Almost certainly would be ignored if not punchy and eye-catching (on a demo - and Ben and Esther's polemic on Shadowtime was written for a demo outside ENO). A compromise, I know, but sometimes a necessary one.

When we could sing 'You can stick your war for oil up our a**e' in large numbers on that famed Saturday back in 2003, it somehow had more of a ring to it than if we'd read out a detailed critique of government policy en masse, don't you reckon?

Now correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have the book and know very little about British impro history, but if it's about Derek Bailey's life and work, it seems rather wilful to omit someone he collaborated with so importantly. And if he claims Bailey did x or y himself, whereas it was with Parker (just guessing here), that would indeed be a distortion of fact.

Ben's bk wasn't even an attempt at a history of free improvisation, or anything definite like that. I know that it says 'history' so on the cover, but I don't think anyone went into this book expecting BW to turn into a historian or even to try to show some journalistic chops in trying to investigate and connect the lines between musicians/events/timelines/arguments. Nah, a pick-and-mix is easier, less time-consuming, probably the sane option. Must've been quite some effort to get it published in the first place.

"Ben is providing a very different history of free improvisation from that which I imagine you or some others would write - I'd be interested to read several and make my own mind up (but would hate the idea that only one canon is possible on a subject still so little written about). I am making one simple point that he is in his rights to write a history of free improvisation in which Parker does not play a central part, just as Griffiths is in his rights to write one of post-1945 music in which Britten does not play a central part (or someone else would be in which post-war serialism does not, on account of its never having achieved a wide audience). I don't believe firm and unequivocal conclusions should be taken for granted on these subjects, at least not yet."

I suppose everyone is within his/her right's to write any history they want. Still, not sure about the above comparison - Derek and Evan had a working relationship for about 15 years! Oxley gets far more space on this than Evan. So it falls on the biography level, never mind on any wider history (so I can understand the AMM's omission here, as Incus and AMM had a mutual, but to me frosty relationship, hardly crossing each other). Obv Evan and Derek fell out, meaning Evan ws never going to agree to interview. Still, Evan's playing and improvising should've been given some kind of analysis/consideration. Circular breathing as a technique and its role in improvisation had to be discussed. I'm sure many others could've talked about Evan's work in organizing improv events.  I don't think Ben ever makes the argument as to why Evan apparently didn't play much of a role, just...leaves him out of the pages, making you doubt the whole thing.

Having said all that I found quite a bit to enjoy - especially the stuff on company week (a great, great idea). I like the connections he draws between improv and other seemingly unconnected scenes. I'll have to re-read it sometime :-)

No, that's a very good point (one that I have made to those who have made rather over-enthusiastic claims for the success of the Stop the War movement whilst overlooking one, er, rather blatant fact!). But other demonstrations (Vietnam, poll tax, etc.) have arguably had an effect.

One can probably never really know of course about what causes what......but my clear impression was that what really rattled the Government at the time wasn't the riots one Saturday (which were seen by Ministers as a law'n'order issue involving 'the usual suspects'). What effected the policy change on the tax itself was much more to do with Middle England rising from its slumbers in large numbers and refusing to pay the thing. That's what really got the government worried.

As far as I know no poodles were harmed during this process.

Yes - you put it much better than me. A sense of collective solidarity, as can be expressed through demonstrations, is vital to the building and consolidation of large movements that can offer alternative agendas. There are of course some cases of individuals or groups disrupting demonstrations purely for kicks, without any coherent political demands (I suppose this could be said at least of some members of Class War), though equally this can occur from police provocation as well.

Not wanting to rake up for too long something that has been discussed here before, but I'd just like to mention in this context the anti-[edit: silly party] ballerina demonstration I was involved in organising recently. Whilst it did not have the effect of removing the ballerina from her position (though we are not dropping the issue yet), it served to bring some leading members of the party out of the woodwork in such a way that revealed their true colours (when one of their minders was observed saying to the leader in London 'don't mention the Holocaust', and when he made hateful and ignorant comments about a potential mixed-race child of the ballerina and her partner (without realising they had a child)). I do believe this was valuable in dispelling certain myths of 'respectability' of the current party leadership, and the demonstration achieved something for that reason.

Whatever, some elegantly argued and intricate opinion pieces would not, I believe, produce the sorts of results described either by Richard or myself. I'd also draw people's attention to the fact that in many countries the authorities are concerned to prevent (sometimes violently, or by internment of the organisers) demonstrations occurring. If they had no effect, why would the authorities go to such lengths?

To Alistair's point: for all the problems of the council tax, it is I believe palpably different to the poll tax, the most iniquitous tax ever imposed in this country in modern times, whose precedent goes back to the 14th century and provoked the Peasant's Revolt; also a type of tax which at the time was imposed by no other country save for Papua New Guinea.

Yes, and this has occurred in a number of cases (the demonstrations in Belgium against the government in connection with the Dutroux case, for example) - what I was trying to say was that, since the Iraq War went ahead anyway, and we all knew that it would, anyone who consequently sneers at the whole idea of demonstrating is ignoring one of the improtant aspects of such action.

Sure - the key part of that slogan was 'war for oil' - chanting that did at least make clear that a very large number of people were not convinced by all the rhetoric and propaganda, and could see this was really a war to do with controlling oil supplies - it was important to keep stressing that point when the war was being obfuscated under pseudo-humanitarian arguments from the governments concerned.