pure improvisation

[howsthatsound]

eh, i'd say spontaneous comment on an already familiar subject, in the best cases anyway. sure there are those who stick with the language, but there are plenty who try to subvert it, sometimes with brilliant results. unless of course, you see that impulse to subvert as a part of the "language", which would be totally fair.

[Damon_Smith]

I think there is some confusion around whether improvisation = abstraction.

[jon abbey]

I do agree that it almost always is the spontaneous use of an already learned language.

I think that's true a good bit of the time, especially with solo improv, but one of the most exciting things about the best collective improv is that it can push people into entirely new areas for them. you could make an argument that this is still "the spontaneous use of an already learned language", but to me it's more the spontaneous creation of a new language, albeit one that possibly/probably overlaps with previously learned languages.

[howsthatsound]

I think there is some confusion around whether improvisation = abstraction.

it would have to to be "pure", wouldn't it.

what i'm really pushing here is the vagueness of the purity idea, because vaguely is the only way in which it works. as soon as you try to define it it falls apart.

what i am definitely not saying is that improvisation should be done in any specific way.

[RFKorp]

I do agree that it almost always is the spontaneous use of an already learned language.

I think that's true a good bit of the time, especially with solo improv, but one of the most exciting things about the best collective improv is that it can push people into entirely new areas for them. you could make an argument that this is still "the spontaneous use of an already learned language", but to me it's more the spontaneous creation of a new language, albeit one that possibly/probably overlaps with previously learned languages.

personally speaking, my most exciting performance experiences have been those when a situation has inspired me to try using a piece of equipment in a way that I never had before. Even when it doesn't work and no sound comes out (or a sound plays that is completely contrary to what I was expecting or hoping for!), there's something really exciting about the split second of realization that "oh, maybe I can do this! I might have never thought to try if I wasn't playing here and now and with so-and-so."

and then sometimes it even becomes part of a vocabulary of sounds I return to in other contexts (whether it "worked" the first time or not)!

[bryan]

I think there is some confusion around whether improvisation = abstraction.

I dunno.. is that the case here? Just saying because I'm not so sure.

If anything, this thread is confusing in general at this point and it could be served by getting a definition of what "pure improvisation" even means (Charon?). All resources funneled towards decisions in the moment? The present is so infused with the past that the "purity line" can be drawn anywhere.

EDIT: howsthatsound is getting at the same thing

[howsthatsound]

RFKorp, i totally agree. one of the things i love about improvisation is that that is always a lingering possibility. and it's something i think i'd totally miss out on if i was too obsessed with improvisational purity.

[Charon]

If I'm going for pure improvisation

I thought this was the only option for you? how is it an 'if' situation? isn't this like saying "if I choose to breath oxygen today" according to what you allegedly believe? your singleminded perspective is paradoxically quite muddled, I'm surprised you can't see this yourself.

it's a figure of speech Jon, don't get yourself so wound up about it

[Charon]

OK it seems that what some people are getting all hot and bothered about here is languages and playing things that you have played before and whether that can be 'pure' or not. It has been suggested that playing in a recognisable 'language' means playing in an 'idiom' and therefore means that you are not engaged in 'pure' improvisation. To me, this is just silly. The two things are separate. So long as you are not consciously and deliberately sticking to that idiom when improvising then you can be playing pure improvisation. Pure improvisation, to me, means improvising (=trying to give fullest effect to the improvisational impulses that occur to the improvisor in the moment), for the sake of improvising and not for any other reasons (musical, aesthetic, political, whatever). None of that necessarily precludes someone playing some phrases that they have played before. This is not some futile endless grasping at change for its own sake. If the same improvisor improvises, say, 3 times, their innate (unconscious) tastes/inclinations affect each of those three performances in similar ways, and there will probably be elements that are similar when comparing the three performances. These are not due to the improvisor consciously trying to make the three performances similar in any way, or following any consciously pre-set scheme, but simply their own personality showing itself in the way they improvise. You can identify a particular person by the way they improvise, if you have heard them improvise enough, and this has nothing to do with the improvisation not being 'pure', but everything to do with people having their own unique personalities.

your mind's catalog of sound approaches set on "random".

the human mind is never random

if those impulses involve a well-practiced technique on a familiar instrument, they can never be truly of the moment. Especially so when playing solo.

This is probably the crucial point. Richard, I disagree with this, and I suspect this is where a lot of the confusion comes from. Making an improvisational (unplanned, of the moment, purely for the sake of improvising) decision to commence a series of actions which have been practiced before, for me, is just as much a part of pure improvising as making a decision to commence an action which has not been practiced before. The key thing is making sure that the decision to commence this action is improvisational (that is, made without any prior planning and made in the moment for the sake of improvising). Personally I usually do this, when playing solo, by using a few different instruments and sound sources which I am not overly familiar with in addition to the one(s) I am familiar with to keep me on my toes and keep me improvising and in the moment (as opposed to demonstrating a catalogue of techniques or showing what I can do or following some established aesthetic, etc.). This is similar in some ways to playing with other improvisors.

[jon abbey]

the funny thing is that you're trying to explain improvisation to an audience when pretty much every single person you're responding to understands it better than you do.

[Charon]

the funny thing is that you're trying to explain improvisation to an audience when pretty much every single person you're responding to understands it better than you do.

ha! Does that include you, Jon?

[RFKorp]

Pure improvisation, to me, means improvising (=trying to give fullest effect to the improvisational impulses that occur to the improvisor in the moment), for the sake of improvising and not for any other reasons (musical, aesthetic, political, whatever).

I think I've just figured out where I'm having trouble understanding you.

It is first difficult for me to grasp the idea that one can improvise on a musical instrument without being interested in making music or the aesthetics of the sound you create. But once I get past that point, I still don't understand how such an action does not become, in at least a small way, a politically motivated one. That is, not "political" as a statement on government, but of personal motivations in/around/against a culture of improvised music.

(edited for clarity)

[jon abbey]

the funny thing is that you're trying to explain improvisation to an audience when pretty much every single person you're responding to understands it better than you do.

ha! Does that include you, Jon?

seriously?

[mudd]

i think we're done.

m

[Charon]

I still don't understand how such an action does not become, in at least a small way, a politically motivated one. That is, not "political" as a statement on government, but of personal motivations in/around/against a culture of improvised music.

Well that is a very thorny question, that one. Whenever politics are brought into anything the question becomes necessarily more tangled. I'd probably say that the actions are not political in the sense that they are not overtly or consciously trying to push some sort of agenda (other than the 'agenda' of improvisation, which just brings it back to improvising for the sake of improvisation), but when it comes to the subconscious, 'in-built' internal politics it's more difficult to say.

[faster]

So long as you are not consciously and deliberately sticking to that idiom when improvising then you can be playing pure improvisation. Pure improvisation, to me, means improvising (=trying to give fullest effect to the improvisational impulses that occur to the improvisor in the moment), for the sake of improvising and not for any other reasons (musical, aesthetic, political, whatever).

Okay, but how can those "impulses that occur...in the moment" exclude "musical, aesthetic, political, whatever" considerations, and why should they? And who's "consciously and deliberately sticking to (an) idiom"? No improviser I know.

...innate (unconscious) tastes/inclinations

Ah, so it's a kind of primitivism--, like the surrealists' rejection of only conscious inclinations and decisions? Why the hostility to thought and consciousness? Other than this (baffling) rejection of conscious thought (which I strongly, viscerally believe is neither possible nor desirable, at best I think it's self-delusion), you sound like you believe in the same things as every improviser I know.

ON EDIT: Sorry, Mudd, didn't see your post.

[mudd]

oh i'm not stopping the discussion, only the bickering. poor tone control and a predilection for bickering has lead this thread off course more than enough times, though. i will no longer ignore that.

m

[Charon]

So long as you are not consciously and deliberately sticking to that idiom when improvising then you can be playing pure improvisation. Pure improvisation, to me, means improvising (=trying to give fullest effect to the improvisational impulses that occur to the improvisor in the moment), for the sake of improvising and not for any other reasons (musical, aesthetic, political, whatever).

Okay, but how can those "impulses that occur...in the moment" exclude "musical, aesthetic, political, whatever" considerations, and why should they?

OK Joe, I see the confusion. I missed a word out in that post you've quoted. If I change it to this:

So long as you are not consciously and deliberately sticking to that idiom when improvising then you can be playing pure improvisation. Pure improvisation, to me, means improvising (=trying to give fullest effect to the improvisational impulses that occur to the improvisor in the moment), primarily for the sake of improvising and not primarily for any other reasons (musical, aesthetic, political, whatever).

does that make it a bit clearer?

It's about focus, I suppose...

[jkudler]

well, we seem to be at a standstill - massimo doesn't want to address some of the questions,

not so much don't want to, as getting tired. I get the feeling that all those who were ever going to 'get' what I'm saying (that's not to say agree with me) already have....

i don't "get" what you are saying in the sense of relating to it, but i think i "get" it as much as i am going to. but whatever i specifically was referring to re "some of the questions" was mine about why you release music, especially why you send out copies for review. also, why perform live, have a youtube channel, etc. i honestly want to know, because the way i read your interest, it doesn't quite jibe with my understanding of what you are trying to do.

-j.

[maRi]

...innate (unconscious) tastes/inclinations

Ah, so it's a kind of primitivism--, like the surrealists' rejection of only conscious inclinations and decisions?

I don't think so. "Innate" and "unconscious" are very different, though I realize Charon's probably not aware of this difference. Not one radical movement has ever emphasised anything "innate", as far as I know.

Particular emphases of particular movements shouldn't be decontextualised. They have to be understood in the context of their time and what these movements were resisting. The strongest statements of the past would appear ludicrous, unjustified or unnecessary judged by the standards of our time exclusively. That's because they were strong enough not to have to be repeated.