A. Audience
To further investigate the experience of the listener, the 55 people in the audience at the concert on October 30th filled in a paper feedback form. I asked following questions which are here translated from the Dutch:
-Was there an improvisation that stood out for you? And can you explain why?
A) Prelude
B) Interlude I
C) Interlude II
D) Interlude III
-What did you think of the descriptions of the improvisations in the program booklet? Additional comments?
A) Necessary
B) A nice addition
C) Unnecessary
-What did you think of the applause and silence moments? Additional comments? You can pick more than one option:
A) I prefer it when the interludes connect all the pieces seamlessly without silences.
B) I prefer an alternation of contiguous interludes and pieces that end with applause.
C) I was in need of more silent moments during the concert.
D) I would prefer it if there was more room for applause.
E) I would prefer more verbal explanations by the musicians
-Did you know when the musicians were improvising and when they weren’t?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Sometimes
Would you like this to be more clear? Or did you like not knowing when the actual piece started?
-Did you have a different listening experience during the improvisations than during the compositions? Can you describe the difference?
The questions could be divided over three topics: the content of the improvisations itself, the program booklet and the structure of the concert:
Most people were at some moments aware that they were hearing an improvisation. Also, most of the listeners did not mind not always knowing where the improvisation ended and composition began. A few people weren’t aware of the improvisations at all and a few people thought they were always able to identify them. About half of the listeners indicated that the improvisation itself and not always knowing if I was improvising or playing a piece made this program more exciting. For the first question in the questionnaire the opinion was equally divided as to which of the four improvisations stood out the most. Remarkable is that the people to whom the prelude stood out the most, chose it because of its melodic and dynamic qualities. However, those who chose Interlude III, did so because they could clearly recognize Ravel and the connection was the smoothest. Finally, most musicians in the audience and my performing partners mentioned the improvisations could be longer.
Everyone agreed that the program booklet was a nice addition. Half of the public even found it necessary. It was noticeable that listeners who indicated it was very necessary also mentioned their own lack of expertise. They used words like ‘but consider me a layman’, ‘Unfortunately, I am not so familiar with this music.’ or ‘illiterate people in music’. Two people just listened and didn’t look in the booklet.
On the formal aspects of the concert itself the opinions of the listeners were divided. Half of the people liked the balance the way it was. Another large group indicated they enjoyed the variety of approaches, but there could be a bit more room for silences so they could applaud. They said they needed it to be able to take a small break or to show their appreciation. The remaining people were divided into two groups of extreme differences of opinions.
The first group was shocked about the lack of oral presentation by the musicians. They thought this concept could only work and be understandable in the form of a lecture performance in which the background of each piece and structure of the improvisations is orally explained. This division was also clear during a conversation I had at the reception of the concert on the 30th of October with an amateur jazz pianist and a seasoned classical music lover. The amateur jazz pianist really wanted more applause and more explanations in between the pieces. He thought verbal communication is more personal and captivating than written down statements. He was also interested in knowing more than the program booklet offered him. In this discussion his background might have played a role in his opinion. I feel like as an amateur jazz pianist, he wanted to learn new things and understand the improvisations. For this reason he might have preferred a lecture performance. Nevertheless, he understood how this would go against the goal of seamlessly connecting different pieces. A lecture performance is not what I wanted to achieve during this living room concert. I think a research symposium for example would be more the occasion for such a format.
The second group thought all the music should be connected and no silences, applause or talk should be included. They really liked it when large chunks of music were connected without words, to not disturb the atmosphere. The seasoned classical music lover from the discussion described above would even connect all the music presented in the concert. It is important to mention that this was the opinion of only two people, but it reflects a general feeling amongst certain extremes of opinion in the audience.
B. Experts
The recording of the concert on the 30th of October is reviewed by improvisators Bert Mooiman and Karst De Jong. There were two feedback conversations that were recorded and notated. What follows is an edited version of their reactions.
Karst De Jong
From Karst I received more detailed feedback about each improvisation. The recording of the living room concert on the 30th of October can be found on the right side. Time stamps to this recording are added in the text below. Also some general ideas were discussed.
Prelude (1:19-2:34)
Karst stated that this is a more tonal improvisation, which lacks a bit of harmonic thinking. The used arpeggios do not always resolve in the expected way. Tonal improvisations are the most tricky according to Karst. For this reason he felt this one was the weakest improvisation of the concert. There could be more listening ahead and logic. During this conversation exercises and sources to improve this harmonic thinking were mentioned. They are included in the harmony pool in chapter II.
The passage with the parallel sixth-chords (1:52) works well, but could be expanded into a longer phrase. Besides, he feels like an improvisation should always include a theme or melodic idea and this was not enough the case in this prelude.
Interlude I (9:52-11:33)
The used bass line (D-C-B-A at 10:00) is not so logical according to the rules of partimento, Karst mentioned. One might expect a C-chord after the B in the bass. To solve this problem it would have been more logical to play D-C-Bb-A in the bass.
In this interlude some of the prepared motives are recognizable. It is however important to know that working largely or only with a base of motives, can be restricting. Exact transposition of motives is problematic when improvising tonally. When using motives it is important to practice a lot of diatonic transpositions. The motives should be adapted to the right key.
In Karst’s opinion the used Piazzolla style elements work well in this improvisation, so an idea might be to not use the Bach style elements. After an applause the interlude could immediately start in the Piazzolla idiom and only make a key modulation.
Interlude II (19:17-20:35)
Interlude II starts by using a lot of motifs from Bordel 1900 by Piazzolla, but Karst thinks this is not clear for the audience. In this case it is unclear why the motives are used, if they are so hard to recognize.
Karst suggested taking the time to develop elements that work well and not move to a new idea too quickly. For example, the pizzicato ostinato at the end of the interlude (C# - C) in the end where the cello has to come in feels a bit hasty. It could work better if the violin calmly arrives to the full ostinato first as Ravel wrote it in the second movement of the Sonata for violin and cello (A - C# - E - C). After a while the violin can stop playing the A and E. After everything settles down, only then the cello starts by filling in the A and E again. This way the piece starts in a more understandable way.
Sometimes for us musicians it seems like we are spending a lot of time on an idea. However, according to Karst, this feels different for listeners. They often need the time to process what is happening.
Interlude III (39:17-40:52)
It could be an idea to not use the literal intervals of the chosen motives, but only the contours of them.
General comments
Thereafter, we discussed some general ideas concerning the concept of interluding. In general, the concept of interluding in between compositions works well according to Karst. In this concert interluding was presented as a thematic, linear modulation. He mentioned that the idea of literally using thematic material first from the previous and then from the next piece feels probably too rigid. He suggested restricting the interludes to a tonal, rhythmical or atmospheric modulation. In his opinion a thematic modulation does not work when trying to unify such big extremes.
An option that wasn’t heard is starting to improvise immediately from the previous piece. Karst thinks it is worth it to try this and to connect pieces even more. Also, for him the interludes could be longer and more extreme. A sequence of a lot of small ideas might be hard to follow. Karst believes it is important to give the audience the time to process what they have heard before moving on.
Bert Mooiman
With Bert Mooiman I discussed the role an improviser has during a performance, the presentation of the improvisations on stage, the structure of the interludes and possible other ways to present interluding in a concert program.
Bert believes that in the chosen format the role of an improviser is to be a storyteller. The goal is to develop and exploit exciting ideas. The improvising storyteller can interact with the public in the moment. The living room concert on the 30th of October looked at moments a bit staged according to Bert. It seemed like the musicians decided in advance when they were going to let the public clap or when in the improvisation the next musician would enter the stage. He thought the approach to the more formal aspects could also be improvised.
Furthermore, he believes the structure of the improvisations in itself could be more improvised. He could hear that the big structure of the interludes was decided beforehand. This is not a problem in itself, but maybe then the interludes should be announced differently. They could be called connections instead of improvisations. Bert advised to not follow a fixed plan, but rather go with the improvisation in the moment.
He warned it could be a trap to want to use too many different motives. It could be better to only use a few, very recognizable ones. Another tip from Bert would be to search for more contrast. All the improvisations had a free metrical structure. In his opinion this makes them all very similar. It would be nice to now and then have a rhythmic ostinato or clear meter.
Bert believes the base or safety net is already present in the interludes presented on the 30th of October. However, in his opinion it is important to step away further from pre-made structures. To train this further in the practice room he suggested playing a certain idea or concept several times and each time completely different. This exercise is also added to the mindset pool in chapter II.
To conclude, Bert believes the major lesson is to trust the practiced ideas will come out, instead of actively trying to spell them out.
Finally, we discussed different ideas to give interluding a place in a concert program. Bert suggested the dramaturgy and the function of the improvisations could be developed further. One way to do this is by making stronger connections between the different compositions. The improvisations are in this case small connecting bridges. In this case Bert thought it would work better to do duo improvisations, since all the chosen pieces are chamber music pieces with two equal partners. Solo pieces could still have a solo prelude or interlude, but compositions for a duo would call for interludes by two musicians.
However, it would also be possible to structure the concert as a frame story. In this scenario I would be the main storyteller. The improvisations would contain their own thematic, typical material and style. The storyteller presents and connects in his own language the different ‘stories’ (the written compositions). When using this option it is logical to have a solo improviser in between chamber music pieces. Famous composed musical examples of frame stories are Pictures at an exhibition by Mussorgsky or Scheherazade by Rimsky-Korsakov.