Blah.

Notes on "Completion" of the Third Part of "If Take Then Take"

"there are three endings to a process:

a finish, where something is lost.

a conclusion, where nothing is lost.

a completion is a new beginning."

This aphorism of Robert Fripps is one which has guided a lot of activities over the years. However, on a (almost purely) feeling level, all three of these are present on having dealt with what appears to be the final touches to a piece now known as "Partial Misinterpretation of a Teacher of Dancing." When this is released, there will be no title associated with the disc, but that is it title for now, and presumably, always

A great deal was learned in the very long process of making this piece. A lot of it was fairly painful, all of it, in the end, positive, but in the sense that a great deal of what not to do was indicated very strongly.

It is perhaps more correct than ever to say that technology is an environment. In the way that computers have completely enveloped the lives of many people, activities which used to be partly in that "world" (for it most surely is that) and partly out of it are now completely subsumed by it. This project was begun before access to computer powerful enough to completely realise the technical aspects was possible, and so is representative of a way of doing things which has one foot in both worlds. At the same time, as we recognise that different environments have different effects, and constrain activities within those effects or even by them, there is no value judgement associated; but it must be recognised completely that they are different. They have different requirements, and there are different ways of dealing with those requirements as well as being conscious of what those requirements are. The main problem is to become aware of what those are by fair means or foul, and not have to rely on retrospect to indicate what they have as their nature. This is exceedingly difficult to keep up for even moderate length of time, and many of the failings of this project have to do with exactly this particular notion.

The length of time that it has taken to complete this has been a two edged sword to say the least. Many of the delays have been caused by either faulty or non-existent technical resources, and this has given perhaps too much time to reflect on parameters which might have been better dealt with quickly or in fact immediately. On the other hand, or perhaps or on the other edge, a degree of objectivity has been possible because of the length of time that would not have been otherwise. This objectivity is not complete, because it never can be.

There are a number of factors involved in this construction which call out to be elucidated inasmuch as that is possible. The first is that the various sections are, holographically speaking, the same as the entire structure. The "Laws" which this piece is based on are adhered to for approximately 95% of the time. This has led to the fact that aesthetics have taken a backseat. There is no dichotomy between subtlety and clarity, but in this case, the latter needs more emphasis, and the former recedes perhaps to the detriment of aesthetics. This piece is not designed to be beautiful. Any of that which might accrue is entirely coincidental, and is not intentional. Neither is this didactic, but more illustrative, and a documentation of a protracted struggle to embody principles in a way which might reach out and contact those that need to be contacted by it. This is a most hazardous operation, not to mention a very arrogant one. This particular flavour of arrogance has a small chance of being justified. It is earnestly to be hoped that this succeeds in its justification. If it does not, it will have been a genuine, honourable attempt. We cannot really ask for much more than that, it seems to me.

The computer, as said, is an environment. The way that todays computers are constructed means that they are part of the Aristotelian way of doing things, which means that there is no grey area at all. Things are either on or off, black or white, right or wrong, and so on. Many of the constructions which I came to the computer with in order to have it help me carry out those constructions proved to be impossible for them to do in the normal way at all. Fairly simple but unorthodox structures proved to be mathematically impossible for a computer to carry out with existing software. Some had to be written, but some would simply be impossible using the binary system on which all conventional computers are based. Some will recognise "divide by zero" and understand at least part of this. This led to a situation where corners could have been cut, but they were not. This led to further delays. Finding workarounds for these limitations of the binary world was instructive, to say the least. Somewhat ironically, some of the solutions lay in very old computer software which will not run at all on modern computers and has not done for a very long time. Today, software is written mainly for commercial reasons, and the constraints of the marketplace in binge on the freedom to experiment with things that may go wrong in interesting ways. It has been many years since I have seen any software which is prepared to take risks. In addition, some of the solutions which were arrived at were extremely unorthodox, and some were necessarily discarded after many weeks of attempts, eventually frustrated by the underlying architecture of the computer as it exists in its present form. The "Laws" that this piece is based on actually incorporate imprecisions, as well as (mathematical and physical) anomalies which do not fit the architecture of the devices which are in used today. 

Expectations are very difficult to deal with on a personal and public level. Getting past those is one of the major tasks of any action, never mind artistic or creative. The phrase "well, you know what I mean!" is one of the last refuges of the partially blind. We can never be sure of this, and we commit our actions which are the embodiment of the idea which we may have formed, humbly accepting that all potential will never be realised. This consequence is a reflection of the abundance of the wellspring of creativity, and although can be seen as a limitation in the negative sense of the word, it is actually a boon, if we can allow ourselves to see it in that way. This in itself is a major difficulty to be overcome.

The "flow" of this sequence of manifestations is not as with other operations that might be comparable on a surface level. This is intentional. Any extra or extraneous items contained within this structure have been made to conform to the laws which are expressly and hopefully obviously utilised, to the very best capability resulting from many years of attempting to understand them. Imperfectly, naturally. Things which sound like other things, and there are many of those in here, are not those things. Every single sound, with two or three exceptions, has been taken, manipulated, transformed, and so to say, retrofitted, to align with the motivation behind the project. This will probably not be believed, but this is of no consequence, in the end.

Experiencing this is meant to be frustrating. It is meant to be (conventionally) illogical. It is fully intended to be unsatisfying according to the usual criteria. It is meant to show examples of ways of constructing things which could be done in a completely different way by others, and probably would (or perhaps even should) be, but to use these in the service of something completely different. The actual sounds of these structures within structures are even, in the last summing up, not meant to be "listened" to at all - at least in a conventional sense. The experience of encountering these particular structures which are illustrations of "Laws" gives the dim possibility which is genuinely and fervently hoped for, of being able to step into a version of that law. Anything else is superfluous is not intentional. Any one of these sections could become a major piece in the hands of some other person or organisation. This is also intentional.

Finally, this work is not meant to be considered in isolation, but within the confines of and relationship(s) to the other two discs which accompany it. This, in tandem with the texts, squares as a circle, as well as completes, finishes, and ends something which can be of benefit to others should they wish to take up the stick and beat around the bush with it.

Blake Edwards is to be praised to the skies for exercising a monumental amount of patience and flexibility, and gratitude to him is extended in perpetuity.

Thanks in general are offered in great volume, and we await the release hopefully as patiently as our permission we give to ourselves allows us. Perhaps a little more.

A.M.Mckenzie

Estonia

February 26, 2026