Safety First

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.

play

Felt the group played well. Nothing specific to add other than we’re quicker off the mark than week zero.

This is actually the first time I play in the 2008–2009 Safety First class. Like I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a little stuck in this post-Campbell pseudo-bluegrass mode. (Doesn’t help that my right arm ain’t quite there yet.)

discussion

(Note for future: we need to move away from talking generals, and get down to specifics in our discussions. Hopefully, examining Taylor and Oxley’s performance will help that.)

Andrea asks “were we listening?”

where are we

How does the class feel about where we are? Kevin says we are making progress.

Where are we headed? Andrea: “definitely a different place from where we started.”

Where are we?

consensus

Kevin brought up the notion of consensus (as the process that drives, or goal of, improvisation). Our online discussion continued along the following line

Kevin: …It comes from the group’s consensus…. Maybe a better way to put it would be that the music is the group coming to a consensus….

Han: If it’s a matter of consensus, the question in a sense becomes, who (helps to) makes the consensus if not you?

Kevin: The other performers and the audience?

Han: But if the other performers are, say, all waiting for the others to make the consensus, are you not stuck in a loop? Can a consensus be reached if everyone is just waiting for it to happen?

How do you find consensus if we’re all waiting for the other person? If we’re all reactive how are we going to go anywhere?

“shedding habits”

Paul had said in the second class, in response to the question, that he desires to shed habits. If the goal is to shed habits, why not do whatever you want to do (or do anything (at all))?

play: do whatever you want to do

discussion

Good? Bad?

How did that improvisation compare with the very first improvisation of the class? (Play recording of the first improvisation.) Were the performers listening intently in that first improvisation? and if so, was that advantageous in comparison to everyone doing their own thing?

Kevin thinks yes, but qualifies that something in between those would be best.

Where is that?

leaders and followers?

Orthodox (West European) musical ensemble pedagogy’s model is of leader (conductor, composer, etc) and followers (good musicianship is following). Does the world break down into leaders and followers? Can we be something else other than the leader or the pack?

Andrea says yes, it’s about “finding a balance”.

Paul says he finds it very difficult to “shake-off the past”. But how can you get consensus if you don’t bring yourself (including your past) to the table? We each want something, and what we want is part of our trainings, our histories, our traditions.

(Kevin brings up a double call-and-response scheme. This has the idea of contrasts and juxtapositions hidden there, I ignore this (sorry, Kevin), but we’ll probably return to this.)

audience and perception

Andrea says that notions, such as consensus, are subjective. (He brings up the point of audience and reception. I promise we will return to these ideas of subjective and partial in reading and reception.)

play: duo plus the guy doing his own shtick

Andrea and Kevin do a duo, ignore me, I do my own thing.

discussion

Paul didn’t like it. I was overpowering the group (sorry, my bad). He brings up the word ‘unified’ (as a desirable trait), but adds

Paul: I wanted to hear different things.

What do we mean by reacting? In ‘normal’ music, the bass player, say, is in the bass register, the piccolos are stratospheric; the performers are (apparently) not together. If they were in the same space, the music would collapse. Is that what we mean by reacting (to occupy the same space)? Is ‘being together’ or call-and-response all we have; the only possibilities?

Andrea found it hard to discern if he was reacting to me or not (i.e. interaction is subjective). In which case, does it really matter if I respond (if we’re going to hear a ‘response’ regardless of intention)?

Kevin: No.

Han: Then what do you have left?

Kevin: What you’re doing and what the other guy is doing.

play: duo (two soloists)

Paul and I play, trying our best to ignore each other.

discussion

Andrea thought (imagined?) he could hear interaction. Goes on to say that, when he plays with Kevin, he sometimes occupies the same space, other times, creates contrast. Return to that question: does that mean we can do anything we want?

ego

What do you bring to the negotiating table? Personal/collective histories? Prejudices? Egos? (Paul is suspicious of egos?)

other business

Andrea asks about the topology of the group/class (clockwise, Andrea, Owen (me in this case), Kevin and Paul). I reply that we’re trying to keep things simple for the moment. We may have to return to this issue at a later date depending on how much progress we’ve made on other issues.

homework

Consider Cecil Taylor and Tony Oxley’s ‘Stylobate 1′ (from Leaf Palm Hand) and see if we can talk about it in terms of ‘diplomacy’ and in terms of ‘ego’, or tradition, or (personal/collective) histories. Also see if we can reverse engineer what they are doing, and how they are doing what they are doing.

first impressions

Small group (quartet), a significant change to the 9+ class sizes of the past. Four is the magic number in these context (maybe we’ll discuss this in future classes), but for now, all I can say is… we have a band (2 treble instruments, bass and drums). How weird is that?

identity politics

All male class (all white, but, hey, this is Cork). Why is that? What happened to all the female students this year?

background and prior experience

No one in the group comes from a complete no-prior-experience-of-improvisation background. Does this mean the group has a head start, or that we come with baggage we need shed? How much are our habits (and as improvisers and performers we all have tricks we rely upon from time to time) going to be benefits or liabilities in the coming weeks?

introductions and contract

Everyone got to introduce themselves and state what they expect from the course. Whole bunch of issues came up which we’ll be returning to in the coming weeks:

• interaction: stimulus and response, choices, etc.
• freedom
• restrictions and limits
• boundaries (and responsibilities?)
• (personal) expression

Paul brings up the concept of process (his word) and interaction (mine). We’re starting in a good place here.

Owen is looking for freedom—freedom away from stylistic (idiomatic?) limits, and freedom in terms of ‘expression’. How’s that for a list of interesting and problematic terms? Plenty to go on….

first improvisation

First impressions: very polite.

Found the interventions of Kevin dramatic, and as was Owen’s absence. (Learned that Andrea’s listening is based on an almost LCR or surround sound system.)

The group is good at gauging duration (a request for five minute came in just under), so we probably won’t have to spend too many classes dealing with that issue. (We will likely need to deal with the issue of how to start and how to end of course….)

discussion

This, for me, is when the group starts to shine. Andrea brings up ‘choices’, Kevin wonders about the initial impulse that cascades through the group. We’re not quite in a position to articulate a lot of these ideas in a pragmatic fashion yet, but we’re entering interesting areas.

final improvisations

Notice that Andrea and Paul are very much into their instruments, while Kevin and Owen (especially Owen) are very much looking around at the group (visually driven?). So I requested that Kevin and Owen don’t look at the group, and Andrea and Paul to look up from their instruments.

Now that was interesting wasn’t it? what’s the mechanism here? what happene?

Unfortunately ran out of time. (Maybe return to this later…)

other business

Blog / class diary. Class volunteered to be frank about criticisms, etc. (I’m personally a little nervous about this: people often say they want the ugly truth until they get it.) Propose that we start by being civil on the blog, and then see what happens.

Oh, and the blog will be public. (Nothing like living dangerously.) I will, however, refrain from posting certain information up here: actual assessment (grades), attendance records, etc.

for next week

Question: Why improvisation? Of all the myriad of was to construct / perform / do music, why improvise?

How do we proceed?

• Plan A: we do a Karate Kid, paint some fences. I lay out a bunch of exercises…
• Plan B: freeform. Much more exciting, but much riskier. Class generates direction (I only mark the exit points).

Primary thing to note is that the student/instructor relationship (and responsibilities) will be different depending on the model we choose.

Had some discussion on this, and we’ll vote on this next Wednesday.