Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
very interesting thread,i ve observed in the loop festivals that ive
attended so far a lot of loopers have repeated their ideas and it doesnt
bother me at all, specially if i like the music,is like listening to a
tune on the radio and wanting to hear it again.But i tend to get bored
very quickly with the eternal improvisation that just doesnt say
anything.In looping i personally tend to prepare my equipment more than
the music so that it doesnt fuck up on stage which is irritating to see
and no less for an audience that has paid a ticket! this might even come
across for them as an amateur or unprofessional show,so yes i encourage
loopers to prepare!
Also pre-conceived sketches of music to improvise to on stage is not a sin
but rather a great way to develop something unique everytime you perform
and keep your improvs more focused as it will always sound different
anyway.So improvisation vs. prepared is not really an issue for me,it just
depends on the creativity involved.
I have seen people using prepared drum loops in their music sounding very
sterile and boring and ive seen people using them in a very exciting way(
Michael Peters comes to mind who did a beautiful piece using a drum loop
which turned out to be my favorite at the Y2k9 in Antwerp)
For me seeing somebody buid up a drum loop with their mouth doesnt make it
any better or special if i dislike their music as somebody using a drum
sample whose music i like.And for a non musical audience all this stuff is
completely irrelevant anyway as they are there to be entertained;-)
Luis
www.myspace.com/luisangulocom
--- Rainer Straschill <moinsound@googlemail.com> schrieb am Mi, 8.7.2009:
> Von: Rainer Straschill <moinsound@googlemail.com>
> Betreff: PrePrepared vs. Improvisational Live Looping Performances
> An: loopers-delight@loopers-delight.com
> Datum: Mittwoch, 8. Juli 2009, 12:21
> Whow Rick,
>
> once again you managed to start a thread which has created
> some huge
> interest, resulting in some 25 replies in about 16 hours -
> and even
> hadn't time to respond myself. The "stir up some" obviously
> worked
> (though in my case, not necessarily "thought", more of
> "writing it
> down", which I had planned anyway for some time). So here I
> go...
>
>
> A: MY OWN POSITION
> ----------------------------------
> Starting in 2000, all of the music I have performed for an
> audience or
> released in recorded format (including posting clips on the
> web) has
> been freely improvised (this meaning it had a composition
> index of
> "0", to use my metric defined below), both for solo and
> ensemble work.
> And although returning to composed music, at least in part,
> has been
> on my list for some time now, it hasn't happened with
> regard to
> releases or performances. During that time (and also
> before), I
> explored a lot of different possible formats for
> improvisation and
> also spent a lot of time simply thinking about
> improvisation in music.
>
>
> B: SOME THEORY ON IMPROVISATION: ATTEMPTS AT DEFINING A
> METRIC
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How do put a metric on improvisation? Is it true that if
> you play a
> through-composed work, nothing is improvised - and vice
> versa, if you
> don't follow anything written down (or otherwise
> specified)
> beforehand, then everything is improvised? A first thought
> in that
> direction will fall short, but is a good starting point.
>
> i) composition and performance.
> Let us assume that there are two indices, here named
> "composition" (C)
> and "performance" (P). "Composition" is just that - the
> stuff that the
> composer of the piece defined. "Performance" is what the
> performer
> makes of it - how much of his own ideas and interpretations
> are in the
> performance. Start out by defining that both indices are
> normalized to
> range from 0 to 1.
> Now it's obvious that a piece can't at the same time be
> "all composed"
> and "all improvised". So it makes sense to define an
> equation like
> C+P=1 (a piece can't be more than one piece). With that
> equation, a
> two-dimensional object reduced in dimensionality by one -
> geometrically thinking, a square is reduced to a line, on
> which you
> move from all left ("all composed") to all right ("all
> improvised").
>
> ii) tradition and other effects
> This however falls short if you think about it: assume a
> typical
> bebop-rooted jazz player is performing, say, "A Night in
> Tunisia". He
> will start out by playing the theme (and add some ornaments
> to it, no
> doubt), before going into his solo. Now even if that
> bebop-rooted
> player will during his solo break completely move away from
> the melody
> and also the chords by Dizzy, he will still not be 100%
> improvising.
> Why? The way I thought this guy up (to be a bebop-rooted
> jazz cat), he
> will most probably play fast lines in syncopated rhythm, he
> will hint
> at some kind of turnaround at the end of the chorus, and he
> won't
> start to play quarter-tone sequences in 13/7. Thats because
> his
> performance is based on some tradtion - regarding that you
> play in
> some scales, in some rhythmic schemes, and think in some
> harmonic
> structures when playing a bebop standard. We found a new
> index, which
> call "tradition" (T). Including that into our normatory
> equation
> making it C+P+T=1, we get a three-dimensional system which
> by this
> condition is reduced to two. Again geometrically thinking,
> we have a
> cube, which gets projected to a triangle.
> (Note that in that discussion, "T" does not include the
> effect
> tradition has on the composer and on the composition - only
> the
> performance of the (improvising) player is under
> scrutinization).
>
> However, we can't stop there, and that becomes immediately
> clear to
> all of us who either have dealt with the aleatoric concepts
> of
> contemporary composers or used a random S/H filter effect:
> There are
> effects which are beyond the control of the performer,
> either because
> he wilfully gives away this control, or because he simply
> can't
> control them. There's lots of them - strings breaking, the
> acoustics
> of the venue, a hiccup suddenly developing.
> Although some of these effects aren't strictly that, I call
> them
> "aleatorics" (A). Again, incorporating them into our
> equation, we get
> a four-dimensional hypercube, projected onto a triangular
> pyramid.
>
> iii) what to do with it?
> This metric will by no means be able to describe all
> aspects of
> improvised music in any way, but rather, it has been very
> helpful for
> me when coming to terms with thoughts like "how much of
> this is
> improvised, how much is composed" etc. And by simply
> thinking about
> some works of art and trying to place them inside that
> pyramid, some
> understanding may surface.
> Like: is it possible to make music that is "all composed"
> (C=1,
> T=P=A=0)? You can get very close, think of "Studies for
> Player Piano"
> by Conlon Nancarrow or "Jazz from Hell" by Frank Zappa. But
> if you
> include a human being (and use a composition which hasn't
> been
> "programmed" by the composer), you automatically move
> towards the P
> corner of the pyramid.
> Take a piano sonata by Joseph Haydn, which may say
> "allegro". Now you
> can look that up in a book, and that book may tell you that
> it's
> "quite fast". How fast is quite fast? Another book may tell
> you
> (although that information can't be exactly validated) that
> it's
> somewhat beetween 120 and 168 bpm. In other words (to bring
> that to
> the world of dance music), play that sonata's first
> movement somewhere
> between house, tech house, hard house, cosmic, trance,
> jungle, rave
> and drum'n'bass. A work by Gustav Mahler may tell you to
> play it
> "rasch aber nicht gehetzt" (apace but not hounded) - and no
> book tells
> you what that is. And finally, taking a fugue from "Das
> Wohltemperierte Clavier" by Johann Sebastian Bach will tell
> you
> nothing at all. The choice is all yours (and so far, we've
> only talked
> about the overall tempo).
>
> Conversely, is it possible to make music that is "freely
> improvised"
> (P=1, C=T=A=0)? I rather doubt it. Yes, it's possible to
> bring A close
> to zero, and having no composition in place is simple, but
> the whole
> block of "tradition" (which also includes that a grand
> piano only
> offers specific pitches etc.) will always influence the
> player and
> thus the result. Completely aleatoric? Yes, you could use a
> random
> source and hook it to everything, but first, either
> composer or
> performer choose that "everything".
>
>
> C: RICK'S ORIGINAL MAIL (AND INCLUDING REFERENCES TO OTHER
> POSTS)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let me just start with some dissent:
> "pre-rehearsed and already thought out pieces of music
> using live
> looping feel as sterile to me as people push playing on
> DATs, I-pods,
> CDs, DVDS or computers."
> To which I have to say that I found some creative DJ
> performances (aka
> "pushing play on CDs") very rewarding.
>
> "the last ten years or so of my life have been all
> improvisational."
> This is finally where I can bring the ramblings from
> section B to some
> use. From what I remember, this is not at all true. I take
> as one
> example the piece which opens the recording from Antwerp.
> Upon first
> listening to that recording, I thought "Hey - I like that
> tune!" You
> played that same composition (!) on June 11th 2008 at
> Pasinger Fabrik,
> about 21 minutes into your set - and a few other times on
> that tour as
> well. So you definitely don't have a C=0 index. And
> actually, your T
> index is very high. True, you don't play bebop runs, but
> you have
> created quite a fascinating array of "Rick Walker
> Tradition" you use
> all the time.
> So rather, I'd call your work "The Rick Walker Tradition
> (with
> improvised content and audience interaction)", rather than
> "improvised".
>
> (this is by no means intended to critizise what you do -
> rather to get
> into perspective how you use the word "improvised" and how
> I
> understand it. For me, "improvised" implies C=0).
>
> I really find your concept of playing with a clock to make
> the
> individual pieces be shorter to be interesting.
> "Interesting" in that
> context means I don't like it. Why?
> Specific pieces of music develop in a specific time frame.
> You have
> that starting idea - like that one three-tone motif with a
> chord - and
> then think about it further and it develops into a
> composition lasting
> four hours. Would it have worked if you put your
> seven-minute clock
> next to Richard Wagner when he wrote "Tristan und Isolde"?
> So if you
> believe that your pieces are too long (to which conclusion
> you may
> have come either because you or the audience get bored, or
> for some
> other reason), you should rather work on your creative
> process.
> (In the following, I assume you want to play shorter
> pieces, for
> whichever reason).
> First, thinking considerably in advance before you start
> playing
> (that's still going with that "C=0" approach) can help. How
> will that
> piece develop? And consequently, how can you make it work
> with your
> performance approach (including your looping gear)?
> Preprogramming
> stuff, as Kevin suggested, helps a great deal here. Also,
> Per is very
> active in that realm by writing complex scripts for Mobius
> to do
> complex looping maneuvers at the push of a button so he can
> make
> transitions in a few bars that otherwise would take
> considerably
> longer.
> Another thing: think about your gear and how you work with
> it. Say you
> have a repeating three-beat drum sequence on top of which
> you want to
> overdub a five-beat-long sequence. Now you could first play
> that first
> sequence five times into a loop, then overdub the second
> one three
> times. Or you could play that three-beat sequence once,
> then multiply
> and overdub the second one three times. Or you could play
> the first
> sequence once, then play the second one once onto another
> track. The
> time necessary for establishing that loop has been reduced
> to 1/3 of
> the original amount.
> Finally: change what you're playing. Only record
> two-beat-long loops
> and play on top of them for ten times. Extremely short
> song.
> This however, should all be preceded by making up your mind
> what you
> actually want to play. Perhaps your musical approach
> requires
> ten-minute+plus pieces. Perhaps you need to optimize so
> your audience
> doesn't get bored - perhaps you actually care. These are
> the things
> that should go first.
> And finally, I found that longer, more slowly developing
> pieces work
> better in a live than in a recorded context. If you're hit
> by that odd
> piece for the first time, it takes some time to get it - if
> it's on a
> CD, you listen to it repeatedly, after you already "got
> it". And for
> that reason, I find it perfectly ok to trim a live
> recording a little
> so that what felt good live also feels good on an album
> release. As
> the liner notes of one of Fripp's soundscape albums say:
> "nothing is
> left out - it just happens a little faster".
>
> And so (I'm getting carried away a little) - why don't you
> ask your
> pupils instead to first think why their pieces are of the
> length they
> are and if they feel right?
>
>
> D: COMMENTS ON SOME REPLIES
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, there had been a lot of jamming during Bach's time.
> This started
> with the fact that the continuo part (e.g. for a cembalo) -
> which
> somewhat was the "jazz piano" of that music, just in a
> leadshet, did
> not get an actual written-out part, rather a bass line with
> some
> numbers over it or a bass line and a melody - basically, a
> lead sheet.
> Check out recordings e.g. of Glenn Gould playing continuo
> on some
> ensemble works! Also, that endless repetitions of the main
> theme in
> works from that period start to make sense when you know
> that the
> musicians actually had to play improvised solo chorusses
> after the
> first time.
>
> Ted, I'm somewhat surprised that this pressure to "get it
> right" only
> hits you when you playing composed material. Why don't you
> feel
> pressured to get it right when you play improvised stuff?
> Or to stay
> with your metaphor - why can't you perform the compositions
> (your own
> ones or those of others) like a child?
> That "don't care" statement actually refers nicely to some
> other posts
> (and easily links back to the last section): I would not
> suggest that
> you play as if you don't care if you sound good or bad -
> rather you
> should play as if you don't care if you sound good or bad
> to the
> audience. And with that, such ideas to force yourself to
> never play
> longer than seven minutes suddenly disappear, because with
> that
> approach, you will stop anyway if it gets boring (to you).
>
> And Zoe, I believe that the classical stuff you play feel
> new because
> they aren't all composed beforehand as you say - the feel
> new because
> you make them something new everytime you play them (and if
> you
> wouldn't, your audience would most probably disappear
> anyway).
>
> Finally, there's that nice Mark Sottilaro vs. Rick Walker
> dialogue:
> Thanks, Mark! Although I don't agree with your post in the
> least, it's
> nice that at least someone for once gets away from that
> "we're such a
> supportive community so we must tell everyone every single
> time how
> great and inspiring that disposable sound menace is"
> approach of some
> institution caring for the challenged (for those with a
> good language
> background: what is the English translation of
> "beschützende
> Werkstätte"?).
>
> I disagree with you in so far because you say that you
> prefer
> loopstation, Kid Beyond, Amy X Neuburg and Brian Kenney
> Fresno to all
> the other artists, and believe the reason is that these
> artists play
> composed material. The reason is that all of those are
> great stage
> personalities per se, and have obviously worked hard at
> their stage
> appearance independently of the musical content. How many
> of the
> artists not in your list do you believe do have a
> consciously laid out
> concept for their stage appearance, including clothing, how
> the walk
> and move, how they make use of lights etc.? Furthermore,
> Kid Beyond
> (at least what I remember of his work) plays a lot of cover
> tunes -
> which also makes people happy. Finally, all of the named
> examples
> sing, and "singing is a trick to get people to listen to
> music for
> longer than they would ordinarily" ("Stop Making Sense"
> liner notes).
> (I have to agree that Andre LaFosse doesn't fit into those
> categories,
> but Andre is just an oustanding composer and guitar/EDP
> player.
> Sometimes, that's enough. Another example in this category:
> Andreas
> Willers - at all costs go see him if you get the chance,
> he'll blow
> you away).
> Another great example in this category is Rick Walker. I
> have to admit
> (and Rick, you know I told you that in all friendship) that
> I don't
> like his music, in so far as I find it boring. This ist
> totally untrue
> for his live shows - I greatly and deeply enjoyed every
> single one of
> them, be it to a large crowd or to half a dozen people, be
> it his solo
> programme, some spontaneously created duo settings or his
> comments on
> a world championship soccer match. At least some of them
> were
> improvised - but they worked equally the same for me,
> because it was
> Rick being on stage and performing them.
>
>
> E: WHAT TO MAKE OF ALL OF THIS
> -------------------------------------------------------
> So, what do we make of all of this? Most of my ramblings
> are rather
> inconclusive, but there are some messages:
>
> I. "Composed vs. Improvised" is not a simple as most people
> believe
> when they think about those two concepts, which seem
> complementary.
> II. "Composed" doesn't necessarily make a performance
> enjoyable.
> "Improvised" does not necessarily make it less enjoyable.
> III. Rick - please do some singer-songwriter stuff -
> looking forward
> to it! By my definition, you're doing composed stuff by a
> large
> percentage anyway. ;)
> IV. Great discussion - the messages are still coming.
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
> Rainer
>
>