Many jazz musicians discuss improvising in terms of conversation. There is a constant give-and-take on the bandstand. Personally, I don’t know which I enjoy more: good conversation or good improvising. I do know that I can’t stand playing with ‘energy thieves’. We all have them in our lives. They are people who prattle on endlessly about their own problems and agendas and leave little or no room for you to get a word in edgewise or feel cared about. There is is nothing worse that working with a musician who shares this mindset. What do you do in those situations?
I talk about conversation in my Doctoral dissertation Improvisation and the Politics of Error. Here is a short excerpt.
Fondly,
Patrick
1.1 Paralysis by Analysis?
Recall a time when you improvised with a group of musicians. You had a clear idea of what you wanted to play in your minds ear. Yet upon execution, something occurred that affected your original intent. In the time between thought and action, the musical texture may have shifted, making your gesture a less than ideal fit for the musical moment. One, some or all of the following occurs: someone unexpectedly stops playing; you make a wrong fingering or your stick slipped from your hand; there is feedback; you have a squeaky reed; or there may be some type of audience or environmental interference. Whatever the case, you are faced with the task of mediating the immediate. Out of the panoply of possible next steps, one is selected. Do you continue with your original idea, or adapt to the newly minted situation? Your next decision was, quite precisely, a decision: a determination arrived at after consideration. In every performance situation, this process cycles into the next musical moment, and so forth. Jazz musicians make thousands of decisions in the course of performance.
The above sequence of events can be re-contextualized as a conversation. Conversation is one of the most significant metaphors for improvisation. Imagine you are at a party listening to two friends discuss a pending vacation. Again, you have a clear idea of what you want to contribute to their conversation. Perhaps you know a hotel where they are going and you would like to recommend it. Yet upon uttering your phrase, something affects your original intent. By the time you get a word in, in that ephemeral space between thought and action, one, some, or all of the following occurs: the conversational topic may shift; someone else joins the group; the doorbell rings; someone spills a glass of wine. Whatever the case, something occurs that makes your conversational gesture a less than ideal fit for the moment. Do you follow through or hold back? Can you be comfortable in the silence of holding back? If you don’t hold back, can you assert yourself in such a way that the gesture can make sense? Riding the wave of conversation, deciding what to say or not say next, is very similar to riding the wave of improvisation in music-making.