Comments on: Improvisers Anonymous

By: Darryl Brenzel

Darryl Brenzel — Thu, 13 May 2010 18:53:55 +0000

I agree w/ Ryan that rules or parameters can often push us to places we wouldn’t have been. There is a true freedom within bounds. A game of football would not be very interesting to watch (or play) if the runner could truly go wherever he wanted. i.e. off the field, up the tunnel, whatever. The fact that there is a line of scrimmage, sidelines/boundaries make it exciting. There is still all kinds of freedom after the snap but it takes place within bounds. There are set plays but the greatest things take place when things are improvised on the field. And there is a game clock!!! Music is very much the same. Structure isn’t limiting, it’s freeing, when used well.

By: Ryan Janus

Ryan Janus — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:38:03 +0000

Great post. I always have to check myself as well. Recently at a recital I played some improv with a percussionist. Because it was on a faculty recital, there were other numbers on the program and strict time constraints to watch. The chair gave us 8 minutes, but since neither of us trusted ourselves to keep to that time, we actually had someone sit in the back row and put his hand up at the 8-minute mark!

I also need to say that I disagree 100% with Chris Becker. I actually believe creativity thrives on rules. When I set certain limits for my students, such as “only play triads” or “stay within the range of a fifth,” they play many things they wouldn’t have otherwise. When there are no rules, they’ll stay within their comfort zones. These comfort zones are much smaller rhythmically and melodically than they’re capable of when a few guidelines are set. You could certainly play music with no rules, no guidelines, and no beginning or end … just don’t expect anyone else to enjoy listening to it.

By: Chris Becker

Chris Becker — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:22:25 +0000

I think you are trying to make a “product” out of what is really an experience – a ritual. There isn’t a beginning or end to improvisation. There are no rules. There certainly aren’t “rules of cohesion.”

This is what I’ve gathered from performing improvised sets of music with musicians far more experienced than I. Come to think of it, it’s when I’ve tried to create limits, time frames, and / or other parameters that the music in these situations lost its magical qualities.

But even that isn’t really a problem. What happens if you don’t “fail” onstage? Do you get a prize?

Captcha is “the conjures” back atcha, yo.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:07:54 +0000

@Alex @Trevor I think if the doing-of-the-experiment is the actual performance, then that’s indicative of the quality, or lack thereof, of the result. However, I sometimes feel that people think they can “get away” with that line of reasoning because it is “experimental music,” right? I know I’m preaching to the choir with you two, but affiliation with this stream of music shouldn’t result in it being okay to not prepare, plan, or “rehearse” a likely consequence.

Ironically, the Captcha words for this comment are “the failing.”

By: Trevor Hunter

Trevor Hunter — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:16:21 +0000

“The joy and excitement you feel as a performer during an improvisation might not translate to joy and excitement to an audience member. How do you know when you’ve reached that point? Are audiences just stupid if they don’t “get” what you’re playing and can’t stay focused? Whose fault is it? When does self-indulgence become over-indulgence?”

I think there really is a skill to this. I’ve seen Peter Evans improvise for 45 minutes straight, solo trumpet, and it’s been riveting every time. But of course Peter Evans does something like that 50 times a year. I’ve also seen dozens and dozens of “improvisers” (scare quotes oh-so-intended) who are great players and have great spontaneous ideas, but no idea how to take the long view in shaping the piece. There are certain rules of cohesion I’m convinced apply across the written/improvised spectrum, which are easier to intuitively realized in a short improvisation, but are impossible to just innately “feel” over a period of time that extends much beyond that.

When I hear the form you just described–introduction of ideas followed by 8-10 climaxes–I know I’m going to be in trouble by the end. That’s a textbook example of confusing “improvising” with “not planning.” I don’t want to hear that for the same reason I don’t want to hear someone write a piano piece in sonata form anymore.

By: Alex Gardner

Alex Gardner — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:57:16 +0000

Brian, this post is totally right on. I am not a fan of subjecting audiences to experimental improvisation (though I’ll be the first to admit that actually doing it is SO FUN) without time limits. When one has the right mix of people, who are able to play together and LISTEN to one another within a time limit, and without becoming self-indulgent (not so easy!) improv can be a magical thing.