|                               
 | Madrid, 
        July 7th, very, very sunny and over 36º centigrade. Taking refuge in my 
        studio, which is surprisingly cool, I crank up the Mac and wade through 
        the spam to discover an e-mail from Ernesto Rodrigues. He and Neil Davidson 
        are pleased with the music we recorded in trio in March and want to make 
        a CD of it. Also, Bay-area poet and photographer Mary Petrosky has sent 
        me a message intriguingly titled “Rocks I’ve Met,” with 
        some striking photos of… well, rocks.One is especially beautiful in its erosion. The water that caused it is 
        no longer visible, but the rock’s surface bears witness to the process. 
        Of course I’m not looking at the rock, but at a photograph, which 
        in turn bears witness to the rock. Now, I’m writing about it. Writing 
        about what? The rock? The erosion? The photo? The process of looking at 
        the photo? The fact that I’m writing about it? Maybe it’s 
        the heat, but the whole thing seems to twist and turn around itself like 
        the curlicue erosion of the stone itself. Rocks I’ve met.
 The music Ernesto, Neil and I made in March was also a process, and like 
        the water long disappeared from between the eroded walls of a dry stone 
        canyon, it, too, has left its mark.
 There is something implacable about how water erodes a canyon, as there 
        is about the endless sequence of waves with which the ocean assaults and 
        eventually conquers even the most robust breakwater. At first glance, 
        water seems to adapt to the form of its container, and yet, over time, 
        the opposite occurs; it wears away its surroundings, imposing a shape 
        derived from its own flow. In that process, the stone is scoured and polished, 
        forced to reveal something of itself that would otherwise have remained 
        hidden.
 Does music do this? Is it as implacable as water? Does it scour? Polish? 
        Erode? Reveal? If so, what is the subject of this erosion? What bears 
        witness? What is revealed? Certainly not the grooves of a recording, much 
        as they may resemble a miniature canyon. Perhaps the CD is like the photo, 
        bearing witness to the rock but not actually subject to the erosion it 
        indirectly reflects.
 Water is implacable because it has no will. It merely follows physical 
        laws, though often in very complex ways. Mathematical models of wave behavior, 
        for example, are enormously elaborate. And in collective improvisation, 
        the will or intentions of the improvisers interact in ways that vary constantly 
        between synergy and its exact opposite (a sort of negative synergy in 
        which the whole is less that the sum of the parts). An improviser can 
        act with a particular intention, only to find that his act coincides with 
        that of another in ways that may totally negate his initial intention. 
        Yet that interaction may just as easily create a new level of meaning 
        in which the outcome of both acts is somehow even more appropriate than 
        either of the improvisers expected. So collective improvisation cannot 
        be the continuous reflection of any given intentionality. Like water, 
        it flows, and like waves, its exact movement almost inevitably eludes 
        prediction.
 As it flows, water erodes its container, wearing away the hardest of surfaces 
        to reveal what is beneath. Extending our metaphor, we could say that sound 
        flows from the actions of musicians, and among listeners. As such, it 
        erodes both. But it also polishes both, and most of all, it reveals both.
 So if this music is the water, then we, the musicians, and you, the listener, 
        are its container, the bared stones of its canyon. Have we been eroded? 
        Unquestionably. Polished? No doubt. But what has been revealed?
 
 Wade Matthews
 Madrid, July 7, 2010
 
   |