MUD: A comparative case-study of two group performances of free improvisation.

Introductory background methodology & literature review Group performance is fundamental to the emergent moments of
successful improvisation in music. Current research indicates that group
In this case-study I analyse and compare two separate free improvisation cohesion can both negatively and positively influence the way a group
performances. As group free improvisation is an incredibly complex communicates (Shaughnessy, 2005 p. 15). Members of cohesive groups
phenomenon, I intend to narrow the comparative analysis to two nights “communally contribute and accept each other’s ideas” (ibid.). This is
of the same event. MUD is an occasion where people are encouraged to connected to a general egalitarian ethic underpinning the improvisation
collectively contribute to the ‘creative domain’ of a performance. I that comes from performers trained in jazz (Sawyer, 2000 p. 180). In the
compared these two performances by adopting a consistently concise concept of collaborative emergence, Sawyer describes musical choices as
methodology: I would attend the event, observe the group performance, influencing the direction of developing compositions. When a player
and take down any noteworthy observations. I also collected sound chooses to play something within an improvised piece of music it can
recordings which I later analysed to compile key data points in create new paths and close off others (Sawyer, 1999 p. 465). This means
conjunction with first-hand observations. I selected just a few specific that new musical opportunities have the potential to restrict musical
moments of successful improvisation to discuss, as it pertains to the exploration to a specific domain. On the two nights I attended MUDI
scope of this study. noted that it actively encouraged an almost unbounded contribution to
There is some difficulty in deciding which moments of improvisation are this process.
successful. My process involved critically listening to something that I Attending the event
thought was noteworthy, which I would take down, and observing Before I discuss the data and my subsequent analysis I will briefly describe
whether the audience was receptive towards it. the event itself. MUD is an event that, for all intents and purposes,
Noteworthiness is difficult to qualify, good or bad, and so my criteria for a embraces exploration across any artistic domain. The two nights I
successful moment in improvisation is quite broad however I would attended began with performances from two different groups that
always consider, ‘is it worth noting?’. More particularly, ‘how did the performed two sets of predominately improvised music. These nights
group contribute to the musical domain by what they chose to either play were held in an underground dive-bar situated in the busy nightclub
or not play?’. So, attending the event as a participant-observer (Chiener, district of Adelaide. The venue rests at the back of shopfronts on the main
2002), I adopted an analytical mindset to document as much as I found street, behind a massage parlour and a late-night eatery. As you approach
noteworthy. the venue, down a narrow side street, rounding the corner you can hear
the dull thud of music escaping the underground stage. After paying entry
In my analysis I will look at three key aspects of group improvisation in I travelled down the stairs and observed the group as they finished their
music: collaborative emergence, group cohesion and the egalitarian ethic first song – a precomposed piece with layers of improvised harmony. For
in jazz improvisation. a moment I could almost believe that nothing outside of this alternate
safe-haven existed, that this was not another west-end bar on Hindley

1
 MUD: A comparative case-study of two group performances of free improvisation.

Street but an oasis where creative potential could flourish. If this is what section in the first group’s set lasted 4 seconds longer than those from
the organiser intended, then they achieved exactly what was set out to be group two (2nd night). This was startlingly similar. There was, however, a
significant difference in the duration of each group’s four improvisation
achieved. From the moment I stepped into the room I took note of the
pieces. These were on average just under 9 minutes on the first night. On
group’s peculiar but fitting setup.
the second night the group played for about 11 minutes and four seconds
I entered the performance space and immediately noticed that instead of per song.
playing on-stage at the back of the room the centre of the room was
Solos
shared between the group performing and the audience. This setup I
The first group played less solos as the night went on. Group two
believe created an event that welcomed audience members to actively
consistently played two solos per song except in their third piece, where
participate and contribute to the improvisatory process.
just one solo was played by drums. This group uniquely featured two
Data & Findings solos from the same instrument during a song twice in their set. Group
one had a unique of their own when during the first song trumpet and
Before I discuss the details of each performance, I would like to guitar traded solos rapidly.
emphasise that the above table is just one of the many ways to represent
the musical performances. Last/first instrument heard
The last instruments heard in the sound recordings varied between
Duration & sections groups and each of the songs. The first group’s music was equally finished
Shown in Fig. 1 both groups had started with pieces about ten minutes twice by trumpet and twice drums. The second group’s pieces were
long and finished with a song just under eight minutes duration. I decided predominantly finished by the piano; however, it should be noted that
to break down each piece into sections and found that on average each this was merely the last instrument heard, which is not necessarily an

Fig. 1: ‘MUD‘ data Jam 1 Jam 2 Jam 3 Jam 4

Duration Approx. 10 minutes long. 10m40s 6m48s 7m57s

Sections 5 sections in total 6 sections. 5 sections. 4 sections.
1st night First heard Trumpet started Guitar started. Guitar/drums started together. Trumpet started.
Group 1 No. solos 3 solos: guitar/trumpet, bass. 2 solos: trumpet, bass. 2 solos: guitar, drums. 1 solo: bass.
Last heard Last instrument heard: trumpet. Last instrument heard: trumpet. Last instrument heard: drums. Last instrument heard: drum cymbals
Duration Approx. 9m 18m47s Duration: 10m37s 7m53s
Sections 6 sections in total. 9 sections. 5 sections. 6 sections.
2nd night First heard Possibly synth, no drums heard. Bass started. Saxophone started. Keys/programmed synth.
Group 2 No. solos 2 solos: keyboard, bass. 2 solo: piano, piano. 1 solo: Drums. 2 solos: violin twice.
2 Last heard Last instrument heard: piano Last instrument heard: piano Last instrument heard: piano Last instrument heard: bass.
MUD: A comparative case-study of two group performances of free improvisation.

indication that the instrument had intentionally ended the piece. The first wrote over two pages of notes, resulting in a sustained applause from the
two songs were not clearly observed and therefore the actual duration audience. Piano’s extended solos during the second song spanned over
and instrument that begun playing initially could not be accurately three sections, lasting approximately 15 minutes 16 seconds including
recorded. where the group had briefly played together. As the solo began it was
instantly met with hollers from the crowd. The rest of the band seemed
Group size, personnel, and instruments
to know exactly when to play or not play, which made this incredibly
The first group featured a 4-piece line-up of entirely jazz trained
effective both as an audience member and participant-observer for
musicians featuring trumpet, guitar, bass, and drums. In the second group
purposes of this study. In their last song violin also took two solos. These
there were a total of 6 on-stage. Among the instrumentalists include a
solos, while still successful moments of improvisation, contrasted piano’s
classically trained alto saxophonist and violinist, and of the jazz-trained
as they were less moments of individual reflection as they were melodies
musicians were piano, bass, percussion, and drums. It was noteworthy
coinciding a developing form.
that the two classically trained instrumentalists played the two ‘melodic’
instruments of the group. Entirely improvised music can be described as chaotic, if not defined by
an aggressively egalitarian etiquette (Becker, 1982). In such an
Discussion of findings environment it can be tempting to label the musician that makes all or
There was a clear difference between improvisation occurring between most of the musical decisions as playing to their ego. However, it is
the first group of each night and successive groups, and so these are the difficult to ascertain whether a musical choice was a result of ego or
groups whose data I have chosen to collate for analysis. This is at least in otherwise. Instead of psycho-analysing and labelling a musician’s
part attributable to these two groups having been curated for the event, performance based on assumed motivations I think it is more important
and so each member of the two groups had at least a baseline knowledge to focus on how the musical contribution explored new territory in the
of how to improvise within a group setting. As per the framework of this improvisatory domain, and how people visibly, audibly, or musically
study these two groups displayed a clear egalitarian approach to responded to hearing it. Even if it was just silence, to quote the age-old
improvisation, which I will discuss later. adage, “it’s the notes you don’t play that matter more.”

As a general comparison between the two groups, it appears that the Despite the presupposition that free improvisation is just that, free or
second group left more space for members to solo repeatedly and for a otherwise unconstrained, each group’s improvisation clearly displayed
much longer duration. During their second piece, piano had taken two repetitive patterns in their approach. This seemed to indicate an implicitly
consecutive moments to solo. In an interview with the bassist agreed upon method, for each band respectively, that shows a certain
immediately after their set they mentioned having thought piano was level of group cohesion.
about to conclude the piece. What happened instead was an incredibly Although it is not clear whether this was the result of an explicit
noteworthy moment of successful improvisation, where I obsessively agreement I assume that it is related to a history of shared performances

3
MUD: A comparative case-study of two group performances of free improvisation.

between members of the respective bands. Of note is the fact that many changes. On the second night I attended I noticed that group two showed
if not all the musicians are part of the same cohort, having studied or are similar modus operandi, however bass shared much of the form changes
currently studying at the same university. with piano which was perhaps due to their ability to play in the lower
register alongside each other. Piano seemed happy to lead a section or
The patterns I observed were at least in some respect related to the
hide completely below the other instruments, adding layers of harmony
successful moments of collaborative emergence, which audience
and texture in support of the other instruments. This was highly effective
members seemed to implicitly enjoy. For example, I observed that the
and resulted in several moments of successful collaborative emergence.
musical form in group one’s performance was largely directed by bass. I
sought to confirm that this was the case, and the curator and group one Conclusion and Recommendations
guitarist suggested unprompted in an interview that bass was taking cues It is important to note, if only for the sake of this study, that what a
from the trumpet. They indicated trumpet was the main instrument person hears, interprets, and then responds to in a musical moment is
driving melodic exploration, who they listened to and decided what they part of a collective decision-making process in group improvisation
would choose to include in their own playing. (Sawyer, 2009 p. 90) and this is a key part of collaborative emergence.
Any successful moment is therefore part of a group process, the bounds
I use the word ‘choose’ here without conviction, as it is impossible to
of which can be unending if you include audience participation.
know if the musician really chose what they played, both as an observer
and as the musician themselves. It arguably matters not whether we For further research I hope to attend and compare more events of free
choose our musical choices. In the neo-compatibilist conception of improvisation, some of which I have participated in but did not have the
determinism outlined by Flanagan he discusses how ‘free will’ should right mindset to apply the same approach to documenting.
primarily concern concepts important to the human experience. These
Musical improvisation is an incredibly intriguing topic to research
include ideas such as freedom of expression, personal freedoms, political
although it is difficult to entirely maintain being an impartial observer. I
freedoms (Flanagan, 2002) and what I argue extends to include musical
aimed to provide an objective account but fell short due to the qualitative
choices. For this case study, I focus not on the origin of the choices made
nature of my analysis. I aim to embrace this as it may be an inevitable
by musicians but instead on how the chosen decision adds to an existing
reality. In future research, I hope to achieve an increasingly accurate
soundscape, expands upon a given musical domain, and how the
account of musical phenomena through data-driven analysis. This could
musicians and audience members respond.
require some novel implementation of unique technologies and
I noticed that the first group would often exchange motifs between processes for collation and comparison of data, after which I would hope
trumpet and guitar. Bass would appear to be actively listening and to arrive at a conclusion that holds some explanatory power.
choosing new chords to create compatible or sometimes unconventional

4
MUD: A comparative case-study of two group performances of free improvisation.

Word count: 2264 words.

References

1. Chiener, C 2002, ‘Experience and Fieldwork: A Native Researcher’s View’, Ethnomusicology, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 456-486, viewed 26 April 2021, <
Experience and Fieldwork: A Native Researcher's View on JSTOR (adelaide.edu.au)>.
2. Flanagan, O 2002, The Problem of the Soul, Basic Books, New York
3. Sawyer, RK 1999, ‘The emergence of creativity’, Philosophical Psychology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 447-469, viewed 27 April 2021, < The emergence of
creativity (adelaide.edu.au)>.
4. Sawyer, RK 2000, ‘Improvisational Cultures: Collaborative Emergence and Creativity in Improvisation’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, vol. 7, no. 3, pp.
180-185 viewed 2 May 2021, < (PDF) Improvisational Cultures: Collaborative Emergence and Creativity in Improvisation (researchgate.net)>.
5. Sawyer, RK 2009, ‘Distributed Creativity: How Collective Creations Emerge From Collaboration’, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 81-92., viewed 2 Jun 2021, <DC.pdf (keithsawyer.com)>.