This article has been sent back to the workshop either for repair or permanent removal. It was relatively local in focus, too quickly put together in the heat of a provocation, and, most important, did not develop the kind of analysis that I would prefer. If this wordpress is to consist of working papers leading to a book, in progress and perhaps a year from completion, then the deleted article does not come up to standard.
Talking through the Old Hat of Free Improvisation
Published by jackiswright
I have been a saxophonist of free improvisation for over four decades. I also write what I observe, research, and think. I published Shaky Ground recently, and before that The Free Musics, their history and conditions for musicians from a musician perspective. Info on this and other writings and music links at http://www.springgardenmusic.com/Spring_Garden_Editions.htm. I'm 80 now, and adding a year to my age on a regular basis for a limited time. View more posts
jackiswright 
Your closing sentence brings to mind the word “scrappy”, a word used by a local journalist in the Chicago Reader to describe the scene there in the mid-late 1990s.
Yesterday I really wondered if your post was about free improv – or about Jack Wright. Now you’ve made it about me. It’s surprising you’ve generated all of the opinions about Bowerbird despite having not been to an event in 5 years? 6? 7?
I’ve spent much time over the years thinking about how Bowerbird started as a DIY operation, and moved into being a more established non-profit – one with an annual operating budgets and people to be accountable to. I wrestle every day with the challenges and advantages of this shift – but I do believe that my current role – in creating opportunities for artists that are beyond door gigs and that have a bit more visibility, is not unimportant. Yes – I have to deal with money and funders. Yes that complicates things. But the money is going to be spent on cultural philanthropy with or without Bowerbird in the mix. I don’t feel bad for one second advocating for the wider experimental music (and dance) communities before these funders – to divert – at least some – of those funds away from the orchestra and the museums – towards our sector.
Bowerbird’s curatorial purview has always been very personal – and it follows my interests – which are wide and varied and change and evolve over time. When I made the decision 4 – 5 years ago to move Bowerbird in a direction that I *personally* found more artistically fulfilling.
A major facet of that change was to move away from an almost exclusive program of free improv to a program that included many other things – including modern composition, avant folk, early (classical) music, certain folk music, and probably most significantly a serious array of dance programs. It felt important to present free improvisation in a broader context and along side other music I found interesting. We still present free improv – it’s just maybe 10 – 20% of the overall picture rather than 90%. Around that time the city also lost some great players Evan Lipson, Katt Hernandez, Tim Albro, Chandan Narayan- among others – leaving in quick succession – which really changed the community.
Another reason I shifted focus a bit was because I was exhausted. In 2007 I presented 75 concerts, over 20 in October alone. I was always on the brink of burnout. Luckily – and actually this is a testament to the wider artistic community of Philadelphia – that when I stepped back – others stepped up. So while Bowerbird does significantly less free improv – this happens in a city wide context where people like Steve / Fire Museum Presents, Dan Blacksberg and Nick Millevoi (Archer Spade), and Jesse Kudler and Ian M Fraser are also organizing a ton of concerts on a monthly basis. Add to the people like Stephen Buono and Alban – who had their own series for a time. Plus you have Flandrew and Loren Groenendaal organizing their monthly series – and everything going on at . It really doesn’t make sense for Bowerbird to duplicate efforts of these energetic organizers.
Jack – Im glad you’re having good sessions with young musicians – and that you’re excited about what James Wadsworth Strong is organizing – but others have been doing that work for years.
There’s a conflation of art, morals, and ideals, and probably to a degree feelings about your own career and place – mixing in way that’s not always simple to parse out. But I reject the notion that “this music” can’t be well attended, I reject the notion that these artists shouldn’t be paid well for their work, and I certainly reject the idea that the music is “too hard” for a public to engage with. And possibly most importantly – I reject the notion that free improv – or any of our various subgenres of experimental music – derive any of their ‘value’ from being ‘cutting edge’. An obsession with only the newest thing, especially at the cost of the already under appreciated things in existence, is quite unfortunate.
And to your point that the work that Bowerbird presents simply “fashionable” and therefore “dug up and re-presented” work, I’ll simply list / tag a few artists we presented last year – and let them process that: Charles Curtis, Bhob Rainey, Catherine Pancake, Chris Forsyth, Andrew Rudin, Matt Mitchell, Bonnie Jones, Tatsuya Nakatani.
I remember that February concert well. The snow came up quick that day. But when I said “This is what it’s all about” – it wasn’t about making music in front of an small crowd- but the group of musicians and audience members alike – banding together in a community – to, as memory serves, push your car out of a snow bank.
As for it being “about you,” how could it not be? You don’t just speak for yourself, you are indistinguishable from the organization known as Bowerbird, and have the power to pick and choose individuals and kinds of music you approve. You say so yourself. And I doubt you would support music personally that you thought could not get funding, so your taste is not just personal. You have a vested interest in the organization; I don’t know the finances, but I assume you are paid out of grants you receive. You are the sole curator, which is how you operated back when you favored improvisation. You resisted efforts of musicians to share that position, and so your sentimental talk of “community” rings hollow. Anyone in your position should expect to receive criticism of their place in the scheme of things as a public person who has institutional power.
Besides your malicious comment about improvisation, what aroused me was speaking for “people in Philadelphia” when you were giving not only your own opinion but one you back up materially through Bowerbird. My speculation at the end was the only thing I see that is personal, and speculation is just that. But your negation of music that you once so highly prized makes one wonder if you don’t have some lingering attachment to it.
I never said that free improvisation should or could not be funded. I seek funding only to the extent it is feasible, for instance workshops in universities across the country, venues where there are people in positions to get funds and don’t have pre-formed opinions against freeform music. I don’t think I’ve ever toured without some guarantees, not in the last fifteen years or so, certainly not in Europe. However, I don’t hesitate to say to promoters that what I play is a music made up on the spot, and that is all I do. That is not the best thing to say if you’re looking for money, in my experience, and not advisable as a career strategy. It shouldn’t be a surprise that career-oriented musicians shy away from it.
I see that you have reversed yourself on idea that free improvisation is old-fashioned, which is the reason I pointed out the contradiction between art and fashion. (When you now say you “reject the notion” it is the very thing implied in your facebook comment.) As for the rest, you make up things I didn’t say, although one referent could have been clearer. When I spoke of “experimental music” as continuing the avantgarde of the past forty years I was referring generally to what goes under its title and not specifically to your project, at least not in its entirety. I do believe it could apply to the Cage Centennial, which was “dug up and re-presented,” and an indication of the lineage you want to associate Bowerbird with. My view is that free improvisation is not “one of our [?] various subgenres of experimental music.” That would merge it with compositional and prepared improvisations (such as most solos) and dilute it, when it was initially a distinct approach that stood far apart from compositional forms.