Sunday, December 14, 2014

Origins and Eventual Uses


One word should be added here about the origin and the purpose of punishment [free-jazz], two considerations radically distinct and yet too frequently confounded.  How have our genealogists of morals [parent culture] treated these questions?  Naively, as always.  They would discover some kind of "purpose" in punishment [free-jazz], such as to avenge, or to deter, and would then naively place this purpose at the origin of punishment [free-jazz] as its causa fiendi.  And this is all.  Yet the criterion of purpose is the last that should ever be applied to a study of legal [musical] evolution.  There is no set of maxims more important for an historian that this: that the actual causes of a thing's origin and its eventual uses, the manner of its incorporation into a system of purposes, are worlds apart; that everything that exists, no matter what its origin, is periodically reinterpreted by those in power in terms of fresh intentions; that all processes in the organic world are processes of outstripping and overcoming, and that, in turn, all outstripping and overcoming means reinterpretation, rearrangement, in the course of which the earlier meaning and purpose are necessarily either obscured or lost.  No matter how well we understand the utility of a certain physiological organ (or of a legal [musical] institution, a custom a political [musical] convention, an artistic genre [see!], a cultic trait) we do not thereby understand anything of its origin.  I realize that this truth must distress the traditionalist, for, from time immemorial, the demonstrable purpose of a thing has been considered its causa fiendi--the eye is made for seeing, the hand for grasping.  So likewise, punishment [free-jazz] has been viewed [heard] as an invention for the purpose of punishing [???]But all pragmatic purposes are simply symbols of the fact that a will to power has implanted its own sense of function in those less powerful.  Thus the whole history of a thing, an organ, a custom, [free jazz] becomes a continuous chain of reinterpretations and rearrangements, which need not be causally connected among themselves, which may simply follow one another.  The "evolution" of a thing, a custom, an organ [free-jazz] is not its progressus toward a goal, let alone the most logical and shortest progressus, requiring the least energy and expenditure.  Rather, it is a sequence of more or less profound, more or less independent processes of appropriation, including the resistances used in each instance, the attempted transformations for purposes of defence or reaction, as well as the results of successful counterattacks.  While forms are fluid, their "meaning" is even more soThe same process takes place in every individual organismAs the whole organism develops in essential ways, the meaning of the individual organs too is altered.  In some cases their partial atrophy or numerical diminution spells the increased strength and perfection of the whole.  This amounts to saying that partial desuetude,--in short, death--must be numbered among the conditions of any true progress, which latter appears always in the form of the will and means to greater power and is achieved at the expense of numerous lesser powers.  The scope of any "progress" is measured by all that must be sacrificed for its sake.  To sacrifice humanity [musical school graduates?  music school professors?] as a mass to the welfare of a single stronger human species [a stronger music?  a stronger musician?] would indeed constitute progress. . .

Nietzsche, Fred.  The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing

+ + +

Plenty of question marks.

The thing about Fred Nietzsche, like that lady J who wrote the bible, is that his words are so loaded, so easy to get wrong, so easy to incite lunacy, that by now (perhaps, like Jazz) the human mind has developed a tolerance to them, in the I-can-drink-a-six-pack-of-tall-boys-of-beer-at-lunch-and-still-teach-period-6-gym sense of the word. In a I-can-go-to-church-each-week-and-still-be-an-evil-bastard sense of the world, too.

You (I) just have to wonder if even Fred Nietzsche could comprehend  how those "in power" would come to be "in power" centuries after his death--and what kind of "leaders" that process, a hundred years later, would produce (or is it require?)

Has anything changed?  Did Fred Nietzsche know damn well exactly how jelly boned things were to become?  Did he?  What if somehow we could have Fred Nietzsche listen to Celine Dion.  Would the reinterpretation and rearrangement, the outstripping and overcoming, still be seen as a "natural" process--or a process that has become entirely un-natural like cancer, or fracking?  To what degree is man rooted in nature? To what degree could Fred Nietzsche have comprehended Celine Dion?
Thus the whole history of a thing, an organ, a custom, [free jazz] becomes a continuous chain of reinterpretations and rearrangements, which need not be causally connected among themselves, which may simply follow one another.  The "evolution" of a thing, a custom, an organ [free-jazz] is not its progressus toward a goal, let alone the most logical and shortest progressus, requiring the least energy and expenditure.
How does everyone feel about the "need not" part?  I feel like Teddy Adorno would say that administration has mushroomed since Fred Nietzsche's time.  Further, I think we can all say it has mushroomed since Teddy's time.  It's hard to imagine a commodity as controlled as music "evolving" haphazardly or innocently.

At least with regards to the arts, specifically that improvised music that no one likes, that evolution is at the very least informed and more likely consumed by the usual, boring extra musical actors and imperatives, all in a place of power for very un-Nietzsche-ian reasons.

Being a lesser power myself, the subject of the expense of numerous lesser powers as precondition to progress always catches the eye.  Someone at the work place chose some random jazzy mix on some free streaming music thingie.  In betwixt Lester Young and Ben Webster would be Olaf Koerggengoren and the North Dakota Boys playing Wind Chill Advisory from their new album Jazzy North Dakota Winter Whiteout.  Clearly a lesser power and yet, someone up at mission control told the satellite to put Olaf between Lester and Ben, side by side, arm in arm--despite the fact that Olaf's is an entirely different music (the "sound" being the least of the differences.)

Is the object to bury the "old knowledge" under a deep blanket of snow?  Millions of newly graduated music school snow flakes--each different, yet each the same--layering a once fertile ecosystem in a thick cold mountain of white?  Is that as humane a fate for old knowledge as any?

Or is it just a simple reinterpretation / rearrangement / outstripping / overcoming?

Supply and demand:  If there are many dozen new hat wearing tenor players graduating each year who can play the entire history of the jazz saxophone with varying degrees of authority, what then becomes the value of a chorus of Giant Steps?  Does a chorus of Giant Steps function now as it did when it originated?  Does it have the same purpose? 

While forms are fluid, their "meaning" is even more so.

+ + +

In light of this, I have decided to become part of the problem and double down on tonality for 2015--if only to finally rid myself of it forever.  Part of it is study for an RCM exam.  So far that has been a worth while process.  After all, it's better to know what you don't know than to know what you know.

What's interesting about the RCM exams is that they change every so often.  They evolve, if you will.  There was a recent evolutionary step, wherein requirements and literature were updated.  It makes you (me) wonder what the original materials and requirements were.

This time around, there's some Bob Mintzer etudes to learn.  They gave ol' Lenny Neihouse the heave-ho.  Lots of James Rae, too.  Who here knows who James Rae is? 

You also need to know how to play the blues scale--though you are not required to play the blues.  That the RCM wants saxophone players to know the blues scale, but doesn't require them to know how it functions seems...typical?

[Note to self: check and see if bassoon players and french horn players also required to learn the blues scale...]

What's more, there's this unspoken expectation that I'll use a "classical" mouthpiece for the experience.  Should I use my "jazz" mouthpiece for the blues scales? Fuck it, maybe I'll throw my jazz mouthpiece down the toilet and get a mouthpiece from Dr. Caravan.  Catherine Sikora has the wide open mouthpiece with thick reed thing covered.  Perhaps that's my cue to go the other way.

Simultaneous to that, I've sort of maybe struck up a bit of a deal with the kind people at wherein I'll do some writing about my experience and (hopefully) progress with their materials in exchange for use of their materials.  Though that too could totally fall apart.

If I am going to learn the blues scale, might as well learn how to play the blues.  Willie Thomas has a system.  Lord knows I love a system, and for the next year, I'll be loving his Pentatonic Pair System towards the ends of confident gallops  through the blues, rhythm changes and Giant Steps. 

In the end, when I inevitably fuck it up, from that year's misreading will come some sort of fresh new mutation to spice up my old, tired, nonsense.

Believe it or not, the inspiration for this supplication to administered musicality was the very inspiring playing of Quamon Fowler.

I dunno...something real, something human and yet something extra human about it.  Better to work on that modality for a year than spend it sniffing glue, right?

Once that writing project goes live, I'll make a point of letting the 3 to 5 of you who read this blog know.

till then...

Monday, July 21, 2014

A soul can be destroyed.

57.  "Something red [a soul] can be destroyed, but red [soul] cannot be destroyed, and that is why the meaning of the word 'red' ['soul'] is independent of the existence of a red [soulful] thing."--Certainly it makes no sense to say that the colour red [soul] is torn up or pounded to bits.  But don't we say "The red [soul] is vanishing"?  And don't clutch at the idea of our always being able to bring red [soul] before our mind's eye [ear] even when there is nothing red [soulful] any more.  That is just as if you chose to say that there would still always be a chemical reaction producing a red flame [soul].--For suppose you cannot remember the colour [soul] any more?--When we forget which colour [gestalt] this is the name of, it loses its meaning for us; that is, we are no longer able to play a particular language-game with it.  And the situation then is comparable with that in which we have lost a paradigm which was an instrument of our language [music.]

Wittgenstein, PI

+ + +

Certainly it makes no sense to say that the colour red [soul] is torn up or pounded to bits.  But don't we say "The red [soul] is vanishing"?

[insert souless improvised youtube video of your favourite anti-soul giants here]

...if you can, that is.  Maybe soul isn't vanishing.  Maybe soul is expanding. like a beautiful ballon.  Maybe soul is elastic enough to encompass profit driven twaddle and all the attendant hot air.  If so, soul will never die, and we are living in soulful times indeed!

And don't clutch at the idea of our always being able to bring red [soul] before our mind's eye even when there is nothing red [soulful] any more.

Once there is nothing soulful any more, when all the gestalt of soul is sucked and starved out of all music, art, writing, culture, and all interpersonal interaction, will "we" be able to get it up and running again?

Once every last square inch of Manhattan is unanimously inhabited by gigantic aluminium and glass urinals for stock brokers, will "they" be able to resuscitate it?

Can it survive on the 44th floor of a glass and aluminium super tower of victorious excellence with granite and stainless steel appointments? 

That is just as if you chose to say that there would still always be a chemical reaction producting a red flame [soul].--For suppose you cannot remember the colour [soul] any more?

I guess we know our answer.

When we forget which colour [gestalt] this ([soul]) is the name of, it loses its meaning for us; that is, we are no longer able to play a particular language-game with it.  And the situation then is comparable with that in which we have lost a paradigm which was an instrument of our language [music.]

Is it something "we" can lose?

Is it something "they" can take away from "us?"

Is it something "they" can smother?

Is it something "they" can surround with a never ending supply of simulacra--in a Where's Waldo sort of way--knowing full well what a pain in the ass those Where's Waldo books are.

Is it something that, historically, came from and resident in a certain demographic that has endured a highly antagonistic relationship with the parent culture?

Is it a source of power?  "Free energy" if you will--particularly for that (and other sympathetic) demographics?

and so on
and so on
and so on
and so

+ + +

Soul can be destroyed.
Souls can be destroyed.

Soul is vanishing.
Humanity will forget all about Soul--they will forget how it feels.

The loss of soul as a paradigm, an instrument of our language, is part of a larger agenda towards many ends, including but not limited to enhanced excellence as employee, improved acceptance of exploitation in the workplace and increased enthusiasm for television and all hit FM radio.

+ + +

I remember reading a review about a blues act, written by the then music editor of the Portland Mercury wherein she used the phrase "the scummy blues."  She was also all like totally what ever about Charles Gayle, but did like when the boys with beards, guitars and broken electronic toys would "improvise" in a candle lit setting, while cross legged on the floor.

+ + +

I wonder if there was a conception of "soul" in music in the year 1200. 

I wonder if there will be a conception of "soul" in music in the year 2666

Maybe the question is "I wonder if there was a conception of schlock and cheese in music in the 1200's.

Maybe the question is "I wonder if there will be a conception of anything other than schlock and cheese in music in the year 2666.

Could there ever be a unity of the soul and the souless?  Is that the essence of the Davis Redford Triad?  Miles Davis meets Robert Redford--the soul and the souless unite, like two mirrors? 

Helloooooo, anyone? 

+ + +

Casse Tete II was a lot of fun.  Read all about it!

A very special honour to have Chris Rich write about it.  Thank you Chris Rich!

A very special honour to drive 10 hours due north with Catherine Sikora and Nick Skrowaczewski as well.

So much so, we are trying to figure out a way we can do it again elsewhere.  Stay tuned for that attention grab.

Though it was over a month ago, I still have yet to post any of the sounds from said event.  Soon come, and thank you for your continued patience.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Wingless Chickens Pecking at Urine Soaked Stock Broker Barf

54.  Let us recall the kinds of case where we say that a game [Music] is played according to a definite rule [Jazz (tm)].

The rule [Jazz (tm)] may be an aid in teaching the game [Music].  The learner is told it and given practice in applying it [Jamey Aebersold (tm)].--Or it is an instrument of the game itself.--Or a rule is employed neither in the teaching nor in the game itself; nor is it set down in a list of rules.  One learns the game [Jazz] by watching [listening] how others play.  But we say that it is played according to such-and-such rules because an observer [listener] can read [hear] these rules off from the practice of the game [the gig]--like a natural law governing the play.----But how does the observer distinguish in this case between players' mistakes and correct play?--There are characteristic signs of it in the players' behaviour.  Think of the behaviour characteristic of correcting a slip of the tongue.  It would be possible to recognize that someone was doing so even without knowing his language.

Wittgenstein, PI 54.

+ + +

From Roberto Bahruth via our most generous friend Max:

"The best way to insure that someone DOES NOT learn a language is to deliberately teach it" 
Roberto Bahruth.

x x x

Rules!  Right and wrong!  Laws!  Governing!  Mistakes!  Correcting!

Doesn't that sound jazzy?

Who has time for (free) jazzy anymore?  Who was the money for to be (free) jazzy?

Where does money come from?

Does money come from [or go to those dedicated to] being free?

$ $ $

Is there a "natural law" governing music?  That really is a question.  Maybe an interval of unison really is more comforting that an interval of a minor second.

It is vibration, it is a physical phenomena, we are physical beings, 440Hz is the Hitler frequency and 432Hz is a fresh pair of socks for the Chakara.

And, but there's also this thing called "Culture" with an agenda totally antagonistic to the "natural" and "real." Culture spares no expense quantifying, judging and prohibiting.

How does the observer distinguish in this case between players' mistakes and correct play?

Is that an inborn function instilled by Nature or is that behaviour taught by Culture?

Think of the behaviour characteristic of correcting a slip of the tongue.  It would be possible to recognize that someone was doing so even without knowing his language.

Could there be / can there be / is there a music game where there was no such thing as "a slip of the tongue?"

Mind you, that is different than playing a "wrong note."  When you think of it, there really is no such thing as a "wrong note."

Could there be / can there be a music game where any note can be played at any time, with any inflection, at any dynamic, with any attack, for any length, at any volume, as played by any person on earth, regardless of "skills" or "talent?"

Of course there could / can.  But IS there such a music?

If there was, do you think consumers of this particular music game will still be able to detect "slips of the tongue"--despite the rules of this particular music game?  Would it cause the same kind of titillation/disappointment/hardship/excitement for the consumer as with other "slip of the tongue" based music?

Would such a music be a static phenomena?  Will the results of this particular music game sound the same in 50 years?

Why would it change?

What would change it?

Who would be behind the "what" changing the results of this particular music game?  Will they be musicians, or will they be computer programmers, marketing managers, publicists, high school guidance counsellors, priests, etc?

? ? ?

Not that I have any first hand experience, but I have to believe it's hard to run a for-profit (music) educational institution without a litany of rules, rights and wrongs, laws, governance, mistakes and endless correction.

It's also hard to put one's paws on someone's back without the afore mentioned behaviour modifiers and expression constraints.

If you can't put your paws on someone's back, how then do you "top" the other?  And what would our beloved [free] Jazz (tm) music game without a heirarchy?  With out a "leader" who governs, who decrees what is "right" and "wrong", who "jive" who is "a motherfucker" and who is "a fucking asshole?"

And what is [free] Jazz (tm) music game, or any form of expression in our late capital milleau without rules, right and wrong, laws, governing, mistakes, correcting, motherfuckers and fucking assholes?

+ + +

The chicken wing pile is a zero sum game, and "cats" aren't known for raising chickens.  Just devouring them, leaving behind wingless birds, wandering the piss drenched streets, pecking at and pooing on Jr. Stock Broker vomit.

Just how high is that pile of chicken wings?  Is there any way to measure?  If there was a way to measure the pile of chicken wings and then distribute them equally would that be welcome, or seen as some kind of affront to our beloved free market system and a threat to the gate keepers' (obviously) divine rights?

I don't know why I hate freedom, but thanks for asking.

* * *

And now, a special announcement from our friends in Prince George, BC
Hello, my friends! If you are a musician who makes experimental music, and you are available to be in Prince George June 14-15, 2014, I would love to receive your proposals for Casse-Tete: A Festival of Experimental Music. Feel free to forward this to friends. Contact Jeremy Stewart via jeremy@greenmilkcreativeumbrella dot com. Thanks!

All you 401k champs--why not make this event your tax deductible charitable donation for the year?

All you musicians--big pile of Northern chicken wings await.
Sharing is caring!

Monday, February 24, 2014

Old Game, Old Rules, Old Winners and New Losers

31.  When one shews someone the king in chess [chord symbols on a lead sheet] and says: "This is the king" [This is a Dom 7 chord], this does not tell him the use of this piece [chord]--unless he already knows the rules of the game [playing chord changes] up to this last point: the shape of the king.  You could image his having learnt the rules of the game without ever having been shewn an actual pieceThe shape of the chessman corresponds here to the sound or shape of a word.

One can also imagine someone's having learnt the game without ever learning or formulating rules.  He might have learnt quite simple board-games first [The Ramones], by watching, and have progressed to more and more complicated ones.  He too might be given the explanation "This is the king", --if, for instance, he were being shewn chessmen of a shape he was not used to [C7 as opposed to C Dom 7].  This explanation again only tells him the use of the piece because, as we might say, the place for it was already prepared.  Or even: we shall only say that it tells him the use, if the place is already prepared.  And in this case it is so, not becaue the person to whom we give the explanation already knows rules, but because in another sense he is already master of a game.

Consider this further case: I am explaining chess [playing chord changes] to someone; and I begin by pointing to a chessman and saying: "This is the king; it can move like this,...and so on."--In this case we shall say: the words "This is the king" (or "This is called the 'king' ") are a definition only if the learner already 'knows what the piece in a game is'.  That is, if he has already played other games, or has watched other people playing 'and understood'--and similar things.   Further, only under these conditions will he be able to ask relevantly in the course of learning the game: "What do you call this?"--that is, the piece in a game [chord in a song.]

We may say: only someone who already knows how to do something with it can significantly ask a name.

And we can imagine the person who is asked replying: "Settle the name yourself"--and now the one who asked would have to manage everything for himself.

Wittgenstein, PI #31

+ + +

Now that "C E F" has grown obsolete and has been forgotten about, here's a new name for our beloved music--SETTLE THE NAME YOURSELF music.  (S.T.N.Y.) music.  Or perhaps, even better, MANAGE EVERYTHING FOR YOURSELF music (M.E.F.Y.).

Manage Everything For Yourself MusicCan you possibly dig it?

And I don't (ever) know about you, but the whole language game / music game construct really has given me a whole new bucket of chocolate footballs to hurl at the walls from my tire swing.

Yes, yes, Bebop, Jazz, Jass, CEF, Music as healing force of the universe, Music as cantus firmus for identity politics and shenanigans aside, it's all a GAME.  Playing the "right notes" over the "right chords"--can anyone say WHACK A MOLE?

And with this new perspective, is anyone surprised when an alleged "art music" (bristling at the insinuation it's a "game") turns into dick showing, fastest gun in the West (or east) nonsense?

Remind me again of the difference between the Thelonious Monk Super Excellence Competition of Excellence and the Superbowl / World Series / PGA Masters / Russian Winter Homosexual Hate Olympics?

Did "we" want it to "play" out this way, or was this construct foisted upon "us" by those whose business (that is revenue stream) is the pitting of game-players against one another in uniquely irrevalent, pathologically spectacular settings?

Who of the three or four of you reading this would be surprised if the porta-potty capitalist figured out that watching (or listening to) people lose tonal games was the main revenue generator and porta-potty filler?

All games--even tonal games--have a winner and a loser, after all.

+ + +

Speaking of loser, when using Audacity to change your favourite songs to 432Hz, does your application suddenly shut down, keeping your music at 440hz death frequency?  Anyone out there really *really* good with Audacity?  Our Chakaras hang in the balance!

Monday, February 17, 2014

What is Our Plan for Jamey Aebersold's Plan For Us?

One thinks that learning language [music] consists in giving names to objects [playing the notes in the chord].  Vis, to human beings, to shapes, to colours, to pains, to moods, to numbers, etc.  To repeat--naming [playing the notes in the chord] is something like attaching a label to a thing.  One can say that this is preparatory to the use of a word [improvisation 'on' that chord?].  But what is it a preparation for?

Wittgenstein, PI #26

+ + +

But what is it (the use of a word, [improvisation 'on' that chord?]) a preparation for?

What is [improvisation] a preparation for?

Is it a preparation for poverty?

Is it a preparation for a life's work to go ignored?

Is it a preparation for your own limited edition line of soprano saxophones?  How about mouthpieces?

Is it a preparation for distillation into something written and repeatable?

Is it a preparation for the creation of a commodity?

Is it a preparation for union with the creator?

Is it a preparation for focused dialectic against injustice?

Is it a preparation for a well measured celebration of the parent culture at their daughter's wedding?

Is it a preparation for sale of one's labour for the minimum wage?

Is it a preparation for giving voice to a heroic, exciting life lived?

+ + +

Cmon everyone!  It's like a game!  Add your own, in your favourite colour scheme!

Monday, February 10, 2014

Others Become Obsolete and Get Forgotten.


But how many kinds of sentence [songs?] are there?  Say assertion, question, and command?--There are countless kinds: countless different kinds of use of what we call "symbols"[musical notation], "words" [pitches], "sentences"[phrases? lines? songs?].  And this multiplicity is not something fixed, given once for all; but new types of language, new language-games, as we may say, come into existence [like so-called "free jazz" in the 60's], and others become obsolete and get forgotten.  (We can get a rough picture of this from the changes in mathematics.)

Here the term "language-game" [tone-game] is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life.

Review the multiplicity of language-games in the following examples, and in others:

Giving orders, and obeying them--
[the orchestra?]
Describing the appearance of an object, or giving its measurements--
[hip hop]
Constructing an object from a description (a drawing)--
Reporting and event--
[Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald?]
Speculating about an event--
Forming and testing a hypothesis--
[of all of these, perhaps the closest to Bill Dixon's work]
Presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams--
[Anthony Braxton?]
Making up a story; and reading it--
[Les Mis?]
[the "Young Lions"?]
Singing Catches--
Guessing riddles--
Making a joke; telling it--
[Mostly Other People do the Killing?]
Solving a problem in practical arithmetic--
Translating from one language into another--
[Laurence Welk?]
Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.

--It is interesting to compare the multiplicity of the tools in language [improvised music] and of the ways they are used, the multiplicity of the kinds of word and sentence, [harmonies, phrases,lines] with what logicians have said about the structure of language.  (Including the author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.)

Wittgenstein, L.  PI # 23

+ + +

of course my nonsense is in the [ ]'s

Are there countless kinds of phrases/songs/improvisations?  Are they all equally available to "us" at the same time--or can "we" only assimilate a narrow selection of them at any given time?  What would the Daughters of the American Revolution (ca. 1932) make of Charles Gayle (ca. 1993)?

Why wasn't there a Charles Gayle trio (ca. 1993) in 1932?  Why didn't that music exist then?  Could it have existed then? 

LANGUAGE GAME.  Love that!  Dave Douglas, you can exhale!  I now pronounce C.E.F. an obsolete, forgotten thing of the past.  Music, and not just Crazy Experimental Freedom music shall now be known as TONE-GAME.  

Further, from her on, clubs and venues, like The Stone, shall now be known as Tone-Gymnasiums--places where TONE-GAMES are played.

How perfect is that?  How totally awesome and complete perfect is that as a description--a democratizing and demystifying description of music?

Over there at the Lincoln Centre Tone Gymnasium, they are playing tone-ringette, at the Iridium Tone Gymnasium, they are playing tone-curling, and at the Stone Tone Gymnasium, it's a tone-3-legged race.

Seen in that light, the logic behind broad swipes of better than / high art / low art censorship/bigotry wither. 

Would 3 legged races be more or less popular with the kids (and municipal sports programs, and the schools, and the clubs) if the National 3 Legged Race League had the Ringette League's money, merchandising and press machine?

+ + +

New [Tone-Games] coming to the fore while old ones becoming obsolete and forgotten.

Anyone remember the Pascal computer coding language?  Don't worry, neither will your kids, or their kids, because it is obsolete--like the buggy whip.

Quaint, well constructed, much beloved, no longer manufactured or consumed except for people in the historical re-creation/creative anachronism field of entertainment.

Provided "we" can draw a "linguistic" boundary around free jazz like an amoeba, how long is it before our free jazz amoeba is dead and forgotten?

And what "life functions" of the musical language/tone-game called "free jazz" need be present in order to deem it living?

When will the day come when no one remembers how the tone-game "free jazz" (free improvisation, CEF of old, etc...) was played?

Is "free jazz"  a noun, an adjective or an adverb?

When the noun dies, will adjective and/or adverbs live on?

Will the owners of the tone-game Mozart ever allow it to be played by any of the rules of the tone-game Charles Gayle?  Will Wimbeldon ever allow anything other than entirely white clothes on their courts?

speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life.
Producing specific tones is most certainly part of an activity.  Is it a form of life?

Do I have "life" right?  Life as in organism, or life as in the thing that's between birth and death?

"Music is a form of pellican" or "Music is a form of occupying the time between birth and death"?

Is one form of life better than another? 

Is one language better than another?  

Is one music better than another? 

+ + +

Video is fun!

Big thanks to the word-game contributors--some of my most favorite writers and people in the world.  Please don't think less of them.

Blaise Kearsley, Nick Skrowaczewski, John Crouse, Wyatt Doyle, Seymoure Glass.

Stay tuned for more visual sausage!

Sunday, February 02, 2014

To Imagine a Form of Life

19.  It is easy to imagine a language consisting only of orders and reports in battle.--Or a language consisting only of question and expressions for answering yes and no.  And innumerable others.----And to imagine a language is to imagine a form of life.

Wittgenstein, L.  PI, #19

+ + +

Is music a language?

And to imagine a language [music] is to imagine a form of life.



Mormon Tabernacle Choir

Whiffenpoofs of Yale

and so on.

I guess the big question is regarding the word "form".  Is it the imagining of a "form" of life or is it the imagining of a way of life?

Jugglo's and Wiffenpoofs.  Different forms of life or different ways of life?

Just how different are those two languages/musics really?  Which form/way of life is more ridiculous?

Does class inform any of it?  How many self identified Jugglos are at Yale?  If the answer = 0.0, is that because there isn't a self identified Jugglo in the entire world capable of meeting Yale's admission requirements (well, the ones they can put in print)?  Could that really be?

What about D-Beat and the Mormon Tabernacle choir?  Different forms or different ways of life?

What are the chances of a former members of Disclose getting a spot in the Mormon Tabernacle choir--even if they could sing all the parts perfectly?  I feel like the history of Punk Rock is at least speckled with tales of people leaving highly organized and regimented religious environments to join a punk rock band.  Does it go the other way?  Can it go the other way?  Is it like a horse and a donkey making a mule?  Is it like a mule and an alpaca making an awful mess?

+ + +

We at Not Mean If True are trying our best to work through some video technical issues.  A better version of this video can mos-def be seen at  We thank you for your patience, as well as your interest!  Weeks into it, the three videos combined almost have 100 views!  Take away my views, and we have at least 50! 

Stay tuned for more fun!