Improvisation: The Entanglement of Awareness and Physicality

Ballarat Kids v Boulez

In this article I would like to talk about the way those improvisers specializing in a rich dialogue with
instrumental technique, (or voice), create. By way of introducing this dialogue I would like to nd
concepts about improvisation that I feel happy with.
Improvisation is surely the most direct and uncomplicated way to organize sounds. !o paper, pens,
conductors, interpreters or programmes, no trappings and paraphernalia. "ust people creating music, at
the moment, only for that moment. #wo consequences of this are that improvisations are unrepeatable
and unpredictable. $ric %olphy whispered into a microphone on the record Last Date, &'hen you
hear music, after it(s over, it(s gone in the air, you can never capture it again.) Improvisation is elegantly
suited to deal with this ephemerality because it mirrors this ephemerality.
*ne assumption is that the thought processes in improvisation are always spontaneous. +ost
improvisers spend long hours developing material and are often happy to include determined material
in the music, (composers can also create quickly). 'hile there may be a tendency for improvisers to be
more spontaneous than composers, the essential difference is not the degree of spontaneity, but that the
improviser(s creative act is embroiled with sound, whereas composers separate the act of creation from
it(s realization.
,nother presupposition is that there is an innite range of gradations between the determinism of
composers such as !ancarrow and the anarchic unpredictability of freely improvised music. 'e can
then go on to deduce that there is no threshold where improvisation begins and composition starts. In
much music there seems to be an overlap between the two methods- "azz uses harmonic and rhythmic
structures, Baroque music left allot of embellishment and cadenzas to the performer. But listeners
intuitively recognize the embrace of the unknown and the spirit of abandon that improvisation
con.ures. /owever much shared material there may be between composition and improvisation, the
methods feel different.
'hy they feel different is e0plained if one thinks of improvisations as unrepeatable, embroiled with
sound, unpredictable and irreducible. In contrast we generally see compositions as repeatable, created
in a different time1space to their realization, predictable, and reductionist.
By irreducible I mean that it makes no sense to think of the musicians or music as separate from the
sound, the space the sound resonates in, or from the listeners, 2 there is no separate (work( to be
interpreted. By it(s nature improvisation brings the participants into an immediate wholeness that is
unique and unpredictable. #he elements in the action are all interacting, there is no one creator.
#he physicist %avid Bohm, discussing his idea of implicate order says,
...the totality of existence is enfolded within each region of space (and time). So, whatever part, element, or aspect we may
abstract in thought, this still enfolds the whole and is therefore intrinsically related to the totality from which it has been
abstracted. Thus wholeness permeates all that is being discussed, from the very outset.
1
I suggest we gain insights by seeing improvised events as totalities. It may be useful to abstract elements
for analysis, but we should always see these abstractions as being intrinsically related to the whole.
1
In a composed music event it makes sense to think of the composer, the score (if one e0ists), deviations
from the score (mistakes), the work (which may have an aural tradition independent of the score), the
conductor, the performer(s), the space, the listeners, and ultimately, the realization as separate factors. If
we isolate acoustics, for instance, it makes sense to reduce the sound event into the work and the acoustic,
(we even say it is the good or bad acoustic for a particular piece). Ideally this changes in improvisation,
for the sound event e0ists only for the space it occurs in. ,n improviser(s work must change from one
acoustic to the ne0t because the acoustic is an inseparable part of the whole.
!a3ve reductionism doesn(t work when thinking about improvisation. 4ou can(t separate (the music(
from the place it is played in, from the musicians, or from the audience. #o quote 5hris +ann, &#he
part that is the whole has no analysis.)
6
I remember a concert I did in Ballarat where a large percentage of the audience were teenagers who
found our iconoclastic use of instrumental techniques amusing. I guess many of them played the
sa0ophone or guitar, and that(s why they were there, to see some professionals, but we were doing things
with our instruments that they(d been told not to do, and making sounds that they were being trained to
avoid. #here was no way to ignore their reaction 7 it shaped the music. 4ou can(t argue that an
interpretation of a composition has this degree of 8e0ibility 7 you would destroy the integrity of the
(work( if you dramatically changed the composer(s intention.
#he nature and direction of improvisation is profoundly shaped by conte0t. #his isn(t only a question of
aiming music 7 like you would construct a program 7 it is inherent, the total event is irreducible. %erek
Bailey has said, &#he audience for improvisation... has a power that no other audience has. It can affect
the creation of that which is being witnessed).
9
I would go further and say they have the power because
they are inherently involved in the total creative act. ('hich I suppose is why in many music traditions
audiences have a formal role to inspire musicians to greater levels of creativity, as in the clapping of
"azz solos, the afrmative inter.ections in :lamenco, !orth ,frican and Indian music. In one of the
most determined music, $uropean 5lassical, the audience is meant to remain totally quiet 7 coughing
seems to be more acceptable than applause between movements of a ;ymphony.
#o consider a counter argument, this is what Boulez says about improvisation.
...there is not the slightest scope for anyone else to oin in. !mprovisation is a personal psychodrama... whether we are
interested or not, we cannot graft our own affective, intellectual or personal structure on to a base of this sort.
Boulez is wrong. #hose kids in Ballarat grafted their own affective, intellectual and personal structure
onto the event.
Escaping the Grid Paradigm
'ith notated music, analysis is direct, because the composer has already reduced the work to a written
form. ,nd here lies a great problem for improvised music (and also aurally transmitted composition)<
much of our terminology and ideas about music come from this source.
#his problem is discussed in #revor 'ishart(s On Sonic Art. /e talks about the grid paradigm in
conventional western music thinking. ;cores are like a grid across the reality of sound and this grid asks
only certain questions and as a result we only get certain answers. 'hen we look at a score it tells us
about pitch, but a crude, abstracted idea of pitch- it tells us something about rhythm, but has immense
problems dening the subtleties and nuances of traditional aural traditions.
2
3
'e realize scores with associated aural traditions that provide intangibles to ll in the grid, but
conventional analysis has little to say about these intangibles. (If for instance we asked an $nglish
5athedral choir to sing an arrangement of #raditional Bulgarian music without ever hearing the
original, misplaced aural traditions ll in the the holes in the grid. =;omething like this seems to go on
with interpretations of $uropean +edieval scores 7 the loss of the aural tradition makes the e0ercise
very dodgy.>)
#he nature of composing within this grid structure means that making compositional material of the
intangibles is very difcult. Improvisation thrives in these holes in the grid.
Brian :erneyhough has said, &;cores are more than .ust tablatures for specic actions... they are also
artefacts with powerful auras of their own...)
?
#he study of these artefacts, with it(s resulting
terminology and analysis has nothing to do with improvisation. ('ith the aid of tape recorders there
are attempts to transcribe improvisations. %erek Bailey has said &...the real indictment of transcription
is that in most cases it is used to reduce a performance to a condition in which it can be e0amined as if
it were a composition.))
%oes form, for instances, have any meaning in improvisation@ (, common criticism of improvised music
is that it is formless.) 'ith the comple0ity of intention inherent in an improvised event, it is rare to get
any consensus on the outward shape of a performance. (*ne persons ongoing loop is another persons
ending). 'hen you engage two people or more you encounter a chaotic potential that is more than the
addition of one e0tra element 2 we encounter intentional polyphony. #o me, intentional polyphony is the
single biggest factor in why we need to make a distinction between improvisation and composition.
If the outward shape of a performance is unpredictable and debatable, then surely it is more useful to
talk of formative causes. #he inner forming activity, or to use Aupert ;heldrakes(s term "orphic
#esonance
$
, shapes the growth of an improvisation.
#his growth is dependant on many factors and all the participants. %orm, we have to redene as an
ongoing, becoming process, not a factor that is dened, closed and predictable. (:rom this perspective
composers are the architects of time, improvisers it(s e0plorers).
White ater and the !omposer Buc"et
&5omposition is frozen improvisation,) said Igor ;travinsky and in response Bauline *liveros calls
improvisation &speeded up composition)
C
. 'hy then do we then need two terms@ #his thinking gives us
no insights 2 these composers are suggesting the distinction is only a temporal greyscale. I think they
make the mistake of seeing content and process as separate.
#he composition ethic has evolved ensembles and ritualised performance practice that would be
unthinkable using an improvised ethic. It(s hard to see improvisers evolving an ensemble like the
*rchestra- it doesn(t suit the methodology 7 the politics of shared creation get silly with over 9D people.
#here are big differences in the eventual outcomes of the two methodologies and I feel that what Igor
and Bauline say glosses over real distinctions.
I would like to borrow an idea from %avid Bohm to conceptualise content and process as one. Imagine
an improvised music event as a turbulent mass of vortices in a stream.
4
5
6
The structure and distribution of the turbulence, which constitute a sort of content of the description of the movement are
not separate from the formative activity of the &owing stream, which creates maintains and ultimately could dissolve the
totality of vortex structures.
5omple0 systems like this are unpredictable in the world at large. $ven small changes in formation can
cause ma.or shifts in direction. ,ny attempt to freeze the vortices, to observe, analyse and transcribe
them and then reproduce them is doomed to failure.
#he improviser is involved in the formative activity, but knows that s1he is only one of the factors acting
upon the sound. 'e make no predictions of the resulting vorte0 structures, and are part of the whole
event 7 not outside it. (Body surng in sound). #here is no point where the musical vortices are separate
from the processes creating them.
'ittgenstein said that words are like buckets, they can be lled up with e0perience to a certain volume,
and then they over8ow, it is then you need to create a new word bucket. :rom my perspective the
composer bucket is over8owing and my white water can(t go in.
#ind$ Go out and pla%& Bod%.
I(ve argued that it is helpful to see the improviser involved in an interactive, immediate, unpredictable
and unrepeatable wholeness, and that the actual sound event and the methodology are also inseparable.
:rom this perspective it is not a &personal psychodrama), I(ve also cautioned against using terminology
and ideas from the grid paradigm.
But music must move forward from event to event. /ow then are decisions made@ 'hat does it mean,
to create music in the moment of realization, and how does instrumental technique embroil itself with
intention@
Is the musician choosing material to play (from a store of practised instrumental techniques, ideas and
spontaneously created thoughts) consciously and rationally@ *r does the creator embrace the unknown,
trust his1her unconscious and launch off into time1space where (decision making( is too slow, and you
only have time for reactions 7 automatic and irrational@ Berhaps a mi0ture of the automatic and the
rational is what most people use@ (, working relationship with your unconscious@) *r are these
descriptions hopelessly simplistic@ ,nd what is the role of emotions@
'e make sound from gesture 7 at what point are these gestures purely physical@ $liciting the comple0
sounds that are necessary for musical events is athletic and musicians build up a vast store of this
knowledge as technique, some of it is individualistic and some of it is cultural. (If you can make that
distinction.)
#hese skills are already imbued with thought, they are not only muscular reactions. 'hen we then use
these gestures in a concert we may have no awareness of the detail and pre2thought that goes into
shaping each gesture1sound event.
Berhaps a term used by psychologists, implicit memory
'
can be helpful in reminding us that there are
memories that reveal themselves in the absence of awareness. Esed badly these implicit memories can
sound like modular pre2sets, but when one is playing well they are enfolded within the moment, become
pliant and interact with awareness in ways that belie any simplistic idea of pure muscularity.
7
Aecent research into the human brain and intentionality in regards to movement leads me to be very
careful in talking about how we make decisions when we improvise. 5ordelia :ine writes &In a
momentous e0periment by a researcher called Ben.amin Fibet, volunteers made spontaneous, willed
nger movements.... Fibet found that about half a second before a persons nger moved, there was a
little 8urry of brain activity, called the (readiness potential(... #he big question for Fibet was where this
command came from< conscious will, or the secret commander@ ...,nd here(s the remarkable thing. #he
volunteers didn(t consciously e0perience the will to move their nger until more than a third of a
second after the readiness potential. In other words, the unconscious brain was already busy preparing for
the nger movement well before the idea occurred to the volunteer(s consciousness.)
,ny talk, with this sort of evidence around, of knowing what you are doing when you create music
spontaneously begins to look a bit cheap.
I have often heard a great player complimented by the idea they have a great sense of physicality, we also
talk of a players personal language. I think what we mean is that the player has achieved a state where the
idea of separate instrumental technique and separate musical intelligence makes little sense. In the
creation of great improvisation the mind1body split, has no meaning.
It is absurd to think we can observe our own musical thought when we improvise. In the 8ow, mind and
body are not separate.
Baul %avies summarises some of the functionalist thinking on the mind1body problem this way. &#he
hardware of brain cells, electrochemical machinery and muscles supports the software level of thoughts,
ideas, decisions and emotions which in turn couple back to the neural level and so modify and sustain
their e0istence. #he attempted separation of brain and mind, body and soul, is a confusion born of
trying to sever these two convoluted levels. But it is a meaningless enterprise, for it is the very
entanglement of the levels that makes you, you.)
G
:or the improviser, the physicality of producing sound (the hardware) is not a separate activity from the
thoughts, emotions and ideas in music (the software). In the act of creation, there is a constant loop
between the hierarchy of factors involved in the process. +y lungs, lips, ngers, voice bo0 and their
working together with the potentials of sound are dialoguing with other levels which I might call mind
and perception. #he thoughts and decisions are sustained and modied by my physical potentials and
visa versa, but as soon as I try to dene these separately I run into problems. ,s %avies suggests, it is a
meaningless enterprise, for it is the very entanglement of levels of perception, awareness and physicality
that makes improvisation, improvisation.
Wholeness and the Implicate Order. David Bohm. Ark 1!3
"rom #hris $ann%s Listening, the Aesthetics of Not Knowing. &er'ormance te(t recorded and )roadcast )* the AB#+
11.
From Improvisation, It's nature and practice in Music. D. Bailey. Moorland Publishing, Ashbourne, 1980.
,-hatterin. the vessels o' received Wisdom/ Brian "erne*ho0.h in conversation 1ith 2ames Bords3. Perspectives of New
Msic, 4ol0me 2!. 50m)er 2. 16.
7he &resence o' the &ast+ 80pert -heldrake+ "ontana9#ollins. 1!!
!eep Listening" Liner notes to the #! release $%&%" New Al'ion records, NA ())#!"
!
,8emem)rance o' thin.s :nconscio0s3. David -hanks. 5e1 -cientist+ 24
th
A0.0st 11.
*od and the New Physics. &a0l Davies. Dent 1!3.