Unrelenting

[Mike]

Not to encouragement alcohol as an accompaniment for the listening process.....lol
Here is Chris's latest piece 'Unrelenting' where he allows me unfettered to play whatever it
is that comes to mind totally detached from what might be considered appropriate application.
Meaning, what the hell am I doing? lol.....

Quite an open soul that Mr. Knowles!

Oh all right....Maybe a martini is more apropo? Go ahead, if desired.....

In any event, abstain or not, enjoy.....
And please, if it's annoying music don't be bashful.......Good and bad are on an equal platform.

Unrelenting
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_music.cfm?bandID=1176814

 

[Jeanette]

Far from annoying and would go very nicely outside on a balmy evening next to the river, I think the wine would have to have bubbles.

Or inside with a cocktail if it's raining.
I had better stop now or rumours will start

A very nice piece of music, thank you for posting.

Jx

 

[Mike]

Far from annoying and would go very nicely outside on a balmy evening next to the river, I think the wine would have to have bubbles.

Or inside with a cocktail if it's raining.
I had better stop now or rumours will start

A very nice piece of music, thank you for posting.

Jx

Thank you!
Would Dom Perignon be in order?

Rumors are essentially communication that breaks down. No credence to them.
The veracity behind rumor is subjective to the individual..............So, let them think what they want! lol....

Ya know, It sure looks like rain!

Much thanks for the listen!

 

[Jeanette]

Would Dom Perignon be in order?!

Perfect

Much thanks for the listen!

Pleasure was all mine

Jx

 

[Wade Cornell]

Unrelenting is a good title and shows some humor (in self deprecation?). There is a lot for me to like in this piece but I have mixed feelings. Chris sets up a fine track for Mike that bounces along and invites a lot of lines from Mike who complies with excellent harmonic lines that skip along and bring in flourishes from distantly related chords.

Sounds to me like Mike has been playing quite a bit of sax recently as much of this is very fluid and extremely competently played. There are heaps of ideas in here and as a catalog of ideas makes a good example of how one can take this sort of open palate and fill it with a wide range of ideas. This, for me is also where it doesn't quite work as well as other pieces. It's not as much a composition as a ramble-amble. This may be exactly what was aimed for, in which case it's very successful. Altogether I like it, but don't think there is much of a story it tells.

 

[Mike]

Hey thanks for the listen Wade! Always man!
You're a hard listen I know and I would never try to pull the wool over your eyes, eh...... ears.
For one, I have too much respect how you choose to approach and analyze what you hear.

I'm not, nor have I ever been a story teller. If you felt that some told a story, well, that was you and not me.
When I play my saxophone I'm an improviser and the most enjoyable aspect of improvisation for myself is to meander, or ramble on according to what my background, or harmony is telling me. I simply respond my own way. If I had to do it another way, or the way that only corresponded to the masses, I'd quit!

I certainly do not pretend to tell stories with the notes I choose to play. I spontaneously feed off the previous passage and all I ever try to do is play something that sounds good for my ears and hopefully Chris's ears. After all, no one listens as intently to my work than Chris does.
It's sort of like having the consistency of a string of pearls. One merely follows the previous. It's not telling a story other than one follows the other to form a unit.

I have never been sold on story telling and I've never been sold on communication, in the true sense of the word, using music.
I feel what some may deem as story telling is someone who is simply more adept at putting phrases together. Definitely much more than I could ever hope to.
We've been down this road many times Wade. Communication is something that is undeniably definitive. Someone utters a word and we automatically understand what it means. An emoticon is used and we know what it signifies.
Music is way too oblique to qualify for that type of analogy. Story telling is subjective to the listener just as a so called musical communication. When the definition of the tune
becomes relegated to subjectivity then communication in the true sense of the word breaks down.

Can't it just be a subjective acknowledgement of nice idea's that took place in a particular point in space/time and how those sequences affected any one individual at any particular point in space/time?

Musical story telling is something that can only affect the individual on a very personal subjective level which is certainly not a universal happening. It's a personal analysis and nothing more.
This breaks down the analogy of communication through music as well as someone telling a story with the notes they choose. When reading a book with definitive words there can actually still be subjectivity in how those words were used according to the reader's comprehension level. Where does music, if it's an instrumental, fit in?

Simply my own opinion......
Many thanks for all your support and candid opinion Wade! We vary in opinion but that's what makes
opinion such a worthwhile task at hand, which is to incite another point of view in a non-definitive way.
Each musical composition strikes us all profoundly different and no two people listen the same which makes the listening experience quite a personal one. Listening to anything is profoundly unique and profoundly personal.

It's who we are....

 

[Saxlicker]

Well done Mike and Chris!

You two are bouncing off each other really well.
I love every phrase and every expression in this tune and the sound as it ranges from grittiness to more subtle warmth.
So my first feedback is that its great as it is.

As a run of the mill listener it would be even better for me and right up there if there was a Head riff along with the improvisation to Start with and repeated to 'come home to'. Does that make sense?
The 1st 20 or 30 seconds is the sort of candidate for a repeat that I'm thinking of.

But again...really enjoyed it as it is anyway and clearly, going with what you feel is the essence.
Ramble and meander away!
I just like a nice painting to be in a frame.

 

[Mike]

Thanks much Saxlicker!
You're the first that I know of to bring up the ' non thematic' aspect of our collaborations. I figured there would be some who would point this out.
Sure it makes sense but to be honest I was never crazy about playing a head then improvising, then ultimately back to the head again.
This is jazz and so let's cut to the chase. I always couldn't wait, and still do, for the head to be over so I could hear some real blowing! lol. And I would become less enthused when the musicians went back to head and the soloing was over. It was a let down. I would have preferred with the greats that I've heard to just get into it and end it that way. So, being that we're in control of our project we're doing just that. We're cutting to the chase.
It's just a personal preference and certainly not a definitive one.

You brought up a very interesting point concerning 'the frame' I don't feel frames really exist and the illusion that's presented is to create isolation for art which is such a constant phenomenon. In other words art never stops. Sure, physically a piece of illustrative art has them and in music the heads, or themes are audibly present. But figuratively they're an illusion as well as an abrupt end to keep their place in a nice little neat package, which isn't really there, but people insist that they remain and so the frame has been brought into prominence as a viable aspect of art.

Frames define boundary or border. If Chris and I displayed a theme (bookend) then it's not quite the same because without a theme the music comes in from nowhere and it goes back into nowhere the way all sounds does. We're emphasizing this point.
Non-thematics define music's fleeting nature. Themes attempt to capture it but that's really impossible unless we loop it. lol. On it's own accord music runs it's usual course and modulates into something we may not necessarily be inclined to assume is music. Meaning, life's sounds take over where the music ended. Themes have their place, but what Chris and I have displayed is that they are not essential.
Natures sounds are border-less, theme-less and persistent. Music, regardless if it's determinate or indeterminate is still nature's sounds. In my opinion themes are too perfunctory and manufactured when the main course of the ultimate action is improvisation.
I simply desire to have our music as organic as we can possibly muster up. That's always been the essence of our projects.

So, we ramble on and continue to meander merely because we can. We're in our organic realm which feels right and highly natural.

I do thank you very much for the listen. Very much appreciated!

 

[Wade Cornell]

All well to theorize and rationalize whatever we do. And obviously any of us can play whatever we want to whomever we want. If that gives one (or more players) satisfaction that that's fine. Another way to look at this is as a listener how much do we share in this? If a person or persons are playing with themselves (take that as you wish) this leaves others on the outside, and quite probably disinterested. If there is enticement and/or a shared feeling, emotion, story, or something that joins player and audience, then there is another level or dynamic. Mike has often said that he does not care to engage in this dynamic. We are welcome to watch from the outside, but he has no intention of trying to communicate anything to any of us, just satisfy himself. This has continually made me wonder why he posts?

I can certainly resonate with his technique and abilities, but he does not wish to give anything else. This seems a shame, and not entirely genuine as he has composed quite a lot of music that has a core, thoughts, emotions, and a structure that gives the listener a handle to grab. It's fine to talk about frames, and "art", and waffle on, but it comes back to what each of us gets, when confronted with what reaches our ears. I hear a frame that belongs to Chris, and I hear Mike wandering around within this not necessarily trying to bring out a feeling, mood, emotion, or story. It's a rambling catalog of mostly unrelated motifs that cleverly weave in and out of Chris' frame. This is all good as is, but in my opinion could be so much more if it had another level that touched the listener. It's phrases of Shakespeare in a jumble without the context of a story much less all those delicious second meanings.

Yes, you can both play very well, and know the idiom in which you are playing. Now can you please get on with going beyond that?

 

[Mike]

Wade, we've gone over this so many times. It's based on individual reality. Shared feelings are chance operational. Sure, if you play cover tunes, without a doubt the percentage of connecting to someone is greater than if it's original material. In that original context how is it possible to try and connect to someone who you have absolutely no knowledge of in regards to who they are and how they think?
To even contemplate this scenerio is a waste of time. I'm actually going to sit down and think.....Hmmm, how will people who I have no clue what makes them tick really connect to how I'm thinking right now?
Ya know what? It can't be done, because it's chance operational!

Again, the reason I post anything is because it's quite interesting in how other realities approach something I've done, or what Chris and I have done, from their own perspective. It's not about acceptance or to please someone out in the vast unknown. Geez!
Give something more? Not genuine? I had no idea that you were this shallow minded.... lol.....Now what could I possibly give that I haven't given? Yes, my work has tons of emotion in each and everything I've labored over. But they're my emotions. What is it you don't understand? If the internet ended today I would still be composing/improvising music. You must really think I'm bull****ting you!

I've more than compensated for my own pleasure to try an attain a level of playing that has been documented that I can listen to at any time, which is my primary goal. Now why would I want to try and expend energy into a situation that someone else will enjoy? Knock yourself out and let me know how that goes. Should I forsake my own emotions and feelings just to try and have someone else actually get what it is I'm trying to do? If that's the case I'd quit making music immediately!

I've never confronted you before and told you man, you guys are stagnating and get on with it already. You've been playing since the 1950's! When are you going to get on with it? 60 years of playing man...I wouldn't dream of telling you what happened within all those years, until your post. I enjoy the work you do presently and I appreciate it for what it is. What's your problem? You always come across as this great man of critique that knows exactly what's best for the idiom.
I take what you do and show respect for your approach because essentially what you do has nothing to do with me. I like what you've done and I keep it at that.
When I listen to your work I don't hear stories and I certainly know nothing is being communicated to me because through the years I've heard you I still don't really know anything about you. That's just me, I certainly can't speak for anyone else but apparently you can!
So much for communication through music. You have a knack of becoming defensive within this 2D environment and you don't handle opposition in philosophy well.

So continue on your way and when you develop the key in what it takes to get into any potential listener's head at will then for sure the Noble prize in musical communication will be bestowed upon you.

I suggest if you want to infer further to e-mail me...