Safety First

what is listening and what is hearing, then…

the main difference i can think of is again a matter of focused attention on a sound when listening, and general presence of a sound within the perceptive field when hearing.. the two things overlap a lot

so during our first improvisation of last class, we were listening to our own playing (or trying to) but only hearing the others without following them.. then when we stopped playing we heard Kevin playing and since that had become the strongest sound in the room we ended up listening to him and reacting..

very interesting, i think we all enjoyed playing ‘carelessly’ for once, not being inhibited by our relationship with the others, just going for it and throwing whatever came to mind on the table.. and this unleashed a good dynamic, who knows this could be a great warm-up exercise for many bands or any group of people doing this type of work (AA again..)

in a studio environment we could have taken the thing further.. imagine we all had headphones and could hear

• only our own playing while improvising together in a circle..

or we could even expand and see what would happen if we could only hear

• someone else’s playing but not ours
• all the others except us
• nothing at all
• some other piece of music

and so on..

it would be interesting to listen to the recordings, looking for relationships in each case

and just as well, we would be in a situation in which we players would be the same as the external listener not playing.. just listening to the music we played without recognizing it

i think we’re getting into this Heisenberg’s principle situation.. we could ask ourselves how much the listener influences the performer

(pretty easy to find examples, everyone has a story of things that ’sounded great’ when i was on my own in the practice room, and look what i mess i just did.. in front of the audience.. the examiners and so on)

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?

how to proceed

The course will run on a ‘freeform’ basis. Voted three-to-one.

notes

Paul’s vote is partly dependent on his belief (hope?) that the ‘freeform’ approach will move him out from his habits. I note that Kevin voted for the other approach.

why improvise?

We tackle the question.

Possibility of the novel and the new.

Does improvisation offer a unique relationship between audience and performer? Paul is interested in sound (itself?). Owen, on the other hand, finds a unique relationship, and links this to the idea of surprise (the novel and new).

Kevin further locates this in the idea of ‘expectations’: improvisation “invites the possibility that something wonderful can happen.”

Han: [Expectations] from whose point of view?

Kevin: From everyone’s point of view; the audience’s point of view and the performers’ point of view.

I ask why I don’t get this sense of surprise from a composed piece, even when I’ve never heard it before. Is it just my own prejudice?

Kevin: Maybe it’s because you know the performers aren’t being surprised.

Andrea talks about adaptability [my word]; the ability music to move with context (acoustics, environment, audience, etc.); to go places. Playfulness, ‘innocence’—”be surprised, be amazed.”

Han: Do you get a sense of right and wrong in improvisation?

Owen doesn’t think so. Andrea values listening in improvisation.

Andrea: There can be right things to do, wrong things to do, but I don’t get… mistakes. … For example, if one doesn’t listen to what’s happening, that’s wrong. That could be wrong.

Andrea clarifies this as “lack of awareness”, and brings up the volume (drowning out others) issue. (We’ll probably return to this a future class.)

listening

Can you tell when someone is listening? What does it mean to listen?

demonstration: improvisation without listening

Set the task of playing without listening.

Is not listening possible, never mind desirable?

Han: What does it mean to listen?

Paul: That you may be influence by what goes on….

Han: But can you not be?

Is listening as a criteria for judging whether an improvisation is successful a problematic idea? Does listening, as a concept, give us a way forward?

listening as a relationship?

My take: when we say ‘listening’ this is a short hand for a kind of relationship. In the case of ‘listening’ we tend to think stimulus and response, or influence. Ultimately we see the person doing the ‘listening’ as passive.

enter Steve, Anthony and Ralph

I offer a couple of quotes. Lacy seems to lean towards the notion of the novel and unknown (but does he?), while Frost and Yarrow articulate… what?

Owen reads “avoid the reflex of trying to make it into something you think it ought to be, rather than letting it become what it can be”, and states that this is what we’re trying to do. “To add to what is happening rather that subtract from it.” What does it mean to add? Andrea substitutes the word “contribute”: “passing the ball” and “giving some kind of sense of direction”.

demonstration: passing the ball

Andrea and Paul demonstrate this idea.

Get a crit from Kevin and Owen. Kevin brings up the term “call and response”. Owen thinks the “concept” of interaction is faulty; it prevents the performance from going where it can go, rather than where you think it ought to go.

Paul enjoyed the performance, but is not always aware of what is happening in the heat of the moment. According to Andrea, the duet format allows the greater possibility of dialogue. Is, however, dialogue a good thing, or as Owen suggests, a liability?

call and response

Call and response: a contribution? adding to? a relationship?

Owen suggest that the exact nature of the response is arbitrary. Does a call require a certain class of response? What does it mean to do call and response?

demonstration: random call, random response

Kevin and Owen perform arbitrary call and responses. (Okay, I enjoyed this a lot, and not just for the theatrics.)

Quesion: do we need to worry about whether the response logically follows from the call? Isn’t the only important thing that the call follow the response, thus making itself the response? [Didn't say this in class, but doesn't the response just need to perform being the response?] Andrea takes the discussion to gospel….

Han: They [gospel performers] can respond however they want to. The important thing is that they responded, and, thus, the response is an appropriate response.

a little exercise in juxtaposition

We’ll probably talk about this again, so I shall leave it here for the moment….

Do we need explicit signs and gestures to say we are listening? Kevin does not think so.

question for next time

What does it mean to say ‘call and response’?

What does ‘contributing’, ‘adding to’ or ‘relationship’ mean in practical terms?