FREE IMPROVISATION: SOME POINTS
Ian Shanahan (1999).
Rationale
Give an outline of the course. This module assumes a position of deliberate independence from
any style or tradition: a kind of therapy for caged canaries (the cage door is opened; one is free
to be free, and one can revisit the cage from time to time [so its not just unremitting weirdness]).
Brief history
Free jazz {play Eric Dolphy and Don Ellis New Ideas examples etc.}; discuss the word free
(not necessarily to be taken literally; and not a Cagean excuse to remain in ones comfort zones).
TACTICS & STRATEGIES
LISTENING to others (and to yourself): this is an absolute prerequisite in any improvising
context! Always try to hear within your minds ear what you will play before you play it!
SILENCE IS GOLDEN! (Silence is a necessary element in defining texture, form...). If you dont
know what to play next, then dont play! i.e. playing shouldnt be a fishing expedition for
sound!
INSTRUMENTAL GNOSIS: explore, systematically and unbiasedly, your instrument i.e.
extended techniques. {Take time to write up some technical ideas for each family of instruments
(woodwind, brass, percussion, strings [bowed & plucked], keyboards, voices).}
ALLIANCES AND ALLEGIANCES: these are to a degree automatically suggested by the
instruments themselves; do be aware of some instruments dynamic limitations (both a problem and
a virtue!); potential relationships and textural possibilities increase exponentially with each
additional musician.
A TEXTURAL POSSIBILITY: loud sounds obscure soft sounds; then the loud sounds cease, thus
allowing the soft sounds to reveal themselves as an after-resonance. Another possibility:
continuous drones or (non)repetitive patterns (e.g. ostinati) that underpin or operate behind the
others.
Always think about TIME: macro-, meso-, and micro-; beat-driven or not (a vast continuum here,
e.g. rhythms, polymetre, polytempi, etc...); breathlength-driven or not; resonance-driven or not;
awkwardness of Boehm fingering system (e.g. in playing microtones as fast as possible) as a time
determinant for irregularity; etc. One can thwart, or reinforce, or evolve, others approach to time.
Listen also to the timings of nature: e.g. the rhythmic patterns of wind blowing through trees,
leaves etc.; the calls-and-responses in birdsong and insect sounds... Subtly non-exact repetitions!
BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS: think about the beginning, and harder still feel/listen/watch
for potential endings... (Make it clear when youve finished playing: e.g. put your instrument
down!)
PLANNING: plan ahead while you are playing (e.g. after c.30", Ill be silent for a while;
what will I play next?); also, one can pre-plan (deciding upon a structure/framework, a hierarchy
[e.g. will there be a leader?], a concept, an evocation, a mood, text-as-inspiration...). Details can
often be memorized, to return later (varied?) in a different context: this can contribute to formal
unity.
(PSEUDO?)QUOTATION: quotation (or pseudo-quotation) is a powerful referential tool,
potentially allowing for instance real-time deconstruction of, or satire upon, a
piece/genre/style...
WIT (= intelligence and/or HUMOUR) is rarely out of place in free improvisation! Text verbal
interplay is useful in this regard ... and everybody possesses vocal cords... Similarly physical
gesture: everybody can move ... (but remember that were making music, so dont go overboard
here!). And as already stated above one can be satirical... The use of aleatoric sound-props
such as a (variably tuned) radio or television set, alarm clocks that go off unpredictably (NB Roland
Kirk), people ringing up players mobile phones etc. can be quite funny and provocative; they can
certainly upset a groups improvisational plans, and so demand spontaneous yet intelligent
responses.
(NON)RESPONSE TO OTHERS: call-and-answer; pre-arranged or spontaneous cueing of others
(one must of course consider positioning and sight-lines); imitation; evolution; watching another
performers actions in order perhaps to start together (only then establishing eye contact,
perhaps to stop together); hearing others yet ignoring...
Always think about EMOTIONAL RANGE: e.g. full-on vehemence and aggression through to
extreme delicacy, intricacy, and tenderness. NB: sounds and textures near or at the threshold of
silence are often very interesting indeed (see one of the ensemble exercises below)!
THEATRICAL PRESENCE AND VISUAL CUES: these can reinforce or contradict the music.
MIME, for example, is a silent visual cue that might, for example, prolong an ending (by blurring
the threshold between sound and silence, indicating that the performance is not yet over).
AN ENSEMBLE EXERCISE: play just one note/event/gesture in the whole (brief?)
improvisation; then just two... Indeed any free improvisation could be viewed as a sequence of such
single sound-gesture exercises!!! A structural possibility that is rarely encountered: several brief
(contrasting?) movements, not just a single chunk of music. Or set other constraints, e.g.: the
maximum dynamic level will be pp (for the whole improvisation or for just one section); or, each
player will use only two distinctive, iconic sound-objects (so as to weave an intelligent, musical
and tasteful tapestry).
Some words of wisdom about improvisation (etc.) from Don Ellis
{quoted from Elliss liner notes to his album New Ideas (1961) The Don Ellis Quintet, Prestige New Jazz
OJCCD-431-2 (NJ-8257)}
The inspiration for Despair to Hope [Track 2] came while listening to a John Cage concert. The concert tended to
make one more aware of the music in the sounds surrounding us in our daily living, but I had the feeling that jazz
musicians, given the conception, could do much more with the indeterminancy principles involved. One of [Cages]
pieces, Cartridge Music, was performed by Mr Cage and David Tudor. They had cards to which they referred,
presumably for directions. This, to me, is controlled indeterminancy, which is an extension of something which has
been taking place in music for a long time. Any time a piece is given a new performance it is subject to numerous
indeterminate factors, and will not be the same piece twice even though it is the same music (the moods of the
performers, the temperature of the concert hall, the reaction of the audience, etc. all contribute). It seemed valid to take
Cages idea one step further and not predetermine anything except the performers and their instruments. The idea of
having planned cards with predetermined choices seemed too rigid. If the performers had more freedom they would be
able to interact with the audience even more giving a heightened dimension. Classical musicians, I reasoned, are not
trained for this type of extemporizing today, but jazz musicians are. Why not see what could be done? A great deal in
jazz has always been left up to chance, but a framework of some sort was always in use (whether written, or stylized by
custom). Al Francis [vibraphonist] and I tried improvising a duet with just free associations. This was not satisfying to
me. I needed to hear more of an overall direction than aimless rambling. The idea of using an emotional framework
rather than a musical one occurred to me. We tried it once keeping in mind the thought of progressing from despair to
hope. It happened. I did not try it again before the record[ing] date for fear of establishing any set musical routine.
When we came into the studio, this was the first thing recorded. Other than the emotional framework and the
instruments and means at our disposal, nothing was planned. We did one take. Rudy Van Gelder is to be congratulated
on his sensitive [sound] engineering of a difficult problem. He had no idea what to expect and was told only that we
would do this in one take...
Solo is just what it implies a trumpet solo. This also was done in only one take with nothing consciously planned
before the recording. It seems like the most logical thing conceivable in jazz with its emphasis on self-expression for a
single performer to stand up and play without having to adjust to any other musicians, yet it is rarely done...
Tragedy is a ballad which is atonal, but improvised tonally. This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that
there are four tone clusters given which are numbered. The soloist may change from one to the other at will, indicating
his change to the rest of the group by holding up 1, 2, 3, or 4 fingers. The bass plays on the cluster basically as if it
were a conventional chord sticking close to the main tones of the cluster, but having freedom in his choice of passing
notes. The soloist also, may go in or out of the harmony guided solely by his ear. It is interesting to notice that after
playing on these clusters for a while they become tonal to the ear and you hear melodic ideas that can be either close
to the sound of the cluster (sonorous) or further away from [its] sound (more dissonant), so it is actually exactly like
improvising on slow-moving chords...
It was my intention to present in this album a variety of moods, settings and approaches. These are all separate pieces
but they were chosen with the effect of the album as a whole in mind. Not all five musicians play on every composition.
Certain moods and ideas are more effective in different settings. There is no reason why, just because you have five
members of a group, you have to keep five musicians playing all the time.
I believe in making use of as wide [a] range of expressive techniques as possible. I have been working to develop my
playing, writing and personality to this end. Jazz is supposed to be expressive. Why place limits on expressiveness?
Why not endeavour to make music as interesting as possible for the performer and listener? All the players here have a
thorough control over their respective instruments, the techniques of standard jazz improvising (playing on chord
progressions), and they are able as well to create without chord progressions and on tone-clusters and tone-rows. They
are not limited in their approach to a mere ignoring of the [chord] changes [in order] to sound far out, but have the
ability to control both the horizontal and vertical elements of the music. I do not believe that lack of technique and/or
knowledge gives freedom in improvising, but rather, the more technique and knowledge we have the more choices
are open to us in our improvising and therefore the freer we are, because we are less limited.
