Sunday, December 26, 2010

What To Write On My Dogs Grave

Jarrett's Encore from Tokyo

DGD: Networks 110 (clonografía), 2009
*
Keith Jarrett's Encore from Tokyo
Daniel González Dueñas
*
*

For Rafael Castanedo, Who Put God on loop, and for Claudio Isaac
, WHO COLLABORATE so much

*
The religious consensus by which God is a mountain of fire, thundering into the heart of the heavens, has always sounded to me a bit like the Wizard of Oz. Pure theatricals. No. God must be something closer to Keith Jarrett’s Encore from Tokyo . Not the Deus Irae , and not the Deus ex machina —not the frightful thunder, not the scorching gaze—but perfect serenity, the mathematical perfection of beauty, of simply being there, sitting in the Garden of Eden, without time, burdens, pain, in pure being . And not euphoria, rapture, being devastated by ecstasy. No. Only calm, the delicious smoothness of the moment, without the least ballast but also without the least distraction.
*
Keith Jarrett was born in Allentown, Pennsylvania, in 1945. At the age of 3 he began studying piano and at seven he gave his first recital; ten years later he was able to give his first 2-hour solo concert made up exclusively of his own material. In 1972 he began his concert tours based on free improvisation, without any previous planning. Such important albums as Solo Concerts (1973), Köln Concert (1975) and the great Sun Bear Concerts (1976) grew out of these tours. For Jarrett’s followers, these concerts are monumental in the history of music; his detractors admit they are stirring but end up reducing them, as one of them states, to “long and slow exercises in self-indulgence”.
*
The album Sun Bear Concerts has been called “the ultimate ego trip”, mostly by those who’ve never listened to it. When it was first released, it was huge black box with ten heavy vinyl long plays, and with the advent of digital technology it was reduced to a small box-set of 6 CDs. It spans over seven hours of continuous, applied and exact creativity; the shortest piece is 31-minutes long; the longest, 43.
*
We must be grateful to Manfred Eicher, producer of ECM Records, for abiding by Jarrett’s request to release all of the material as a whole, and not just extracts; the album’s price-tag wouldn’t make it overly attractive in the market, but—as Jarrett told Eicher—“music works better as a coordinated whole”. Thanks to this, we have a complete record of that experience, including the essential encores (there are three in the album, from Sapporo, Nagoya and Tokyo, each between four and ten minutes long), which may not have been included in a synthesized version.
*
The album’s technical virtuosity has led some critics to state that at times it seems Jarrett has four hands, especially in the sections where he simultaneously handles several musical themes. But technical expertise is not enough to explain the quality of this material; a critic has said metaphorically that Jarrett “is transcribing words into music”; another, that it is “images” that Jarrett translates into sounds.
*
Nevertheless, it is neither words nor images, but something located half-way, and which still lacks a name. Someone has put forth the argument that Jarrett’s subconscious is composing all the time (no matter whether the artist is at the piano, strolling down the street without a care or even asleep), and that this way he “archives” in his memory a huge amount of music to interpret at the right time later on. Perhaps; but in my opinion, his method consists in sitting at the piano on stage, calling forth something similar to Zen silence and going on to translate his thoughts, feelings, moods: his intuitions, sure—but also his blood flow. Jarrett’s skill is such that it isn’t hard to imagine it is his fingers that take care of the technique, while Jarrett, almost unaware of them, simply lets himself flow. More than “created” music, what we listen to is the process of creation within the interiority of genius.
*
How is he able to do this? How can he improvise, enter into a state of satori , on the one hand let himself flow, and on the other maintain the highest technical perfection, while knowing that thousands of people are watching and listening, and that the concert is also being recorded for History itself? As few other artists have, Jarrett manifests the great mystery of creativity. Other musicians find shelter in a long and solitary process of composition; they have all the time in the world at their disposal to analyze each note on paper, rehearse at the piano, write bit by bit the work they will interpret on stage reading the score. What Jarrett does is comparable to a writer getting up on stage and, without any preparation, taking hold of the microphone and improvising The Waste Land or Juan Rulfo’s El llano en llamas .
*
The analogy would have to add that the writer not only enters another state of consciousness: he also remains in it by means of certain words and its rhythm. Jarrett connects himself but at the same time allows himself no distraction: while his deep mind sets sail, his consciousness remains in his fingers and in the crystalline and marvellous translation of what he is seeing: of what he is living .
*
It would hardly be exaggerating to say that his whole body immerses itself in his subconscious, with the sole exception of his hands (and his feet on the pedals). He himself has stated, in one of his most ineffable and challenging statements: “Playing is what matters the least, it’s the left over scraps, the activity of being musical”—that is to say (as the Argentine critic Guillermo Bazzola has written), that “what we habitually know as music is no more than the reflection of an ideal entity, the telling of an experience, of something spiritually lived through”.
*
Applying Jarrett’s dictum to any other artistic field would be greatly beneficial: the emphasis remains on the connection, not on the technique. Doesn’t this contradict the fact that Jarrett has gone so far as to cancel a concert if he considers the piano’s quality is lacking? Not at all: technique is what matters the least, but in itself it must be as polished as possible. Only this way, by comparison, can that something else, without a name—all that is left over —come truly into being.
*
It’s true that at times his travels cross through dense, even nightmarish atmospheres; certain passages turn into a ritual tam-tam, like a dialogue with ancient gods. Nevertheless, Jarrett never loses his way, and even in those cases of frantic enjoyment, his fingers bring discoveries to this side.
*
All of the material in Sun Bear Concerts was, then, improvised on the go before five Japanese audiences in the cities of Kyoto, Osaka, Nagoya, Tokyo, and Sapporo. Those who, after having listened to the concerts, find out that they were all improvisations, are surprised by the high quality of the album, and by the fact that each concert has a distinctive character. Indeed, improvisation in Jarrett is never a mechanical exchange of standard phrases, or a mere filling of gaps between two momentary inspirations. The musician is famous for not repressing cries of pleasure, sobs or even howls, which have been preserved in his live recordings. Yet this habit is mostly absent from the Japanese concerts.
*
Jarrett began the tour on the 5th of November 1976, in Kyoto, a city that is as reserved as Tokyo (its acoustic opposite) is vociferous; in this concert there is a clear gospel element in the artist’s improvisations. The concerts from Osaka (8 November) and Nagoya (12 November) are more lyrical and melancholic, while Sapporo’s (18 November) is more dissonant and dense. But it was in Tokyo that the miracle took place, on the 14th of November 1976—and not in the concert itself, but in an unplanned piece (that is, doubly unplanned, given that the concert itself was already improvised) which the artist created to thank the audience for their fervent clapping. This means that the Encore was on the brink of not existing, had the audience’s reception been different (it is well known that Jarrett has interrupted concerts if the crowd speaks or makes noise).
*
Without doubt, it was a most special alchemy, an unrepeatable mixture. The ground for invocation came about by a combination of factors—the specific nature of the long concert that had just ended, the audience’s receptivity, the spiritual state of the artist…(and here, in all seriousness, one would have to make a long list including not only what Jarrett ate that day, but also the alignment of the planets, the stains on the Sun, the air’s electrical charge, what was borne by cosmic rays…). The fact is that, after the ovation, Jarrett came back on stage, sat in front of the piano and, as silence fell, he began an encore . But this time, instead of playing, he opened the gates of heaven for exactly eight minutes.
*
Perhaps one could think that the technical complexity of the concert he’d just given had exhausted his mental resources more than ever before—that is to say, that in it all his thoughts had been translated. The Tokyo concert had lasted 75 minutes with only one break. When the crowd’s ovation almost brought down the theatre, the artist who came back on stage to give his audience the gift of a surplus, had already thought it all out: he had nothing left, therefore, except feeling, pure intuition. What he offered then was a small piece stripped completely of rationality. This doesn’t mean that the Encore isn’t complex, but that, miraculously, it has the complexity of what is truly simple . This one time, Jarrett translated something that goes beyond thought—and doesn’t need it: a receptivity (and herein lies the miracle) that doesn’t depend on any translation.
*
Very few human creations can be called “perfect”, and when such a word is used it is metaphorically, as when Borges speaks of La invención de Morel by Bioy Casares, or when Théophile Gautier marvels at Velázquez’s Meninas . Human perfection is something complex and tangled, which must go through all imperfections so that, out of their sum, it may bring forth grace. Astoundingly, for once in his life (and for many other lives), Keith Jarrett achieved it: he was not devastated by satori , but instead laid back on it as if on a hammock for eight minutes of pure grace.
*
The great musicologist, editor and film maker Rafael Castanedo encountered Sun Bear Concerts around 1980, thanks to the then very young film maker Claudio Isaac, who worshipped the concerts and wanted to show them to Castanedo notwithstanding the latter's aversion to jazz and its derivatives. The way of entry into the record and the pianist was precisely the Encore ’s most evident kinship with the music Castanedo revered (Schubert, Grieg); Isaac presented it as a unique, hypnotic and masterful work. And although Castanedo used to say that he considered the Encore from Tokyo a mere “little tune”—that is to say a light piece, a beautiful “melody” without any further complexity—he still taped it in order to listen to it frequently, and what is more in a most special way: recorded again and again until it took up both sides of a cassette.
*
And it was that way that Castanedo introduced me to the concert, via a copy of his tape. For me, therefore, more than a “repeated piece”, the Encore was a continuum, a flow, a loop, an acoustic Moebius. (I don’t know of any piece of music that can withstand such treatment, and certainly none of the Japanese concerts can, nor the other two encores, nor anything in Jarrett’s work. Certain lines, certain songs carry at times a need for repetition, but they are transient dazzles, and end up tiring the listener.)
*
In this manner I’ve listened to the Encore for years, and it has never been exhausted in my imagination. On the contrary: every time is the first and each one provides more discoveries, more amazement, more delight. Placed in one of those devices that can be programmed to play again and again without having to manually turn the tape (or, even better, transported onto a CD and played on endless repeat, in a beautiful sensation of eternity and infinity), the Encore becomes something more simultaneous than successive, a state of consciousness, an androphany and at the same time a theophany.
*
Maybe Jarrett would share this certainty: his concerts have visited every range (and each one is a different opening of genius), but only the Encore is the dialogue of human genius with divine genius...“like a coordinated whole”.
*
The Encore from Tokyo , more than music, is a letting-through of grace. God must be that: a little tune, not a symphonic storm; a light piece, not the bellow of the planets crashing against one another; a melody based on nothing more complex than the immense pleasure of connecting with the universe and hearing it flow. God is an encore resulting from an ovation, from a collective moment of plenitude.
*
Of course, it isn’t a lone case, and what it does is to prove (if anyone needed proof) that music is the most profound way for the human being to feel the divine. Castanedo experienced it with Mozart’s Requiem ; for me, another undoubtable connecting-point is the Prelude to Bach’s Cello Suite No. 5 , interpreted at the very centre of Paradise by Pablo Casals. What singles out Jarrett’s small piece? Perhaps that nothing Seems to single it out: Jarrett is Not standing Before the burning bush, Overwhelmed by an infinite solemnity, pero Merely nakedly plays around in the grass, in total grace.
* For a few privileged moments, John Keats Was the historical small bird pecking at window. For eight minutes, Keith Jarrett WAS eternity: the smoothness of God.
* * *
[The original text in English, is available by clicking here .]
[TRANSLATION Original Can Be read by clicking, here . ]
* *

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

How Should Your Cervix Feel 1 Week Before Period

The power of forgetting

DGD: Textile 90 (clonografía), 2009

* *
1. The omnipotence

* Theology is also a certain form, sometimes very sophisticated, revenge. What a tasty, for example, Pliny's revenge on those paragraphs of the natural history that exclaims, with falsísima humility, that the smallness of man has a great comfort when we consider that God can not do everything, ie the divinity is by no means omnipotent. And to prove it, Pliny adds that God "does not owns suicide if he wanted, which is the greatest advantage lies in our condition, [...] can not prevent two times ten than twenty, [...] can not make the fatal immortal, or raise the dead, or that he lived did not live, nor do the honors he enjoyed not enjoyed, and the author of the Natural History concludes that divinity has no power " forgetting about things that were. " God everyone does what is best for you depending on the nature and the passion that dominates their thinking, the divinity of Pliny is not only omnipotent but has only one power: the oblivion.
* *
2.
fictional memory
*
Pliny the face of this idea (which scandalized, among others, Montaigne) is not only possible but inevitable to raise the opposite idea (both are just that, ultimately, ideas, and boldness does not alter one of its opposite): God may well take his own life, to prevent two times ten are not twenty, to turn mortals into immortal, raise the dead, cause he lived and did not live that Honors enjoyed not enjoyed, and so on.
* Divinity is capable to do so that nobody notices that it has happened, or that is created that can not happen. In a word, God can do all this so that we are able to affirm the idea that you can not. Because make no mistake: Pliny is not celebrating the non-divine power but human omnipotence, or whatever it is, to the omnipotence of the human imagination. Oblivion does not sing (which Pliny gives a last resort to divinity), but the memory: the fantasy is not nothing but force us to remember everything that has happened from the imagined.
* *
3. Fiction Rememberer
*
Horacio agreed with Pliny: "God will cover the sky with dark clouds and illuminate with a bright sun, but can not destroy or alter the past, or restore what time shooting took away" (Odes , III, 29, 43, we do see Montaigne, upset because "the lips of a Christian should not ever utter such words.") But how would we know if the deity has been destroyed or altered the past? At some point Borges is the idea that the world has been created just a moment, endowed with a humanity with false memories. Pliny suspect that memory is not fictitious imagination adjust to the past at every moment. The only power of oblivion (oblivion is based on all power) is to keep the man away from his own divinity.
* *
4. The invention
* Well
Augustine says: "Since men are not capable of knowing God, attempting to guess really think believing in themselves to think of it, and I imagine not as it is, but as they are "(City of God , XII, 15). But is not it so simple that mechanism. Just imagine an amnesiac, unable to remember himself, to invent a a fictitious being, an alter ego that he can remember what was lost or ignored it himself. The invention can be more than the inventor, has capabilities that it lacks, it is superior: it is created. Art has no other way.
* *
5. The foolishness of God
* Metaphors have their own life. In the Epistle to the Corinthians (I, 1, 25), St. Paul, to exalt the divine, he writes: "The weakness of God is stronger than the force of men, the foolishness of God over the wisdom of rope men "( Infirmus fortius est Dei hominibus: et est hominibus stultum sapientius Dei). Has it achieved its purpose with sufficient cogency, but perhaps inadvertently coined in the corpus of Scripture, the notion imaginable trigger, "the foolishness of God." Is there no better definition of theology that: stultum Dei. And, in the hall of mirrors, the foolishness of God is the only possible human sanity.
* *
6. The act of believing
* Once a child I was talking about her friends the fairies and at one point I was wrong in choosing of words (how precise must be the language when speaking to a child) and said, "That's the tale, if imagine them." Then she, with a notable disappointment, said: "If you do not believe no joke." Then I saw very clear why there is only one religion: the belief is collective or no joke. I believe because you believe, you believe because he believes, because I think he believes. What I think is joke if that's what we believe: many to one ( com-unit), in partnership, brotherhood and complicity. This I think I was alone (or being alone in expressing that belief) is not a joke, ie sense com-Unit. Only you can rebind to the many.
* It is significant that Pliny imagines God incapable of a long series of actions but does not mention the most disturbing, they stop believing in himself. God could not believe in himself if no other (no matter if other gods or humans, because by now the difference is not mythical sense) to perform the final rupture I believe is called .
* *
7. Fantasy
* "Every fantasy is real for those who believe in it, "says Bioy Casares Plan evasion. Therefore, the act of believing is ultimately created. Whoever believes in God, believe it, but whoever does not believe in God does not destroy it: it does is give reality to a world without God. There is only creation, no destruction. Reality is one thing that "happens" is something that depends on our act of believing. And here's the devilish scale: belief, credulity, credibility, faith. To act, we believe, and believe, we must create (create with all our ability to believe: it only creates our ability to act). Faith not only moves mountains, also created. And religious faith (in the sense re-link) is at the bottom of the more secular and atheistic beliefs.
* *
8. Limits
* Pliny and Horace To demonstrate the fundamental weakness of God is a comfort, but obviously not happy about it, it just means in support of human weakness, it is evident in his ideas a malaise, a bad conscience, or a wink perceptible only to those who experience the same discomfort. And no one back terrified at the idea that God has no limits, which is another way of saying that imagination is unlimited. Just imagination has to do with belief: No one needs to believe in the unicorn to admire. The scary thing is not believing in the "real" this or that creature, or idea, but also in the unlimited nature of the imagination. Pliny and Horace deny omnipotence to the imagination, a way to set limits. Believe these limits makes them real. The power just created humanity in a few moments that constantly creates a reality limited, weak, fatal and closed. And believe it forces us to believe it. The power is fed to our belief. The power of forgetting is to make us forget, to make us believe in oblivion, to convince us that "the lips of a modern must not utter such terms ever. " Pliny, Horace, and many other thinkers hail the limits with supreme discomfort, and perhaps in the arrogant claim to devalue the boundaries and reinventing believe, after creating a new reality.
* *

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Best Waxing In Jacksonville

Metaphysics of bolero love

DGD: Figure 17 (clonografía), 2010
*
The bolero "Sabor a mi", written by Alvaro Carrillo, contains mysteries concentric
*
so long enjoyed this love, our souls
approached so much so that I keep
your taste, but you carry me also
flavor.
*
If deny my presence in your life,
enough to hold and talk;
much life I gave you, that will necessarily carry them
taste of me.
* not pretend to be your master.
I'm nothing, I have no vanity. In my life I
good;
am so poor, what else I can give.
*
over a thousand years will pass, many more.
I do not know if eternity has love, but
there, as well as here in the mouth will carry
taste of me.
* In this song, the lover tells his beloved: "If you deny my presence in your life, / enough to hug and talk." Presence is important. These lines mean that if she denies the importance he had in his life, would be enough to hold her and talk show bearing his "taste", meaning that he was and is important in the life of the beloved. However, the lover should not be reinforcing both the "is" if it were not so painfully aware of "was", ie that has lost so unforgivable. Moreover, she has denied the importance of this relationship last .
* So the first verse has a clear taste of the past tense: "So long enjoyed this love / our souls came as well, / I keep your taste, but you also wear / taste of me ". The first line of the next verse uses a misleading tense: "If you deny my presence in your life." This line is actually a certainty: "You have denied my presence in your life." And to show that denial not only exists but is useless or false, "would suffice hug you and talk, / I gave you life so that you take by force and / flavor to me. "
*
The apparent serenity is contradicted by that other misleading line: "I gave so much life." The lover gave no "much" but "any" life: he feels dead. No choice but to state something that should happen necessarily "that you take by force and / flavor to me," this can not mean a mere "taste to me" but "my self", ie "take my life" . If "much" and not "all" is perhaps to be noted that very little life that remained it only serves to realize "so" that he is dead.
* Then comes an apparent self-affirmation: "I do not pretend to be your master. / I'm nothing, I have no vanity. " The lover is not the owner of the beloved: The freedom to get away while she leads the life of him, which means that he recognizes in her the freedom to kill. It remains to be determined whether this man has always been nothing or if it is precisely from the time he was "killed" by her (since she refused his presence in his life).
* However, he has vanity is undeniable and, indeed, at this level throughout the song love is just a celebration for the vanity: he voluntarily keeps the flavor of it, but it retains the flavor of it by fate, almost a curse. In his weeping content, suggests that the lover she takes the life of him, but is reversed, and it is "by force." She tries to forget the "flavor" of the relationship, he condemned not only to remember that "flavor" but can not forget.
* Vanity exists in the lover and the only thing that exists in it: if the addressee of the song would deny the intensity of this last group, the male you have only to look sing, talk to her and, as a last resort if the above fail-hug. Then she would have to accept 1) life he gave, 2) the fact that in rejecting this gift, she killed him. The song does not speak of a nostalgia, but a punishment.
* This man's vanity is primarily self-pity: "In my life I give the good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give." And what is the life that he gave? First she says that her life is good, meaning that it is able to select the good and bad not to, but then says he can not give something else that good, since it is "so poor." No choice then, and therefore it is not self-select what is good to give, but it is good a priori all the way down.
*
may be noted also that this man offered as justification for being "poor", implying that if it were not, could give "something else": the regular and the bad. Is so poor that all you have is "good" precisely because he has nothing. If it were not poor, it would be good, and could be wrong. (At this level of love, might take revenge on the unfaithful lover, who denied the presence ie the importance "of him in her life.)
* And in a superb final blow, vanity is projected to eternity:" It will take more than a thousand years, many more. / I do not know if eternity has love, / But there, as well as here in the mouth will carry / taste to me. " Although I had no love of eternity, that is, but earthly love relationships stop making sense as unearthly, she will "taste to me," no matter what they become beings who ever lived. And it will take in the mouth, which is a part of the physicality that most likely cease to interfere in the other world.
* Speak, then, a vanity masked. The lover does not know if the other world will love, mouths or flavors, but condemns his beloved to be chained to those elements. In eternity it will bring the lover left me, one that makes the act of "giving so much life"-act whose significance was denied "in the act of being killed.
* However, once taken this song love this framework, the result of an overwhelming clarity. Considered not as a lover but as an individual, the ego of this song is for all those who deny its presence and, to deny, render "no" (Nobody). Hence the powerful strength of the line "I'm nothing, I have no vanity."
*
be "something" (someone) a question of vanity, and as this guy does it, quietly accept being anything ("no"). But that serenity is ambiguous. And it is because if anyone says always and forever (in which case it would be against a universal reference frame), or if it is precisely when others deny their presence (in which case it is from a mere framework social referencing).
* In the first case, no one with a capital letter (the No cosmic), the second, lower case (the social one). If the latter says "In my life I give the good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give," nothing remains but the "flavor" of a pitiful self-pity: what's good?, Who judges what is good and what is not? Like everything he has and gives is "good", could well retaliate-with varying degrees of malevolence, of all those who have denied their presence in the world. At this level, the song would be a grain of sand in the great universal praise of evil, ie the Revenge Against the World.
* However, the way is open to another level. So Therefore, it is only the cosmic Nobody who can say without lying: "In my life I good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give," because then there is no misunderstanding, "lean" means nothing but "poor spirit "(in the sense that Meister Eckhardt gives this term, of whom nothing is and nothing you want:" The humble man does not need to ask God, may well send to God, because the elevation of the deity can not consider nothing except in the depths of humility. The humble man and God are one and not two "), which can only give good since that spiritual stage and know that evil is nothing but absence of good.
* *** *
[De Book No 5 , in preparation.]

* *