After some consideration I am going to flip-flop and cast my vote for plan ‘B’.

I am most interested in the Game Pieces and Conduction/Cueing, but all three options seem appealing.

My reasoning is that I probably don’t have enough idiomatic chops (excluding, maybe, garbled up new music noise) to make the most of our original plan.

As discussed today, we need to decide what we’re doing this term. The current option is ‘Plan A’—to (re)introduce or (re)inject (partly) idiomatic, (recognizably) stylistic, or (consciously) traditional elements (back) into the improvisations.

Some options, listed roughly in order of time needed (i.e. high to low), you may want to consider are:

1. game pieces
2. collective score/part-making
3. conduction and cueing

I look forward to hearing your decision next week.

Hi guys,

Just wanted to write a quick blog entry after listening to the art of ending pieces that Han recommended.

My interpretations/responses/feelings are as follows

Anthony Braxton and Evan Parker:

Beautifully constructive ending that in my opinion was rehearsed, or pre composed/constructed?

Final 32 seconds

There is an obvious motif/signature played by one sax, with the other sax responding like a “call and response concept” It repeates itself 5 times before both saxs simultaneously end with a long harmonic note.

Is it pre rehearsed? iF NOT then both performers are truly listening/ and or gawking at each other intensely through-out. They must of just gave the obvious nod..that luckily worked out, because how else are they going to end so ? years of playing together?

Maybe it is not pre rehearsed but pre constructed: they agreed on “hey lets end when i play that reoccuring motif say 5 times and we end together on this harmonic note, so until then dont worry on ending, lets just play”

There had to be a pre discussion on this ending.

Recording 2

Derek Bailey, George Lewis and John Zorn: On Golden Pond

First time impression of this piece is that the ending is not pre composed

but with constant re-listening to this piece (just the final 2 minutes or so) maybe constructed?

It could have ended on 16:55 but there was a final climax to be made that ended only when the duck/cow performers stopped there “squalling” and it was almost together. I felt the guitar player was comping and waiting for an ending, and did so as the others stopped.

Im lost with this 1. Its not precomposed, they waited for someone to end it.

Recording 3

The Warning

The ending is constructed. This piece has a concept, a certain theme, they knew how to end this whether they decided so or not

Recording 4

Marilyn Crispell and Gerry Hemingway

Billy Duck

Now this is the kind of ending that i like, i think its not pre composed but just ends perfectly with a sudden stop with the drums.

Pure buyest opinion been a drummer but wow they knew how to end it.

Jump

Marilyn Crispell and Gerry Hemingway

Lovely slow ending that just knew where to end, not as exciting or satisfying as the Billy Duck one but still effective all the same.

To sum up, since Han gave a good talk today in class about endings, I think its fair to say that..there is no bar line and specific way to end it. We need to feel it, take a chance, just keep playing together, and trust each other and let it flow out itself..

Fuck the pre concieved concept.

“YOU GOTTA FEEL IT MAN”

update 26–Nov–08: change “pass (40+ grade)” to “3rd (45-49)”.

Here’s my take on our marking criteria for the forthcoming performance. Please leave comments.

• 40% continuous assessment
• 60% exam/performance

Of this, I’ll deal only with the latter in this article. This exam/performance breaks down as follows:

• 70% tactics and interaction
  • of which 10% (10/70) is specifically dealing with volume/dynamics
• 30% stage craft

some hypothetical examples

1st (70+ grade)

• tactics and interaction: the performer…
  • deploys a variety of strategies,
  • imaginatively selected (generally avoids obvious responses),
  • each creating a complex group sound, and
  • dynamically tests/interacts with the group.
• stage craft: the performer…
  • exudes confidence and
  • there are few, if any, moments of uncertainty.
• volume/dynamics: the performer…
  • demonstrates the full dynamic spectrum of their instrument, but
  • is mindful of the capabilities of the others (though not hampered by them).

2.1 (60+)

• tactics and interaction:
  • a few strategies,
  • generally avoids obvious responses,
  • contributing intelligently to a group sound, but
  • often does not drive the group.
• stage craft:
  • mostly confident, but
  • there are moments of uncertainty.
• volume/dynamics:
  • mindful of the capabilities of the other, and
  • partially explores the dynamic range.

You get the idea, so I’ll skip down to…

3rd (45-49) pass (40+ grade)

• tactics and interaction:
  • one consistent strategy, which is
  • obvious, and
  • follows the group rather than driving it.
• stage craft:
  • appears largely uncertain or apologetic.
• volume/dynamics: the performer…
  • does not drown anyone out, but
  • plays mp/mf all the time.

fail (40- grade)

• tactics and interaction:
  • …strategy… er, what am I doing here?
  • where’s the rest of the group?
• stage craft:
  • really does not belong on stage.
• volume/dynamics: the performer…
  • drowns people out and/or plays at one dynamic level consistently…

For your reference, here is the marking criteria that the Safety First class used in 2006. This is for reference only: we are not using this criteria.

• 40% continuous assessment
• 60% exam/performance

this latter divides into

1. stage presence, presentation, etiquette, theatre
   • whether the student has convincing stage presence
   • is audience aware
   • can manipulate the audience
2. overall quality of the group improvisation (and demonstration of a sophisticated take on social structures)
   • was it good?
   • was it entertaining?
   • was it interesting?
   • was it crafty?
   • was it weird?
   • was it waaaaaaay out there?
   • can I get a recording of that?
3. individual musicianship
   • [musical responsibility]
     • [demonstrate an awareness of the consequences of actions]
     • able to adapt to unexpected stimuli
   • listening (stimulus and response)
     • student thinks outside the box (experimental)
     • their responses to stimuli is well judged, but is not-mannered
4. participation
   • amount of playing vs the quality of the contributions. in other words, you can play very little, as long as that little kicks butt

70-80 1st
60-69 2.1
50-59 2.2
45-49 3rd
40-44 pass
35-39 fail (near)
0-34 fail (abject)

Thanks Han for posting the class diaries as you have done so far.. I thought they were really helpful in catching all the nuances and the dynamics of the class.. (from a non native speaker perspective i have generally much less problems reading and writing than listening and talking)

wouldn’t blame you if you are not going to do that anymore, since this space seems to have lost momentum.. but with just four of us class maybe we get the sense that we manage to communicate enough during class time?

anyway, i enjoyed last class, we might well have played some of the best improvisations so far during that time

thanks for the links,  the Braxton material especially, is quite precious and interesting.. found a recent interview to Frith done at Sonic Arts Research Centre (SARC) in Belfast (found that on the side links to Franziska Schroeder’s youtube video) and it’s quite interesting, at some stage he talks about the differences between playing in duo, trio, quartet and so on.. the quartet for is pretty unpredictable according to him.. my thoughs are we definitely need more practice together, in and out of class..

the saturday morning improv was quite interesting, the setting seemed a bit strange, we surely got the shock factor in right, as in i felt we got pretty much all the attention that was available in the room (sadly i had noticed earlier how ‘unconventional’ ways of live performance –i.e. laptop music– don’t seem to get the same respect and attention that someone playing a more traditional instrument usually does)

not sure about my playing in that particular improvisation, for most of the time i felt like i was simply executing some of the techniques i use on the cuatro, without much creative input, or risk.. the public performance aspect somehow took away from the purer aspect of playing.. still, i managed one of that short leaps, when rubbing one of the knitting needles under the strings accidentally hit the frets and resulted in that washboard sound that i’d be familiar with in a 1920s Hawaiian guitar context, but that it hadn’t occurred to me during these improvisations yet…

(and that’s another thing that Frith was talking about in that interview, part 3 or 4 i think.. how we develop our techniques, how we choose to use them when we play…. he also talked about the big difference between hearing the recording of an improvisation or performance and the experience of playing or participating to the same performance)

I’m a little snowed under with another project and will unfortunately have to bow out of doing a full-scale teaching diary for the time being (you are, of course, welcome to write about the class in any form you want). I will leave you with a few links though.

• If you haven’t already, as discussed in today’s class and pointed to in my last post, have a listen to the two magicians.
• More on Anthony Braxton, Marilyn Crispell, Gerry Hemingway and Evan Parker.
• The musician who said improvisation was about finding an ending was Charles Hayward.
• The duet that Kevin mentioned by Marian Murray and myself was from the May 2008 Stet Lab (you’ll find this under the title ‘don’t eat the red acid!’).

Finally, if you’re looking for further listening material, I highly recommend destination OUT which posts rare and/or obscure recordings of improvised music(s). (They have, among other things, recently completed a Braxton blogathon.) Subscribe to their feed, download their mp3s, listen, study and learn… and have fun.

Basically, I am free

Monday before 2 and after 3.30
Tuesday after 2.30
Thursday after 2.30
Friday after 12.30

We tackled two major elements during this class:

1. getting to get the class to crit
2. how to end and improvised performance

The Big Crit

the good

Play: there’s a several minute stretch of discussion by Andrea, Owen and Paul after the first improvisation. I don’t need to add anything to this; we’re talking about our work.

But…

the bad

Play: are we happy with that? (Our contract made during our first class was to be frank and critical of our work.)

Andrea says we have room for improvement. Owen asks how we might improve. Andrea suggests through more playing and discussion. …But our discussions pretty much exclusively fixated on our successes, and we’re afraid to discuss, in specifics, our less desirable traits—our flaws, our failures, our near and not-so-near misses. How are we going to achieve ‘high-quality’ performances if we don’t apply the same criteria that we bring to bear on the work of our elders and models?

We also tend to propose ‘solutions’ without fully specifying the problem, without asking what is wrong with what we are doing? what dissatisfies us about our current state / performance?

(This will potentially, and eventually, relate to examining criteria.)

the ugly

Kevin: we could be more pig headed.

Owen: did not like my playing. (Excellent! a proper crit!) “The jazz parts put me off.” But if you didn’t like my playing, what could you do to stop me? (An unasked question: what could you have done to redirect, redefine or subvert my playing?)

My crit: I don’t trust the group (but this is actually my problem, not the group’s fault). What sucked? I agree with Kevin, we performed like sheep. Paul could be more assertive, less polite; Kevin could demonstrate more nerve; Andrea could make strong statements by dropping out. We rarely do endings that go bang…

the art (craft? science? magic?) of ending

ending a

Andrea sees a convergence of agency [sorry, my paraphrase] between performers signaling an ending. But is that what’s really happening if, as we’ve discussed before, this kind of interaction, as observed from a third party, is extremely unreliable sign to navigate by.

Owen desires a more abrupt ending… What do you need to do to get that ending?

ending b

Owen feels a need for signals.

We’ve done a lot of ending in the last few weeks, so we are capable of doing endings. What is the mechanism?

Kevin rephrases this question: how do you signify an ending? (This is an interesting, and telling, way to think about the problem… wonder where this leads to.)

Andrea: stop playing, and wait for the others to stop. Certainly works (this is a pretty good answer).

Kevin talks about leaving your options open for coming back in if the others do not take the exit. However, if I guessed what Kevin was doing, and I sabotaged it, what’s happens then?

Andrea brings up the audience as creator of meaning and possibly somehow the arbitrator of the ending. (But how?)

(The answer to our question is between Kevin and Andrea’s statements.)

If two performers desire different kinds of endings, what happens? What can you do in that situation?

ending c

This one, for me, sounded cool. None of us got quite what we wanted, but the results were interesting. (Something to return to.)

How was that? did it suck? was it better? We’re good at describing what happened, but not so willing to make ‘quality’ assessments.

Andrea talks about an ending being a consensus or compromise. Andrea is on to something here: the last improvisation, for him, felt like “we’re have an ending; oh no, we don’t; oh yes, we have… everyone did their own ending… it was cool in a sense, but it was also… forced. Or not an ending as such. [emphasis mine]” Some of this was desirable (“it was cool in a sense”), but held back by some other notion of an ending (“not an ending as such”). Where does this other notion of an ending come from (this ‘real’ / ‘true’ / ‘authentic’ ending)? And if we don’t push this somewhere (“forced”), if we don’t make it happen, then how does the music happen? (Andrea thinks the music can happen without the group making it happen.)

Me: “You’ve actually articulated the idea [of how endings work]… but we’re stuck on this one word [actually two] which is ‘false ending’… There is no double bar line… but we can end, which I agree is magical, but like magicians… the person doing it knows full well that there’s a sleight of hand.” Are we unwilling to open the hood and examine the engine? Improvisation can appear magical (is magical), but are we afraid to loose this sense of magic by examining the sleight of hand?

other notes

Are we imagining a preordained ending? (If we are, is this a useful concept?)

An unanswered question: Kevin, last week, expressed a possible improvisative tactic as “continue as you mean to go on”. Why? Why would you continue as you mean to go on?

Owen suggests prepared elements several times during this class. I’m resisting this: prepared means (scores, compositions, etc) are useful things to bring to improvised music, but, as stated in the first class, we are not going to be dealing with them (at least during this first term). I want to see what is possible within an open improvisative context before resorting to other means.

Andrea, like last week, brings up the word ‘control’. Do we not have significant amounts of control (25% share/stake in a quartet, 20% in a quintet)? Is there a question of responsibility for our performance? it seems to me that we cannot hold anyone else to account for the music…

homework

Listening to some endings:

Anthony Braxton and Evan Parker, ‘ParkBrax 5’ (from Duo (London) 1993).
Derek Bailey, George Lewis and John Zorn, ‘On Golden Pond’ and ‘The Warning’ (from Yankees).
Marilyn Crispell and Gerry Hemingway, ‘Billy Duck’ and ‘Jump’ (from Duo).