Safety First

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).

Moment-by-moment commentary of a group (in this case duo) improvisation as promised. BTW, yours do not have to be as wordy as this one, and you are very welcome to take a short snippet of your performances (30 seconds, 5 seconds, whatever) if you are short on time…

0:06 start

Here’s pretty much the kind of opening I did at the last class. I know Murray’s not quite ready yet (nor, I’m gambling, is the audience), and I jump in, make a bold statement, hoping to shape the rest of the performance in those stark tones

The sweeping, fluttering gesture’s fairly comfortable to play (a choice partly dictated by the fact that we’re performing cold without a warmup), and I also know there’s a few other places I can go with this—I’m familiar with the technique. I’m hedging my bets with the harmonics at the 11 second mark, saying that I may go there, or set up an alternation. I abandon this for the moment, save it maybe for later, because the ultimate tactic I decide to pursue does require the harmonics…

Read the rest of this entry »

as a contrast (?) to Oxley-Taylor

…we do very self-aware improvisations. (…or is it really as big a contrast as I make it sound?)

play

Fine as far as it went, but I miss some of the density and complexity of last week.

discussion

Any comments? criticisms? (A question that I did not ask in class: if we’re afraid, or unwilling, to say we’re dissatisfied with an improvisation, how do we move on from here?)

Andrea feels being “relaxed” has helped un-stuck the group. Kevin would like to be more alert.

my crit

The good: interesting challenges and choices because of the stark volume discrepancies.

The bad: the start, for my tastes, was a little too timid for me.

how do you start an improvisation?

Play and talk through the process. In the discussion, try and articulate what we’re doing, and why we’re doing it both in terms of effect desired (where we’re pushing it), and how we’re affected (how are choices are shaped by others’ actions).

You want it to go somewhere, but of course it does not… and that’s okay.

A step-by-step articulation of choices, consequences of actions, etc.

some observations

Kevin: two ways of opening: something known, or free of premeditation. Kevin is thinking in terms of individual state. (…but how does this map on to a group?)

Andrea: two ways: slow, gentle; fast, dense. Thinking, broadly, in terms of aggregate group behavior. (…but how is this useful if a group is composed of, say, competing agencies?)

how do you start an improvisation? redux

Play and discuss. Okay, for me, this improvisation rocked—interesting contrasts, moments of density, sparseness, etc.

expectations

If you’re surprised by the result, you must have expected something. What are our (imperfectly) predicted consequences of our actions?

sports commentary

Play, while trying to do a DVD commentary. I admit this is hard (talk and play), but Andrea gets this pretty much straight away.

BTW, great little ending to this…

other notes

Paul realizes that it’s okay to ‘play notes’—we don’t have to do ‘extended techniques’.

homework

Write up a moment-by-moment sports commentary to one of our past performances (either in class or with another group, but ideally with a recording that’s available online…). I’ll also do one, and post it up here…

potential questions to tackle

1. how do you end an improvisation?
2. what might ‘control’ mean in this practice? (Andrea was hovering ’round this word.)

other business

performance-practical

Everyone present is good for anytime during the practical week (8–12 December) as long as it avoids the jazz/pop practicals (checked with Paul O’Donnell subsequently, and the jazz/pop practicals will be on Wednesday).

Kevin will do the program notes; Andrea, the poster.

Need to think about how to bill ourselves, performance format, and, eventually, examination criteria.

open day performance

Everyone present is up for doing a performance at the open day on Saturday, 8th November.

general comments

I did a little too much of a lecture in class (I suspect the desire to play more and talk less is a response to this).

I also somewhat jumped the gun, indicating the exit out of our current dilemma. I wonder if this will turn out to be a mistake: the last thing I want is for the class to regress into a model in which the teacher generates direction. I hope everyone holds on to their responsibilities (and I don’t exercise too much executive control).

Playing wise, for me, this is the class when we hit it, and it really starts to cooking. (I have no real explanation for this, but I’m also interested that no previous Safety First course has hit such a high mark so soon into the course.) It remains to be seen whether we can keep this up, or if the spark, fired by the various revelations (and reevaluations) of this week’s class basically die down. Either way, the next few weeks shall be interesting.

towards a improvisative tactic

Quick summary of the dilemma: avoid both the autocratic command-and-follow model and the Cagian denial of agency. …and can we (and should we) bring our egos, histories, prejudices, etc to the negotiating table?

What do you want to do? Kevin say talk about Taylor and Oxley.

reverse engineering Stylobate 1

Kevin: Oxley just keeps on following Taylor.

Kevin talk us through what Oxley is doing. Here, Oxley picks out this from Taylor; here he picks something else out.

Question: but what about the other moments when Oxley’s playing doesn’t correspond to Taylors?

Andrea says his initial impression was also that Oxley was following Taylor, but then began to hear the reverse as well.

The rhythm sometimes ‘locks-in’, other times it does not.

How is Oxley following Taylor.

Kevin hears a myriad of ways in which Oxley follows Taylor (imitation, accentuation, etc).

Owen hears Taylor as the dominant voice—the leader.

Question: that’s what it sounds like, but is that how it’s constructed. What’s the underlying mechanism? (Note to myself: we should try and separate audience POV and the reverse engineering of performances.)

Kevin: Perhaps Oxley is accompanying Taylor.

Question: What do you mean by accompaniment? (I didn’t ask this in class, but the question, in a sense, is what does it mean to accompany, when idiom, and style (the usual reference points for this kind of break down of roles) is up in the air?)

Kevin: following… trying to compliment.

demonstration of accompanying

Duo: Kevin as Oxley, Owen as Taylor.

Sounded good. Very interesting playing.

Andrea and I had a hard time deciphering who was accompanying who.

what’s the Oxley algorithm?

What generates that complexity [of response]?

Kevin suggests that Oxley takes his cues from Taylor selectively.

Question: Under what conditions does he take his cues?

my take on what’s happening

Taylor is jump-cutting between several contrasting, distinctive ideas/gestures. Oxley also jumps between contrasting ideas/gestures, locking his changes with (what he perceives to be) Taylor’s changes.

They are, in a sense, missing out the aesthetic or idiomatic ‘judgment call’ (“he’s done that, ergo, I’m going this”).

Thus, sometimes the music ‘locks’ and other times he doesn’t.

Talk very briefly about how the performer’s negotiations are partial (e.g. Oxley’s take on when Taylor makes a jump is subjective). May need to return to this idea…

the audience and ‘active listening’

We return to the idea that the audience’s interpretation of the onstage relationships is subjective. Thus, as performers, all we need to do is generate a certain degree of complexity, and the audience hears the rest. In reference to Andrea’s notion of ‘active listening’, I add that audiences are active because they actively create meaning. Performers delegate responsibility to the audience, the audience (partially) creates the relationships onstage.

play: try out the algorithm

Trio: Andrea, Kevin and Owen.

Playing wise, for me, this was a high point of the course thus far. High-energy, interesting and complex; as audience, the relationships and negotiations were just that little bit out of grasp (that’s a good thing).

Andrea liked having a tactic: not worry too much about shaping the music. I say that the shape should sort itself out if you do your part. (There’s my tired soccer game metaphor…)

what does Taylor do?

Given Oxley’s tactic, talk briefly about what Taylor’s responses might be. Kevin: prolog a ‘section’ if he likes what Oxley’s doing, etc. We really need to return to some of these ideas because they are at the core of real-time tactics and musical negotiations.

egos, histories, etc.

Following on from last week’s discussions, briefly cover the idea that selflessness is often synonymous with musicianship, and how this may be a problematic idea in group improvisation.

Andrea: Oxley is slightly less egotistical.

Yes, but Oxley is keeping his own identity: he is not subsumed into Taylor’s gestures in a straightforward way. Oxley’s moves are his own, and Taylor’s has to deal with the resultant—Taylor’s life is not made easier by Oxley’s choices.

Andrea: in this music, the self is more necessary than in others. You need to bring yourself (material, background, ego) to the group.

(A peripheral issue that I didn’t say: I think Andrea’s right, but with one modifier: in other musical practices, the self is just as important, but we like to pretend it isn’t. In other words, we often value music, and musicality, that is unmarked.)

You can, and I think it would be good to, bring other traditions and idioms to the performance. You can play the Delta blues, but you cannot expect others to necessarily join in.

play

Quartet: Andrea, Han, Kevin and Owen.

We have a cooky, dramatic little ending: ppp flutters from Owen, just when it threatens to die down, I interject, others join in, etc.

what are we doing next week?

Now what? Owen: less talk, more play. Han: play until we come across a problem.

Andrea invents a class dinner as a metaphor as a way to theorize group improvisative performance. I responded that

Your metaphor of group performance as a group meal is an excellent one… but I’m going to suggest one significant difference: in group performance, the ‘meal’ can be altered in real-time depending on the resources available (or the ingredients brought by the group).

Thus, although it makes sense to say that

each of us will bring things that he feels will be enjoyed by everyone else, according to his own experience and taste

Because group performance is dynamic, we’re not stuck with Owen’s starter or Kevin’s main course.

Now, it strikes me that Andrea’s semi-planned (people are given responsibilities, but have leeway within those) potluck is only one available way to organize a group dinner. Another would be a meticulously pre-planned meal (taken, say, from the pages of a book), where all parties were given specific duties that would culminate in that planned extravaganza; yet another would be a blind potluck where everyone brings whatever is at hand. Even in this crude metaphorical sketch, we might find echos of the autocratic, authorial composerly model in the former, and the Cagian denial of agency in the latter.

But if, as Andrea and Kevin have said, we’re trying to find a balance—something in between those would be best—I’m going to posit that we’re aiming for a different kind of organizing principle.

three hungry chefs in a less-than-satisfactory kitchen

Marilyn loves Chicago cuisine (its versions of Italian, Chinese, etc.). On the other hand, Evan is a chocoholic. John likes everything.

They’re all hungry.

They search the kitchen, find utensils, appliances, ingredients.

Evan needs his fix and is relieved to find a small lump of chocolate, and almost empty jar of Nutella. His heart skips a beat, and begins work.

Marilyn rolls a pizza base. She’s not thinking too much about her next move, or what Evan (never mind John) is up to, but is meticulous—whatever it is that will result, this will be a fine, Chicago-style pizza base. She preheats the oven.

Evan puts together a dark(ish) chocolate sauce. He doesn’t know how sweet or savory it is ’cause he is too hungry to check; he is only guided by his nose. He looks over at Marilyn and feels a momentary sense of dread: should I aim for savory?

John, becoming dissatisfied with the kitchen and the course(s) of action by his comrades, decides a little spice will cure any monstrosity that might result. Just make it hot, he thinks. He grabs half the spice rack, runs between his comrades and throws a pinch of this and that into their concoctions: he pops paprika into Marilyn pizza base, and dumps whole peppercorns into Evan sauce.

Before Marilyn has time to respond, Evan (with only a vague notion of what he is doing) has poured the sauce over the pizza base.

Marilyn, by habit, more than anything, sprinkles oregano onto it. She ceremoniously slides the pizza into the oven.

Oh well, looks like we’re having spicy chocolate pizza (with oregano). It is neither Chicago cuisine, nor is it the confectionery that Evan is more used to. John is slightly horrified (but fascinated).

The meal and its making are, however,

1. novel
2. a result of accepting available resources (including people)
3. a result of competing and cooperative gestures (a negotiation in real-time)
4. neither authorial, nor the denial of agency
5. neither pre-planned, nor the result of pure chance
6. a result of individual desires…
7. …yet of accepting what it can be

Now substitute environment, context and instrumentation for the kitchen with its appliances and ingredients, and substitute improvising musicians for hungry amateur chefs.

Some really interesting articles from Andrea and Owen. Good writing people; here’s my response:

Andrea states he does not see

…‘Listening’ as a passive thing”.

I think many of us are attracted to some notion of active listening, and I agree that listening does not necessarily have to be a passive behavior or a subservient position, but how do we talk about this other kind of listening? The notion that listening is passive, or at best only reactive, is a strong part of orthodox musical pedagogy; we’ve all been trained into this:

• follow the tempo
• lock-in with the group
• be influenced…
• respond…

The pressure on us is to find an alternative vocabulary to talk about listening, theorize it, and explore the practical dimensions of this alternative form of listening.

Andrea also goes on to say

…The response can simply mean ‘i’m here’, ‘i’m with you guys’.

My question is, do we have to say ‘I’m with you guys’? Even when trying not to listen to each other, you were listening to each other. In other words, you’re always already performing ‘I’m with you guys’ even when you’re not explicitly stating it (in sound, in gestures, in music). (And how exactly does that work?)

…And would it be a tragedy (in musical terms) if I said ‘I am not with you’?

In somewhat of a contrast to Andrea, Owen questions the very idea of listening

Is it a good thing to always listen? (because i think it was exciting when we tried to not listen today)

I responded to this by saying that

Well, I did think it sounded good. But you were still listening (you did jump right back in when Kevin started back up). If you were still listening (in some sense), what was it that made that improvisation more successful?

I think you’re right to ask if there are different ways to listen. The question then becomes how were you listening (and interacting) in that performance as opposed to the others

For me, the way out of our current funk is hidden somewhere in Owen’s remark:

I don’t want to manipulate where a piece of music goes, and push it somewhere were I think i should go.

I won’t say whether I agree or disagree with this assertion, but the key to many issues (listening, interacting, how to get to the edge, how to leap into the unknown) is just under the surface of this statement. Let me break that down:

1. How can the music go somewhere unless someone pushes it? And…
2. If you don’t push it where you think it should go, who does?