Double Bass Teachable Moment(s)

[Don Kasper]

(Prompted by my exchanges with damonsmith in the (ongoing) Thread regarding "...pop covers by classical and jazz musicians" in Miscellaneous.)
As someone not at all familiar with the "Free Jazz/Free Improvisation" movement(s), I'd like to ask @damonsmith to comment on a few aspects of his performance below, as I have a few questions and I would benefit from hearing his comments, in a genuine effort to learn more about his thought process and approaches to his music, (of which I know very little.)


So,

Regarding the composition - It appears that the score (freeze-frame @ 0:16) is a collection of written note-names, (not notes on a staff), grouped in some sort of organizational way. There appear to be some brackets around some group of notes, as well. So, my question is, is the score the composer's manuscript, or is it a transcription of a performance that you transcribed from a CT recording? How much of what you played is strictly based upon the score? How much "prompting" or direction does the score provide? I would not have guessed that the score was as minimal as it is, based upon the textural complexity of the performance.

Regarding the tuning/pitch - Is conventional "tuning/pitch" not a concern in this piece? (even though there are note-names on the score.) Is the over-riding approach just pure "sound(s)", without the constraints of conventional (Western) tunings? I ask because I believe that the double-stop 10ths (@ 2:02;2:08;2:22;2:47), are deliberately "out of tune". Is this correct? Does this music deliberately blur the lines of conventional tuning, as a way to explore sound as non-conventional (microtonal?) pitch organization?

Thanks, in advance, for your time and expertise, and I look forward to your comments and analysis.
P.S. - I think you quoted the bassline from "Birdland", in there!
Don Kasper

 

[damonsmith]

That is Cecil Taylor's unit structures notation. Probably was dictated to the alto player I got it from, but it is how Cecil organizes the music, and the notation was from him.

It is originally a sextet piece. He uses the letters to allow the music to be played a variety of ways, different rhythms, registers and even backwards. The brackets indicate a unit of material, you improvise and move to the next unit.

In the improvisation I tried to work with his approaches to improvisation and also reference the bass players he preferred to work with. He was a big advocate of his bassists "getting between the notes", so a lot of the techniques I use in the improvisation produce pitch outside of 440 - this is for sure deliberate.
Those tenths are clams - not sure why, I probably knocked the bass out of tune with the prepared stuff and slowly adjusted to it over the rest of the piece - still, should have been a tenth!

In dealing with the energy, volume and speed of his music you just get more clams when digging in like that, some of the four note chords are tough to get on the fly, but I made an effort.
Not being an excuse by any means, I could have put the strings down and prioritized accuracy of pitch but as Cecil is the father of the "Energy Music" movement I prioritized that energy and power, and think it is more in keeping with how his longtime bassists like like Sirone and William Parker played in his groups, as well as his own elbow on the keys techniques.

 

[damonsmith]

Here is an early Cecil quartet with Silva:


Here is one with Willam Parker:

 

[damonsmith]

Here is a William Parker solo:

 

[Don Kasper]

That is Cecil Taylor's unit structures notation. Probably was dictated to the alto player I got it from, but it is how Cecil organizes the music, and the notation was from him.

It is originally a sextet piece. He uses the letters to allow the music to be played a variety of ways, different rhythms, registers and even backwards. The brackets indicate a unit of material, you improvise and move to the next unit.

In the improvisation I tried to work with his approaches to improvisation and also reference the bass players he preferred to work with. He was a big advocate of his bassists "getting between the notes", so a lot of the techniques I use in the improvisation produce pitch outside of 440 - this is for sure deliberate.
Those tenths are clams - not sure why, I probably knocked the bass out of tune with the prepared stuff and slowly adjusted to it over the rest of the piece - still, should have been a tenth!

In dealing with the energy, volume and speed of his music you just get more clams when digging in like that, some of the four note chords are tough to get on the fly, but I made an effort.
Not being an excuse by any means, I could have put the strings down and prioritized accuracy of pitch but as Cecil is the father of the "Energy Music" movement I prioritized that energy and power, and think it is more in keeping with how his longtime bassists like like Sirone and William Parker played in his groups, as well as his own elbow on the keys techniques.

Thanks, damonsmith.
Are the relatively non-pitched sounds (bowing the tailpiece, or the high-pitched bowed "scrapings", for example), allowed as simply "energy"? Would another performer choose to limit the choices solely to the pitched material of the Unit Structures? Or, is this just a musical "Petri Dish", so to speak, that encourages and expects organic development?
Thanks.

 

[damonsmith]

Thanks, damonsmith.
Are the relatively non-pitched sounds (bowing the tailpiece, or the high-pitched bowed "scrapings", for example), allowed as simply "energy"? Would another performer choose to limit the choices solely to the pitched material of the Unit Structures? Or, is this just a musical "Petri Dish", so to speak, that encourages and expects organic development?
Thanks.

My tail piece is tuned now! After my last set up. That bit was my own intro that referenced the Anselm Kiefer painting and the Richard Long stone circle, it moves into an improvisation based on Cecil's love of the bassist Barry Guy:


The material from the score starts after that. With this sort of thing, a purely pitch based improvisation on the material isn't exactly correct - I do some of that but I also use the material to frame more textural moments - when he plays solo it is piano, but in his groups he has often favored more textural players after the alto player Jimmy Lyons passed.
The high pitched bits would be like the high parts of an Ayler solo. In his groups and most other free jazz groups the written material co-exists with the music each musician brings to the group rather than dictates the material.
You have bring your own material to each of these sort of situations.

Not all of my work is this thought out, but this one is pretty considered.

 

[Don Kasper]

Here is a William Parker solo:

Yeah. The "between the notes"/"pitch" issue is a big hurdle for me with this performance and genre. I've spent decades practicing to NOT sound like (parts) of that. I don't mean this in a negative way toward Mr. Parker, only to clarify where on the pitch continuum I aim to reside.
It's interesting that as a composer, CT plays an instrument that, (when in tune, or when not Prepared), doesn't usually explore the "between the notes" world. Even using "elbows" is still generating clusters of tempered pitches.
Thanks.

 

[damonsmith]

Yeah. The "between the notes"/"pitch" issue is a big hurdle for me with this performance and genre. I've spent decades practicing to NOT sound like (parts) of that. I don't mean this in a negative way toward Mr. Parker, only to clarify where on the pitch continuum I aim to reside.
It's interesting that as a composer, CT plays an instrument that, (when in tune, or when not Prepared), doesn't usually explore the "between the notes" world. Even using "elbows" is still generating clusters of tempered pitches.
Thanks.

Most of us use other techniques to get there. I've done some new music pieces that have quarter tones - it took a lot of practice. But, you will notice William is pulling on the strings and getting there a whole other way. Normally, I use those techniques to explore that area, but I also work with some double stops in close microtonal harmony - I just use my ear no tuning theory for that. You also learn to work with other musicians playing all sorts of non traditionally pitched systems and instruments. Even in total free improvisation we try to meet up at various "locking points" and those might even be a non traditional pitch or pitch area.

Also, with so much of the available texture from the double bass basically being built on harmonics, you end up having an ear for that tuning system as well. In that sense, it isn't so different from learning to hear upper chord extensions in bebop as solutions in a solo on a standard. You learn to hear more an more combinations of pitch and texture based ideas, and even to dig the pitch out of the texture.

I keep a pretty strict Simandl based practice regimen, so my hope is that it will underpin the whole thing at some basic level.

 

[damonsmith]

Here is an interview with Barry Guy:
"It is very important to be able to immerse yourself in the music and not allow the expressionistic aspects of the will to take over from the perceived balance of the structure."

A Conversation with Barry Guy