Voto:
Yes, the important thing is to understand each other, indeed. I apologize to Psyco if my comment may have seemed like a venomous jab; it wasn't, and I repeat, it was meant to be nothing more than an innocent joke. Incidentally, I am a musician and for years I have been "bored" with types, serial numbers, names, and characteristics of various instruments; therefore a curved Selmer soprano or a Gibson S-1275, just to give an example, are things (or "technical details") that I frankly find useless for those who have neither familiarity nor interest, probably due to "superfluous details." The joke was intended to be understood in this sense and was, as usual, an attempt at playful provocation. I couldn't have supposed that Psyco had such an inflammable "straw tail." In any case, Psyco, I didn't mention the Garbarek I saw for the simple reason that we were talking about a "different" Garbarek, in a "different" place. If you'd like, I can tell you how (15 years ago), face to face with Jan, I was "spellbound" by his magnetic gaze and distant horizons; or how his past as a musician moved me. But, I repeat, these are other stories that should take up other spaces that I have no desire or interest in recounting or describing. However, when I read a comment, frankly, I'm not interested in knowing if a certain musician uses this or that, but what they do and how they do it, in terms of musical writing, interpretation, execution, emotion, or if you prefer, cerebral quality. My old teacher, when I asked him what instrument this or that musician used, eventually told me (ironically, but not too much) that it didn't matter what they played, any piece of wood would suffice for him. Don’t take it badly, Psyco, believe me, my intention is not to "hit hard"; it's just a perhaps somewhat pompous way to sift through the pure emotions, the things that aren’t so important and useful only for mere record. But if they are important to you, then I respect your interests and priorities. As for Garbarek's current "position," I must say that since "Rites," I am still a bit worried about his evident difficulty in identifying stimulating and still convincing directions. Make no mistake, there is always great music even in "Visible World" or the more recent "In Praise..." but it feels as if something has broken. The last masterpiece I believe was composed is undoubtedly "I Took Up The Runes," and in that dimension, after those of the late 70s with Christensen and Torn and Frisell, I find the Garbarek to be more luminous and attractive. The problem, as discussed some time ago with my friend Gabriele, is that it was important that after "Rites," Jan had the courage to "let go" of Weber, Bruninghaus, and Katchè/Mazur. By changing musicians, the atmosphere and dimension change. It finally happened with his latest work, but it has also led me to feel a certain embarrassment while listening to it. Other friends have expressed doubts, and I understand them. At the moment he is occasionally touring with the Hilliard and I am not aware of new projects; "In Praise of Dreams" is from the first half of 2004 and we are now in 2006. I mean to say that Jan seems, creatively, at least a bit disoriented. Many have turned up their noses at the last work, complaining of "new-age" manifestations with a decidedly negative connotation. I don't know. We'll see. For Hal: why, excuse me, should the observation be free? Or unnecessary? I believe there is very little that is necessary, believe me, in my lines and in others' on Debaser, after all, and as for the gratuitousness... here everything is free except for the internet connection. Please forgive this long and tedious post, but when I am pulled by the legs, I believe I have the right to express myself as (and how much) I deem appropriate; let’s try to move beyond this. Bye.
