MIRIAM STURZENEGGER the article "free improvisation is at the end?" By Thomas Meyer and the many reactions of free improvising musicians
As a visual artist, maintains, however, a close contact with a variety of free improvisers, I have experienced the intense discussions among fellow musicians by Thomas Meyers article and its political consequences and the first to see the reactions before I even the Article had even read. I made up for it and found after I was initially very critical, notes that the article has indeed triggered dangerous, such as hires, but very interesting and relevant considerations, which are perhaps not explained clearly enough. I am pleased
on the many responses on the part of the musicians who argue some very sound and are evidence of a committed self-confidence. Personally, I'm reading the article thinking about an issue that would make it clearer what Thomas Meyer really means when he speaks of an end point. This aspect is not explicit enough, unfortunately, the author formulated, which is probably to misunderstanding has performed and given the political entanglements dangerous.
first: The fact that this article of a free criticism on the part of cultural policy, in particular some funding bodies, is reduced to the proposition that free improvisation is at the end (in the sense that nothing more to say) and, subsequently, to justify negative decision is taken on grant applications is unacceptable. (Is tragic also sitting that in the decision-making positions of certain funding bodies who are familiar with the matter about which they have to decide at all, so they must be related in such embarrassing fashion to a critic.)
Very problematic is the second that the author is associated with a Commissioner of the assisted institution, representing a break with the principle of separation of powers. However, I hope that Mr. Meyer does not let this affect by this mandate and I am convinced that he who wrote the article on its own motivation.
I also have to also assume that the author was not aware of how the article would be received in cultural policy, that his words would be such an instrument. That the author with the statement that free improvisation is at the end of this scene, which he has supported for years as a critic, from today to tomorrow will pronouncements of death, I can not imagine simply.
It therefore remains the question: What did the author achieve with this article? And why is so important overlooked: namely, the brisk activity of a diverse scene mention?
I'm not evil intentions, and not think that Meyer wanted to encourage in this way the musicians. The impression left by the reading with me is the rather that Meyer himself as a critic, the question of how appropriate and differentiated in the future, critical and challenging to write and speak about this music is. He wonders where the theoretical discussion is related to practice, or what is today free improvisation. I make the assumption in the room that this article did not mean the end of a musical practice, but the need for new reflection on the basis of the young improvisers.
that this writer as one of the few in this country actively and continuously in the cultural press for the freedom to express improvisation, a critical and multi-voiced discussion misses, I understand very well. I think that a problem of improvisation - is the problematic concept - and the problem of the reception history of Meyer's article. The discourse of free improvisation is actually out, especially among younger generations of musicians, barely, in comparison heavily weighted at about the reflection in the visual arts. Although for concerts, especially in small concert venues such as the out of musicians Mullbau in Lucerne, under the occurring musicians with professional colleagues and outside persons in the audience very intense and even violent, discussions, however, openly and without arrogance about what they hear and beyond . But these calls are not worn down to the field of theory, and the younger musicians discuss among themselves, but are occurring outside rather than speaking or writing to the end. Like the bad experience with theorists underlying lack of practice in the verbal formulation of experience and intentions, or simply lack of interest in the language. In any case, seeming to have a theory from practice, an outward reflection of practice supported by the musicians themselves and thus the active participation in the discourse of education actually are largely missing.
That is one side, on the other are the theorists, critics, under which the discussion of improvisation also held little public - perhaps precisely because an understanding of just demands a lot of participation through listening and speaking about it is not possible by the same language use, in which they talk about compositional principles. Rather, the language for talking about this music to be extended, notwithstanding the musicians must be involved. It is indeed the concepts that shape our ideas and also limit which are sometime too tight or too burdened to be replaced by others, or a redefinition / expansion must undergo.
There lies my opinion, a problem of this article and the discussion that has arisen to do so. The author unfortunately does not differentiate between the different levels at which the concept of free improvisation can be read. The responding musicians have drawn out some very sophisticated and clearly these levels of meaning. Aware of the differences in the discussion to be, is important for the conclusions, the readers of the article draw, and just for the political consequences.
I would now like to briefly distinguish between the articles in anklingenden levels.
On the one made to the historical reference free improvisation, which is then developed as a movement and had great influence on the development of music. As in the visual arts, this was a time when the limits of the Addressing a major concern of the artists was, it was necessary to extend these limits, move to dissolve. This one touched taboos still exist, you inevitably rendered resistance to the bourgeois norms in the cultural understanding, to the academic canon, against Conservative aesthetic ideas. Free improvisation practice or make performance art at that time was a political act, automatically, it was provocative and existential, as it was to enforce the freedom of art to society and to emancipate themselves from the past. Free improvisation was said to violate the bourgeois tastes, so to meet with refusal to be decried as a bad musician, having to fight. Free improvisation was then an ideology for which they gave everything. This is the urgency that was talked about in the article, the revolution was over.
As such, an ideological revolution, this place sure as mentioned. We know that today we can no longer provoke a concert that explores the aesthetic level limits. (Taboos are now elsewhere, such as beyond the political correctness.) Also, provocation today is not the driving force of free improvisation. There is also no reason to do so, the social repression is no longer as strong as ever. Free improvisation as an ideology, as it was then lived, is over.
But the free improvisation is much more than the ideology. As for example, was also spoken by various methods. An operation that is not bound to any particular time or close to a scene. So the musicians who come improvisation as a method To practice from very different areas here, from classical music, jazz, electronics, hip-hop. As a method it can also find other methods are used in combination. And as a method of course it can be taught a bit far, as such, as mentioned, is done at the University of Lucerne. Here, with ways of playing experiments, it is that in the dense curriculum of the course offered a place and hereby Although well with the idea to emphasize the importance of such work as opposed to interpretive play and promote, and not free pulses in a train directing it. This is important in order within our highly structured, performance-oriented universities and professional worlds to maintain an awareness of working in groups, for perception and nonverbal communication.
That the inclusion of improvisation in the university is considered critical, correct and important, because we know that an institutional collection is the best way to weaken rebellious tendencies. But if methods are taught, there remains the improvisational thinking still task of the individual - it can not teach, but do not break even through education.
Besides ideology and method, I see a third form of existence in the free improvisation is still very much alive and contemporary is: the attitude. This is in contrast to the historically dominated ideology, not an explicitly political movement, but a thought, impressed the musicians as people: to their form of confrontation with the perception of space and time and materials to their attention to their pioneering spirit to their need constant fresh start (rightly been in previous texts formulated very nice that an improvisation dies after every game and is born with each new). This position lives incredibly more diverse, with a lot of young musicians, and it continues to develop with time. This attitude have kept the older rabbits, which, like Meyer mentioned, new areas open and productive influences all have contributed.
And precisely because the ideological shackles have now ceased to exist, can the free improvisation as entertainment today develop much broader and more heterogeneous than it was then - it is perhaps in the true sense of freedom, as has become less dogmatic. The freely improvising musicians relate, as mentioned in other essays, most diverse influences with one, does not lead to attenuation of improvisatory thought, but to the constant movement, renewal, diversification and enriching to a heterogeneity. It is true that many musicians now in parallel both in the field of improvisation and composition, and interpretation of Jazz and contemporary music deal that these different activities inspired against each other, but I think less of an artistic inconsistency, but rather a characteristic of our time, for a part because of the stylistic pluralism in art and also of multitasking at work and electronic networking and massive availability at the level of information. It is now easier than improvising musicians have also access to some forms of improvisation, which are traditionally practiced in other nations and so broaden their horizons. I present today a huge curiosity set the tone different material than, and just in response to the cultural and political trends of recent years to categorize all forms of artistic expression, free thinkers develop the desire to evade these clear attributions.
developed in this way on the free improvisation with the times and remains alive, she tries to contact the free and experimental theater, the Spoken Word scene, or for new music - and yes, I am myself as an artist through the narrow exchange was strongly influenced - as visible due to the elimination of ideologies similar aesthetic issues.
Back to Meyer's speech from the end of improvisation and problem of the missing Discourse. Given the previous thoughts to me appears to be a part of the problem lie with the concept, with the way it is used and the unclear declaration of the level of meaning in the text of Meyer.
a clear position that the author would be absolutely necessary to avoid a very active, committed, self-initiative-driven scene misleadingly totzusagen.
But I hear a doubt regarding the terminology of the author and the implied demand for answers from other out: I hear out that Thomas Meyer of the readers, the question is addressed, as today we can speak about the improvisation. I hear his call - both to the musicians as the theorists - for greater discussion of the terms. That he does this is understandable, because as a critic is the terminology to be material, not the sounds are, and thus he will be naturally concerned that they are also on this level does not remain, but critical question: Serve a common expression by that time for a discussion of current practice?
Now you can say as a musician, but that was irrelevant. One such concept to arise sometimes in awe of the younger generation. But these issues have now a new urgency, as well as the music schools in accordance with the educational mandate area research must operate. Thomas Meyer himself is on a research project together with - involved improvising musicians, and as a theorist in the group it is of course strongly on the role of conceptual reflection and positioning - in some cases composing. It would be my opinion, absolutely essential that a process is initiated the concept of education is not only high school intern and out, but has the active scene in the free improvising musicians and positevely influence significantly. Only based on a diverse practice, which may grow to heterogeneous cast a discourse that reflects the diversity of free improvisation meet.
In comparison, it of course in the fine art that artists express themselves verbally to their work can have that they can position themselves in the current context, they develop a language to formulate their ideas. Without this ability, we come as visual artists anywhere, especially today when we mostly manage themselves. This awareness of the reflective level of creativity is not new, have always been artists have also written, discussed, published texts. As a result, the discussion is to terms, their applicability and relevance far more intense, sometimes it moves too much in focus, and hinders the open look. The conceptual reflection also helps to bring current work to earlier, similar trends motivated in terms of which to define and update in a new context of time.
has led the course, with all sharpening of the reflection, even to a flood of well-defined art forms, which in practice are then much too narrow. For instance, they now - perhaps similar to the improvised music - many artists a complex, heterogeneous activity at interfaces between genres, from art and other disciplines and beyond decidedly an assignment, but no longer looking for itself but a way of speaking .
So I hope for the freely improvising musicians that they maintain the openness and activity, that they seek but also the discourse, mitentwickeln and aware of are: free improvisation can - as the ideological notion - perhaps be passed, but as think it remains relevant today. And the free improvisation may also wonder what today its urgency, its social necessity: because this is certainly not remained the same as then, it is no longer in tearing down the boundaries of music, but it is a necessity. I strongly suspect at about the level of attention and concentration for a moment, perhaps a very slight, very slow moment in the ability to engage in something that is not in the outset white can control and not in the fact that only the physical encounter, the uniqueness of coincident spatial, temporal, emotional, mental conditions, certain musical experience allows .
As mentioned at the beginning: that the young free improvisers stand back from a wide discussion rather to Thomas Meyer is probably right. The fact that he won with a single word (!) The existence of this large dynamic scene with young musicians dedicated to persevering the free improvisation, as mentioned, I take it very, very bad. For that he is paving the Way for a disastrous misinterpretation of his article by music funding institutions. I personally visit an average of three to four times a month a concert in Mullbau in Lucerne, here are soloists, duos, trios, I already know and those who provide for me again and again new discoveries, and I was surprised even more every time I hear again again other than what I expected and is aimed at the intensive exchange of ideas that I have as an artist was experiencing with the musicians in the last three years, without in any way.
Thomas Meyer I ask from my heart, and finally, once and future as often as possible to come to the concerts in the Mullbau (recommending the same I told him for the concerts that are organized in Biel, Lausanne, Geneva, etc.), because he will be surprised how much there is to discover it there. And I am happy to discuss with him and the musicians present.
Cause I'm still not sure about what he wanted to achieve with his article, and that would interest me but a lot.
Sincerely
Miriam Sturzenegger
