Post for Class #1

In our discussion of improvisation in class the other day, I was particularly intrigued by Dr. Porter’s “mythbusting” approach to chaotic theory—both in terms of the origins of human culture, as well as the origins of the art of improvisation. It has always been hard for me to accept the theory that humans were once just a disorganized, jumbled, free-for-all species. If such was the case, how could these humans be capable of organizing their lives and cultures into something structured, lawful, and productive? The same applies to the art of improvisation—if early improvisation (which is often attributed to the New Orleans/Dixieland style, though it has been made clear that it existed much earlier in Western musical traditions) had no structure or foundation, was basically chaotic, and was still appreciated, why would musicians begin to apply more rigid musical rules and structures? I suppose one could argue that such an augmentation in improvisational strictness could have resulted from a desire to gain entry among the musical elite, for structure and rules provide a foundation for further analysis and performance study. However, it seems much more likely that people just like to hear primitive-to-sophisticated, rags-to-riches type stories. In a way, such anecdotes or theories create not only the perception of endless possibilities, but also suggest that our culture is constantly advancing itself—always moving up, and never down. Without doubt, such a theory is attractive, which may account for its popularity in regards to the origins of human culture.

Interestingly, the discussions in class led me to realize that instead of moving from free and lawless to rigid and structured, improvisation has almost undergone the opposite process. The free improvisation we experimented with is one of the more recent adaptations of the improvisational art. Ironically, such freedom following structure portrays advancement, while freedom preceding structure portrays primitivism. In a way, such an idea reminds me of the artistic outputs of abstract artists including Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock. What these artists might have created as children, prior to artistic instruction, would likely be considered primitive and childlike. However, having learned the rules of painting and drawing, and creating realistic, structured artwork throughout their years as pupils, the freedom and abstractness of their later works was considered innovative and expressive. These artists knew the rules so well that they could break them. I am convinced that such a consideration of artistic output is just as applicable within the realm of musical improvisation.