I had relatively interesting debate with my aunt the other day about art. My position was that nothing can top the potential or end result of pure improvisation in the moment because when ever you begin the creative process under a set and classified boundary, that preexisting structure takes away from possibilities which may arise and be called for in any given moment. For example, I said that though choreography is an art which I respect, the interpretation of that choreography by the dancers limits the potential of the performance in the moment due to the set guidelines in place, however loose those guidelines may be. I understand that it is an idealist position, but most philosophy is just that.

My aunt, having gone to acting school and having read from scripts before, believed that one could achieve the same results and feel as though they had the same creative input as any improvisation. I disagreed, but we are talking about something as thin as the fibers of artistic potential, so it is difficult to be sure.

She pointed to the collaboration of artists and stated that there was nothing lost in those instances. I agreed, but but drew the distinction between collaboration and what I call creative dependence, where by the creativity of an individual was dependent on the prior creativity of another.

I stated that this is the reason I enjoy jazz so much and said that, "Music is the purest form of art, and jazz the purest form of music; thus, jazz is the purest form of art." I enjoy jazz because much of, if not all of it is improv. I then stated that even in the case of jazz, if I, for example, were to be told to play a song in Bebop for any future moment, that moment may not call for a Bebop song and that limiting myself to a structure would limit the possible results. Thus, I said that the only way to truly capture the moment in music would be to play free jazz and lose all concepts of constraint.

Now I understand that every moment is the structure for the ensuing moment, but to define that moment is to give it an unneccesary structure which limits the potential, or at least that is what I think.

Though I was not convinced by her argument, I came to the conclusion that all art is really improvization and that those moments which appear to have structure called for that structure in that moment. Then again, to go into the moment with a set idea of what should be done artistically is to lose everything you think shouldn’t. This led me to abstract that concept and say, "History is a series of improvisations which we distinguish by these things called lives."

What do you think? And don’t say "I think you’re crazy!" please.
People have mentioned structure in jazz citing chords, harmonics,… etc. While it is structure, I would qualify it as an innate structure of music much like gravity is a structure of the universe. I’ve heard many jazz musicians, when talking about jazz students coming out on the scene, say they are going to need to "unlearn" a lot of what they learned in school. Why do you think that is? Also, musicians learn that "structure" to forget it — they don’t think about it. There are numerous great musicians, jazz and not, who knew little to nothing of music theory, Wes Motgomery being one of them.

No one seemed to touch on anything I specifically mentioned in description other than jazz.

I’ll try and sum it up in a single question:
If creativity could be quantified, would the structure created by the author (choreographer, writer..etc) limit the dynamic potential of the performance of the interpreter (dancer, actor…etc) and thus, lessen the artistic/creative potential?




Subscribe to My Newsletter For Cool Saxophone Tips

Get Helpful Tips And Advice On Playing, Practicing And Maintaining Your Saxophone

Powered by Subscribers Magnet