group improvisation in the 21st century

photo of bookers + danny kamins by michael rogers

To the untrained or ignorant ear improvised music sounds like it was birthed from the cold world that is the abstraction of melody, rhythm, and harmony. While some influence of these developments is felt on the music it is rather a new development coming from the rich history of performance based music. This includes all folk music and especially music developed in America in the last couple of centuries. Here there is no need for the dictating force of a composer, there is instead musicians and their instruments. The directness of performance with no authority has always been there but, in the latter half of the 20th century we realized the intimacy of improvising was a way of producing a precise representation of music that was not possible in music that was composed. It is from this rich tradition handed down from bluesmen, rock and rollers, beboppers, that we find Free Improvised music. It is performance put at the forefront, and all musicians on equal footing. Now, there is no longer the abstraction of an idea but instead the literal translation of a group working out the endless ways of how to play with one another.

In the past when musicians toiled with how to perform with each other the answer was to play songs known to them. They played songs of their cultures and developed new approaches to the melody or even transformed it into a different song. This is the case with blues, and jazz; one song develops a new rendition and that rendition leads to another and that song is given a new title and so on and so forth. If we view this honestly and see this as the case, the wonderful methodologies of Ornette Coleman (harmolodics), and Cecil Taylor (unit structures) are simply new ways to state this case. Instead of melody, harmony, and rhythm, there is an emphasis on interaction in the moment to develop a unique and stylistic approach to playing with others (for the sake of space I will put off explaining these respective methodologies for a different time). We can view both Cecil and Ornette's methodologies as not entirely interested in the traditional three tenets of music but instead in creating novel and pure forms of interaction in the moment.

While the musicians in Ornette and Cecil’s groups are using harmolodics and unit structures there's also something else happening. Any musician playing on those records are not just following the leader's exact methodologies but approaching it in their own stylized manner. Things like phrasing, dynamics, etc are left up to the performer, its not a composition its a way of approaching how to play in the group. This is no different from how Lightnin' Hopkins might attack his guitar in his rendition of "Baby please don't go". The performance comes first over the composition. In fact, the way Ornette and Cecil developed these methodologies comes out of performance, developing their own phrasing and technique. When given to a performer, it is not a finished product passed down to be memorized, but instead a living thing meant to be dealt with in the moment. This is not an abstraction of form but a literal definition of how sound is dealt with in the moment. Lightnin' for example is not abstracting the blues form but instead dealing with it in the moment, interacting and reacting to it.

In free improvised music there is no form to react off of, so the form develops entirely through interaction. Joe Morris helpfully coined the five modes of interaction to deal with this. Unison, solo, accompaniment, juxtaposition and silence are the ways all improvisers (knowingly or not) interact with the music. During a set of improvised music these interactions wholly describe how a performer engages with the other. When a group performs and interacts a form is noticed only in hindsight. In improvisation trying to force a particular moment to happen is a fools errand. The way moments occur in improvisation is through the interaction with each group member. The way this looks is stacking the modes on top of each other ie; John plays a long tone, Sally juxtaposes with short staccato notes, and Mary Joe solos over it with a few lines. The group then sustains that for lets say twenty seconds and dissolves into other forms. For example, Johns long tone turns into a shorter articulations, Mary Joe Joins him while Sally drops out. These two moments have now developed a form that is not forced but instead an agreement between the performers. Using these modes we unravel the textures the music is partaking in.

Not an abstraction but a literal representation.

There are many defects that occur in current improvised sets that I feel take the prior mentioned history for granted. This is not at fault of the musicians themselves most of the time but instead a lack of resources to supply the performers and the audience with the productive ways to engage with the material. If a new improviser were to start playing and viewed the process to be nothing more than an abstraction on musical forms it will hinder them to further indulge in the wonderful process that improvising beholds. There are many improvisers to this day who even deny that there is a historical precedence that goes back centuries. The more trendy improvisation has become in more academic circles the more it has diluted its literal sensibilities and ignored the power the process actually holds. To teach others that it is nothing more than abstract noise is to destroy its history and insult its creative power. When a performer (or listener) thinks that free improvised music is playing what they want whenever they want, and nothing more it hinders them with engaging with the music in a critical manner. This can prevent them from bettering their own musical practice and, it also dampens the other musicians engagement with playing a set.

The foundation of this music is to lead to different and challenging sets, which is achieved by critical listening. A set is regressive if it is repeating something that the improvising group has done previously. It is the trap of group improvising to find an identity and repeat it endlessly. This is not improvising but rather an agreed upon composition. If a group partakes in this it is an abstraction on a form. The form is the interaction that pleases the group, or is the easiest to perform. It is more interesting, and engaging for a performer and listener to be challenged through the course of a set. Improvisation is capable of producing results that are unachievable in other forms of music. By denying it this we bastardize the very process that makes it great. There is a tendency in modern improvised music sets to be almost polite to the other musicians, to make sure no toes are stepped on and that there are no lines crossed. This limits the improvisation and its performers.The unexpected is very important in pushing into new territories of group playing. If every set were to be polite and not push the respective musicians the music is damned to be a placid, boring copy of what it used to be. The modern improviser is afraid to take risks, afraid to hit the brick wall that can be caused by group playing, and smash through it. In my group Bookers (with Luke Rovinsky and Michael Larocca) we relish in the idea of constantly achieving the next distinctive set. We overpower each other, pull the rug from underneath one and other, and push sets to places we have not gone previously. It might be uncomfortable but, thats what its supposed to be.

Improvisation requires intuitive listening in the moment as well as dedication to not repeat oneself. It is reductive for an improviser to never truly engage with how a set might have felt and critique how it can become more successful. The parameters of success in an improvised set is based upon if the performer felt that their musical parameters were pushed to the limit, and gave the overall sound a unique and novel sound. This goal is very rarely fully achieved in the totality of the set but the listener and performer can typically single out certain moments of interaction that seemed particularly idiosyncratic. From there the listener can engage with why it was successful asking what modes of interaction are being deployed. This approach can help the improviser better understand when these moments come up again during a set and find new ways to engage with it. This is a never ending cycle that never seems to be fascinating to me. There is never a lack of moments to be dissected when the improvised group is at its highest level.

There is possibly more interest than ever in improvising. I critique the modern state of music not to shake my fist and be harsh to others but instead try and shape how we can be better, more historically engaged musicians. Like most art in the 21st century, improvised music tends to repeat itself in a never ending cycle of nostalgia. It is at risk to become a copy of a copy of great music. This cycle is especially ugly within the process of improvising because of the process of improvising can so easily avoid it. Nostalgia comes from uninformed or generally uncreative listeners, improvisation as a process should naturally subvert the desire to be like any thing else. When we view the music as the literal representation of the interactions performed by the improvisers, we lose the baggage that has plagued bad improvised music. With the connection and understanding that this music comes from a long line of people getting together and consistently looking to express and manipulate sounds in new ways, the task is less daunting. Playing music with a group of musicians is far from unfamiliar. Just because it has evolved out of the need for traditional harmony does not mean it is something to behold as new. Ideally we should see no difference in the creative process from the bluesmen of old to the improvisers of now. We don't have to and, in fact, it is completely impossible to invent improvised music all over again. All of these tools are very much at the improvisers disposal. It is the modern improvising group's job to push the boundaries not regress to where we were before. For this to happen we must reject the abstraction of forms and enjoy the purity of interactions.