I wonder which it is.

Oh, it's 'chums', surely?

Right, Morticia stepping in here with her Mod hat on.  Greenfiox, this is a forum for discussion, it is not a verbal boxing ring. Members here have attempted to engage you in discussion, yet you seem unwilling to answer  genuine questions that have been put to you. It is the nature of these boards to question the opinions put forward by other Members. Those questions are, generally, meant in the spirit of genuine curiosity and should not always be interpreted as being combative in nature.

Please tone the language down, gf. You may use asterisks, but your meaning is clear. Swearing is a definite no no on these MBs. You can check that out on the MB Rules.

Now, can we please continue the Braxton discussion in an open minded manner?

Thanks
Morticia

Answer my requests Morticia to moderate the ad hominem sneering to which I objected, which initiated this stupididity to which I will respond in the same terms in which it is addressed to me. I will tone down nothing, when that sneering is being accepted and repeatedly posted. Consult the rules yourself, in regard to ad hominem sneering, baiting, and trolling, totally irrelevant to the topic of conversation. If thats the game they want to play, I will play it; I didn't start it but am more than capable of dealing with it - if you don't.

I said before, and repeat again, this is a pathetically religious subject in which proselytites can't cope with contrary viewpoints. Tough.

I didn't start the goddamn boxing ring. Read how this this goddamn progressed, and what provoked what.

It appears there is no such thing possible as discussing AB here in an "open minded manner". I said before: he has a quasi religious value for some people, such that questioning or not liking him provokes arrogance, hostility, and irrationality. I don't even yet have a clear opinion on AB himself, and have not expressed one.

Moving right along: it seems to me that it would be beneficial all around if we could return to the original subject of discussion, which had been trundling along nicely for some while. A few posts ago I posted a link to a video of Braxton with Hugh Ragin, Ray Anderson and Marilyn Crispell playing his Composition 98. Martle has already had a look at this, and maybe others here have too. It's the best (in terms of sound quality) and longest example of AB's music on YouTube that I've found. When I first heard it on LP (the YouTube clip is about the first 20% of the piece) it was one of the factors which made AB's music important to me. In a way (in terms of texture) it isn't a particularly representative example of his music, but what impressed me and continues to impress me is the way it's constantly and fluently moving between improvisation and strictly notated music (this is a bit less obvious in this opening section, where the "composed" element tends to consist mainly of sustained tones, but this already begins to change and develop before the end of the clip).

So, since we all have access to it, maybe we can shift the discussion in the direction of this particular piece, rather than getting heated up about generalities.

I saw the notation over Hugh's shoulder, which is pretty cool. I confess I've never heard nor seen him (I never study the personnel on recordings, shame on me), and he has great chops.

So does Ray Anderson, just look at 'em! 

As for the notation: am I right in understanding that each of the four players, including MC, has a single staff to read, and all are playing from score? or is Hugh reading four staves at once? or does he have 8 staves per page, bunched into groups of 4?

Certainly if all are reading from score, that explains why they can move so fluidly between improv and notated stuff -- each one can see at any time where the others are! That doesn't explain HOW they improvise, though I can't say for the purposes of this particular clip that the improv itself is terribly riveting.

Does anyone make sense of this clip?



"I'm glad I can be on a planet where I can be behind."

I think they all read from a full score and that the piano part is also on a single stave, yes. (I don't have the LP any more - it had a few score examples printed on the cover.) The synchronisation-by-score aspect is not quite what I meant by being impressed by the fluidity of movement between improv and notation. One thing was the rate of turnover between them. Another was the way that the improvised elements are "conditioned" by the notated ones - the improvisation takes on an identity which is in some way "determined" by the notation, without being limited by the determination itself being part of the score, which is a situation I've since come to refer to as "seeded improvisation" - throwing in fragments of (for example) precisely-notated material between which "anything can happen", which focuses the improvisation without explicitly "restricting" it. In jazz, this might be the function of a rhythm section, to support the soloist without restricting his/her activity, but here, and in other music by AB, the function is as it were scattered through the ensemble, creating a more open and at the same time more musically-individuated kind of framework.