large group improvisation

flipside to the solo improv recordings thread. (apologies if this has been thrashed to death in the past)

maybe a few questions to kick things off...

when does a group become large? are there groups who operate in this context on a (semi) regular basis beyond mimeo?

how are such groups best organised? inviting specific players? come one come all?

is there a need for strategies/ rules/ 'compositions' in these situations?

share your experiences of organising/playing in/ listening to these kinds of ensembles?

for myself...

i think anything over 7 people can happily be called a 'large' group.

come one come all is an admirable approach, especially in the sense of building communities of musicians, but rarely yields good music. my own 2 experiences of playing in these kinds of 'open' ensembles was uniformly pretty disasterous, as they were completely free situations, moderated by a central mixer (with someone dedicated to this task of mixing).

the times I've played in large groups with "rules" seemd to work much better, from a perspective of making interesting music, although these were generally instances with a more 'focussed' group of musicians involved, even if the focus is as broad as 'everyone who's just played at the festival'. which is probably the most common strategy for creating such groups.

I think that unstructured improvising ensembles of more than, say, five people tend towards a bit of a swampy lack of definition. There's a good example of this sort of half-mess on the double Cd the London Improviser's Orchestra released on Emanem a while ago. Individual bits are great, but they get lost in the fog.
Structure can help, but, as with some of John Zorn's work, it can make for a bit of a stifling environment when the rules are too numerous and too specific. The Lightbox Orchestra seems to pull this off well, though.
I like the rules Otomo Yoshihide came up with for one of his Anode compositions (structured improvisations), if I'm remembering it correctly, it was somethingto the effect of: play each sound before the previous one you made has completely decayed, ignore what everyone else is doing. It made for an awesome racket.

So, like everything, when it works, it's good, when it doesn't work, it's bad.

[mudd]

the london improviser's orchestra tends to sound a lot clearer with partially composed pieces, i remember particularly liking the pieces led by simon fell.

the people band album '1968' is pretty excellent. lots of restraint for a large ensembe (most of the album is nine people)

the spontaneous music orchestra is a special thing, though maybe not always something i want to listen to.

and of course the boston sound collective is pretty cool.

i don't think having a lot of people is guarantee of messy music. a group as large as you like, but on the same musical page, can come up good music. the problem with most 'everybody on the stage' sort of excercises seems to be that once one person stops listening, nobody can hear.

m

The BSC - Good at grob

the problem with most 'everybody on the stage' sort of excercises seems to be that once one person stops listening, nobody can hear.

Very true, I think. It's really easy for one person to take over many.

and of course the boston sound collective is pretty cool.

thanks. i just want to take this moment to correct a longstanding issue: the BSC does not stand for boston sound collective.

the "more than 5 improvisers makes mess" truism should be challenged more often. i'm not a huge fan of scores and organizational structures that assume this is true, only to present a half-baked "composition" designed to "reign in" unruly players.

also, players not listening can be a hinderance; so can too much listening. a large ensemble, just like any other improvising ensemble, thrives on risks.

Of the "come one, come all" variety there's the audience-inclusive Spontaneous Music Orchestra (rather than the Ensemble), which mudd mentioned above. Listening to these it's clear that, just as much as the much-feared blow-out (people playing too many different things at once), there's a dreadful tendency for everyone to start playing the same thing: drones (or "sustained pieces," as John Stevens calls them); the directions being for everyone to sustain a note for as long as possible, pause for breath, then continue with the same or another note. There's two pieces of this sort, one instrumental and one vocal, on Mouthpiece, a collection of recordings from 1973 by unspecified numbers (probably between twenty and thirty). I suppose they bear a passing resemblance to Ligeti's pile-ups of dense clusters, especially the vocal/choral piece, but like with drone music generally, the effect really is quite dull, like you're having a feeling of transcendental, pseudo-religious awe forced on you. The other more worthwhile recordings each have a concept: "In Relation to Silence" asks the players to continually relate what they're doing to silence, presumably to avoid the kind of self-indulgent blow-out everyone's worried about; "One-Two" starts out with a chant of those words, with the players asked to play a single note on either beat, so that on each one lands a different combination of sonorities. The steady, mechanical beat really makes it sound like a Braxton composition, but with the forward-moving lines replaced with repeating, slightly shifting sonorities. By far the most enjoyable recording (at least in part) is the title piece, in which the large group is asked to start with non-vocal mouth sounds, spits, breaths, and gurgles, then to move at some point to pitched notes (where it stars to sound like the bizarre howling from the last recorded moments of the Jim Jones massacre), then at last to instruments, where the dreaded blow-out erupts and the whole thing collapses. Then it's definitely time to skip ahead to the strange ending, a great eruption of hoots, provocative claps, "shhh"s, cheers and coughing.

There's a better piece on the other SMO recording, For You to Share: a "click" piece, where everyone is asked to make that sound exclusively on whatever they have handy. But, again, there's no shortage of sustained, droning pieces on that one either. I think Cardew's The Great Learning has far more enjoyable pieces of this type; one asking massed voices to compete with roaring drums, with written directions providing the performers with some idea of how and when to change what they're doing, when to recite certain spoken phrases, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think there's much doubt that Simon Fell is the person producing the most enjoyable and exciting music in the area of large groups at the moment, for composition-improvisations like Composition no. 30 (http://perso.orange.fr/brucesfingers/catalogue/bf27.htm), no. 62 (http://perso.orange.fr/brucesfingers/catalogue/bf57.htm) and Kaleidozyklen (http://perso.orange.fr/brucesfingers/catalogue/bf46.htm), which has Fell hoping to invigorate a large group of classical music students. Other great music of this sort has come from Chris Burn's ensemble, particularly on the 1991 recording The Place, for nine players (Burn, Jim Denley, Phil Durrant, John Butcher, John Russell, Marcio Mattos, Matt Hutchinson, Steve Wishart and Evan Parker); a mixture of compositions by Burn, Butcher, a graphic score by Keith Rowe and one entirely free piece. The reduced, microscopic style I think keeps the music away from an inarticulate pile-up; instead, it's teeming with tiny gestures and detailed fragments. As Rainey mentioned above, I don't think it's necessarily true that with more than five players (in this case it's nine) a flimsy compositional scheme is required to prevent the music becoming (somehow automatically) sloppy and chaotic. Sensitive musicians are perfectly capable of playing free pieces in large groups without having "their balls on show as soon as possible," as Derek Bailey would say.

On the more recent improv front, The MIMEO & Tilbury works especially well, I think, because of its opposition of forces. But what do people make of Phosphor (that's Burkhard Beins, Alessandro Bosetti, Axel D?rner, Robin Hayward, Annette Krebs, Andrea Neumann, Michael Renkel and Ignaz Schick)? A lot of the comments I've read about it seem to be of the "it's good, but they're better in smaller formations" variety.

also, players not listening can be a hinderance; so can too much listening. a large ensemble, just like any other improvising ensemble, thrives on risks.

absolutely...all depends on the players. ive heard duo & trio "messes" as well as large groups playing very cohesive free music.

[grisha]

good topic. i don't really have that much to add. the bottom line, though, as i see it, is that concerns are very similar to the small improv (not being a musician myself), but the shifts in quality are much clearer. the dangers are either ending with everyone playing the same thing, or a complete mess. the solution is to find a balance. (btw, Fell's lengthy interview on Bags is highly recommended). if i have to recommend a record that achieves this beautifully, and without sounding dry and heavyhanded, it will be King Ubu's "Binaurality", the record that i am surprised wasn't mentioned yet.

what do people make of Phosphor (that's Burkhard Beins, Alessandro Bosetti, Axel D?rner, Robin Hayward, Annette Krebs, Andrea Neumann, Michael Renkel and Ignaz Schick)? A lot of the comments I've read about it seem to be of the "it's good, but they're better in smaller formations" variety.

Yeah thats about how I feel about the Phosphor record, but to be honest I can't think of any one single musician that I would prefer to hear in a large group over a small unit.

I've seen two large group shows over the last twelve months or so. The first was Mark Wastell's nine-piece group over in Norway featuring an even balance of the electronic and acoustic musicians. The show worked pretty well because of this balance and a roughly worked out approach to how things would sound in advance, although no precise score was used. Interestingly, talking with the musicians on the 'plane home after, not many of them could really make out what everyone else was playing and ended up responding to a combination of the overall feel of the sound and /or whoever was sat nearest to them.

Interestingly, at that gig Graham Halliwell sat beside Tomas Korber at the back of the hall, and their work together lead to the duo recordings they made a few weeks later that have become the third release on Cathnor, due out this coming weekend



A film of some of the set can be found here:http://web.mac.com/misha_david/iWeb/mishaXdavid/Trondheim%209.html

The other set I saw was Otomo's Anode group at the LMC Festival just before Xmas, which again produced some very beautiful music following a set of parameters rather than a full blown score. that one contained fifteen musicians. Otomo's assorted large groups down the years are mostly pretty successful.

a large ensemble, just like any other improvising ensemble, thrives on risks.

absolutely...all depends on the players.

I think this is the case of "Butch" Morris and his Conductions.

thanks. i just want to take this moment to correct a longstanding issue: the BSC does not stand for boston sound collective.

Tease.

I saw a fantastic large ensemble improv back in the summer here in LA. the place wa sa large warehouse where i've never heard of nor seen shows before or since. There were several good sets, but it was the big one that really floored me.
The musicians were:
damian romero
johnwiese
david kendall
mitchell brown
leticia castaneda
bob bellerue
jackie and a dude from smegma
joseph hammer
tom recchion
and probably 2 or 3 other folks i just cant remember right now.

but that's because the lineup just completely faded away for me after about 2 minutes: these guys just cranked out some really fine mesh of electronic wheeze (and one dude, maybe mitch, played some nice tiny wood percussion stuff that may or may not have been routed through something.) It was a pretty amazing ensemble, and one gig for me that probably surpassed everything that I've heard these guys do in smaller settings

looks like some sort of high school big band to me...

i think the trondheim gig worked out pretty well, one of the better "large groups" gigs i have ever been a part of. i hope we'll have the chance to repeat that one day. most experiences with large groups i had were rather frustrating, though.

I saw a fantastic large ensemble improv back in the summer here in LA. the place wa sa large warehouse where i've never heard of nor seen shows before or since. There were several good sets, but it was the big one that really floored me.
The musicians were:
damian romero
johnwiese
david kendall
mitchell brown
leticia castaneda
bob bellerue
jackie and a dude from smegma
joseph hammer
tom recchion
and probably 2 or 3 other folks i just cant remember right now.

i was there too (it was at leticia's place, right?) and i often think back to this as one of the worst examples of large group improvisation i've ever heard. the whole thing was a murky stoney mess. (i.e.: it sounded pretty much like smegma) as far as i could tell, nobody could hear any of the other players over their own sound, because they were all just blasting away with no relation to eachother. those in the group whose playing i know well, seemed to be thoroughly frustrated. there were, however, a few highlights: tom's contribution to the piece consisted of playing back stuff from his ipod while lounging in a beach chair, drinking a corona.

and damion played solo, he wasn't part of that group.

the whole thing was a murky stoney mess. (i.e.: it sounded pretty much like smegma)

hehe, nice.

the best example I've ever seen of this was the 24 hour MIMEO show, most of which was superb. this worked because 1) it was broken down into smaller segments, each with a concept or a small group or something, very little 'tutti' improv, as they call it and 2) because of the length, the musicians all knew they'd have a chance to play everything they wanted over the course of the 24 hours, so they didn't have to make sure to jam their sounds into a one hour slot.

my only try at setting something like this up myself (if the 'seven guitars' tokyo night doesn't count) is the 12tets at the end of each of the three nights in the cologne AMPLIFY. the personnel couldn't have been stronger: rowe/nakamura/otomo/sachiko/lehn/schmickler/pita/fennesz/fuhler/prins/moslang/muller, but the sets mostly fell a bit flat, one or two people stopped paying attention to the previously agreed upon concept (I don't recall the specifics of these, maybe I wrote them up somewhere), and they ended up being decidedly less than the sum of the parts.

I think my take on it in general is that when large group improv works, it can be incredibly powerful, but it succeeds decidedly less often than duos or trios and takes quite a bit of energy, especially between gigs, to keep going. the number of e-mails MIMEO has sent amongst themselves would probably fill a pretty hefty book at this point.

I think William Parker and Alan Silva have both contributed fine examples to the large group improv legacy. I also seem to recall an interesting Jameel Moondoc example.

I saw a fantastic large ensemble improv back in the summer here in LA. the place wa sa large warehouse where i've never heard of nor seen shows before or since. There were several good sets, but it was the big one that really floored me.
The musicians were:
damian romero
johnwiese
david kendall
mitchell brown
leticia castaneda
bob bellerue
jackie and a dude from smegma
joseph hammer
tom recchion
and probably 2 or 3 other folks i just cant remember right now.

i was there too and i often think back to this as one of the worst examples of large group improvisation i've ever heard.

could you tell me an example of a good large group improv you've heard?
i have a feeling our tastes simply don't mesh...

could you tell me an example of a good large group improv you've heard?
i have a feeling our tastes simply don't mesh...

i think that's probably the case.

i can't think of any examples of large group improvisation that i really like. so perhaps i have no business posting in this thread.

i played in a huge group lead by tetuzi akiyama that i thought was a total disaster. others seemed to like it, though. if you feel like it, you can listen to the performance online and judge for yourselves. http://www.soundnet.org/concerts/mov_refs/a.shtml#akiyama
it's the one on top, not the one that says "solo" (obviously).

Flugelhornist/Educator Ed Sarath started a class-based group at the University of Michigan back in the early-90's called the Creative Arts Orchestra whose goal was to explore the many joys and problems posed by large ensemble improvisation. I have been a member of the group since March 2005, so I will share some of my experiences playing in this environment.

First things first: the group alters in instrumentation/membership almost every semester. This semester the instrumentation is:

2 trumpets
3 saxophones/flute
4 basses
1 drummer
2 pianists
1 bass clarinet
1 cellist
1 violinist
1 bassoonist
1 guitarist
1 melodica (a favorite for composers)
1 euphonium
1 harp

The group's size usually hovers around 16 people. We are particularly large this semester. It is a "come one come all" membership, and this extends well beyond the jazz department. About a third of the orchestra is classical instrumentalists, and there are two or three composers present as well.

The group typically performs entirely improvised concerts, but in the past we have worked with a number of visiting artists including Arthur Blythe, Oliver Lake, Steve Coleman, Nicole Mitchell, and Henry Grimes. The first four brought music to be performed. The problem with people bringing music is this: not all of the people in the orchestra are fluent in jazz-based improvisation, and almost all of the visiting artists come from that lineage. This means that when Nicole Mitchell starts pointing at people to take solos, some people aren't even going to know what to do in that style! Should they be prepared for it? Personally, I think so. But this all gets swept under the rug somehow.

One of the most common problems a group like this faces is (understandably) musical coherency. Often times, when people are not listening to each other, or not listening to themselves, the music becomes meandering and aimless. Sarath calls this musical area the "Middle Zone" and encourages us to avoid it by always listening to everything going on around us, and most importantly, not being afraid to NOT play. The prerequisite class "Improvisational Forms" attempts to broaden an improvisor's vocabulary so that they are more flexible, while still not appealing to affixed idioms or styles. For example, Sarath will instruct someone to play an idea. Then he will stop them immediately and tell them to play something the exact opposite. That kind of thing.

One of my biggest personal frustrations with the way the group is run is that , since we only have two hours per week to meet, this makes it very difficult to have continuity between rehearsals. Every week it feels like we're wrestling with the same problems ("I can't hear the harp" "I'm a violinist and I can't hear myself when the drums are playing") and we never reach any conclusions. Bill Dixon's Bennington group met four or more times a week to work on their material. That's something that really needs to happen with the CAO but doesn't for whatever reason.

So... you've heard most of the bad stuff, what's GOOD about CAO?

When all is said and done, and we just PLAY... it always feels amazing. There is a striking bond of unity between all of the players. We are free of playing in a "style" and we are able to be ourselves with each other. We share a common bond in the group. The improvisations TEND to drift in the direction of 1) modal, 2) ostinato-driven, 3) slow tension and release forms, but even when this happens, it is a beautiful thing.

I used to have a huge problem with this form. I used to hate that almost every time CAO played, the group would meander until someone started playing an ostinato. Then suddenly, everyone was united in that common goal. This pissed me off until I realized that this this is just how CAO plays. If it were ALL jazz majors, it would sound different, just like it would sound different if it were ALL classical majors. We always get really critical about our performances, saying this or that could have been better, but really, I don't care anymore. I can find joy in basically whatever is happening.

Unfortunately, most people in the group (including the current director, Mark Kirschenmann) do not agree with this non-critical approach I've ended up taking. This is disappointing, but I really feel like the "we can do better" thing eventually takes on a carrot-on-a-stick mentality. When will the group be good enough? This is also the same in personal practice. "I can be better if I just practice two hours more per day". When will you be good enough? And good enough for what? what's really the issue here?

There is so much more to add. I will gladly answer any questions.