other environemnts of the book and that book fits in with the other books and the other books fit in the the movies and that fits in with everythiing else right down to what im typing now. Zappa called it conceptual continuity but i prefer conceptual integrity. it all fucking fits it all goes back down to numbers and method and everythign else weve been talking about. just wanted to makre that point cuz i was so dumb to forget it last night

Richard said...

youre welcome deanna. i hope its helpful. i see we were making comments at the same time

Richard said...

well lo and fucking behold- look whats in the NY Times today


For eight years the jazz musicians Michael Moore, Lindsey Horner and Michael Vatcher have been playing Bob Dylan music without vocals, guitar or harmonica. But there’s no anxiety in the transference. They aren’t sweating over a desire for the songs to be more harmonically complicated, nor straining to make their instruments sing in Bob Dylan’s voice or phrasing. The band doesn’t come off as a concept. The three musicians find what they like in the songs, letting the melodies guide them, and play in the wide-open way they like to play.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Hiroyuki Ito for The New York Times
From left, Michael Moore, Lindsey Horner and Michael Vatcher.
Jewels and Binoculars, as the cooperative trio calls itself (it’s a phrase from the song “Visions of Johanna”), played two sets at Roulette on Monday night. It was a mellow, articulated gig, clear and varied and often quite beautiful. With these songs the band has the enormous options that jazz affords them. Some of those options come from instrumentation: Mr. Moore played alto saxophone, clarinet and bass clarinet, and Mr. Vatcher used different kinds of sticks and resonating coils to switch up the colors of his drumming. Others came from vastly different ideas for different arrangements, from early (“Masters of War”) to middle (“One More Cup of Coffee”) to later Dylan (“Man in the Long Black Coat”). Sometimes those arrangements were vague indications of the original songs’ temperaments — frustrated, peaceful, mournful, whatever — and sometimes they weren’t. This isn’t a literal-minded band; its project isn’t about the lyrics.

“The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll” came out in whispers and stopped dramatically short: the band had no need to mimic all the verses. But “Dear Landlord” and “With God on Our Side” were much heavier. Mr. Vatcher traded his pencil-width sticks for bigger ones, and here the songs had grooves, boiling free-jazz sections and a tight coordination between alto saxophone and drums. Parts of them sounded like bits of old Ornette Coleman or Albert Ayler records: Mr. Moore improvised on two levels, both melodically and with sound and texture, shrieking through the horn or playing split-toned notes.

For his part, Mr. Horner, the bassist, kept the songs bouncing in their tonic chords; he got at the centered drone that’s there in so many Dylan songs. One way of being true to any piece of music is to look intuitively for what’s underneath it. After that, you can put anything you like on top.

Richard said...

the above article is stunning to me, improvising on two levels continuous drones put anything you want on top combing elements cutting to the square root, the fucking use of the word transference. transmogrifying form yet sustaining the original model going on and off form. this is basically perfect