Four CCC students (two tenors, drums, and trumpet) performed
three different improvisations.The first one, which I sat in on, featured a
recurring pitch center that everyone orbited around, each musician occasionally
touching the pitch, but never settling completely on it. This approach created
a cyclical sense of phrasing was neither static nor too predictable. The second
improvisation was longer with clearly delineated sections. Some of these
sections were arguably too long, which was a good talking point. Knowing when
to stop playing is one of the hardest things to do in free improvisation! This
particular improvisation led the students to discover the possibilities of
impromptu duos, trios, and soloists. Ken and I both suggested that this improvisation
had many good ideas and that an improvisation like this one, if recorded or
notated in some way, could be used to construct a more “formal” composition. In
the last improvisation, I suggested that the students play for no more than
10-30 seconds, and to play loud! In relating to this, Ken commented that not
every improvisation needs to start softly or sparsely, but that a variety of
basic initial concepts (loud, soft, fast, slow) can be used to begin an
improvisation. It has been my experience that people who identify themselves as free improvisers don’t necessarily feel the need to identify and categorize the music specifically as jazz. In fact, many distance themselves from the label entirely. My question is, what does it do to categorize this music as jazz? Perhaps it changes people’s opinions about it (positively and negatively), or maybe to label it “not jazz” serves to shore up the boundaries of what jazz is by some people’s measures. I think both are true, but believe that by categorizing free improvisation as jazz it runs the risk of being misunderstood. For example, free improvisation cannot necessarily be evaluated by many of the same criteria that might be appropriate for bebop or swing styles, e.g., swing feel, playing the changes, and motivic development to name a few. Instead, assessment for free improvisation may rely more on factors such as how well performers inter-relate, how do performers move from section to section, and how effectively do performers of free improvisation create textures. Development of a player’s technical language, that is, his or her personal vocabulary of contemporary sounds, is also a possible area for evaluation. Also, if free improvisation is labeled as jazz the label itself may become a subtle barrier for musicians who might improvise but who do not play jazz or have jazz backgrounds. Why should free improvisation be so exclusive? This, I feel, is one of the basic problems of teaching improvised music in most colleges and universities (and certainly in students in high school and even younger): the tacet assumption that improvisation equals jazz, and if you don’t play a “jazz” instrument, i.e., a standard big band instrument, you are excluded from participating not only in jazz traditions, but improvisation entirely! I've seen this happen with many of my high school aged flute students.
In light of all of these things, I think it would be helpful for all of us, performers, educators, and listeners alike, to broaden our listening and involvement in improvised music. To help in this, there are organizations that promote improvised music such as ISIM and the Creative Music Guild. I am most familiar with them, but I'm certain there are many others across the globe. It's important to remember that there exists a vast network of performers from all backgrounds who participate in improvised music making. These artists may not be well-known celebrities, but many of them have been slogging it out for years, perfecting their craft, and bringing amazing sounds to the world. Seek them out, they are well worth listening to!
