This is the long, long correspondance 2003-2004 between me in Copenhagen and 
improvisor Andrzej Izdebski in Warszaw discussing improvised music and 
disagreeing on the importance of things like communication, interaction and 
independence of players. The discussion started from an Earle Brown 
recording and then came Izi’s critical comments to some Russian musicians. I 
had to confess my way could be close to theirs, and off we went, examining 
“parallel voices” versus “group voice” approach as well as many concepts and 
ideas and discussing various stuff along the way …

Finally, I visited Andrjez in Warszaw in 2005, and even after a day together 
with playing and a night with some vodka drinking we did not come to any 
common manifest. We have different backgrounds, but nevertheless both find 
the discussion interesting, and so be it!

This text is a rather rough pasting from our correspondance. Please read it 
like you do with emails which contain the old correspondance: starting 
backwards and gradually moving up section by section!

A few times, a quote in a box will appear under mails as a guide to some 
moments in the discussion.




Fra: "Iziphonics" Til: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" Emne: Re: HNY Dato: 4. januar 2005 11:24 Oh yes!!!!!! I belive our discussion isn't even about to be finnished! Waiting to hear from you!!! yours! Izi Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) wrote: >Dear Andrzej, > >thank you! > >I don't think our discussion is finished...getting on to it in the new year! > >talking on, >Carl > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Iziphonics" >To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" >Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 4:11 PM >Subject: Re: Process > > > OK! Let me learn more about your idea of random access. Yours Izi Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) wrote: >Hello Izi, > >whauw, very interesting thing!!!! > >don't worry about delay, no problem ! > >we must talk on, have to run again... > >Carl > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Iziphonics" >To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" >Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 11:03 AM >Subject: Re: Process > > Carl!!!! I'm really sorry for this delay. last month was a whirlpool for me. But a very good news at the very beginnig. We played at the Warsaw Autumn festival and the concert was very successful in any sense! The concert was sold-out yet before the gig (500 tickets sold, about 200 had to go home :)), it was very good in terms of music, the director of the festival was VERY surprised in postive sense- as well as us :))))) So there's hope for the continuation! I send you a photo from the >performance. > > > OK, now regading to you letter. Philosophic? :))) OK, let it be he he... though I don't treat it philosophic, but rather pragmatic. Anyway, you seem to read right what I'm thinking about. Of course you call the things with the other words, but generally you describe things right. Could you write more about your "random access" idea? "Telling story"... I don't really apply such terms to music. Maybe it's not romantic, but instrumental music seems to be rather autotellic for me. So I try to think about music in more musical sense. More over it doesn't neglegate emotional (sometimes even VERY emotional) approach for me. The only difference is in an absence of "visualisation" or hmmmmm say.. syncretic values :)) As we have already been discussing I'm more into "parallel" improvising. It seems for me to be more effective and so on. Again we may discuss the issue of "effectiveness" in improvising, but when we assume that there is something like composing through improvising, we can also notice that it is (or propably it's more resonable to say "should be" :)) more stabile, since the "ingradients" are clearer and easier to be followed. Hmmmmmmm I'm not sure if it's clear what I wrote he he. Anyway. I like the idea of you composition. I hope we will be able to perform it together. It would be very interesting how we would define (in practice) the "geometrical center in the total sound". I'm very curious!!! Yours! Izi Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) wrote: >Hello Andrzej... > >this is interesting - your concept of stability. Seems inevitably to >become rather philosophic! Maybe Plato could have said, too, that "realising the ideas will only be static in an ideal world" :-)) You approach seems a "random access" one - there seems to be one thing to focus upon, and whether you do this or that, it's working on the same idea. It's not "chain reaction" (one of my favourites) nor "telling a story" (like blues people maybe do) or any form of working towards emotional peaks or catharsis. Rather something meditative ... trying to aim at the idea while relaxing. > > >I once wrote this text-notated piece and had interesting playing >experiences >with it: > >========================== >TOWARDS A CENTRE >Imagine a geometrical centre in the total sound, regardless of what is >played. > >Concentrate from time to time all your energy on aiming directly at >this centre, for shorter or longer periods of time. >========================== > >- do you also think the idea is very similar to yours of "inner >stability" - > >? > >very best, >Carl > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Iziphonics" >To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" >Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:06 PM >Subject: Re: Process > > Hi! It is a bit unconfortable word, when speaking about improvisation indeed... at least for me. "Doing the same job together" seems to be a bit coloquial, but is more suitable I belive, if we want to catch the point of creating. If the construction is always stable? Of course >not!! > > It would be only in an ideal world :))) As to changes. I think that changes (fast changes) don't neglegate stability, since stability is >(in my opinion) to be provided by musicians not the form it self. What do you think about it? Best! Izi Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) wrote: >Hello again, > >thank you for comments! Yes, "communication" seems a difficult word, >maybe reminding too much of "conversation". "Doing a job together" seems >closer to what you think ? And then I'd like to ask - is the musical construction to be built always stable, as you say? Isn't it also sometimes changing, maybe fast changing ? > >very best, >Carl > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Iziphonics" >To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" >Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 2:24 PM >Subject: Re: Process > > > Hi! So good to hear from you! I changed the e-mail account, so I hardly retrive messages from the previous one. Yes I'm going quite well. Although there's a lot of problems as >always. > > > As to your statement. I fully agree that there should always be a justification for music... at least in terms of resonability ;-) And I also agree that a group improvisation should enclose both independence and communication. The deal is that for me free improvisation does not depend on communication. Whenever I improvise >I assume that the people I play with know (at least more less) the >same things I know and we are there to build some stabile musical "construction", therefore I don't see any point in "communicating". >This communitation is seems to exist anyway, so there ain't no sense care about it. I focus on my part of "job" that's to be done and I see it through the prismat of on going process. One may call it >communication, but for me it's not :-) I'd like to say you again that I really appreciate our discussions, even if sometimes it seems not easy to get common conclusions. I hope to participate in your DIMC one day. Take care! Izi Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) wrote: >Hello Andzrej, > >taking up our discussion a little bit again ... > >I'm somewhat frustrated that we did not reach any common >conclusion, despite >so much energy in the discussion, so much going into depth, so many >interesting themes brought up and some really very illuminating >aspects. >To me it seems that free improvisation outside of solo playing >requires both communication and independence - is this wrong ? > >And will it open up "Pandora's box" if I say that however >individual onelikes to play, there must be some reason or justification for several musicians playing together instead of being completely independent soloists one at a time - how would you characterize that... > >Hope you enjoy life and music ! Soon we will have DIMC here, new >meetings, >new excitements, new disagreements ;-) > >Carl >=========== >Denmark's Intuitive Music Conference >http://hjem.get2net.dk/intuitive/dimc.htm > Fra: "Iziphonics" Til: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" Emne: Odp: Process Dato: 16. marts 2004 09:09 Hi Carl! This time I have to apologize for silence. I was in Germany for some gigs. Yes, the details may be a strenght of an improvisation, but (in my opinion) a good improvisation is the one which has the best time planning. The first thing determinating the receive of improvised music is how it flows in time. We shouldn't excuse a chaotic time flow with interesting details :))) Details should fulfill some solid frame. That's what I hear in Evan Parker's, Cecil Taylor's or Peter Kowald's music. Fractal's nature (as I know) depends on self containing not echoing. What I ment about fractals was not stright comparision to free improvised music (I'm affraid none human being would be able to improvise "fractalic" constuction, or maybe there are such brains :))))), but rather how I see the the frame-detail constuction. It's never the best way to copy exactly any example (unless you do it for practice), but I think there's a certain proven way in what Barry Guy does. I've been investigating the way of improvising of many "top improvisers" and I noticed that they use, say... a common language :)) It doeasn't depend on any fixed form, but rather on something that might be called "a tension bow". It's a bit similar to a composing method. I agree with your approach to form, and I'm affraid that the current meaning of form is somehow useless when talkin' about free improvistion. But something form-like emarges in improvisation. The Barry Guy example shows that :)) Well I know plenty of such exaples, when I listen to improvisers and my mind says "cut it" and they do :))) Thanks for the quotation about "people's rhythm" It will be very useful for sure. OK! Have to finish for now. Long break in access to Internet effects in many letters to reply. All the very best! Izi PS. Spring came to Warsaw! 16C today.. ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Process > Hello Izi! > > sorry about the delay in writing ! > > 1) I'm glad you agree, even with "of course". And if we have "a certain > frame" without interesting details, that might be exactly the situation with composed music coming out stiff in performance. Interesting details seems a strength of improvising. > > (Oh, I would think fractals were full of "echoes" and "tails" ... very > different from Evan Parker and the Parker/Guy trio ... :-)) ) > > 2) Yes - seems the Barry Guy example is both about independence and about > details, maybe this shows something about the intermingling of these two > dimensions! Probably we would agree that it would be no good to try to copy exactly what he did. So the "life" or the "exactly right character" of what he did depends on both more formal and more micro-like proportions. If it > was about just schematic forms, they could have been repeated (like ABA, > rondo, etc.). > > Clearly I don't see your idea of form as a schematic one (contrary to the > belief of my Russian colleague Roman Stolyar who believes in the importance > of ABA, rondo etc. and maybe they also exist, but on a still higher level). > However, form must imply some sort of complexity reduction compared to the > micro-level. Else the concept would have almost no meaning - like when > saying that "nothing is formless, everything has its individual form". Form is a way of conceptualising of the big variety of details and dividing into hierachical levels. > > I coined the term "People's rhythm" from Christian Wolff, talking about his "cue"-pieces... : > > "Player one plays a sound. And as soon as he's finished, player two plays a sound. Now, however, the duration of the palyer one's sound is indefinite. > ... And player two simply, as soon as player one starts to play, he knows > that any minute, any second now, and fraction of a second, he's going to > play. But he doesn't know quite when. And the rhythm produced by that > situation is like no other rhythm. Especially if you imagine more > complicated versions of this, like say three or rour players in different > variations. ...it's clear that it's a rhythm that depends upon the people, > rather than an idea about rhythm. And if you will, there the social thing > comes in immediately." > > (Gronemeyer, Gisela; Oehlschlägel, Reinhard (ed.): Christian Wolff. Cues. > Writings and Conversations / Hinweise. Schriften und Gespräche. Köln, 1998. > Part of a series: Edition MusikTexte 005. Page 104) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Iziphonics" > To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:52 AM > Subject: Odp: Process > Hi Carl! Well there two really interestin' aspects. 1.communication leading to details. Of course, but detail is interesting for me only when opposed (or fulfilling) to certain frame. When the raw of details is hung in vacuum is impossible to be percepted as detail. The fractal may be an interesting (though quite obvious) example of insight into frame in order to see details. On the other hand independence of musicians (it doesn't mean that there's no communication- in this case improvisation simply doesn't depend on communication) in process of improvising leads to creating other kind > of details- scalpture like, but we've been discussing that already :)) 2. Example of Barry Guy (of course I do know him :))) Well it's an PERFECT example what independence mean. This guy (sweet play of words :)) exactly knows what he wants to play. There's nothing like "rumbling" in the process of his improvisation. When ones go to far the other should able to know "where it is". Barry Guy knew that :))) I think we misunderstand each other in meaning of "form". I'm not lookin' for form in terms of formal construction, but rather in constant flow in music. I want ideas to appear, than be developed and then ended. No "echoing", no catching the others "tails". When you listen to Evan > Parker's trio with Barry Guy, you propably notice that they just "go on". If the track has several streams, non of them is left itself, when something is about the end, they just cut it :)) They "reign" the process :))) Could you write me where I could find more about "people's rhythm"? I know what the author mean, but I'd like to dig it deeper in terms of details. We are confirmed to perform at Warsaw Autumn this year with Sonus Akrobata (the project with timpanii and baritone fretless guitar). The same day is scheduled Michal Gorczynski with Silesian Quartet playing some Szalonek's composition and some "import" stuff :)) I'm still waiting for some time to get back to our sistematition stream. All the very best!!!! Izi Carl
detail is interesting for me only when opposed (or fulfilling) to certain frame.
Izi
----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 6:40 PM Subject: Re: Process > Hello Izi, > trying to answer fast despite short time! > Yes, communication is important to me. Also, certainly, as a listener. I > perceive a process in time, which can be full of events. > And, one important thing to add here I think: judging from the example we're discussing, this seems to be about how interesting details arise. Maybe communication creates details while another kind of attention creates > "overall form" ?? By details, I think of what sometimes is called "timing", > including the micro-level. How it "swings" etc. What Chr. Wolff called > "people's rhythm" opposed to countable rhythm - a very important thing > to me. > And one example I like ... I once experienced a duo at a concert here > between Barry Guy (you know his name, don't you?) and a much less > experienced Danish colleague. There arrived an excellent opportunity for ending the duo which she seeming ly missed - I was thinking "Oh, what a pity!!" - but, Barry Guy added a tiny coda which suited the situation > and everything very fine and took away the problem! Seems he both created > interesting details and removed the "overall form problem". I imagine > that if we had a recording of these exciting moments, we could also hear this timing which were so crucial. Had he done the same thing hesitantly or with some panic, it would not have been the same ! But I think he got the > proportions just right. > What do you think of my "communication leading to details"-idea ?? And > of the Barry Guy-example about right proportions at both big and small > levels ? > very best! > Carl
Maybe communication creates details while another kind of attention creates "overall form" ??
Carl
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Iziphonics" > To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 3:44 PM > Subject: Process Hi Carl! Well it seems much clearer for me where is the difference between us. You seem to treat improvisation as a way of communication. I listened the recordings from the CD with finger prints and there's a lot of running for communication in the band. In the turn out there are many moments that are very magnetic and interesting, but on the other hand a lot of time of the track is occupied by "echos" of the ideas and seemly waiting for another. These are not interesting for me. I treat improvising as a kind of method of composing. Effective filling of the time is very important for me, > just like in process of composing. Cousciousness of the process being in > progress while playing is propably the most important thing for me, not > communication between musicians. I meant the genesis of free improvised music in today's meaning. It's interesting for me, because I try to follow it and sometimes I find myself lost in the number of facts. Some influances are obvious and some seem to be too subjective to treat them as facts. Yes, yes, I got the score of Fire Music. I had not time to follow all the scores you sent me, but thank you very much for them I will certainly dig them deeper soon. Ohhh I have to finish, guests visit me... Until next time then! All the very best!! Izi
a lot of time of the track is occupied by "echos" of the ideas and seemly waiting for another. These are not interesting for me.
Izi
----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:00 PM Subject: Re: Report > Hi Izi, > > a few minutes before collapsing into bed. > > Yes, your remarks about solo as a key and the one before sound very reasonable. > > My main aim before improvising ? Oh, to have something of good > quality happening, but it's hard to define. > > Predetermined vision before playing ? No, I think as little as possible. In group playing, this is not so difficult, maybe, since it's rather > unpredictable anyway! > > And, oh, how I see the genesis ... you mean historically ?? Probably people several places began just to play. I have heard just a few examples of ethnic stuff... so much else is concerned with rigid playing the > same comositions or songs over and over again, even shamans do that... >(boredom leading to enlightenment, it seems... ;-) ), but the > "Dream-chanting" which >Charlie Morrow studied with Indians sounds bit different, >"story-telling" in sound. > > I suppose I sent the composition Fire-Music along on paper, else > it's on the net. Yes! Let's talk on about your opinion on the 3rd track of the > fingerprints CD, concerning its practise of group approach. > > very best1 > Carl > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Iziphonics" > To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 11:47 AM > Subject: Odp: Report > > Hi Carl!! I have several minutes to write you at last. Well of course you always use a bit of each methods of > improvising. I think it's a bit a metter of consciousness, where you aim. Weather you want to follow others or rather "compose" something predeterminated. Solo playing might be a key activity in here (metter of factly solo playing is a kind of rudimential action in free improvising for me) I mean if you have experience in playing solo, you will certainly find it easier to > go on with your own ideas while playing in a band. I'm listening to a duo recordings of Sainkho Namtchylak with Evan Parker. Wonderful example of parallel voices, although they are very together. Carl write me please, what is the main aim for you while you're > improvising, or even before you start. Do you have any predeterminated vision > of your contribution to music that is going to happen (or is happening?). And I have also another question. How do you see the genesis of free > improvised music. I listened to the CDs. Well metter of factly I can't regard to > them in details yet (I had no possibility to listen to them with perfect > attention). I really like your composition Fire Music on the black CD "IST". > It was also interesting to listen to the CD with fingerprints, although I remember you wanted me to listen to it with special attention, so I will back > to my reflections next time, after another listeninig. best regards!!!! Izi ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:12 PM Subject: Re: Report > Hi Andrzej, > > well, it's not so strange at all. I think the two modes are in practise very intermingled, so that everything usually has some of both. I > mentioned the example with the composition suggesting independence, and once > started to analyse it, there are many experiences. Another one coming to my mind is my collaboration with a percussionist - we did two concerts till > now and are planning a release. At the beginning, it felt for me like > playing solo even if together - gradually I got used to it. It's got some of the same challenge... really developing own things. > > talking on later! > Carl >
At the beginning, it felt for me like playing solo even if together...
Carl
> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Iziphonics" > To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:17 PM > Subject: Odp: Report > > Hi Carl! Great to hear that you used this exercise! It's a very nice comparision, this with a sculpture. I would like to know how do you find this way of improvising (creating music). I'm consciouss that it has to take a while to work out the independence among the musicians, but I belive it's worth a while :)) I gradually start to control my duties and I will write you a longer letter in a day or so. I hope to finally answer the previous (very interesting)letters of yours. I have at least 3 of them not replied :)) Regards! Izi
It's a very nice comparision, this with a sculpture.
Izi
----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:21 PM Subject: Report > Hello, > a little report of Intuitive Music Group's testing of your exercise (the one with only five notes each). We did it two times ... second time it gradually took on at kind of scupltural character. Which seems > relevant! > > That's it for now... > Carl > > > Fra: "Iziphonics" Til: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" Emne: Odp: Discovery Dato: 15. januar 2004 14:08 Hi! I think we are a bit in a trap of undifined metters. Let me try to explain: 1. Of course there should be no less intuition Parallel approach, but that's not a point. The point is the accent. If we regarded everything literally we could speak about free imporvisation ONLY in case of some chaotic para musical activity, but we don't :)) The same with our agreement about Parallel voice and Group Voice. Is Parallel Approach less "group voiced"? Is Group Approach really "group" or rather a chain of individual choices and interactions? etc As I wrote that it's just a seed of thought emerging in my mind. I'm completely not convinced to it. I have to think it over and set some frame of sistematic for it yet. But the main idea lies in some kind of contrast I see. Hugely simplyfing- if you use your perception as vehicle of creation process in Group Approach you apply much more intuition in constant "reading" and instant "realizing", while Parallel uses much more of your pre-convinction and "vertical" way of thinking. Still both ways of making music ARE improvised thus have to be somehow intitive. 2.So you say there's a "beyond" of what we do together! That must surely be > very dialectical, if you don't mean simply the good thing about solo, > playing alone. So, first it's great to play, then it's even greater to play > together, then it's even greater to follow the individual inspiration you > got, giving you even better individual ideas than before, etc (and the > circle never ends)... seems it's about a healthy chain of events ! In this case I try not to value any process, but rather observe what it depends on. "it's great to play", of course it is, but it doeasn't define anything :))) "then it's even greater to play together" - we cannot make such a priciple, I'd rather say "it's different to play together", the same with following the individual inspiration. Maybe it's somehow "cold" approach, but it let's me distance myself from my choices as a musician. Carl! Thank you for the texts! I will read them in a free moment. I'm up to my ears in a work now (spend even nights at studio!!), but hope to find some moment for rest and will investigate them. Sorry if my thoughts are chaotic, but I spend up to 15 hours a day at the comp and my mind sometimes simply flows away :)) Looking forward to hear from you! Izi ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:14 PM Subject: Re: Discovery > Hello Andrzej, > > glad you like my discovery! > > but no, sorry, I don't think intuitive music needs be any more Group Voice > than Parallel Voice. Since there should be no less intuition in Parallel > Approach, also no less collective intuition in principle, as far as I've > understood you! Rather, it's to do with attitude, intuitive music reaching > out of cliches, reaching into musical insights and new things, and whether > Parallel or Group is a matter of method among several possible ones. You > would probably also agree that Parallel Approach is not opposed to music > being created in the moment. The opposite of intuitive music might rather > be, (as Stockhausen once suggested) "Gebrauchsmusik" - possible translation > "functional music", music fulfilling certain expectations as to > entertainment, being "nice" to have in the background, effectiveness to > support dance, etc. > > I wrote something about the term in an article - pasted below in case it's > relevant to see. > > So you say there's a "beyond" of what we do together! That must surely be > very dialectical, if you don't mean simply the good thing about solo, > playing alone. So, first it's great to play, then it's even greater to play > together, then it's even greater to follow the individual inspiration you > got, giving you even better individual ideas than before, etc (and the > circle never ends)... seems it's about a healthy chain of events ! > > Talking about the values of independence. I sometimes use this piece by > Swiss Max Keller (atatched) to attempt to get students out of their > hiding-places in case they play with too much consensus and inhibition. It > has some glorious descriptions of possible non-consensus reaction > possibilities. > > talking on! > Carl > > ============= > From my article at > http://hjem.get2net.dk/intuitive/legno3/legno3uk.htm > > This name was introduced in 1968 by Stockhausen, who applied it to two > collections of his compositions, notated with text and published in 1968 and > 1970.(8) Around the same time, the composer toured with a group playing the > music of the first collection, and recordings were released. Stockhausen > wrote articles about this, and in addition there is a useful published > discussion.(9) Thanks to him, the name became relatively well-known in new > music circles. > > It has sometimes also been used by others. Various concert groups with names along the lines of 'Group for Intuitive Music' have existed in Denmark since 1974 and, related to these, a yearly international Intuitive Music > Conference has been held since 1995. Additionally, in Denmark and elsewhere, > the expression "intuitive music" can sometimes be heard denoting improvised > new music in general. It seems to be significant that the expression can > evoke associations of both individual freedom and of something meditative. > > The propagation of the name is not, of course, a matter of scientific > calculation. But one could, in accordance with Stockhausen's original > thoughts, attempt to render the concept of "intuitive music" definable. > > Stockhausen wished to stress that the music was seeking a way out of > pre-defined cliches(10), and he defined intuitive music by contrasting it > with improvisation within a style. For instance, a jazz musician may have a > certain repertoire of figures, motifs, phrases etc. which are consciously > repeated time and again. Thus, intuitive music means "intensified > improvisation" or "radical improvisation". The fact that he introduced this > as something to follow on from playing within composed frameworks or > starting points may appear paradoxical. But in its context, it was a very > radical step away from playing from notes both for Stockhausen himself and > for the musicians. > > The concept can be viewed as a Utopia which one can approach but never > reach, as is the case with Stockhausen himself. An interesting half-way > point between this view and a plain musical genre name would be to maintain > that the ideal is reached at certain moments. Music therapist Anne Møller > Jørgensen describes the concept like this in her final paper: "I > view...intuitive music as a synthesis - a total realisation in a spontaneous expression...I would like to stress that I see intuitive music as a rare jewel within improvisation, but also that this itself can to a high degree be regarded as a moment of transition.".(11) > > It is an interesting question whether intuitive music existed as a conscious and consequent endeavour before Western new music in the second half of the twentieth century. Stockhausen thinks it did not. But it is tempting to believe that somebody or even many people must have had the idea before. The idea of a free stream of consciousness seems to be of a similar nature, and this is described in ancient texts related to yoga meditation. But on the other hand, meditative music in many cultures is often a very fixed ritual - it is not within the medium itself that one lets go of thoughts and > feelings. One relevant practice, however, is the "dream-chanting" of Charlie Morrow which he learned from studies with American Indians - a practice which could have its roots way back in time. Here, dreams which one feels are important are re-told by means of freely improvised song. But other than this, there is a striking lack of historical evidence.(12) > > ============= > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Iziphonics" > To: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:18 AM > Subject: Odp: Discovery > Hi Carl! I got the CDs! THANK YOU! I will listen to them in the evening, unless I spend another night at studio (it's a crazy time in term of amount of > work). Regarding to your remark. You hit the nose! That's it, but also more. The most "precious" thing about it is that you trespass beyond the what you do together. Some kind od of "independent" value. More over I start thinking of the diferences between intuitive and free improvised music. I don't write you about it yet, > because I have to settle everything in my head, but it may be interesting to clearly separate the to two. Such divide may also useful in our discussion regarding parallel and group voice improvisation. Waht about Parallel= free improvised, gruop voice= intuitive? :))) I will write more about (and not only about it, 'cause many things emerged in my head) leter. Thanks again! Izi ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 11:00 PM Subject: Discovery > Hello Andrzej, > just a remark: I stumbled over a good old recording with my group. > During listening I thought "oh, we're wonderfully different". This has > something to do with the instructions of the piece. Then I discovered it is probably a perfect instance of your point about the blessing of Parallel Voices! So, well, yes, it's important to really be oneself during playing, not just going half the way as if saying "well, well, oh, mmm" and the like! And this double thing, being allowed to be oneself and being together, is a great thing about improvisation. > best, > Carl > ==================== > CBN suggests: make a slight difference in fighting World Hunger - click > every day at http://thehungersite.com > > Hi again! As I wrote in my previous letter I had crash in my comp, and only now I got your letter back. I read it again with attantion and pleasure. Well I haven't had a lot of time to think over all the aspects you wrote about, but there are at least several things I'd like to regard to. 1. do we see immanent features independent of values? Hmmm it's always a hard question. It's easier to answer, if we should do. From the "scientific"-observer's point of view yes. From musician-creator's no. That's why I tried to find both pros and cons of both ways of improvising. Pointing immantent features could distance us from our music preferences and choices. I hope to frame it more strictly in future. 2. Reading Tom Nunn's book [...] he distinguishes free improvised music from traditional practises (with fixed forms) and from minimalism. Would you agree with this latter thing - do you see a connection between your liking for the parallel voices - approach and minimalism, or are they two different things for you ?? It's not perfectly clear for me what you mean by traditional practices. Are that form as makam or raga or rather composed music forms? I could agree with the first option. As to minimal music, it may seem this way, but it's only partially true. I played with one of the "fathers" of minimal- Terry Riley and we both were rather disappointed with the miting :))) Repetitive aproach in improvisation (you can hear wonderful examples in Evan Parker's solo things) is only a "way" to achive certain "form", while minimal music composers seem to treat repetitions as a value itself. I mean there's no room for improvisation nor variation which is preambular for an improviser. In my work I pointed several sources of genesis of Free Improvisation. The main is meeting of post jazz (afro-american) tradition. Here we can see influence of musician like Coltrane, Ayler, Coleman or Taylor. And European contemporary music with aleatorism, graphical scores, musical happening or performance art. Further going we may see strong influance (that should already be seen rather as a way of development of free improvisation since it's present rather from '70s) of ethnic / traditional music (Parker, Kowald, Leo Smith, then a big number of strictly traditional performers), electronic and rock music (know Derek Bailey's things with Laswell or The Ruins? I would also incorporate here some of Sonic Youth members works). All of the lines are represented both by gruop and parallel voice approaches. 3. Well, I don't see the group voice approach as linear creation - rather as creating irregular "people rhythms" (cf. Christian Wolff's discoveries) and free associations producing chain-reactions of extremely individual phenomena in characteristic cases, as well as unique forms of group phenomena. I can say exactly the same about parallel improvisation, with the differance of vertical vs. horizontal point of view. :)) Have you tried the exercise I wrote you about sometime ago? It's a perfect practice to notice how do people differ one form the other in feeling of the rhythm. Of course it's just an exercise and in practice you always find certain common factor among the other musicians, but still idea remains- your thought as a whole superimposed over the other toughts not "filtered" through them. 4. Seems we might touch something "immanent" and important here: isn't this "overall form-friendly" approach of Parallel Voices approach indicative of the endaevour to make things last, the other being more about free associations ? This could a more general issue, stasis and change - and, in the last end, their nescessary interrelation. It could lead on to a lot of comparisons. What do you think, is the desire to make things manifest and last important for your Parallel approach ? Let me think a bit longer about it, 'cause firstly I would agree with you, but after a while I have doubts. Particularly when you write that group approach is more about free association. I'm not convinced if it's MORE about it. Look, the parallel approach is the one that assumes bigger independence (thus also freedom of asssociation) ain't it? But let me settle everything well again. I will certainly come back to this issuse next time. Regards! Izi ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:57 PM Subject: Re: CDs Hello Andrzej, I'm also delighted about the discussion! Your exercise proposal and comments to that sounds interesting - I'd like to try it, then I could report later !! (Next possibility rehearsal in January I think). Yes, the good/bad - approach could seem simplifying, although it looks for both sides and is maybe practical for discussion ... if you feel like re-writing the scheme with more immanent features, I'd love to see it :-) (Then comes the methodic question, do we see immanent features independent of values ... :- ) ) There's an important difference between saying "group approach" and, as Couldry does, "group voice approach" (in the singular .... while he says "parallel voices", in the plural). With "group voice approach", one says that the group is like one voice, not nescessarily making an opposition to the other kind of approach. (Funnily, comparable to old hoquetus, if you heard about that, or to Schoenberg's idea of Klangfarbenmelodie) I'm glad that you value the group aspect also, despite all disagreements! Seems "cold spaghetti" could be more or less the same as "music that doesn't swing and feels dull" ? It is not easy to create terminology everybody can agree on, but it's fun and maybe even useful to try... (good old project of philosophy! :-) ). Reading Tom Nunn's book Wisdom of the Impulse, also very much concerned with terminology, could tell you more later ... he distinguishes free improvised music from traditional practises (with fixed forms) and from minimalism. Would you agree with this latter thing - do you see a connection between your liking for the parallel voices - approach and minimalism, or are they two different things for you ?? Well, I don't see the group voice approach as linear creation - rather as creating irregular "people rhythms" (cf. Christian Wolff's discoveries) and free associations producing chain-reactions of extremely individual phenomena in characteristic cases, as well as unique forms of group phenomena. To my listening, the 3rd track on DIMC 97 CD (the one with the coloured fingerprints on the sleeve) succeeds in this - what do you think about that recording ? (Don't remember - do you have any of mine and which...) Thesis-antithesis-synthesis, as you mention, could be a hint at a possible "musical logic". Seems, 1+1=2 logic belongs to the demonstrative minimalism of Tom Johnson, if you know that...(and then, maybe his point is something more subtle...) You concede that Group voice approach could be good in "breaking out of form approach" while also mentioning "looking for "perfection" in form" as something positive. Seems we might touch something "immanent" and important here: isn't this "overall form-friendly" approach of Parallel Voices approach indicative of the endaevour to make things last, the other being more about free associations ? This could a more general issue, stasis and change - and, in the last end, their nescessary interrelation. It could lead on to a lot of comparisons. What do you think, is the desire to make things manifest and last important for your Parallel approach ? Talking on! Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: Iziphonics To: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 1:19 PM Subject: Odp: CDs Hi Carl! (...) Very interesting discussion indeed! I'm really delighted! Let me start form the end of your letter. The teaching technique. There is one which I find extremly effective and not only for beginners. When there are several musicians practising let them play, say 5 notes constantly. Each should play the other notes, constantly the same, in a kind of free ostinato style. They shouldn't much to each other in tempo or tune. It's important not to take care about what the others play as long as you're absolutly convinced to what you play. Then your mind starts "reading" your part in a broader contex of the other parts. It's amazing how it opens up your perception to different forms, forms that wouldn't propably appear if you stated inventing them :)) You wrote that you found "paralel improvisation" (let's use this term, I buy it!) static. Hmmmmmmm... it's completly opposite. Let me mention pictureous example. As children most of us used to play with various colourful candy papers, putting them together, lookin' throught them and enjoying the changes. It's a bit this way, but you have only one paper, the others have another. There's no fun if you put them in raw, the play begins when you superimpose them. This the main idea I find in "parallel" improvisation. Of course it requires a bit different approach in listening as well, but there's nothing like wasting each others' energies and context doesn't really metters, because the aim is to create a context. As to Sonus Akrobata (that project with timpanii). It's fully consciouss parallel process. The kind of process doesn't neglegate listening to each other, but depends on building a form (sic!!) of .... parallel voices. Yes it is a bit like baroque music, but rather in terms on approach of structure not in terms of aesthetics.. the material we are using is completly different. I do really like and appreciate your sistematic approach. It's very similar to mine, so I would like to join filling your schema (although it would be more more comfortable to collect immanent rather than valuating features) GROUP VOICE (CONSTRUCTION/DECONSTRUCTION - CALL/RESPONSE) APPROACH Good: breakin' out from form approach, interaction seemly causing modifications in others' ideas. Bad: elements become too alike, depending on "1+1=2" creativity (rationalizm of creation, that's propably what you meant writting about wasting energies) PARALLEL VOICES APPROACH Good: synergic creation (seen as opposite to "1+1=2"), widening of perception, looking for "perfection" in form, Bad: sometimes less communicative on "surface-level" "Cold spaghetti" regards rather to the form that call/response approach evokes (I don't like "group approach" term, 'cause it suggests that parallel is not group appraoch and it clearly IS). I would like to regard to this passage too: "Trying to describe good sides of the group approach, I could say that it does justice to the idea that new music is a possibly complex sonic universe in which one can go from any place to any other place. Old music with its harmonics was more like unchanging "objects" (with a Cage metapher, like furniture), with fixed roles of melodi, bass etc. If the music is built up by means of dialogue, parts and whole become integrated, and it really seems the way to make collective changes possible. also fast ones, like chain-reactions. And it seems dialogue is the form of collective exploration." I think parallel improvisation accents the aspect of "music as complex sonic universe" even stronger. You can see in as non linear creation. I agree that dialogue is a form of collective exploration (all and all it's what we do discussing this subject), but process of musical (specially free improvisation) improvisation hides certain trap. It's asemantic. There's nothing like thesis- antyhesis (or continuation)- conclusion. Carl! It's really great for my to discuss such aspects with you! I haven't had many opportnities for such constructive (I hope also for you) clashes. I will certainly thing about it further to make out schema of parallel / call-response approach grow. Regards! Andrzej PS. No I haven't got any of your recordings. ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:19 AM Subject: Re: CDs Hello Andrjez, I've finally come to listening to the recordings you sent me! I like the variation of textures in your sampler CD- certainly changing a lot through all the recordings in which you participate. And the openness of sound through integration of noises with pure tones, through irreular rhythms that make a flow and a life of its own, also the pointillistic way allowing for transparency in both counterpoint and in progressing from split-second to the next. Enjoyable processes... Concerning discussion, it looks like we're having a clash that seems very interesting! We work in exactly opposite ways and believe in each others' opposites as the safer and better method! So yes please, when you have the time, I'd like to hear even more from you about this. In the meantime, I'll try to continue. I know them also from Nick Couldry's book on English improvised music where he calls them "group voice" and "parallel voices"-approaches, and I'm familiar with them from practise and listening and even previous discussions. It's really different "schools" of improvised music and extremely important both of them. This might be the summing up right now of what you said: GROUP VOICE (CONSTRUCTION/DECONSTRUCTION - CALL/RESPONSE) APPROACH Good: ? Bad: elements become too alike, thus "cold spaghetti" (did I get this right?) PARALLEL VOICES APPROACH Good: of course it's good Bad: ? Each method could be seen as having its good sides as well as drawbacks. It even seems to me the group voice approach is functioning very beautyfully for instance in the first cutting of your sampler, with interaction between your guitar playing and the timpani glissandi ... or in the third one in which you clearly seem to inspire each other into a slower and more relaxed state than before. Trying to describe good sides of the group approach, I could say that it does justice to the idea that new music is a possibly complex sonic universe in which one can go from any place to any other place. Old music with its harmonics was more like unchanging "objects" (with a Cage metapher, like furniture), with fixed roles of melodi, bass etc. If the music is built up by means of dialogue, parts and whole become integrated, and it really seems the way to make collective changes possible. also fast ones, like chain-reactions. And it seems dialogue is the form of collective exploration. This was my own big discovery in 1971. I worked with compositions, but playing in a group was different - everything I "said" musically could be reflected instantly in many interesting ways by the others, and the common creation lead to a lot of interesting places. In comparison, composition was a monologue - to be reserved for special purposes. But collective improvisation was the new form, in terms of musical "truth", epistemology and nearly everything else... One good example I like to quote is the third track on our 1997 DIMC CD. Couldry mentions Phil Durrant as an exponent. And I think also some very nice old recordings with Derek Bailey/Trevor Watts/John Stevens from 1974 could serve as examples. Funny - the group approach often combines with pointillistic playing. However, we both practise that! Now, there is also some parallel playing I like. Beginning of Evan Parker's "Synergetics" festival with a bagpipe-like instrument playing very traditionally for several minutes, then Parker comes in with sounding garlands around it, and interesting combined structures begin to grow up... "without ever strangulating the starting-point", as I wrote in a review. This was also important to Parker, as can be seen from his metapher about it: "cheese and pickle sandvich" (did you ever taste that ?? else, try to imagine!!). And, I'm happy to say, the other CD you sent me is also an example of this approach succeeding - very convincing to me because of the very good individual energies. But well, generally I tend to see the parallel approach as leading to rather static, maybe monumental, kinds of structure. Maybe like in the baroque aesthetic (as with Georg Friedrich Handel...) with the "unity of affect". Also, in those cases which are not the best ones (this could be the case even with Bailey sometimes), I get the feeling that those playing just do what comes through their mind, without really minding the context and wasting each others' energies, and then, what's the point of playing together when the material of new music very well allows us to be alone and play solo if we really wish. But there must be a reason that so many of us like to play in groups anyway! This could lead on to the question, what would you do if you were a teacher with a group of absolute beginners who just play a lot without being critical about the musical qualities of what comes out ? (I can tell you my strategies later!). Did I ever send you any recording with my music ... getting time to do it, I think, please let me know if you have anything in advance. Now I've attempted to say a little more and add to the "good/bad" - scheme of both methods and just a tiny bit of polemics. And please let me hear more from you about the parallel approach! Talking on, and let's take the time nescessary... Carl
We work in exactly opposite ways and believe in each others' opposites as the safer and better method!
Carl
Fra: "Iziphonics" Til: "Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK)" Emne: Odp: CDs Dato: 23. oktober 2003 08:13 Hi! (...) As to the construction- deconstruction thing. Some of improvisors seem to need a kind of inspiration coming from inside of the band and try to get a musical communication on the very basic level (I even met musicians thinking that if they use this call and response menner of improvisation, they prove that they listen to the others, thus are better musicians :))) Well no need to say that such improvisations are mostly both boring and not really creative. Usually a sort of "cold spaghetti" (a thing impossible to untie) emerges. I regard such way of improvising as rows of constructions and deconstructions of certain motifs/ideas. As opposite or rather alternative way of improvising I see what I call processual improvising. There musicians keep on develpoing their own ideas superimposing them over the ideas of the other musicians. This way something like polyphony appears. I can easly hear it in Derek Bailey's, Evan Parker's or Kowald's music. (...) With the very best regards! Andrzej Izdebski
Some of improvisors seem to need a kind of inspiration coming from inside of the band and try to get a musical communication on the very basic level (I even met musicians thinking that if they use this call and response menner of improvisation, they prove that they listen to the others, thus are better musicians :))) Well no need to say that such improvisations are mostly both boring and not really creative.
Izi
----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: CDs Hello Andrjez, (...) This sounds interesting, but I don't understand at all - maybe you could say it again with a little different words ?? As to construction - deconstruction, I mean mostly a relationship not the turn of the processes. The interactive approach to improvisation is more less that I think about. It's always tricky for me to play with people having this approach (listening is also not very comfortable :)). (...) best wishes! Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: Iziphonics To: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 4:52 PM Subject: Odp: CDs Carl! (...) As to construction - deconstruction, I mean mostly a relationship not the turn of the processes. The interactive approach to improvisation is more less that I think about. It's always tricky for me to play with people having this approach (listening is also not very comfortable :)). As to Kowald- yes he had a kind of jazz background (it's more-less the same aetsthetics that e.g. Evan Paker, Brotzmann or Sommer represent), but what he played is really far from free jazz. If you are not in Peter's music I highly recommend you his bass solo recordings (as Was Da Ist on FMP), they are real high-lights of free improvised music for me. He also played on some legendary sessions as Brotzmann's Machine Gun or with Schlippenbach Orchestra. (...) Best!!!!!!!!! Izi ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) To: Iziphonics Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 7:22 PM Subject: Re: CDs Hello Andrzej, (...) "Construction-deconstruction" ... or maybe deconstruction - construction ... as I hear the first improvisation of the Astreja CD, they play rather simple elements in a manner bordering to ostinato but not being ostinato - things change usually in small steps if they really change, and musicians take pauses enough to be able to answer each other... sympathetic to me and kind of very basic approach, although I personally have a special liking for what I see as "free associations". Heard only the first one yet. Don't recall Kowald exactly right now, I might have some recordings with him, hasn't he a freejazz background... that would be different, having a sort of expressionistic dimension Astreja doesn't have. (...) very best! Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: Iziphonics To: Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (DK) Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:36 PM Subject: CDs Tell me is this Early Brown stuff really improvised? If so it's one of the best things I have ever heard. Generally even if it's composed it's very good as well. 60' were amazing time for arts indeed. I'm not really into Astyrjas things yet. I have to listen to it again. You know the recording has already let me understand much better what I heard in Russia. I played with some musicians still being in this kind of aesthetics (e.g. Makarov and Letov), it's much more..say construction-deconstruction method of improvising and it's quite different from this "processual" way of improvising that I learned from e.g. Kowald. But anyway I have to spend more time listening to it. Did you get my CDs? Best and thanks again!! Izi

Email Discussions
Back to Carl Bergstrøm-Nielsen's Favourite literature/own writings...
Back to Intuitive Index