Free improvisation
Vilppu Huomo
I came up with an idea of raising a conversation of free improvisation,
because that's a subject I haven't seen much talk around here (or maybe I
just don't remember).
How many of you actively plays in a free improv band? How do you practise?
Is it hard
to get gigs? When you improvise, do you start with some chord progression
(for example) or is it completely "free"? Are these questions stupid? Is
free improvisation
jazz at all...
I play in a free improv band, and I have find it very challenging, but also
very rewarding.
It's one thing to play alone at home and improvise, and something completely
different
to collectively improvise and still come up with something that can be
listened without
crying. Interesting part here is practising, because we have usually started
with something abstract and something that doesn't have nothing to do with
playing, for example some painting or some colour which we have tried to
play. For me, that has helped to open new musical doors to enter and learn
stuff from my playing I wouldn't have learned otherwise.
Vilppu
Robby
improvise & come up with something that DOES make people cry when
listening, you've really done something amazing... I guess it depends
why they cry?
TomLippinc
I don't play in a "free improv band" per se, but several different groups I
play with or have played with in the past have used free improv in various
different guises as part of the "repertoire."
How do you practise?
That's kind of tough, because if you are talking about true free group
improvisation, then basically the "rules" have been thrown out and there isn't
really much left to "practice." With that said, I think that a lot of the
"rules" that apply to more traditional forms of improvisation tend to be
applied, albeit in more general terms. Familiarity with the other musicians'
playing and doing a lot of listening to the group sound as a whole seem to be
important elements to making a cohesive musical statement in this context.
>Is it hard
>to get gigs?
unless by "free improvisation" you mean playing for free, around here it's
pretty close to impossible to get a gig doing that kind of stuff. the most
I've ever done and still been able to actually get a gig doing it is to
incorporate small sections within a tune that are "free," or maybe to play
"free" but to actually impose a few restrictions on myself so that the music
has a few elements of "tonal" music.
When you improvise, do you start with some chord progression
>(for example)
I don't know if I would still call it "free" if there was chord progression.
Most modern jazz musicians, even in pretty "inside" situations tend to veer
away quite considerably from the prescribed chord changes during the course of
a tune. Nevertheless there's somewhat of a fine line. I've heard very "free"
interpretations of traditionally tonal tunes like standards or bop heads where
the soloists mostly or completely ignore the chord changes and/or groove.
Someone like Paul Motian will use just a melody as a basis for a performance,
and some of that stuff can sound pretty "free" but there's still something
preconcieved going on.
or is it completely "free"? Are these questions stupid? Is
>free improvisation
>jazz at all...
>
I guess that's very open to interpretation but to me if the musicians playing
are versed in the jazz tradition and are referring at least somewhat to that
tradition, then it will usually sound like jazz to me.
>I play in a free improv band, and I have find it very challenging, but also
>very rewarding.
>It's one thing to play alone at home and improvise, and something completely
>different
>to collectively improvise and still come up with something that can be
>listened without
>crying. Interesting part here is practising, because we have usually started
>with something abstract and something that doesn't have nothing to do with
>playing, for example some painting or some colour which we have tried to
>play. For me, that has helped to open new musical doors to enter and learn
>stuff from my playing I wouldn't have learned otherwise.
>
>Vilppu
I saw a concert by a free jazz group years ago where the leader had a bunch of
banners, each with a different word on them suggesting a mood or emotion, like
"forlorn" or "rage" or whatever, and at the beginning of each "tune" he would
put a new one up on the wall behind the band, and the "tune" would be a group
improv based on that word.
In general I tend to think it's helpful to use extramusical elements as
inspiration for music, particularly other art forms.
Tom Lippincott
John S. Clifford
for artistic merit, but I can't see myself ever paying real money to sit and
listen to anyone else play that way.
John C.
Bill Duke
<jcl...@mediaone.net> notes:
: I think "free" jazz can be a lot of fun for the musicians and has the potential
: for artistic merit, but I can't see myself ever paying real money to sit and
: listen to anyone else play that way.
I remember hearing the Art Ensemble of Chicago back in '76. A good chunk
of their show was what appeared to be utterly free improvisation, though
based on the kind of subtle communication borne of hundreds of hours of
playing together. The (paying) audience seemed to enjoy it greatly,
including my jazz-has-too-many-notes-in-it girlfriend.
Free improvisation can be heartily rewarding for both players and
listeners, if only because it takes one of the signal elements of jazz,
spontaneity, to its logical conclusion. The reason it often doesn't work
is that it's very, very hard to do well.
Too many players assume that free improvisation doesn't demand the
discipline that jazz ordinarily does, when in fact it demands more.
Bill
Todd Clark
"Vilppu Huomo" <Vilppu...@phnet.fi> wrote:
>
> How many of you actively play in a free improv band?
>
My five older children and I have an avant-garde family band. My sixth
child is due next month, and we have already recorded samples of him in
the womb to use on a forthcoming album. That makes one more artistic
deviant coming into the ranks... (Roll over, Sun Ra, and tell Frank
Zappa the news!)
>
> When you improvise, do you start with some chord progression
>
It varies depending on the specific composition. Much of the Native
American passages we play do not have conventional Eurocentric harmonic
structure to begin with. Other passages are multilayered ambient
electronic soundscapes and still others are walls of pure industrial
noise. Then there are the searing atonal guitar solos.
>
> Is free improvisation jazz at all ?
>
When I was working on my undergraduate degree, my jazz professor taught
us that all types of jazz, no matter how stylistically disparate, had
two ingredients that had to be present in order to qualify that music
as jazz: syncopation and improvisation. Even extreme rubato rhythm can
still be a form of syncopation.
>
--
Todd Tamanend Clark
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian
Somewhere Along The Monongahela River
http://www.annihilist.com/cgi-bin/profiles.cgi?step=view_all
http://www.guitargeek.com/layouts/display.php3?id=236
"Smash the control images; smash the control machine!"
---- William S. Burroughs
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jurupari
>listeners, if only because it takes one of the signal elements of jazz,
>spontaneity, to its logical conclusion. The reason it often doesn't work
>is that it's very, very hard to do well.
I doubt if it could be said better than that. I have been fortunate enough to
work or play with a number of musicians who had a good facility for spontaneous
and flexibly structured harmonic and linear improvisation. It's hard to hold
together, but the rewards of a good session can be flabbergasting to both
players and beholders.
Regards,
Clif Kuplen
http://members.aol.com/jurupari
Nicholas McCormick
I am an active Improvisor, with my group Cyan Askesis Ensemble,
we are located in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
we have released 3 independent releases.
When we start, we just start, sometimes a common chordal strucure will
occur, but we rather focus on improvisations with sound, rather than
strict musical bounderies.
I personally think, that there is "free improvisation", "Free Jazz",
"Jazz" and "Improv" but there is also large amounts of improvisation in
jazz, rather jazz, is more based on chordal improvisation and that is
how I believe it.
If there is anyone musically out there , who would like to trade
experiences in improvisation, I would like too.
Thanks
Nicholas
(CAE)
Peter Kienle
Doesn't it rather mean that ALL parameters that create the music are open.
With my guitar trio we throw in improvised interludes between tunes.
Because they lead from one structure to the next they seem to be more
accessible for us and for 'them'. When we play music we organize and
structure space & time. It clearly helps to have a goal or inspiration
rather than just going for it. By the time you find what you're going for
most people will have lost interest. (A little bit like pulling random
words out of a hat. After a while you are able to make sentences - until
then it's pretty boring).
Last night I played an interesting gig in Indianapolis. It was with a band
I play with fairly often as sideman. I'd call the band smooth jazz with an
attitude. All players are top notch (except for myself). Violin, bass,
drums, keys, percussion & guitar. Last night there was a second percussion
player. Their music are mostly originals and very organized.
In the first hour of that gig we were supposed to freely improvise -
creating a creepy atmosphere (there was a huge red skull behind us on
stage which BTW was richly decorated, fog, etc). It was not hard to create
the requested atmosphere and it was not jazz. I hadn't thought it would be
so much fun - especially considering that they are all so 'organized'
players. And it also was the highest paying I ever had.
Peter
--
Visit http://www.acmerecords.com
for Original Jazz that Rocks with BeebleBrox
jazz guitar trio 3rd Man
Odd Guitar Jazz
Original Tunes Online
John S. Clifford
can be, and is, created through such means. But so is a lot of crap (IMHO, of
course). Of course, it's hard to know whether we all mean the same thing when we
refer to "free" jazz or improvisation. I went to see Charles Lloyd with Billy
Higgins and John Abercrombie a while back and loved it, although some people might
call a lot of what they played "free" improv.
John C.
Robby
Karatnick, & it was amazing, passionate, interesting music. Free Jazz
genre, although with loads of technical ability & harmonic, rhythmic,
dynamic, etc. language thrown in the mix. Does $5 count as 'real money'?
Certainly the kind of show I'd pay to see again.
Todd Clark
pki...@acmerecords.com (Peter Kienle) wrote:
>
> Why is it automatically assumed that 'free' means disharmonic,
> chaotic etc?
>
that disharmonic and chaotic are negative qualities?
>
> Doesn't it rather mean that ALL parameters that create the music
> are open.
>
>
> With my guitar trio we throw in improvised interludes between tunes.
> Because they lead from one structure to the next they seem to be more
> accessible for us and for 'them'. When we play music we organize and
> structure space & time. It clearly helps to have a goal or inspiration
> rather than just going for it.
>
realized chaos. Other times the chaos itself IS the point.
>
> By the time you find what you're going for most people will have
> lost interest.
>
people".
>
> (A little bit like pulling random words out of a hat. After a
> while you are able to make sentences - until then it's pretty
> boring).
>
genius by using the word cut-up technique. Of course, he pre-wrote much
of the material that originally went into the "hat" to be processed.
>
> Last night I played an interesting gig in Indianapolis. It was
> with a band I play with fairly often as sideman. I'd call the
> band smooth jazz with an attitude.
>
>
> All players are top notch (except for myself). Violin, bass,
> drums, keys, percussion & guitar. Last night there was a second
> percussion player. Their music are mostly originals and very
> organized.
>
> In the first hour of that gig we were supposed to freely
> improvise - creating a creepy atmosphere (there was a huge red
> skull behind us on stage which BTW was richly decorated, fog,
> etc). It was not hard to create the requested atmosphere and it
> was not jazz.
>
>
> I hadn't thought it would be so much fun - especially
> considering that they are all so 'organized' players.
> And it also was the highest paying I ever had.
>
Paul kirk
Peter Kienle wrote:
> (cut)
>
> Last night I played an interesting gig in Indianapolis. It was with a band
> I play with fairly often as sideman. I'd call the band smooth jazz with an
> attitude. All players are top notch (except for myself).
I just wanted to say that
having heard Peter a few times and listened to his CDs (and heard lots of the
local players)
he is as "top notch" as anyone around.
> Violin, bass,
> drums, keys, percussion & guitar. Last night there was a second percussion
> player. Their music are mostly originals and very organized.
>
I like to play "freer" jazz in various contexts. What's exiting for me is that
if I bring the same
outline to different gigs with different musicians, what comes out is
different. This is of course true for any jazz situation, but mroe so in a
"free" context.
It is very demanding of a listener to hear free music, and generally I find it
more fun to play than to
listen to, except if I'm listening to the masters (eg trane, coleman, or
AAOC).
paul K.
icarusi
news:8c8aje$u5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
My sixth
> child is due next month, and we have already recorded samples of him
in
> the womb to use on a forthcoming album.
Is your child's booking agent aware of this?
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
John S. Clifford
> Does $5 count as 'real money'?
No.
John C.
Thomas F Brown
>news:8c8aje$u5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>My sixth
>> child is due next month,
You know, they have these amazing things nowadays called "rubbers".
Todd Clark
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown) wrote:
>
> > Todd Clark <tama...@helicon.net> wrote:
> >
> > My sixth child is due next month,
>
> You know, they have these amazing things nowadays called "rubbers".
>
39, her biological clock was ticking down her last opportunity to have
children. It would not be right to deny her the basic right of
reproduction, although it has been twelve years since my last surviving
child was born. (I lost a child in utero six years ago.)
>
Secondly, it is none of your business to be telling other people how
many children to have.
>
And thirdly, considering the vast genocide that Native Americans have
endured for the past five hundred and eight years and still counting,
the preservation of our cultures depends on our continuing to have
children and to raise them in as traditional a manner as is possible in
the modern world.
You Here
>
>
>>
>And thirdly, considering the vast genocide that Native Americans have
>endured for the past five hundred and eight years and still counting,
>the preservation of our cultures depends on our continuing to have
>children and to raise them in as traditional a manner as is possible in
>the modern world.
bloodline survived means you've got great genes and you should be breeding!
Lincoln
>> How many of you actively play in a free improv band?
I don't currently, but I have with many different groups in the past.
>> When you improvise, do you start with some chord progression
>> (for example) or is it completely "free"?
"Free" is only one way to approach it. The way to look at it is to try
to have many different types of "structure" (Harminic, melodic, or
rhythmic)
"Structure" can be chord changes, grooves, melodies, anything you
choose it to be. It's a common ground; something to play off of.
You might just have a melody and one chord (i.e. Jean Pierre off of
"We Want Miles".
You might have a melody, and even a form that has changes, but you
leave the changes during the solos. (Like on Miles Smiles)
Many of Ornette's tunes have a very obvious key center during the
melody.
You can choose a shape; like draw a graph on a board and everyone play
their own interpretation of the shape of the graph.
You can have two players have a musical arguement.
You can limit which notes to play. Make everyone use only 5 notes.
There are lots of ways to approach it.
>> Is free improvisation jazz at all ?
It all depends on your definition of "Jazz". It is improvised. What
defines Jazz? Improvisation? For that matter what defines music?
>>
>When I was working on my undergraduate degree, my jazz professor taught
>us that all types of jazz, no matter how stylistically disparate, had
>two ingredients that had to be present in order to qualify that music
>as jazz: syncopation and improvisation. Even extreme rubato rhythm can
>still be a form of syncopation.
I disagree. Why does it need to be syncopated? If you play a piece
without syncopations does that disqualifiy if from being "Jazz"?
It seems the only element that needs to be there is improvisation. But
if you are a musician, and go on a gig and play "Jazz" tunes, and play
all prepared solos that you have memorized, and no one knows they are
prepared and memorized, then are you playing Jazz?
Lincoln
Eugene Cantera (MusickEd.com)
other musical form! It's like anything else, you get what you pay for. If
it sounds free, it probably ain't worth it!
--
Eugene Cantera
Head of Research
www.musicked.com
For the Musician in *You*!
Todd Clark <tama...@helicon.net> wrote in message
news:8c8aje$u5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8c4d6q$ok$1...@nntp.teliafi.net>,
> "Vilppu Huomo" <Vilppu...@phnet.fi> wrote:
> >
> > How many of you actively play in a free improv band?
> >
> My five older children and I have an avant-garde family band. My sixth
> child is due next month, and we have already recorded samples of him in
> the womb to use on a forthcoming album. That makes one more artistic
> deviant coming into the ranks... (Roll over, Sun Ra, and tell Frank
> Zappa the news!)
> >
> > When you improvise, do you start with some chord progression
> > (for example) or is it completely "free"?
> >
> It varies depending on the specific composition. Much of the Native
> American passages we play do not have conventional Eurocentric harmonic
> structure to begin with. Other passages are multilayered ambient
> electronic soundscapes and still others are walls of pure industrial
> noise. Then there are the searing atonal guitar solos.
> >
> > Is free improvisation jazz at all ?
> >
> When I was working on my undergraduate degree, my jazz professor taught
> us that all types of jazz, no matter how stylistically disparate, had
> two ingredients that had to be present in order to qualify that music
> as jazz: syncopation and improvisation. Even extreme rubato rhythm can
> still be a form of syncopation.
> >
Dick Metcalf
I actually DO currently, though much moreso last year... I have played with
about 70 different groups over the last 20 years (or so)... all the way from
2 folks jammin' to thee whole HOUSE rawkin'...
>"Free" is only one way to approach it. The way to look at it is to try
>to have many different types of "structure" (Harminic, melodic, or
>rhythmic)
I believe (& perhaps wrongly so) that "true" improv (if there really is such
a thing) comes when you have NOTHING pre-determined... sure, ya' may have a
groove you like to play "around", but the best stuff comes (for me) when
it's totally unplanned...
">> Is free improvisation jazz at all ?
If it's improvised - it's "free"... the degree to which it can be considered
"jazz" is based on (both) the listener/players perceptions, methinks...
>>
>When I was working on my undergraduate degree, my jazz professor taught
>us that all types of jazz, no matter how stylistically disparate, had
>two ingredients that had to be present in order to qualify that music
>as jazz: syncopation and improvisation. Even extreme rubato rhythm can
>still be a form of syncopation.
The only element that MUST be there is the ENERGY for creating something...
of course, this is as true of improv as it is of C&W, I s'pose...
bro'Zzaj
Blue Lake
Eugene Cantera (MusickEd.com) <eug...@dsminfo.com> wrote in message
news:8cdf7m$cu2$1...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com...
> Free Improv is a mis-nomre. There are more rules in improvisation than
any
> other musical form! It's like anything else, you get what you pay for.
If
> it sounds free, it probably ain't worth it!
>
> --
> Eugene Cantera
> Head of Research
> www.musicked.com
> For the Musician in *You*!
Here's an excerpt from John F. Swed's liner note essay from the New York Art
Quartet -- 35th Reunion (DIW 936).
It would be difficult to say who the first musicians were who played free
jazz. But it would be even more difficult to say what it was they played.
Though not many musicians were happy with the name (especially those who had
worked for 'free' far too often), it rhymed with the times, and dancers,
film makers, painters and playwrights all saw the power in the metaphor, and
produced their own versions of free art, often with the help of the
musicians they admired. A history of that period would likely reveal that
the situation is more complex than we have remembered it, and that ther were
really a number of different musics grouped under that title by critics and
fans. There was an experimental wing (Bill Dixon, Leo Smith, Jimmy Giuffre,
Cecil Taylor), a spiritual/religious group (Sun Ra, Frank Wright, Albert
Ayler), a nationalist/political force (Archie Shepp, Sunny Murray), a bebop
revisionist style (Don Cherry, Ornette Coleman, Jonn Coltrane), etc. Things
are further complicated by the fact that most of the musicians who played in
one of those styles played in the others one time or another or at the same
time.
One style or many, free jazz includes those who want to move jazz even
further from the constraints of harmony, rhythm and pop song form than bebop
had been able to accomplish. This sense of freedom affected every level of
the music....
He continues: "But in fact much of free jazz was based on some of the oldest
and most basic of African and American musical traditions, and it might even
be argued that in some ways free players redeemed these traditional
characteristics for jazz. Free jazz involved the use of the human voice and
speech-inflected instrumental tonality; collective improvisation; the use of
older jazz styles and musical forms as a basis for new compositions; call
and response; African, Caribbean and Latin American rhythms and drumming;
physical performance (playing while marching, dancing, etc.); folk and
exotic scales and modes; acoustic instruments; spirit possession as a mode
of performance; the use of rhythm 'n' blues tunes and effects as models for
performance; and above all, risk-taking of the highest order."
And, yes, this is one heavy mother of an album. Featured tonight "Out On
Blue Lake" alongside of Amiri Baraka and Malachi Thompson's Grand Rapids
concert from November of 1999 taped by Blue Lake Public Radio.
Lazaro Vega
Jon Riley
news:38ea26ec....@news.tm.net...
>
> >> How many of you actively play in a free improv band?
>
past.
>
> >> (for example) or is it completely "free"?
>
try
> to have many different types of "structure" (Harminic, melodic, or
> rhythmic)
>
> choose it to be. It's a common ground; something to play off of.
>
> You might just have a melody and one chord (i.e. Jean Pierre off of
> "We Want Miles".
>
> You might have a melody, and even a form that has changes, but you
> leave the changes during the solos. (Like on Miles Smiles)
>
> Many of Ornette's tunes have a very obvious key center during the
> melody.
>
> You can choose a shape; like draw a graph on a board and everyone
play
> their own interpretation of the shape of the graph.
>
> You can have two players have a musical arguement.
>
UK guitarist Billy Jenkins occasionally runs what he calls "Big Fight
Nights". These involve a bunch of six or so players (from his Voice Of
God Collective) arranged into two teams, who form various pairs for
two-minute "bouts". These are timed by a bow-tied referee, ended by a
bell, sometimes the stage is ringed by a rope, and there are rules
derived from wrestling. (E.g. "no biting, no gouging, no standards".)
Inclusion of a recognisable fragment of a known tune is punishable by
15 seconds in the "sin bin" (forced to remain silent) and ultimately
by disqualification.
Apart from being a hilarious satire on the nature of improvisation and
its relationship with an audience (Jenkins jokes "they call it free
jazz because no one will pay you to play it"), it's frequently an
excellent and revealing musical experience. Interestingly, drummers
usually come off best, perhaps because free music exposes the greater
resources they have at their command - all those timbres! Melody and
harmony instruments tend to seem as if they, in contrast, are being
denied some of their possibilities, or are forced/expected to be
discordant.
It's also the most fun I've ever had at a gig without being on stage
myself.
Check out www.babel.offworld.co.uk for more Jenkins stuff.
Jon
icarusi
news:8ci7hb$q1g$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Check out www.babel.offworld.co.uk for more Jenkins stuff.
I remember seeing Billy when he was with Burlesque. They did a
'History of (rock'n'roll or music?)' number which was a medley of
music styles in approx. 5 second snippets. Don't know if they ever
recorded it. The only thing I heard similar was by Ahmed and Dweezil
Zappa where they did (I think) 100 rock tune medley in 3 minutes.
Again AFIK not recorded, so I'm not sure where I heard it, maybe a
live TV or radio concert.
I read that Billy has gone back to the blues for the time being, but
is he being serious (as ever)?
Jon Riley
news:8cj5ir$bup$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Yes, he has a Blues Collective (what else), a 5-piece. Amazingly
enough, it's relatively serious. They do play real blues. In fact, I
reckon they're one of the best blues bands I've seen, in that they
have proper respect for the idiom, but because they come from a jazz
perspective they have the right amount of looseness in the structures.
(99% of blues bands just stomp on through like rock bands.) BJ has the
blues feel of a true master - he can use tension, dynamics and space,
as well as those trademark spitfire runs of his.
The band contains violinist Dylan Bates (Django's brother, with a
wonderful line in Buster Keaton deadpan), drummer Mike Pickering,
bassist Thad Kelly, and a second guitarist who seems to vary.
BJ conducts affairs by signals: holding up four fingers to signal the
move to the IV chord, five for the V, one finger down for the I. He'll
touch his nose to signal the bridge (if there is one).
They all wear proper dark suits and ties, and play seated, although BJ
fidgets on a high stool and can't resist his usual roaming around.
Naturally, there's a healthy quota of anarchy (though much of that is
apparent rather than real). They stick in the occasional rock spoof,
such as all standing to place one foot on the (solitary) monitor for a
bridge section, then sitting down again.
I love his version of Canned Heat's "On the Road Again", which he
sings falsetto, playing the guitar in unison, only in tightly
compressed, speeded up phrases.
BTW, I saw Burlesque too, in around 1977. Excellent. I only remember a
number called "Lana Turner" - that and Jenkins' guitar strapped up
under his neck.
In the Blues Collective, he plays an Epiphone Casino (that's my man!)
with handwritten masking-tape labels on the pickups. The bridge one
says "blue" and the neck one "pink". Your guess is as good as mine.
Jon
Tom McEvoy
> syncopate but don't always swing in triplet feel, but are recognised
> as origins of jazz?
swing does not denote syncopation. swing is the feel you get when you play
2 eighth notes as a quarter-eighth triplet. joplin rags were syncopated but
did not swing. the closest they ever came was with a dotted
eighth-sixteenth figure. they were still played with straight 8ths.
ragtime was going on at the same time as the beginning of jazz, but i think
it was viewed by jazz musicians to be a very different kind of thing. jelly
roll morton, who claims to have invented jazz (a boastful claim, but one
can't deny that he was around at the right time and in some of the right
places), felt that "no jazz piano player can really play good jazz unless
they try to give an imitation of a band, that is, by providing a basis of
riffs... most of these modern guys don't regard the harmony or the rules of
the system of music at all. they just play anything, their main idea being
to keep the bass going (describing ragtime piano players)... of all the
pianists today (50s), i know of only one that has a tendency to be on the
right track and that's bob zurke of the bob crosby band. far as the rest of
them, all i can see is ragtime pianists in a very fine form." jelly felt
that the riff was the standard foundation of jazz, but without breaks, clean
and beautiful ideas in breaks, music was not jazz. ragtime music generally
does not incorporate breaks. though ragtime players played with similar
chords and used a few similar techniques as jazz players, the sounds they
were trying to make were different. the two styles existed at the same time
and they were different.
tom
icarusi
news:8cimv1$70e$1...@web1.cup.hp.com...
> I thought the Holy Oracle has informed us that the Holy Writ states
that
> the two core components of jazz are Blues and Swing.
Isn't swing a variation of syncopation, such as Joplin rags, which
syncopate but don't always swing in triplet feel, but are recognised
as origins of jazz?
Icarusi
Marc Sabatella
I think Marcel was making something of a joke here, referring to
pronouncements made by certain other people regarding what is jazz, but
I'll weigh in, both on this topic, and the original topic (I missed the
beginning of the thread).
First, there is no one definition of jazz. Everyone has their own. The
only definition that makes sense to me is, "jazz is the music that jazz
fans agree is jazz". This allows for the music to develop in its own
way. If someone had tried to come up with a technical definition of
jazz in 1925, it would certainly have excluded John Coltrane - even "A
Love Supreme". But nowadays we don't have a problem calling this music
"jazz". That's because we have the benefit of hindsight to allow us to
expand our conception of jazz beyond what our grandparents thought. Our
grandchildren will surely have an even more expanded view of what
constitutes jazz. I see no reason to draw a line in the sand and this
"this, and nothing else, can be called jazz". We have no more right to
do this than the so-called "moldy figs" did in the 1930's.
As for swing and syncopation, both refer to rhythm, but they mean
different things. Literally, as others have observed, swing refers to a
subdivision of the beat that is not even, although nor is it anything as
exaggerated as triplets. Whereas syncopation refers to an accent on the
second "half" of the beat, whether the eighth notes are swung or not.
That is the literal definition. I'd say that in in practice, these
terms have broader connotations. "Swing" refers to the forward momentum
in music, that which makes you feel the beat and want to dance to it.
Whereas "syncopation" refers to that which disrupts this momentum and
gives it more of a conversational as oopsed to metronomic feel.
Together, these elements have a lot to do with characterizing jazz,
although I personally weigh improvisation at least as heavily.
One can, of course, try to define what jazz means *to oneself*. As I
said, everyone's individual definition will be different. Most people's
will involve swing, syncopation, improvisation, and blues. I personally
see lots of other elements of jazz, having to do with approaches to
melody, harmony, and timbre as well as with rhythm. No single element
is a determining factor in itself, and it is often not possible to say
something is definitely jazz or definitely not jazz - there is room for
lots of gray area. There are people who insist on having everything
black and white, but I don't find such definitions of jazz to be at all
interesting or useful.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sound clips, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
thoughts. I am a musician who often plays mainstream jazz, but who also
improvises more freely.
Note I said "more" freely. It is not an all-or-nothing thing, where we
are either playing bebop or we are playing free. The term "free"
implies freedom *from* some restriction, and there are many restrictions
we can choose to free ourselves froml, while still constraining
ourselves by others.
When I am involved with this type of improvisation, there are many
different choices one can make. One can certainly start with no
preconceived notions at all - no chord progression, no tempo, no feel,
nothing - and just start playing what comes to mind. I do this
sometimes, but generally find it less satisfying than when I start with
some sense of structure. Of course, even if we *start* with no preset
structure, we'll almost certainly develop structure as we go along, in
the way we respond to what is happening. The music will usually start
somewhere, get involved with interactions between musicians, build to
something, and then somehow resolve (the ending is usually the hardest
part when you approach improvisation in this way).
More usually, though, I start with something in mind, sometimes on
paper. For instance, I have a composition called "Frantic" that begins
with a notated line that ends on an implied G7sus(b9) chord. After this
line is played, the "score" (just a series of written instructions like
I am paraphrasing right here) calls for soloists to take turns playing
phrases in a contrapunctal manner (I had in mind phrases that soundly
vaguely like Bach). The score specifies that we start off with
relatively long statements, then turning more into a conversation with
quick give-and-take and finally more of an argument with everyone
shouting at once. Then on cue we play the head again. taking a coda to
end the piece.
I have another piece called "Dave and Sharon", whose "score" consists of
the directions: "start by playing lines in parallel motion, end up in
contrary motion". The idea is for two improvisors to try to read each
other and respond in that way. So when we are playing parallel, one
person might play an ascending line, and the other plays along. Whereas
when we are playing contrary motion, the second player might play a
descending line in response to the ascending line. We don't just use
the direction of the line, though - we also use dynamics, tempo, and any
other elements we can think of to set up parallelism and contrariness.
In another piece called "Gallery", I have a series of graphical symbols
on plain white paper, meant to be read top to bottom, left to right,
with a few notes written in simply using letter names. We play the
notes normally and interpret the graphical symbols according to my own
code which I explain to the other musicians. A sample symbol might be a
series of circles that look like bubbles floating in the air, and this
is intended to suggest short little phrases that are played with much
space around them, as opposed to a series of intersecting squiggly lines
that means the phrases should overlap. We switch from one symbol to the
next on cue; there are about a dozen or so separate sections.
Another piece of mine is called "Horsetooth Rock". This is based on a
sort of vamping figure in the bass (or piano left hand) that is based on
something like a G minor pentatonic scale. I've never written the
figure down, and in fact I don't always play it the same way myself, but
there is a certain feel to the line that is part of the piece, even if
I've never notated it. It's a pun on the title - Horsetooth Rock is a
landmark in the town where I used to live, a huge cleft rock atop a
mountain that is visible from pretty much anywhere in town. The rhythm
used is sort of in a rock&roll style (well, sort of, anyhow), and has a
kind of solitary yet stately vibe to it. Anyhow, over that figure,
chordal or melodic instruments (or the piano right hand) play lines in a
similar rhythmic feel but based on C minor. That's it; we just
improvise starting from that basic idea.
Well, these are some ideas. There are of course, many other
possibilities. Lately, I've been into writing larger works, with
notated passages interspersed with "freer" passages (and these freer
passages have some sort of prescribed structure, too).
As for whether any of this is jazz, as I said in my other response, I
don't consider that a question that can be answered absolutely. At best
we can get a bunch of different people's opinions on the matter. If you
ask me, though, I'd say we are using elements of jazz in all of these
improvisations, although if you judge by the versions of these
compositions on my CD's, I'd say "Gallery" came off the least jazz-like.
It would be possible to create a more jazz-like performance of that same
score, though. We just didn't feel the need to do so.
icarusi
news:OWMH4.345$Eu.3...@news.uswest.net...
> > Isn't swing a variation of syncopation, such as Joplin rags,
which
> > syncopate but don't always swing in triplet feel, but are
recognised
> > as origins of jazz?
>
> I think Marcel was making something of a joke here, referring to
> pronouncements made by certain other people regarding what is jazz,
but
> I'll weigh in, both on this topic, and the original topic (I missed
the
> beginning of the thread).
>
> First, there is no one definition of jazz. Everyone has their own.
The
> only definition that makes sense to me is, "jazz is the music that
jazz
> fans agree is jazz".
?????!!!!!!!?????
This allows for the music to develop in its own
> way. If someone had tried to come up with a technical definition of
> jazz in 1925, it would certainly have excluded John Coltrane - even
"A
> Love Supreme". But nowadays we don't have a problem calling this
music
> "jazz". That's because we have the benefit of hindsight to allow us
to
> expand our conception of jazz beyond what our grandparents thought.
Our
> grandchildren will surely have an even more expanded view of what
> constitutes jazz. I see no reason to draw a line in the sand and
this
> "this, and nothing else, can be called jazz". We have no more right
to
> do this than the so-called "moldy figs" did in the 1930's.
The only 'definitions' (very loose) that I could ever come up with are
1) what it's filed under by record companies (a not inconsiderable
commercial consideration) 2) is not conveniently classed by a majority
as another form of music, everything else may (or may not) be
considered as jazz.
> As for swing and syncopation, both refer to rhythm, but they mean
> different things. Literally, as others have observed, swing refers
to a
> subdivision of the beat that is not even, although nor is it
anything as
> exaggerated as triplets. Whereas syncopation refers to an accent on
the
> second "half" of the beat, whether the eighth notes are swung or
not.
>
> That is the literal definition. I'd say that in in practice, these
> terms have broader connotations. "Swing" refers to the forward
momentum
> in music, that which makes you feel the beat and want to dance to
it.
> Whereas "syncopation" refers to that which disrupts this momentum
and
> gives it more of a conversational as oopsed to metronomic feel.
> Together, these elements have a lot to do with characterizing jazz,
> although I personally weigh improvisation at least as heavily.
I was nearly about to agree with the original definition that swing
was usually present, apart from some straight time fusion stuff, but
was reminded of basic syncopation on a Howard Goodall documentary
citing Debussy being influenced by Joplin rags, which don't swing as I
understand it.
I've heard definitions of swing and synchopation, and I'm an architect
so I'm used to explaning built forms in other terms, when in fact they
just 'are'. Trying to coax syncopation and swing from a computer,
which didn't let you dial it in, gives a better idea.
> One can, of course, try to define what jazz means *to oneself*. As
I
> said, everyone's individual definition will be different. Most
people's
> will involve swing, syncopation, improvisation, and blues. I
personally
> see lots of other elements of jazz, having to do with approaches to
> melody, harmony, and timbre as well as with rhythm. No single
element
> is a determining factor in itself, and it is often not possible to
say
> something is definitely jazz or definitely not jazz - there is room
for
> lots of gray area. There are people who insist on having everything
> black and white, but I don't find such definitions of jazz to be at
all
> interesting or useful.
I always find them food for thought eg. "it's not jazz if there aren't
banjos in it!" and " 'Good taste' is what *I* like!"
Lincoln
that you can start with no preconceptions. As you play, it is
virtually impossible not to fall into patterns. It's like trying to
say something that you have never said before. You somehow have to use
words that you have used in the past, even if it's under different
circumstances, or in a different context.
Once you start to play, your fingers will most likely start to do
something that is dictated by HABIT. When this happens, you are being
influenced by your past playing and muscle memory, (whatever that is.)
You will almost certainly create a rhythm. That is structure, to an
extent.
The "FREE IMPROVISORS", face the same issues as the composers
Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg. They tried to create music that was not
centered around a key. Eventually Schoenberg decided that the only
true way to create music that didn't favor a particular tonality, you
had to make sure mathmatically that you were fair to all the tones;
thus came the 12 tone series. You follow a 12 tone row, and you will
play all the tone equally.
However, using a 12 tone row is structure within itself.The very
nature of devising a method for trying to avoid structure actually
creates structure.
Most of the "FREE" or "FREE-ER" groups I've heard devide their
attention toward structured pieces and then totally "FREE". It always
seems to me that the so-called "FREE" pieces all end up sounding the
same.
If all else fails, I say you can't totally free because you are always
dictated by your own influences, memories, subconscious, moods, your
fellow musicians, and the audience. You can't escape it. There is
always structure and influence coming from somewhere.
Lincoln
>>I don't currently, but I have with many different groups in the past.
>
>I actually DO currently, though much moreso last year... I have played with
>about 70 different groups over the last 20 years (or so)... all the way from
>2 folks jammin' to thee whole HOUSE rawkin'...
>
>>"Free" is only one way to approach it. The way to look at it is to try
>>to have many different types of "structure" (Harminic, melodic, or
>>rhythmic)
>
Tom Walls
Bob Dylan
(the skyway?)
Seriously though, although free is IMHO something of a misnomer, it generally
suggests freedom from something -- not necessarilly freedom from everything.
For instance, yesterday I was listening to a quintet led by Jerry Hahn and
featuring Dave Liebman(very nice!). One tune was described as free: it began
with a head that didn't follow any bar lines, which was followed by "free"
blowing. On the blowing section the bass player walked in 4/4 time. He also
pretty much established a tonality. They were free of harmonic changes but
that was about it.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Mark Kleinhaut
"Relatively Free" music. I have been doing quite a bit of such
relatively free music lately, and I must agree with Lincoln; that
everything is beholden to something else. Maybe freedom just means
having the liberty to chose your prison. This might be considered by
some to be grim, but its better to have this choice than not. And, as
Rassan Roland Kirk said, there are "bright moments".
--
Mark Kleinhaut
Info and soundclips available at
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
Bruce LeClaire
Lincoln wrote:
>
> I find it extremely difficult to acheive true "FREE IMPROV" except in
> that you can start with no preconceptions.
I find it extremely difficult to acheive true free improvisation while
being constrained by the society's arbitrary, outdated, and burdensome
convention of having to wear clothes. Having personally been kicked out
of HS stage band for the simple act of upbuttoning the top button of my
shirt during a performance, I now realize that true freedom of
expression of playing cannot be achieved while conforming to the
oppressive modes of society at large.
My simple, wholly natural, but somewhat tenative act of rebellion
accidently set me on the path of exploration and self-realization. After
many years of research, and countless failures, I have finally reached
the conclusion that the performing group can only achieve the fullest
musical and artistic self-expression if all members are naked. And as a
collorary, I believe that the audience must also be butt-naked in order
to fully appreciate, and participate in, this artistic expression of
freedom.
The truest danger to the future of jazz is not the Knitting Factory, nor
Wynton Marsalis, it is clothes. Free yourselves! (but don't forget the
sunblock).
--Bruce
TomLippinc
>"Relatively Free" music. I have been doing quite a bit of such
>relatively free music lately, and I must agree with Lincoln; that
>everything is beholden to something else. Maybe freedom just means
>having the liberty to chose your prison. This might be considered by
>some to be grim, but its better to have this choice than not. And, as
>Rassan Roland Kirk said, there are "bright moments".
>
>--
>Mark Kleinhaut
>Info and soundclips available at
>www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
I tend to think that "free" refers more to a sub-style within jazz, and doesn't
necessarily mean that literally "there is NO reference to tonality, melody, or
groove, whatsoever." Consider the so-called "modal" style, exemplified by the
early '60s Coltrane quartet. There are certain stylistic tendencies in that
music, but to say that a player is playing "modal" is not necessarily say that
he is exclusively playing off of a particular mode. It's more likely that the
player is using some of the stylistic devices that Coltrane and McCoy Tyner
helped develop such as quartal voicings, pentatonic based imrov, and adding to
a static harmony by temporarily going outside of the established key center.
By the same token, the title "fusion" came about because in the late 60's/early
70's, some jazz musicians were starting to add rock and funk elements to their
music, but it later sort of became it's own very distinct sub-style, such that
these days if someone plays in a "fusion" style they are more likely drawing a
stylistic reference from previous "fusion" music rather than taking various
unrelated musical elements and "fusing" them into a jazz context.
I guess that's just a long winded way of saying "free" is just a name someone
once used to describe someone's music and the name stuck.
Tom Lippincott
Dick Metcalf
Lincoln <linc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38f20c8c....@news.tm.net...
>I find it extremely difficult to acheive true "FREE IMPROV" except in
>that you can start with no preconceptions. As you play, it is
>virtually impossible not to fall into patterns. It's like trying to
>say something that you have never said before. You somehow have to use
>words that you have used in the past, even if it's under different
>circumstances, or in a different context.
I actually DO agree with you there... I think even the "freest" music is
still based on our previous listening/playing experiences... besides which,
I believe it's "all been played before"... when I enter into an improvised
session, it's based on a mood more than any preconceived notions of what's
going to come out/through me, though. That's where I think "free" can/needs
to take more musicians...
>Once you start to play, your fingers will most likely start to do
>something that is dictated by HABIT. When this happens, you are being
>influenced by your past playing and muscle memory, (whatever that is.)
MY "habit" is dictated by a certain "lack of education"... though it's true
that it's based on patterns, the best playing (for me) is when I discover a
new chord/phrasing/nuance without ever knowing it was there... much easier
for one who is playing (only) by ear than someone who has had formal
training, I suspect...
>You will almost certainly create a rhythm. That is structure, to an
>extent.
Yeah, that's for SURE... I don't really think there ARE any "new" rhythms...
>If all else fails, I say you can't totally free because you are always
>dictated by your own influences, memories, subconscious, moods, your
>fellow musicians, and the audience. You can't escape it. There is
>always structure and influence coming from somewhere.
Yes, I agree here too... anyone who denies that they are/have been
influenced is sorta' "over the edge"... BUT I still think that the process
of "discovering" those influences can make for much "freer" "free improv",
don't you?
bro'Zzaj
Tom Hall
> Interesting part here is practising, because we have usually
> started with something abstract and something that doesn't have
> nothing to do with playing, for example some painting or some colour
> which we have tried to play. For me, that has helped to open new
> musical doors to enter and learn stuff from my playing I wouldn't
> have learned otherwise.
Please forgive the long post, but I always get excited when I see
someone asking these kinds of questions.
You've got the right idea about practicing improvisation with your
group. But why stop at using extra-musical ideas to practice
improvising?
The way I look at it is this:
We are all masters of improvisation. We all learn improvisation and
practice improvisation from the moment we're born until the moment we
die. It's so much a part of being human that we don't question it or
think about it, and rarely acknowledge it's importance. But without
this astounding ability, you wouldn't be able to have a conversation,
or drive to the store without killing yourself! Every interaction
that you have every day is an exercise in the art of improvisation.
You are also a musician. You've spent countless hours studying the
language of music. If you want to be an improvising musician, then
here's the challenge: How do you learn how to use what you know about
the language of music to inform your knowledge of the language of
improvisation, and how do you learn to use what you know about the
language of improvisation in the spontaneous creation of music. In
other words, how do you put these two huge bodies of knowledge
together?
One very effective way that I have found to do this is to practice
improvisation exercises. Improvise on everything that you can think of!
(In music and in the world!) Use all the discipline and knowledge that
you have developed practicing your instrument to practice group
improvisation. The basic idea is that instead of learning the
boundaries of a certain style of improv (such as the language of bebop),
you are practicing by creating structured improvisations that are
based on exploring specific fundamental elements of the language of
music itself.
First, some things to keep in mind when doing this kind of work:
1) Each exercise creates a set of boundaries to play within,
boundaries which are based on one or more fundamental aspects of music.
As in any practice, you focus on something in order to thoroughly
explore the possibilities inherent in it. Once those possibilities have
been explored, they become a part of your unconscious awareness, and
are available to you to be used at any moment during an improvisation.
By limiting the choices available to a specific set of ideas, group
improv exercises enable you to focus on thoroughly exploring the
improvisational possibilities contained in them. They have the added
benefit of freeing up your unconscious by giving your conscious mind
something to focus on, thus getting it out of the way so your
intuitive understanding of improvisation has free reign.
2) Have fun! Be open and play with the ideas, try as many variations
as you can think up. Some of the exercises you try may seem simple or
downright stupid, others may seem hard, some may be interesting, some
may not. It just depends on the strengths and weaknesses of the group.
The goal is to have fun exploring music, while staying within the
boundaries (rules of the game). This requires a certain amount of
discipline, which is in itself an interesting learning experience, but
don't let that detract from the fun of exploring, playing and learning
more about whatever it is that you are focusing on.
3) Remember that in free improvisation, the basic unit is not a note,
but a sound. A note is just one kind of sound. explore all the
possibilities of your instrument (as well as the real instrument that
you're playing- your Self!)
4) These work can be done with any combination of instruments. Many
exercises will force the musician to explore roles other than the ones
that are traditional for their instrument. Others will allow
traditional roles to be taken, and in these instances, I would urge
the musicians to consciously try them by playing both inside and
outside of their traditional roles.
5) Don't be afraid to talk about what's happening. There is no right
or wrong, no judgement, only mutual exploration of what works and what
doesn't. The goal here is to gain greater understanding of how
different musical and improvisational choices affect the meaning of
what you are playing. In free improvisation, anything "goes with"
anything else. The question is not "Is this right or wrong?" but "What
are the possibilities, and how do these different possible choices
affect the music that we are creating?" An exercise that doesn't work
can provide as much information as one that does.
6) Be sure to explore all the different combinations of groups within
the group. For instance, duet exercises are great for exploring the
different kind of relationships that you can have with another person
when you are improvising. Trios contain all the possibilities of solo
and duet work, as well as the added possibilities of 3 parts playing
simultaneously, a solo/melody with a 2 persons accompaniment, etc.
7) Be sure to play at least one completely free improv at the end of
the session. You'll be surprised at how what you've been working on is
immediately used to great affect.
Here's some basic exercises to get you started:
I) One sound - This exercise, simple in design, is dumb but fun. It
provides fundamental group practice in discipline, tempo/groove,
listening, phrasing, creating group melodies, using all parts of the
beat, using silence, expressiveness within limited boundaries, learning
to think of what you play as a part of the overall sound of the group,
breaking down traditional roles by making each instrument equal,
learning to trust.
The exercise:
Stand in a circle. Count off a tempo. Each person gets 1 beat. Go
around the circle playing 1 quarter note/sound each. Once you're able
to keep the continuity of ź notes, then start to focus awareness on
what you're doing musically with your beat, by introducing variations.
1) Have everyone try to make their note a discrete expressive event.
2) Try to have each note be a part of a group melody or event.
(Note: playing a space is as important as playing a note, especially
when you are trying to create a group phrase.)
3) Once everyone is completely comfortable with playing ź notes,
change the rules to allow them to play whatever they want within their
beat (multiple notes, different rhythms, etc.)
4) Try different tempos and grooves.
5) Try it out of time.
6) Whatever else you can think of.
II) Group Grooves- This exercise has unlimited permutations. Once
you've gotten good at it, you'll be able to count off any groove or
tempo and spontaneously improvise a burning groove, spontaneously
change it at will, use it as a "head" for solo's and explorations, etc.
etc. What it does is slow down the decision making process, allowing
each player to take as much time as is needed to explore the ways that
various lines interact with each other, figure out what adds to or
detracts from a groove, learn how a group of people can
spontaneously create a groove, learn how to function in any role.
In it's simplest form, it goes like this:
One person starts by playing an ostinato (repeated figure). This can be
ANYTHING, it just has to stay the same. Once it has solidified, a
second person comes in, playing another ostinato. He should not do
this until he has listened carefully to the first player, and listened
carefully internally for his own musical phrase to arise in reaction
to or support of the first phrase. Subtle changes will probably occur
at this point, as the players try to "lock in" with each other. Once
this has occurred, the 3rd player is free to add in, etc., until all
players are playing a groove together. *Remember to take your time,
and let each person find the exact right thing that they are looking
for/hearing.*
That's the basic exercise. There are numerous variation of increasing
complexity that can be introduced. See what ones you can think of!
Here's a few to get you started.
1) Once all are playing the 1st person drops out., listens, then comes
in with a different ostinato part.
It's fun to see how the subtraction of one part changes the feel of
the entire groove, and fun to experiment to see how by adding in a
different part, you can change the whole feel. Then the 2nd person
drops out, listens, and comes back in with something different, and so
on until all have changed, and a different ostinato groove is happening.
You can do this infinitely, or until you are tired of it.
Some Notes:
Pay attention to the various relationships that are formed within the
group, and how that relates to traditional roles in jazz. Who's chosen
to play bass-type lines? Who's "comping"? Who's playing melody,
harmony, counterpoint? Try playing with roles that are not traditional
for your instrument. Try playing specific roles, or playing in a way
that does not fall into one of those roles. Pay careful attention to
the use of space and how that affects the overall sound of the groove.
What enhances or detracts from the overall feel? How can you play
with/against what someone else is playing, and how does that change
the feel? What happens if everybody plays the same kind of thing? All
different kind of things? A combination of the two? Juxtapose melodic
and "sound" elements. Lots and lots of fun to be had here!!!
2) You can think of the established groove as the rhythm section part
of a composition, then have different people drop out, and come back in
improvising a melody, blowing on that melody, and playing the melody
again. You have now improvised an entire tune, with a traditional
head/solo/head structure.
3) Try the same exercise, except improvise an out of time texture
instead of a groove. Notice how this texture will tend to repeat at a
specific interval. Solo over it. Have some people do the exercise in a
groove and some with a texture. Juxtapose them. Go back and forth
between the two.
4) Add other musical elements to the rules. What happens if you
restrict yourselves to certain kinds of articulation (short, long,
sliding, etc)? What happens if you add specific dynamics? Specific
harmonic references (play on a scale/scales, chord/chords, in a
key/keys, over a simple harmonic pattern)? Create a simple form, and
see if you can do it (ABA, AABA, ABAC, etc - this is great for
developing awareness of what you've already done, and the discipline
to be able to return to it). Etc. etc. etc...
5) Once you're comfortable with the initial exercise, practice doing it
with everyone starting at once. Once it's locked in, someone change
what they're doing. This is the signal for everyone to change. Practice
this until you can effortlessly lock into a groove immediately, and
change grooves spontaneously.Practice your awareness of what everyone
else is playing until you can immediately identify who's taken what
role, and play around with staying in those roles through the groove
changes, or consciously varying them.
6) Do the above exercise, except change tempos as well as parts in the
same tempo.
I think you get the idea - as I said, there are infinite variations!
III) Mirroring-this exercise is great for developing empathy, for
learning how to lead and how to follow, ear training, learning how to
begin and end phrases, and in it's final stages, how to improvise in
that space where no one is leading and no one is following, but the
music itself is creating the music.
Start this as a duet exercise. One person leads, the other attempts to
follow them, as if they are a reflection in the mirror. (You know that
old Vaudeville-Patty Duke Show thing).
Next, switch roles back and forth. This switch should occur at the
ENDING of a phrase. If they are having trouble ending or identifying
an ending, have someone call out "switch" when the ending of a phrase
is perceived. At the end, on some other agreed upon cue, have them
each follow the other. In other words no one is leading, they are both
following. If they've gotten into it, this should be a fairly natural
step.
You can then do this with as many people as you want, like so:
#1 leads, #2 mirrors, #3 mirrors, etc. until all are mirroring #1.
Then switch! #2 begins a phrase, #3 mirrors etc, until #1 is mirroring.
Switch! #3 begins a phrase, #4 mirrors, etc until all have taken the
role of leader. At this point, switch again, and everyone is following
everyone else, until the end of the improvisation.
IV) A common problem in group improv is a lack of space, where everyone
is always playing at once. Here's a couple of ways to work on this.
A) Play an improv with the one rule that everyone must play silence for
as much time as they play sound. In other words, if you play something
that lasts for two seconds, you have to remain silent for two seconds.
You can do this any way you want. You could play a bunch of phrases,
then lay out for a bunch. You could play phrases that contain equal
amounts of sound and silence, etc.
B) Play improvs where you make a simple rule regarding the numbers of
people that can play at once. you Can do this by saying "Only X number
of people can be playing at one time." (If it's three, and a fourth
person comes in, someone must drop out) or make rules like: Everyone
must at some point play a duet with someone else, or a solo piece, or
stipulate that there must be 1 solo, 1 duet, 1 trio, etc. or create
and improvise within forms like group-duet-group-duet-group or
group-solo-duet-trio-group, etc. etc. Again, there infinite variations
of this idea, and it's fun to try them out and think of new ones.
I'll stop now, as this is already way too long for a newsgroup!. Just
remember that ANYTHING can be the basis of an improvisation. The more
things you try, the more tools you'll have in your unconscious awareness
to use when you are playing free.
If you want some more, or have a specific musical situation or problem
that you want an exercise for, or just want to discuss this method of
learning, feel free to e-mail me.
Have fun,
Tom Hall
Bruce LeClaire
this very recent release:
Guy Davis "Butt Naked Free" (March 2000)
--Bruce
PS- I still might do it, that is, write a description of a Palo Alto
"Friday Night Music" session. Just out of curiosity, has anyone else
ever attended one?
Bruce LeClaire
Murray and the Urban Bush Women (a dance troupe) who performed in NE's
Blackman Auditorium. They performed music by Murray in combination with
dance, choreographed by Jawole Willa Jo Zollar [which I missed btw].
According to Murray "I'm really lucky, though, because Jawole is one of
the few choreographers who will deal with live music instead of
recordings."
What is of interest to this thread would be the improvisation aspects,
not just of the music, but also of the dance. As Blumenthal says, it's
challenging for both dancers and musicians. Again quoting Murray:
"We generally work from cues that trigger what we play. Here, there are
cues from the dancers that I use to trigger the band. We end up cueing
each other, which is better than having the dancers count beats, which
is what they would do with a recording. Jawole has figured out how the
dancers can improvise until they hear certain cures - they vamp till
ready, just like we do. It makes the performance change every night,
and we all like that."
--Bruce
PS- In other dance related news, members of a Senegalese dance troupe go
AWOL:
http://www.msnbc.com/local/rtca/13301.asp
(Just a bit of truth is stranger than fiction, I found this while
searching for Sony/Warner stuff)
Lincoln
Lincoln
Chip Zempel
John Cage (or, to be more accurate, a cellist playing John Cage) did that -
what? - maybe 30 years ago?
Been there, done that.
Retread.
;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chip Zempel, bass
Delta Breeze a cappella quartet
If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind,
what does an empty desk signify?