- Part of 'A topology of musical encounter' (summary) -
The completed state of a movement away from the known personal reality of music, towards a shared role of all musicians near to the collective centre is what I call a homogeneous collaboration. In this case the collaboration has led every participant to take a position that is further attached from his initial standpoint, and that resembles a close connection to all the others and requires a subtle balance between the musicians. Maybe this state can be best compared to the close brotherhood that can exist between string-quartets that play long and intensively together, or pop-bands, whose musical quality is for the large part dependent on this togetherness. One could think that this situation will only occur when the click of musicians coming together is exceptionally ‘right’. I do believe in most cases such a collective situation would develop out of a careful process and therefore would require a longer working period to come together, but if such a potential is present it will somehow be apparent from an early point on and can develop into a pretty homogeneous collective quite quickly. I emphasize that this balanced state of collaboration is not per definition more interesting than a primitive positional collaboration and is not to be confused with synthesis and innovation, which can occur on any level in the working process. A close harmony between musicians can be extraordinary and beautiful, but might lack a challenge. When a collective has clear differences on the surface more tension is present and therefore a chance for musical confrontation is more likely. Such oppositions can cause great musical excitement, while a very homogeneous state of encounter could be rather flat or even dull.
I can clarify this by illustrating the development in my collaboration with percussionist Mamour Seck. Already quickly I found out that he wasn’t going to play what I asked him verbally. If we would rehearse a song, and I would tell this is the way to play the rhythm he did it more or less, but the next rehearsal he would easily come up with a totally different idea, and didn’t see the point why this would be less than the other option. I found that communication with him about intention and form was not productive and decided to minimize spending words on the music. I would give some basic instructions about the sequence and tempo of the composition and let him go. What he contributed was more brilliant than what I could have imagined beforehand, and finally we did manage to fix ideas that somehow kept a balance between both of our musical intuition. I achieved this not by any instruction, but simply by looking at him while he was playing. He would look back and, as if by magic, he would be able to directly translate what seemed in my opinion needed to change or add. This is for me the archetype of a collaboration that develops into a homogeneous state. I was able to give the space for him to contribute the best of his musical skills, while at the same time I could handle his position in the eventual composition I conceived.
To continue reading choose your next page below..
No comments:
Post a Comment