[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[118]

Hi All,

Thank you for your review, Dan.  I assume that when you say "the
greatest" you are speaking of your personal experience.  Otherwise it
would seem that you are promoting a static value in terms of what we
are "supposed" to believe.

David,
I am not sure what you mean by "experiencing dynamic quality".  It
would seem that you are objectivizing DQ to something like "the wind".
 We do not experience DQ since DQ IS experience.  With your statement
you are conveying the message of experiencing experience.  While this
may be useful for you, it can also confuse the readers of your post.

You mastering SQ is also a bit convoluted, and perhaps you are
bringing in Zen in an inappropriate manner.  We begin practicing SQ
very early on in childhood, and continue practicing it in the same way
a lawyer practices law.  The point of MoQ is to realize SQ for what it
is.  This "practice until perfect" misdirects one in terms of the MoQ
teachings, in my opinion.

DQ is existing with a beginer's mind (to bring in Zen teachings).  The
manner to reach this is not to practice SQ until it becomes part of
our very fabric as you seem to imply.  For such a thing is simply
"getting lost in SQ".  The rules and regulations of SQ are such that a
bewitchment occurs in the sense that we think we are following DQ
using static principles.

You are DQ!  Until you realize that you will remain stuck in your SQ
paradox (again, in my opinion).  Strip away all that static quality
and see what you find.  Pure experience is not something you
experience, for that makes a meta-experience of it which is again
paradoxical.  I am not sure how better to put this since I do not
understand your continual promotion of "everything being static
quality, and even that statement" (which sounds like a liar's
paradox).

My suggestion is that you read laterally in some of the writings that
address Quality but from a different perspective.  Zen would be a good
start, but such writings are endless.  Any metaphysics is always
pointing to the same thing.  We call that Quality, but it goes by many
names.

All the best,
Mark

On 4/6/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Though the interviewer I found a little stuffy at times - it's a good Doco.
> I think the role of rta within the MOQ is at the crux of the interplay
> between DQ and sq. We can talk about a 'balance' of DQ and sq all we want
> but really that's all just sq.  The real signpost to DQ is mastering sq.
> You and I have talked about this before, but after we have got something
> 'mastered' then the static quality disappears and there's nothing left but
> DQ.  That's how you experience Dynamic Quality..
>
> It's all in the practice of sq and the care of sq and the suffering
> which-comes-from-breaking-up of sq. If you do something over and over again
> with the aim of doing it good, you end up forgetting about it and it's
> gone...
>
> -David.
>
> On 06/04/2012, at 4:37 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> I came across this documentary (thank you for the link to
>> openculture.com, dmb) on Bill Evans and found it very interesting in
>> how it relates to the MOQ and its notion of Dynamic freedom and static
>> quality determinism. I think his creative process relates not only to
>> jazz but to all the arts. See what you think:
>>
>> http://www.openculture.com/2012/04/the_universal_mind_of_bill_evans_advice_on_learning_to_play_jazz.html
>>
>> The Universal Mind of Bill Evans: Advice on Learning to Play Jazz &
>> The Creative Process
>>
>> Bill Evans was one of the greatest jazz pianists of the second half of
>> the 20th century. His playing on Miles Davis’s landmark 1959 record,
>> Kind of Blue, and as leader of the Bill Evans Trio was a major
>> influence on players like Herbie Hancock, Keith Jarrett and Chick
>> Corea. “Bill’s value can’t be measured in any kind of terms,” Corea
>> once said. “He’s one of the great, great artists of this century.”
>>
>> Evans’s approach to music was a process of analysis followed by
>> intuition. He would study a problem deliberately, working on it over
>> and over until the solution became second nature. “You use your
>> intellect to take apart the materials,” Evans said in 1969. “But,
>> actually, it takes years and years of playing to develop the facility
>> so that you can forget all of that and just relax, and just play.” In
>> the book Jazz Styles: History and Analysis, music writer Mark C.
>> Gridley describes his playing:
>>
>> Evans crafted his improvisations with exacting deliberation. Often he
>> would take a phrase, or just a kernel of its character, then develop
>> and extend its rhythms, melodic ideas, and accompanying harmonies.
>> Then within the same solo he would often return to that kernel,
>> transforming it each time. And while all this was happening, he would
>> ponder ways of resolving the tension that was building. He would be
>> considering rhythmic ways, melodic ways, and harmonies all at the same
>> time, long before the optimal moment for resolving the idea.
>>
>> Evans discusses his creative process in a fascinating 1966
>> documentary, The Universal Mind of Bill Evans. (See above.) The film
>> is introduced by Tonight Show host Steve Allen and features a
>> revealing talk between Evans and his older brother Harry, a music
>> teacher. They begin with a discussion of improvisation and the nature
>> of jazz, which Evans sees as a process rather than a style. He then
>> moves to the piano to show how he builds up a jazz improvisation,
>> starting with a simple framework and then adding layers of rhythmic,
>> harmonic and melodic variation.
>>
>> “It’s very important to remember,” Evans says, “that no matter how far
>> I might diverge or find freedom in this format, it only is free
>> insofar as it has reference to the strictness of the original form.
>> And that’s what gives it its strength. In other words, there is no
>> freedom except in reference to something.”
>>
>> Dan comments:
>> I find my own writings to be much like the way Evans builds up his
>> improvisations by starting with a simple premise and adding layers of
>> plot, theme, and interwoven character webs. I am free to write
>> anything that I care to write but only as long as I keep sight of my
>> original premise, otherwise the story will devolve into nonsense. I
>> should imagine any creative endeavor to be the same. We might say that
>> the very act of creation is a complex process of weaving static
>> quality patterns both into and out of the Dynamic formlessness from
>> which all such patterns flow.
>>
>> Perhaps that is why it is easier to study the patterns others have
>> created (philosophology) rather than mastering those pattens to the
>> point of forgetting them and just create real philosophy.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
>> quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows
>> Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." [Lila]
>>
>> "The role of a writer is not to say what we all can say, but what we
>> are unable to say." ~ Anais Nin
>>
>> http://www.danglover.com
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>