Hehe. Hey Steve, started this thread here since you said you'd write more on free improv.

Also, I'd love to hear your experience of the looping tour.

See? I have a nice thread awaiting you. :D

Cheers,

~Stephanie

Hi Steph,

The free part of this last looping tour was so invigorating that it got me thinking about it all over again, so here's a bit of a random collection of thoughts on the subject.

Firstly, I guess I ought to define what I mean by free playing, mainly cos the term 'free jazz' has all kinds of associations with a particular movement in jazz starting in the very late 50s and moving on from there, which implied a new found freedom from the constraints of conventional harmony, and lead to the music being very dissonant, harsh, atonal and often involved the players employing extended techniques on their instruments to get certain effects, a lot of which were dissonant multiphonics on horns or various types of sqeaks and squawks on other instruments.

That's not what I mean by free - to me, now, that doesn't feel like free playing - playing 'out' no longer feels like freedom. Free playing, and free improv to me means that all sound is acceptable, and can be used to reach an end. As a result, there's no musical or aesthetic distinction drawn between gorgeous diatonic melodies and clashing industrial noise. Both are sounds to be employed as part of the journey. So on this tour, we drifted from sounding like nice new age mood music, to really poppy funk grooves over two chords, to dissonant heavy distorted atonal stuff that sounded more like Slipknot or Painkiller, all in one gig, without it feeling forced or incongruous. The only rule was that whatever anyone played was valid and you went with it, no pulling it apart in terms of 'good' or 'bad' but you reacted to what they did, and added your own spirit to the peice. Sometimes that was easy, and sometimes it was a wrestling match. The San Jose gig was effortless - loads of different bits of music, some really short some really long, tonnes of styles and sounds etc. Santa Cruz was much more fractured, with the music pulling in different directions, wrestling and eventually resting in certain places but remaining unresolved for most of the night... We didn't draw lines around it, it just 'was'. San Jose did feel rather special, but that in no way invalidated the other nights; there was just a slight euphoria when we came off stage.

So how does one get into this stuff? Well, I was very fortunate to have my musical beginnings in a really dull town, where just to kick against the normalness of everything, my musician friends at school and I would buy the weirdest music we could find - to start with it was mainly prog rock, but eventually I got into a lot of weird jazz, as well as hardcore punk, one of the guys got into metal in a big way, and one was really into German electronica and psychedelia. The influence on the music we made was that we would swap instruments, use odd sounds like drum machines sped right up or taps running, or crumpled crisp packets, or contact mics attached to our throats, or anything else to get weird noises. There was no great artistic plan behind this, we just didn't draw lines round our music making. It was all meant to be fun, which meant we could make stupid noise just as music as we could make 'proper' music. Guitars we dragged on ropes behind cars to see what effect it would have on the sound, and we even had a plan to form a busking band of bass, bongos and a guy in heavy duty work boots dancing on a wooden board mic'd up through a delay unit!!!

With that as my beginnings in music (and BTW, none of that stuff is worth listening to at all - it was all rubbish, and I couldn't play bass at the time to save myself, but it was important as a beginning...), it meant that what I considered to be music was wide open. I bought records by free bands, but also by pop bands - I still listen to everything from John Zorn to the Spice Girls, Kings X to Harry Partch, Ali Farke Tourre to Mary Chapin Carpenter, Michael Jackson to SadHappy, Bill Frisell to D'Angelo... any music, in fact any sound is measured on its own merits, not by any seemingly falsely imposed cultural construct. Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that I'm not influenced by my culture - of course I am, hugely, but I am willing to reach beyond that, to attempt to discard that when the aesthetic imposed by that culture fails to provide the tools to engage with a certain type of art. I'll try and meet the artist where they are coming from, rather than drag them into my world and dismiss what they do because it doesn't meet the criteria of what I already know...

So the wonder of this last tour is that it really was a case of anything goes. Michael and I even did an impromptu duet on 'fly me to the moon' in Big Sur, and Rick Walker's collection of percussive sounds, vocal sounds and 'prepared bass' ideas were just incredible... both musicians seemed willing to go anywhere... That kind of tour runs the risk of completely imploding if any one musician decides to try and dictate the kind of direction the music should go. For it to really work as free music, it has to be egalitarian, and it has to be spontaneous. If not, then start arranging things, cos the half way point gets very messy, trying to freely improvise to meet someone else's musical needs... It may well be that the next time we play, we'll have some more structured peices. We recorded every night of the tour, so hopefully we'll be able to pull apart the improv stuff and maybe come out with some compositions based on that stuff - use those tapes as research and development for the next tour when we tour supporting the live album, and end up playing some of what is on the album, even though its genesis was free improv...

does that make any sense? I hope so. The bottom line is, it's really difficult to let go of what you think 'music' is, of what is acceptable or not, of what other people around you should be playing. I have a friend who about 6 albums into his career decided to do a 'band' album, to get in players and share out the duties - he ended up sampling all the other guys sounds and programming it, cos he couldn't let go - his own sense of where the music should be was too strong. Which is fine, if you're honest about it, and aware of the limitations therein.

Sit down with other musicians and just play, no expectation. It doesn't matter what instrument, or what noises they make, just play, and see where it ends up. Listen and react, don't impose limitations on how you react, it doesn't have to be 'in tune' or 'in time', just try to remain aware of what's going on, and in control of your own playing, even if in exercising that control you decide to do something completely random - that's an act of control... :o)

Most of all, have fun! - free improv is about play - watch a little kid with their first drum, they just enjoy the sound, they don't worry about whether it's groovin' or not, or what else is going on, they just hit the damn thing! try it, it's fun, enjoy it, make a racket, make a melody, make noise, but have fun, interract, and see what happens...

peace

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

Cool man, thanks for posting that.

Yeah, thanks Steve! That was great! :)

This reminds me of a friend (who I unfortunately haven't seen in quite a long time) who's house I use to go over. He'd invite a bunch of ppl over to 'jam'. His house was loaded with all different instruments: from basses and acoustic guitars and loads of different kinds of drums to a squeezebox, a mandolin....anything you can think of. We'd all sit down with a chosen instrument and just jam with it. It was a lot of fun. :) He recorded a couple of our jams I believe.

Oh, and for the record, I still bang on a drum like a little kid. :D

Cheers,

~stephanie

...keep on banging that drum, girlfriend! :o)

Those kind of jams are so important - playing whatever instrument is around, playing two spoons and a biscuit tin - whatever comes to hand. Spontaneous musical fun - the stuff of life... :o)

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

As the others have said a very interesting post and which makes a lot of sense to me in terms of musical influences and finding the wierdest stuff you can - just a quick question - did you mean Slaphappy, rather than "SadHappy"? I remember them as a very interesting group and well worth checking out?

thanks for that bruce, glad it connects with you.

Definitely SadHappy though - weird punk/jazz/avant group featuring Michael Manring, Paul Hinklin and Evan ?? on drums - two bassists and a drummer. Stunning stuff...

Steve

Oh well - that's a new one to me then!

I remember SlapHappy as one of the most interesting experimental bands who made records with Henry Cow ) - Fred Frith etc.

Dagmar: voice, Peter Blegvad: guitar, voice; Anthony Moore: piano; John Greaves: bass guitar, Chris Cutler: drums

hello all,

just signed in for this thread (steve l. is on a list i'm on and suggested people there check this thread out).

first a small intro. i'm a guy who has done most of the usual rock band things, some jazz touring, some playing in symphony orch., etc. now i devote some 80% of my time to free playing - - if one also includes writing compositions that utilize free improv in each piece (and no, composition and free improv aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).

okay . . .

i think steve is pretty much right about the free improv things that he discusses. with all due respect, however, one quibble i do have is that his discussion of the history of "free jazz" is somewhat pejorative - - he uses terminology that is less than kind when he talks about it. i don't have a problem with his opinion per se, but as a history lesson (which it sort of was) it could've been a little better worded - - in my humble opinion, etc. to be honest, i don't care for all of that stuff myself, but it was important and valid to the creators at the time and to the present day - - and is still valid important to the many listeners who still enjoy it. also, as in most genres of music, there's the good stuff and the not-so-good stuff.

another line on this is that dissonance/noise is in the ear of the "behearer" (so to speak): someone who doesn't have experience with the industrial music that steve likes to use as a touchstone in his free improv may find it godawful dissonance, whereas they may love overblown saxophone harmonics. i personally like both in measure. (something else to consider in all of this, some people thought beethoven was unholy noise when some his pieces were played at first, so it's all a matter of context on one level.)

for me, it all comes down to doing something in moderation - - being able to do the pretty melodies and the noise. in this regard, i think that steve is quite right.

lastly, if you look at the history of free jazz, you may find that part of the aesthetic was the rebellion against being inundated by prettiness all around - -and some people have followed that down to the present day. in a certain way, this parallels the whole punk rock thing (and other aspects of rock) to a certain extent.

i'd be interested to know if any of the other folks here are interested in doing free improv.

anyway, that's probably enough,

stig

Stig,

thanks so much for signing up and throwing in your thoughts.

I wasn't meaning to be unfair about the free history - I do think that the advances made by those guys were vital and had a political resonance that very little music since has managed to match. I really enjoy some of it, and appreciate the thinking behind much of that that I don't chose to listen to...

I guess the distinction I was attempting (perhaps falsely, and with too broad a brush) was between the reactive stuff that you mention - kicking against the overt niceness of much music, as opposed to the kind of freedom that says anything goes, all is valid...

Thanks for your thoughts - I think you helped to clarify my thinking there. If you have time to share your own journey towards free improv, i'd love to hear it - I really like the Quartetto Stig CD that I've got here...

cheers

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

hey steve,

thanks for the clarification. i think that your comment about the political charge of much early free jazz is well taken - - though it was not always overtly so (again there is a parallel with some punk rock here). this also elides with some thoughts below.

as for my path to free improv (etc.), it may be too lengthy to go into here. so, i'm gonna post a link to my bio on the cryptogramophone web site (they're releasing my next cd on 31 july). it's longish but probably explains what needs to be explained: http://www.cryptogramophone.com/artist.asp?id=22

i had loads of thoughts after i clicked on submit reply on my last post. so here are some more:

a lot of what (total) free improv is often about is the emotion of the moment - - what's happening right now (and if i'm feeling angry, then it's gonna have some anger to it, if i feel "pretty," it's gonna have something pretty about it, if i wanna rock, it's gonna rock, etc.). in this way it is probably unlike any other music people play; for even when people are "in the moment" playing a composition or song, they are still involved with a process of dealing with something that was written before they even woke up that morning, and it is therefore a product of a moment, or series of moments, that occured in the past. (not a slam on composition!)

while a lot of this stuff is about what one is FEELING at the moment, it also goes to how one reacts to the other people (assuming one is not doing a solo improv) involved. this is often an intellectual process (e.g., so-and-so is playing fast 8th notes, i can either join in and emulate that texture, or i can layer a different texture - - say long tones - - on top of that). in my mind, the most succesful people doing this bring a compositional approach to what's going on. in fact, many people who do free improv would say that it is really "spontaneous group composition." at its best, i think this is true.

in many ways, one could say that free improv is really just like conversation - - filled with good give-and-take, laughs, etc. like any conversation or communication, it requires attentive LISTENING to the others involved. (ever have a conversation where someone isn't listening to you??? it's not very productive or fun.)

many people would say that free improv is just anything-goes wanking . . . and for some people it is (though i would debate whether or not it is really free improv in this case). for the people who do it best it is a fairly disciplined approach to making music without pre-determined musical elements, but - - assuming one has the vocabulary - - with an infinite amount of possibilities at one's fingertips.

i'm sure this is too verbose, sorry!

stig

I mentioned to Steve elsewhere about a trio gig I saw at my local Jazz club - Trumpet, Sax and Guitar - Kenny Wheeler, Stan Sulzmann and John Paricelli.

They started playing an Ornette Coleman tune and played the "head" all 3 in unison, which was a very short and fast blues. But then they got into the blowing and John Paricelli used his midi-eqipped guitar and a boomerang phrase sampler to stack up very weird strings-sounding chords - to create an almost orchestral sound of very slow chords, that sounded more like Olivier Messiaen than Ornette Coleman while trumpet and sax improvised freely over the top!

So in relation to Ed's point of "playing" the song we got about half a minute or less of Ornette and 20-30 minutes of free playing that could not have been further away from this tune!!

But at least it serves the pupose of identifying the piece - so hopefully, I will get to see John Paricelli next week and will be able to say to him - you remember what you did on that Ornette Coleman tune when you were at Brighton Jazz club - what chords were you using? Whereas if the whole gig had just been "free" with no starting points, it would have been very difficult to identify what or when I meant ! ;)

Originally posted by steubig


i'd be interested to know if any of the other folks here are interested in doing free improv.

anyway, that's probably enough,

stig

I'm interested in hearing more - that is, both free imrov and more of your thoughts - we like verbose! ;)


I would like to do this, but am still in a learning process myself - there is still so much I want to learn. But once I feel confident enough to interact with good musicians on this level, its definitely something I want to explore.

I like the idea of spontaneous composition and this can find audiences if the musicians are good enough - like the gig I mentioned above.

I have done some workshops with Alex Maguire, who is a pianist very much into free improv and love what he does. One of the higlights of the Jazz Summerschool I attended last year (off again on Sunday to the same one!) was the Tutors "duo" spots/masterclasses.

So there are about 15 - 20 tutors who play varying instruments and they put their names in a hat and two are picked at random and they perform a spontaneous free improvisation together - in a sort of "chamber music" setting. So there were many different combinations - like sax and piano,drums and trumpet etc and all the tutors did this in two slots on two days.

In terms of the student interest and concentration of listening this was the most appreciated event although there was a Jazz Club every evening where conventional tutor groups played arranged and improvised pieces.

So I think that although the vast majority of Jazz gigs are still mostly around pre-determined sequences and arrangements, I think there's still room for more free stuff and I would certainly go out of my way to go along to gigs like this.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
LAWSON-SAN - in what ways do you see your 'definition' of free improv as being different from what's going on with non-Burnsalis jazz these days? I mean, even when we are playing standards I have to be aware of changes in the harmonic material or rhythmic approach, given the fact that everybody's playing is informed by Ornette and the Plugged Nickel/Sorcerer/Bitches Brew approach as well as popular music and Indian music and, well, the list goes on. Is it only that the form is defined from within, rather than imposed from outside?


Ed,

I think for me the difference is the tyranny of the word jazz - those who avoid it are often (not always, but often) the ones I am drawn to. Describing Bill Frisell as a 'jazz musician' would fall woefully short of his contribution to everything from country to hardcore, and although there's a jazz sensibility that informs some of his work (and some of his side-man work in particular is well within the remit of jazz), he doesn't seem to operate under that banner. There are a lot of players who are being grouped under that non-burns jazz thing that seem to have little to do with jazz, beyond tapping into the history of experimentation that jazz has embodied on and off for a hundred years.

I don't think my take on this stuff is particularly new, and wouldn't want to attempt to set myself up as any kind of authority on the subject - my thoughts and feelings on it are informed predominantly by my own playing experiences, and though spending a lot of time thinking about music from that angle, and also through listening to all manner of music, enjoying all kinds of music and trying to reconcile seemingly disparate elements within my taste, but realising that there's no reason why i should have to - it's all ultimately just sound, so what I do with that is completely up to me... :o)

cheers

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua

JimK had an interesting question awhile back. I had sent him a recording of an "out" gig I had done, his question was "If you play a freely improvised composition and announce it as being SONG XYZ, and whatever level of communication happening in the band communicates to the audience, enough so that a few people come to other gigs and actually request SONG XYZ, what do you do?" In other words, do you approach even a "freely improvised" piece with some idea of form?

If it was truly a free gig then there'd be no repetition without it occuring spontaneously - on the 5 gigs of the Manring/Walker/Lawson tour, we didn't repeat any material - by that I mean, the starting point for each improv was different. I'm sure there were chord shapes that were used more than once, and I guess we slipped into 4/4 on more than a few occasions, but we didn't tackle variations on the same theme twice...

In my own gigs, it's kind of half 'n' half - the initial loop is often prewritten, but where it goes after that is defined by a prearranged order of effects, rather than a note based thing. So it's improvised stuff over a familiar loop with familiar sounds... at some point I'll post 8 versions of the same tune on my site from different gigs, so that anyone truly bored enough to want to can hear how they change... :o)

Requests are a strange thing to deal with, especially if you see the 'arc' of a gig as being part of what makes it work... I had a song requested at one of my gigs in Calfornia, cos the guy was leaving, which I hadn't planned to play til later and as a result I kinda fudged my way through it, which was a little annoying... maybe if I'd left it til later it would have worked... perhaps next time I'll say 'no' to a request... who knows, I'll make it up as I go along! :o)

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

Thanks for asking me to have a look at this thread Steve. Interesting comments from everyone!

I too, grew up doing the free jam thing with my friends and I've been lucky enough to be involved in various kinds of improvised music throughout my career. Some "free" music isn't really without rules as the performers tend to be bound by conventions and idioms, but I don't think that necessarily invalidates it artistically. Even in improv without boundaries, the players are still limited to common vocabulary. If you start playing the head to "Confirmation" in the middle of a jam with players who have only ever played rock music for instance, it's unlikely they'll suddenly join you at the bridge.

One of the things that strikes me about free improv is that it's relatively rare. In my experience, even most improvised-based musics in the world are actually quite structured. Why our culture should be one of the only ones to be comfortable with music that has as few rules as possible is a question that I find intriguing.

There are pros and cons to free improv as there are about any other kind of music. My favorite thing about free playing is that it offers an opportunity for especially deep listening and interaction. In fact in my opinion, it really isn't worth playing free music at all unless everybody is really tuned in and sensitive. But when they are it can be a mighty nice little journey.

hi michael.

interesting that we "meet" this way as we have mutual friends/playing aquaintences in alex and nels cline.

i think that you're quite right about conventions and idiomatic expression (i think that steve also touched on this when he discussed not existing in a cultural vacuum). i just read an interview with a guy who does a lot of free music (bassist dominic duval). he was saying that "improvisation" (per se) does not really exist in that we all bring our already-existing ideas and vocabularies to an improv. for the most part i think this may be correct - - with the exception that there are those amazing moments when one finds oneself playing something or utilizing a new technique that one hasn't yet done. again, i think this harkens back to the analogy of a conversation where one brings ideas but can learn something new, as well.

in terms of our culture (and here i'm assuming that you mean american [and by this i mean the totality of that culture]/western european culture and anyone who follows the music being created out of those traditions) being one that seems to have
music of this nature with almost no rules, i think it is a product of the continuance of the idea of the primacy of the individual. one can probably chart this as beginning by at least the renaissance.

you, know a lot of people are using jam and improv as being the same thing and i'm not sure that this is something i agree with. if you have a bunch of rock people doing a "jam session" i don't think it is the same thing as people who identify themselves as improvisors - - same thing with a jazz jam session, which almost always goes to tunes anyway. it may be a matter of semantics, but i see them as being different things.

as far as doing confirmation in a improv, i was on tour with this guy julius hemphill who did some pretty adventurous improv sections in his pieces; one night it was time for a bass solo and i decide to do the melody to autumn leaves. definitely got some interested looks!

the deep listening thing is true . . . but i tend to think in ratios of success: it used to be anything around 70-30 (good-bad) split was a good improv gig, not it's more like 80-20 or 85-15. it's sorta like any human acitivity - - conversation, sex . . . when it hits it's great, but even if it's marginal you still enjoy it or learn something from it. there can never be any guarantees of it always being great, you go and do it and try to make sure you're in the moment and with everyone. so i think it can always be worth it . . . practically speaking it isn't always. (but don't you feel that about playign written stuff too?)

stig (the verbose)

steve said:

In my own gigs, it's kind of half 'n' half - the initial loop is often prewritten, but where it goes after that is defined by a prearranged order of effects, rather than a note based thing. So it's improvised stuff over a familiar loop with familiar sounds... at some point I'll post 8 versions of the same tune on my site from different gigs,

** see, to me, this wouldn't really be "free improv" - - it's a composition or compositional framework that you use for doing improv (sorta like the head in a jazz standard). if you see what i mean.

not saying it's "bad," just saying it's not the same thing as free improv. (for what it's worth, i do similar things.)

stig (mr quibble)

Great stuff Stu/Michael!

I'll post more later, but just to say that I don't think that what I do in the setting described above is free improv either.. :o) I was confusing things by talking about semi structured improv and free improv in the same post...

I say semi structured because of of the things i do is to lay down the initial prearranged loop, record a separate non-sync'd loop against it, and eventually fade the original loop and play against the improv'd loop... :o)

I don't think that what i do in that setting fulfills any of criteria of free improv, even though the tunes do go in all kinds of directions... :o)

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

okay steve,

no problem. i was just drawing a distinction because of the title of the thread.

for me, i tend to do a lot of music that incorporates free improv - - or directed free improv, if you will (an oxymoron, no doubt) - - into a written structure. i write stuff for people and then say, it's wide open, let's go . . . and then bring back thematic material later.

i quite like the tension between "free improv" in this sense and the written stuff. (what i really like is when the improv is so seamless that people can't tell where the written stuff ends and the improv begins.)

so, i get where you're coming from, but felt that we needed to parse the words a little more closely.

thanks for having me

stig

Stig-sir,

'tis a pleasure and a priviledge to have you contribute here, especially as you have way more experience than me in free-improv... :o)

I hugely appreciate your clarifications - it's easy for one person to lose track on a discussion like this, to change topic without mentioning that it's happened or to talk at cross purposes, so to have you pull my meanderings back on track is much appreciated...

Cheers

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

okay steve . . .

wasn't trying to be the arbitor of anything, just trying to figure stuff out for myself and so forth.

i have issues about what's free improv vs. directed improv, etc., in what i do. (meaning the written stuff.)

stig

Stig (and anyone else)

what do you think is the purpose of being able to classify music as free or directed or out or any other type of improv? We all using the terms so must think that such labels are helpful in someway, whether it be to the listener, to yourself, or as some sort of directive in a group improv context. Would it be a disaster if the different members of a group thought differently about it? Have you ever experimented with perception, but telling someone that a piece was composed and then proceeding to play completely free, only to have them try and follow the form, style and harmony of the tune you're playing????

fun 'n' games

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

Originally posted by steubig
or directed free improv, if you will (an oxymoron, no doubt) - - into a written structure. i write stuff for people and then say, it's wide open, let's go . . . and then bring back thematic material later.


This reminds me of Brian Eno's "Oblique Strategies" - he developed a box of cards, which contain vague or sometimes specific instructions, which are chosen at random and which he used in the studio when they got stuck or just to liven things up and encourage creativity.

So they don't have anything specifically musical on them, but they do have suggestions that can be interpreted as literally as people want.

Ed F said:
For me, it's mostly for identification kinda thang when talking with others/audience/marketing purposes

Some guys don't want to hear a through composed thing cause their festival is JUST for the "everybody blow NOW!" kinda out players. And versie visuh.

As far as other cats in the band, I've never really used any "terminology", just instructions.

But I haven't really tried to make anyone figure out what parts are free and what parts are composed. Plus, to me, as soon as you try to make "compositional" desicions that will define a form, how "free" is the playing?



i think ed brings up some good points here.

for the most part, i'm not sure it should matter to a listener as to which sort of methodology is being used. and, as he mentions, there are people who want to hear only certain types of things.

i think that the minute you bring any instructions or road map into an improv it does veer away from being "free." i don't think that it takes away or adds to the validity of the music, it's just a different strategy.

about the composition with improv thing, it is an interesting predicatment. i often do things of this sort in my own writing: written section into improv section, add some written material over the improv section, etc. this is a satisfying strategy for me. i'm into composition (having written string quartets, etc.) and i'm into improv. to me this is the best of both worlds.

i don't think i expect anyone to figure out what's written and what's not - - for the most part i think it's pretty obvious (you have a unison section or specific chords it's kind hard to miss 'em). and, again, i like it when it feels seamless.

i think you'd have to listen to the music to decide for yourself how free the improv is.

one last thought: people called what ornette coleman was doing "free jazz," but really he had heads and solos like any other jazz tune (same with late coltrane, too). maybe it's more appropriate to consider the term to mean "free from standard ways of doing things" (i.e., rhythm changes, ii-V-I, etc.) - - and maybe those standard ways have changed and the term is an anachronism at this point.

stig

Wow. This thread's really taking off. :) 'Though it has me a little confused. I didn't realize there's so much to this 'free improv' thing.

I guess you can say it's not all-together 'free' from my conclusions. Jamming with someone else I suppose you have to start somewhere.

Can I make an analogy? Isn't this quite the same as, say, a stand-up comedian? These guys, I'm sure, have their routines planned out. (Still like to know why they call that place "The Improv".) But I'm sure there's some part of their routine that was not planned out, like if there's a reaction from an audience member and the comedian plays on that..or maybe something else pops in his head?

But isn't it 'free' in the fact that there are no rules, and basically, anything goes?

I'm gonna have a better read through these posts...........

Cheers,

~Stephanie

Originally posted by steubig

i think that the minute you bring any instructions or road map into an improv it does veer away from being "free." i don't think that it takes away or adds to the validity of the music, it's just a different strategy.

[/B]

In my experiences with free playing I have often found the opposite to be true. Some of my most rewarding free experiences have transpired when a limit imposed from the outside (i.e: don´t play any melodies for the next 20 minutes; let´s gather around C# every now and again) have forced me out of my usual ¨play without limits bag¨(which usually involves scronks, screeches, shards of melody, repetitious rhythmic phrases). Ideally, such limits take my mind to a different, (hopefully) more creative space because I´ve been presented with an obstacle that needs to be overcome: How can I maintain a spirit of freedom, exploration, and opportunity within a given set of parameters?

I am reminded of George Clinton: ¨Freedom is free from the need to be free.¨I think people assume freedom to be some absolute, Platonic ideal floating out there in the aether but our actual experience of it always takes place in a specific context within the laws of time, space, and the constructs of culture and the patterns of mind. Perhaps the noblest expression of the spirit of freedom in the face of limitation is when people choose to hold fast in the face of oppression, and decide to ¨die standing up instead of living on their knees.¨

I was fortunate to catch the Manring/Lawson/Walker/Valentino bass looping tour in Sacramento a couple of weeks ago, and I was surprised to hear that the ensemble portions were entirely improvised; they sounded incredibly cohesive, with all souls turning corners and discovering new vistas together. I feel the best freely improvised music allows room for at least one basic instruction: to listen!

hi back again . . .

some responses to another post:

"In my experiences with free playing I have often found the opposite to be true. Some of my most rewarding free experiences have transpired when a limit imposed from the outside"

** ya know. i don't think this actually refutes my statement - - all i was saying was that it might not qualify as totally "free improv" - - maybe it's "directed free improv." i was not saying that it wasn't rewarding or musically valid, etc. to the contrary, i think i was saying that it can all be really valid, etc. what i was saying was that, by virtue of it having some outside structure placed on it, the improv is not not necessarily as "free" as it would've been without those parameters.



Ideally, such limits take my mind to a different, (hopefully) more creative space


** i totally agree with you here.


I think people assume freedom to be some absolute, Platonic ideal floating out there in the aether but our actual experience of it always takes place in a specific context within the laws of time, space, and the constructs of culture and the patterns of mind.

** yeah and there are proponents of "free music" who would say that structure is not going to work with "free" improv. (in fact i've had some reviews that came my way that basically said exactly that.)

I feel the best freely improvised music allows room for at least one basic instruction: to listen!

** yes.

a lot of my post about "free improv" versus "directed free improv" has a lot to do with my internal dialectic concerning my own use of improv in the middle of written pieces. it' not really "free" in the sense of "totally without parameters playing" as there are time conctraints and so forth; but the players get to do what ever they want within the context of the written piece (and we're not talking chord changes or key centers or time feels for a lot of this).

stig

I didn't realize there's so much to this 'free improv' thing.

** mostly we're just discussing the definition and terminology at this point. it's pretty arcane at this point.

I guess you can say it's not all-together 'free' from my conclusions . . .
But isn't it 'free' in the fact that there are no rules, and basically, anything goes?

** well this is a big question (and sort of the crux of the definition/terminology issue). i've read where people who are "free" players think that it's not okay to play time or grooves. to me, that means that it ISN'T free - - they just applied a parameter that excludes possible vocabulary. when i do "free" stuff, it's all open, total noise, funk, sludge grroves, jazz stuff, prepared bass as non-idiomatic percussion, melody/melody/melody, big beautiful chord washes - - pretty much everything that i can pull off or like. the only thing is that it has to be in a context where it fits in organically with what the other players are doing - - you have to be lucky enough to play with players that can go these places. (i think that m. manring was alluding to this in his post.)

maybe this helps???

stig

Thanks Stig,

I've been thinking about the term itself: "free". What does it mean to an individual as opposed to another individual? Not just in this 'free improv' sense, but in life itself. What is freedom to one person may be a prison to another and vice versa. There's a lot to be thought about. But I'll stop here before I start analyzing too much. LOL.

Anyway, on the case of improvising, I've been thinking lately about how lousy my improvisational skills seem to be. I believe I had a thread somnetime ago over at Mike Dimin's forum (Or was it here? Man, now I'll have to go searching for it. LOL :D ) about this and ways to try and improve. For example: at my lesson my teacher would give me 4 chords: Cº7, Cmaj7, Dm7, and G7. 2 beats to each chord. (1 note per beat). I know what notes are in these chords. I practice them over and over in arpeggio form but when he says "play" I freeze. I can't think of what to play and when I can play the right notes it all sounds dull. All in all my mind just blanks out.

Afraid I'm not ready to do any improvising with a group. Steve? Anyone else have any advice? Is it just nerves?

Cheers,

~Stephanie (got a lot on my mind tonite. LOL) :)

hey stephanie,

i'm gonna come at the improv thing a little differently here.

while i think the idea of learning the chords and all is extremely (and i do mean EXTREMELY) important, here's something that i think many people don't do very much.

just sit down and play an "emotion" for 5-10 minutes. pick another one and do the same. (i'm thinking happiness, anger, sadness, etc.) i used to do this all the time and i think it really freed me up quite a bit. just play, don't worry about keys or chords or anything. listen to the notes you play and find what you like, dare to play something "wrong." (i personally feel that many people work on the theory and the "right" notes in improv and not enough on the personal expression angle.)

as far as freedom and all your thoughts, i think this all makes a lot of sense to me. one great byproduct of playing music can be challenging yourself intellectually on issues like this.

re the chord changes you have mentioned. i wouldn't necessarily thing in terms of arpeggios all the time. perhap you should slow it all WAY down and think in terms of voice leading, how to get from one chord to the next. use the chord tones as the leading tone into the next chord. (also, i'm thinking the chord progression might be the more typical Cmag7 to C#dim7 to Dmin7 to Gdom7? if so, the C#dim7 can be considered as a substitution for an Adom7, so you could use the chord tones in the Adom7 chord for that chord as well.) lastly, you could use scale tones to lead into the next chord (e.g., C-B-A-C#-D-A-G-B, etc.)

anyway, maybe this helps,

stig

Just a quick note to second all that Stig suggested, Steph - the emotions thing is a great way of bypassing theoretical blockages. The theory stuff is useful, but only as a means to an end. The end is music, theory as written on paper and prescribed by rules is a fairly scientific stab at codifying that which works - it's useful, but it's not an artistic frame-work.

If you are finding notes and names and keys and stuff are a stumbling block, go back to 'sound', as we talked about a few months back - find sounds that conjure up images - sad sounds, dark sounds, happy sounds - whatever... then go back and work out what the harmony was, once the connection between hands and brain has been made...

Also, Stig's suggestions for tackling the chord progression are great too... I'm glad he was able to chip in their, as I've been on holiday, so you'd have been waiting til now for an answer... :o)

Keep them questions coming (to me or Stig...)

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

I was at Jazz Summerschool last week and was in a group with Jason Yarde (Alto Soprano Sax etc.) who is interested in free improvisation and we got to discuss this quite a lot over the week.

We started the week with some spontaneous group composition. So Jason had various techniques for setting up grooves and for each person in the band choosing notes in turn with no regard to key/chords etc.

We eventually set up a groove that was in no particular key and it was very interesting to solo over this. When we first started doing this it did feel very liberating - depending on what I chose to play, certain key centres were hinted at, but I could change this and shift the mood at any time.

If I explain - we had a conventional Jazz band alto sax/flute, soprano/clarinet and trumpet as front line; then guitar, piano, bass (me) and drums - but we also had decks and samplers. Anyway, the idea was to take two bars and each person choose something to play that was very simple - no more than 1-3 notes and then repeat it every two bars. So you end up with an "unlikely" groove to solo over. As a bass player it was very interesting as you are usually keeping the groove going yourself
so to solo over something like this was a different experience.

I suppose this is not "free" improv in the traditional sense, but the groove was essentially random and as I say no particular key or chords were suggested.

There were lots of different ideas during the week, similar to what Stig mentioned. Jason mentioned ways he got groups to accept free music - so he suggested that everybody play freely together, music they really liked. So everybody says it sounds "horrible" as it all clashed - then he said, play freely, but music you hate. Surpisingly both sounded similar but the latter was more cohesive!

At the end of the week we had a discussion about this and I suggested that you could always hear what experience somebody brought to their improvisation, even if they were "throwing away" technique and theory. I think there was general agreement - my view is that someone who has never learned Jazz Theory or anything like this soon runs out of ideas in Free Improv amd the more experience you can call on in terms of your playing experience, playing with other people etc - the more you can bring to the music.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield

When we first started doing this it did feel very liberating - depending on what I chose to play, certain key centres were hinted at, but I could change this and shift the mood at any time. . . .

** i think this is one of the great things about improv - - especially when it veers towards being "free."


Anyway, the idea was to take two bars and each person choose something to play that was very simple - no more than 1-3 notes and then repeat it every two bars.

** this is a great idea that i'm going to steal and or modify!! tho', in some ways, it may point more to alleatoric music as used in classical music - - still it's a great idea.

So you end up with an "unlikely" groove to solo over. As a bass player it was very interesting as you are usually keeping the groove going yourself
so to solo over something like this was a different experience. . . .

** so that is a particularly successful experiment for you, no? how did you like doing it?

I suppose this is not "free" improv in the traditional sense, but the groove was essentially random and as I say no particular key or chords were suggested. . . .

** yeah, it's a system, but it seems like it can come up with exciting results - - and the music is what counts for me, not the process. (even tho' i was the one going on about the "definition" of "free.")

my view is that someone who has never learned Jazz Theory or anything like this soon runs out of ideas in Free Improv amd the more experience you can call on in terms of your playing experience, playing with other people etc - the more you can bring to the music.

** i think the main difference is not the theory, but the parameters of any given tradition. that is, jazz is about improvisational technique and a context for doing that, mostly rock is about creating parts that will serve the song (text). still, i think that someone who only dealt in be-bop might have a harder time than someone who did sonic youth-type rock improv, but that's debatable.

stig

Hi Steve,

Hope you had a fun holiday. Yes Stig has been indeed helpful. :) I've been just trying to loosen up a bit with the whole improvisation thing and the lesson that I'm supposed to be practicing. It's been helful in that way and I've come up with a few nice lines. :)

Originally posted by Steve Lawson
If you are finding notes and names and keys and stuff are a stumbling block, go back to 'sound', as we talked about a few months back - find sounds that conjure up images - sad sounds, dark sounds, happy sounds - whatever... then go back and work out what the harmony was, once the connection between hands and brain has been made...


Heh. Ive actually been on an emotional roller coaster lately so I"ve been able to exprees those feelings onto the bass.

Funny thing. I was sitting practicing my lesson..and as usual my mind wandered elsewhere. :D I had one of Bach's Suites in my mind. So I just found myself playing around with a pattern I liked in it. Then I changed the key and the pattern a bit and voila! A whole new song idea! LOL :)

See? I find I'm pretty good at that. Playing whatever pops in my mind. :) Something I can do comes out of something I can't really do so well. LOL

Cheers,

~Stephanie

stephanie said:

Funny thing. I was sitting practicing my lesson..and as usual my mind wandered elsewhere. I had one of Bach's Suites in my mind . . .

** well here's a really outlandish idea . . . or not.

take the bach suite (i'm assuming it's one of the solo 'cello suites), play the first section (i used to do this with the allemand or gavotte of #4) and then improvise off of its basic elements, come back and do the repeat of the section, more improv, go to second section, improv, repeat of second improv and end - - or continue on into more improv. i used to do this sort of thing with #4 and then go into something like confirmation by c. parker (both were in "f" for me), sometimes going into another piece of the suite.

in any event, i'm glad that i've been somewhat helpful (and thanks for saying that!).

stig

You're welcome Stig. :)

The Bach Suite I had in my mind was Suite #1 in G Major. Sometime ago I bought "J.S. Bach For Bass" by Josquin des Pres. It came with a CD and I enjoy just listening to the CD. Bach sounds great on bass. :) The tunes are a little hard to play yet though. :( Oh well.

Cheers,

~Stephanie

stephanie was saying:


The Bach Suite I had in my mind was Suite #1 in G Major. Sometime ago I bought "J.S. Bach For Bass" by Josquin des Pres. It came with a CD and I enjoy just listening to the CD. Bach sounds great on bass. The tunes are a little hard to play yet though. Oh well.

** my thing would work with any of the suites, number shouldn't matter. as i recall, #1 has some pretty nice little motives that you can use in an improv section. you should hear the suites on 'cello too. i haven't heard the version that you're talking about, but the whole performance practice thing in the classical tradition is pretty deep and might give some insight that the e-bass version doesn't (but then, again, i haven't heard that so i could be wrong); and remember most of the pieces were based on dance forms. just work up one section at a time, slowly.


stig

The posts about using a composition as a basis for imrpovisation in this way are great - thanks Stig. It's really important to have some sort of journey in mind when pursuing any study path - it's one of the major flaws with a lot of the exercises that get trotted out here and there - they are decontextualised.

Often, on route to a particular musical goal, you've got to go down a lot of other avenues to get certain bits of information and practice together before you can move on to your eventual area of study - kind of like playing Sonic The Hedgehog, and making sure that you've collected enough of those gold ring things before moving onto the next level... :o)

So it is with this free thing - free improv at it's best doesn't come out of nowhere, it comes out of everywhere - it's not about rejecting everything, rather embracing everything - all music is valid, and whatever combinations of sounds that works to express where you're going is fine. That's a huge leap to make unless you work out some kind of road map. Starting with melodic embellishment of the kind that comes out of improv with Bach suites is a great way to get a feel for altering things to make them your own - and there are no limits on how far you can go. You can start by taking the same notes and just changing the rhthym, or by changing one note in each bar, or inverting a phrase, or harmonising it, or just playing what sounds cool to you instead. From there you can go anywhere - in more 'structured' directions that involve reharmonising or developing along classical lines (fugue, counterpoint etc.) or much freer, where you just play to the feeling of the piece. You can do call and response - alternating a line from the suite with an improv line.

and eventually, you don't need the suite any more - you've got enough of your own ideas to start with those and embellish them instead - two steps removed from your source material, and now able to claim the writer's royalty on any recordings you might do! :o)

remember that all music is a journey - there are so many 'final' questions that come up in the various discussion forums - the best this or the ultimate that, the one exercise that will show me how to slap, the greatest bassist, the coolest lick - it's all fun stuff to chat about, but doesn't actually have any currency when it comes to the business of becoming music - not learning to play music, but seeking to become music, to generate music, to speak music - it may sound like a load of pretentious arse, but there are no short cuts, no tricks... conversely, there are no 'secrets', there's no arcane knowledge required, just practice, humility, dedication and a sense of direction.

Have fun with your Bach - let me hear it when it's unrecogniseable! :o)

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk

hi,

so here's an excerpt from a interview with drummer kevin norton (played with anthony braxton and numerous others) in the august 2001 issue of cadence magazine (page 5). i think it addresses some of the issues that were discussed earlier. (btw, candence is a great resource for reviews and interviews of jazz - - both mainstream and "free.")

excerpt as follows:

cadence: are there fundamental rules or guidelines to performing free jazz drumming?

kevin norton: the "role" of drumming, period, is maybe were we should begin. is it a time-keeping, supportive role? is it an equal voice in a counterpoint texture? i think it is all of the above. some of my favorite drumming is by barry altschul on braxton's _five pieces 1975_. it's everthing: it's soft, sensitive, sparse, colorful, like classical percussion and it's ferocious, propulsive "jazz" drumming like art blakey or roy haynes. the term "free jazz," or at least what it has become, bother me because it implies that there is no basis for the improvisations or that people are free not to listen to the other players. in a sense, the beginnings of what became free jazz was a return to the collective improvisation, a concept that had been increasingly dropped from post-louis armstrong jazz. i think in collective improvisation, your ears, your listening skills, should be on a higher level than in a soloist/rhythm section context. really, my point is that these divisions are blurred and have been for quite some time.

a lot about a drummer's "role," etc., but pretty germane to the previous posts, i think.


stig