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!

1 comment:

Jeremy Stewart said...

Hey, thanks for the ups, mon frere! ...Rules and standards: I prefer to look at it as "if you want to X, you probably want to Y." Like if you want to play chess, there are rules. If you want to play democratic socialism, there are rules. If you want to play Autumn Leaves, there are rules. The great thing about rules is that not even the police can really make you follow them, although they can make it a very bad deal not to. The problem with not sticking to the rules is that there will be people who believe in the rules, and then they don't want to play with you. Rules are about coercion, but they're also about adhesion, which covers our sticking to them and the rule-followers sticking with each other in one word. Why all this coercion to produce adhesion? I think sometimes it's because you're being scammed, and sometimes because the community simply cannot bear the ripping action of your nonconformity. It's costing someone something. So you can see why they don't like it, even if they're wrong, wretched, weak, etc. But what is intolerable is religiosity about the rules. Belief in their sanctity. The willingness to value them above people. The tendency to view a challenge to the rules as a blasphemy. No thanks. Anyway!