Improvising the technically pedestrian choreography

“While improvisation initially offered Jones a reprieve from the demands of technical training…” – page 115 from I Want To Be Ready by Danielle Goldman.

This quote refers to the choreographer Bill T. Jones. While it may be true that improvisation did offer Jones a respite from the rigors of technical training, I find that this statement sets up, or rather is indicative of an old and antiquated antagonistic binary about improvisation and technique.

I would say that good improvisation requires technical training.  The opposite of improvisation is choreography.  And to do choreography doesn’t require technical training but merely memory.

A dancer’s relationship to time, i.e., improvisation or choreographed, has nothing to do with technical training.  Choreography can be technical or not, improvisation can be technical or not. Though, I would posit that untechnical improvisation isn’t improvisation, but merely futzing about, regardless of how enthusiastic it is. Choreography, on the other hand, is merely remembering a sequence of events.

Technical, pedestrian, improvised, choreographic…one does not imply the otherScreen Shot 2015-11-19 at 6.29.36 PM

Visual Presentation

“I think that, maybe unlike a lot of other improvisational people, I’m very visually oriented and very interested in presentation.”

from Kent De Spain’s thesis quoting one of the dancers in his study

Vowels

There is no “i” in choreography.

Improvisation begins with “u”.

Three Principle Senses of Choreography

Within the scope of theater dance, one finds three principle senses of choreography: the set of embellishments left to the individual artist to select from during an improvisation; choreography as a process of setting movement to then invent original material from during an improvisation; and choreography for its own sake that is brought to a high level of performance.

-a slight rewording of Curtis Carter’s three principle senses of improvisation. From pg.182 of The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 2000.

Is CI a Cunningham chance operation?

‘The dancers are called on not to express a particular emotion, or set of emotions, but instead to develop refined coping mechanisms for creating continuity between disarticulated movements while remaining sensitive to their location in space. They must keep time without musical cues; sense the presence of the other dancers on stage; know blindly proprioceptively, what these other dancers are doing; and adjust the the timing and scope of their movements accordingly, thereby expressing the “human condition” at hand. All this work is “expressive”-it belongs to the “category of expression”-insofar as it is demanded by a human situation on a stage and insofar as human situations on stages (or otherwise) constitute an embodied response to the present moment, an embodied response to the utterly unique conditions of existence at one given point in time.’ – Noland, C 2010, ‘The Human Situation on Stage: Merce Cunningham, Theodor Adorno, and the Category of Expression’, Dance Research Journal, 1, p. 55

In this quote, Noland is referring to Cunningham dancers dealing with the re-ordering of set phrase material.  When she writes (or otherwise), she could be referring to a contact improvisation jam.  I think it is a very apt description of an silent CI jam. In CI jams, dancers are constantly “using refined coping mechanisms for creating continuity between disarticulated movements while remaining sensitive to their location in space.”  [Though, how much contacters are actually aware of the whole space is open for debate! IMHO]

What people do at CI jams is, I would say, “an embodied response to the present moment, an embodied response to the utterly unique conditions of existence at one given point in time.” [Though, how much is actually an embodied response and not actually another iteration of habit is also open for debate. IMHO]

Are Cunningham choreographies that are governed by chance operations a contact improvisation jam?

Are contact improvisation jams a piece of choreography by Cunningham?

Paxton danced for Cunningham, after all.

Heart and Soul

Paraphrasing Schuller and Duke-

‘”Improvisation is the heart and soul of [contact improvisation].” However, [contact improvisation] is not the heart and soul of improvisation, and they are definitely not one and the same.’ – John Henry Duke, Teaching Musical Improvisation: A Study of 18th and 20th Century Methods, pg. 16

Channeled Consciously

“The meaning for me is the truth involved in this: one artist creating spontaneously something which is governed by the atmosphere, the audience, the place (both the room  and the geographical location), the instrument; all these being channeled consciously through the artist so that everyone’s efforts are rewarded, although the success or failure belongs completely to the artist himself.  The artist is responsible for every second.

In a group this is not true, nor should it be true.  One is firstly responsible to the other players and so the cycle is not quite complete, not quite pure.  Nobody knows exactly whose fault or responsibility, failure, or success it is because of the nature of a group and the complexities involved.  One does not have the communion with the audience because one is having communion with the rest of the group.” – Keith Jarrett, from the liner notes for Solo-Concerts Bremen Lausanne

Today I bought Keith Jarrett’s Solo-Concerts Bremen Lausanne CD.  I don’t know much about his music, haven’t heard much of it.  I listened to a story a few days ago on, I think, NPR about the album of his solo concert in Cologne and then walked by the Dussmann shop on Friedrichstrasse and saw several of his albums for sale.  Couldn’t find the Köln one, so I bought this one.  Listening to it right now, the part from Lausanne.  Around 23:00 some great music happens and continues to about 29:00.  A wonderful vein that he explores.

I really like some things he says in the above quote –

  • something which is governed by the atmosphere, the audience, the place (both the room  and the geographical location), the instrument
  • channeled consciously through the artist
  • Nobody knows exactly whose fault or responsibility, failure, or success it is

What I like the most is the word consciously.  Too often, I think, people associate spontaneous and improvised with unconscious.  I have no interest in watching someone who is unconscious.

Something I don’t agree with or don’t understand is the success or failure belongs completely to the artist himself.  The artist is responsible for every second.  I do not believe that the success or failure of a piece lies completely with the artist.  The artist can’t know what the audience likes and doesn’t; knows and doesn’t know and, I would say, can’t be held responsible for the success or failure of a piece.  Well, in his or her eyes/ears/mind, yes, but not in the audiences.

But the artist is responsible for every second because s/he is the one active agent in the artist-audience relationship.  Maybe active is the wrong word.  Maybe expressive in that the artist is putting something out and the audience is absorbing it.  But if we are to take his earlier statement that the atmosphere and the audience govern what the artist is creating then the audience is partly responsible.  Though at the moment of execution, the artist is the one deciding what happens.

What cycle is Jarrett talking about in the second paragraph?  Is he referring to the cycle of atmosphere, audience, etc. affecting the artist who is then in turn affecting the atmosphere, audience, etc which then in turn affect the artist which then in turn…?  So then does the group or ensemble communion affect connection to the audience?  I would agree, and maybe this is why ensemble improvisation can seem insular or self indulgent because the artists are paying more attention to each other than to the audience.  Hmm…, but I am speaking from a dance artist’s perspective and not a music artist’s perspective.

Whatever he means, I’m going to listen to more of his music.

ps: pardon the bad syntax.