RE: process threads . . . or what have you

["Liebig, Steuart A." <LiebigSA@Maritz.com>]

> John Zorn's game theory described in Bailey's book sound very interesting
> to me.
> Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Coming up with arbitrary 
> contexts which define various moments during an improv?
> 
        I think that Zorn's methods are way beyond what I'm talking about.
As far as I can tell he uses this mostly for structuring larger groups like
Cobra (though maybe he used for his solo stuff too? Zorn experts help!). 

        What I'm talking about is making decisions about WHAT I bring to a
situation: Do I bring effects, do I bring looping gear, do I do prepared
bass stuff. Since I play 6-string bass, I also make decisions about HOW I
play: Do I perform mostly in more traditional bass roles, do I go for
chordal stuff, do I try for more horn-like activity, do I blend all three.
Then, of course, different people bring out different things and help you 
go
different places.

        Lately I've been rethinking this strategy a little as it seems that
some of the people who I look up to seem to basically do the same sort of
thing with everyone and they seem to be artistically successful doing that 
.
. . work in progress on this.


        Integrating improv into composition is, for me, similar except that
I tend to have more control of certain parameters (stylistic jumping off
points, etc.) and I tend to structure improv sections by using formal
considerations (reemergence of thematic material superimposed on the 
improv,
juxtapositions of different groupings, etc.)


> One last note/question: I keep hearing the non-idiomatic banner being
> waved and 
> wonder just how removed from an idiom you have to be to have people not
> dis you 
> for your references? E.g.. Rock grandiosity and tone; Jazz chords and
> voicing; 
> Blues; Drum styles and grooves...
> 
> 
        Why remove? Why not just put 'em in a blender and let 'em come out
as they may?