T-EMP Communication and interplay in an electronically based ensemble by Øyvind Brandtsegg

Communication and interplay in an electronically based ensemble. The basic aim of this project is to focus on challenges related to improvised performance of electroacoustic music. The artistic core of the project is to develop musical interaction in a larger ensemble, where the membership is mainly based on electronic and digital instruments. New modes of interaction are enabled by using audio processing as a musical instrument, where the sound from an acoustic musician is being processed live by another ("processor") musician.

T-EMP and I

What is T-EMP doing to me – what am I doing to T-EMP

(or the other way around?)

By means of the different instruments we play, we all have slightly different roles and functions in the ensemble:

Øyvind: Processes sounds from others
Bernt Isak and Trond: Generate electronic sounds, process own sounds, to some degree also process the sounds of others
Tone: Generates acoustic sounds and processes her own sounds
Carl Haakon: Generates acoustic sounds, to be processed by others

We have written in our project description and proclaimed in varying contexts that we in our artistic research investigate new possibilities for interplay and improvisation and that a main challenge is listening (many of our instruments can basically make the same sounds) and communication (it is often difficult to identify who is doing what). - IS THIS TRUE?

In the following there are formulated 12 questions that are posed in order to reveal how our different I experience the artistic cooperation with T-EMP, illuminating the challenges and artistic rewards given (or not given) by our research. It should here be said that we have not read the answers from one another before we have finished our own answers. - At this point it should also be mentioned that Tom Løberg Hovinbøle has written a book where different conversations and discussions focusing on free improvised music are presented (Hovinbøle [1]). In his very interesting book Hovinbøle portraits 15 distinguished Norwegian musicians. An important difference between Hovinbøle´s approach and our focus as outlined below is that whereas Hovinbøle has interviewed different musicians playing in different musical contexts, we present experiences of different musicians related to the same musical ensemble.

The questions we asked were the following:

1.How does my role in T-EMP change me as a communicating musician?

Which musical parameters do I use?
How is communication executed? Do I communicate differently with different musicians in the ensemble?
How do I experience my own role in relation to the others’ roles?

2.What is the most important contribution I make to T-EMP?

3.How is my playing / my mode of musical interaction different in T-EMP, compared to other ensembles or constellations that I am involved in?

4. How do I experience the relationship between rehearsal and concert?

5. Which new possibilities for musical expression do I experience, performing as a member of T-EMP?

6. Which limitations (or challenges) do I experience in T-EMP?

7. Are there any exercises or musical situations I have experienced as difficult or problematic?

8. Are there qualities in my own playing, developed through T-EMP, that I bring with me into music making in other ensembles?

9. How did I experience the input and response from the various guest musicians?

10. To what degree do I experience T-EMP as an ensemble playing free improvisation?

11. To what degree can I identify the other musicians’ voice/contribution in T-EMP (as well as my own contribution)?

12. What is my experience of the common monitor mix? Does this affect my playing?

The answers to these questions from each of the permanent members of T-EMP, Øyvind, Bernt Isak, Trond, Tone and Carl Haakon, are given below.

Øyvind

1.How does my role in T-EMP change me as a communicating musician?

Which musical parameters do I use?
How is communication executed? Do I communicate differently with different musicians in the ensemble?
How do I experience my own role in relation to the others’ roles?

Broadly speaking, I see timbre and timbral gesture as the basic building blocks of our music, animated by the performative interactions enabled by direct collaboration by several performers on the same signal (i.e. live processing). In a more technical sense, I use musical parameters as segment selection (what to sample or process) and transformational method (how to process or play back sounds). The manipulation of time and phrasing is one of the most effective parameters, as it enables communication between the other performer (the one generating my audio input) and me (how I rephrase the sound I received). I feel that the term rephrasing may give a hint of how this communications works, for the reader that has never tried this kind of musical intercourse. As a parallel, we could think of a common verbal dialogue, one person saying something, and another person rephrasing and extending the statement and thereby expressing how she relates to the original statement. In addition to manipulation of time and phrasing, I also commonly use recognizability as an important musical dimension. By moving in the dimension between natural/unprocessed/recognizable and artificial/processed/ambiguous/obscure I feel that much productive musical tension can be explored. Since we seldomly use traditional melodic or harmonic techniques for musical organization, it is necessary to find other dimensions for expressing tension and release, and the dimension of recognizability can provide one such axis.

Communication with the other members are predominantly done via aural cues only, as many of us seldomly look up from our instruments. An important exception being Carl Haakon that to a greater degree can be read physically by his gestural actions, providing a key point for initiating dynamic and direct interaction. Tone is also somewhat more active gesturally, and she is definitely more attentive to eye contact than me, Bernt and Trond. As rephrasing is one of my more common musical parameters, I also see this as an important means of communication with the other band members during performance.

Since my role is primarily as a processor of the sound produced by someone else, I could look at my way of playing as the very essence of what is different about T-EMP, while the very same fact makes it very difficult for me to generate an impulse from scratch.

2.What is the most important contribution I make to T-EMP?

I think that my most important contribution up until now has been to continually press on to activate the potential for new modes of interplay that can be enabled by live processing techniques. From the beginning, I have probably been the most active in utilizing this, both in terms of performative exploration and in software development to enable different processing scenarios. Something in this mode of instrumental engagement is distinctively different, by not allowing me direct control over the sound source that I process. Still, the way I process the input sound can send signals, cues or ”intention markers” to the fellow musician who generates my audio input. In this respect I can actually influence what my input sound is, even if it happens indirectly.

It has been a long but interesting process exploring this approach to musical performance with the others in the ensemble. Things are definitely starting to happen, and I’ve learned a lot by watching how the other members of the band have approached it. The first collective attempts we made during the October 2012 session was very vague and experimental in the most direct meaning of the term. Especially Trond and Bernt has since then been working actively to develop their instruments to better facilitate processing sound from others. During the rehearsal sessions in April 2013 I noticed that the live processing paradigm has gotten a wider application in the ensemble. This is to my great pleasure, and it is something we originally had planned to do to a greater extent and earlier in the project. Maybe is the delay related to the fact that we first needed to establish the ensemble more firmly, relying on more traditional modes of interplay to do so. It is also clear that the instrumental technique involved in processing the sound of others relies on a particular kind of approach to music performance, and that it takes some time getting used to the mode of thinking before one is able to create meaningful output. Now that this mode of interplay has been activated more fully, I see that the situation for communication has become infinitely more complex and many-dimensional. Several of the aspects that we have pointed out as unique to this ensemble have been enhanced. By these aspects I refer to the statement that “everyone” can make “any” sound, that we can make sound without a typical corresponding physical gesture, that the sound does not have to originate from the physical position of the performer etc. Now that these aspects have been further enhanced, a new potential for music making has been brought on. It could greatly affect what kind of music we can make and how we can interact. It is still too early to say where it will lead, as it is a new direction starting from the very end if this research project. I already notice that it is extremely difficult, that the flexibility of signal routing and processing simultaneously by several performers also creates a landscape of musical interaction that is very difficult to navigate. I also note that Trond and Bernt now have conquered a territory that previously was mine alone, and that I have mixed feelings about this. My own instrument appears to have gained a new identity, or more correctly is has lost some of the uniqueness that previously constituted a significant part of its identity. Maybe I need to work out something new, to go further to still make it unique, or perhaps there are other ways to make the identity of an instrument distinct. Earlier, the processing of the sound of others was my instrumental identity. Now that I don’t have that feature alone any longer I need to find out what I am now. Reflecting on this may shed some light on what instrumental and musical identity and personality is, or more correctly how I understand these entities to be, and probably make for a finer resolution in distinguishing different identities in a compact landscape.

I am excited about what we will all learn from this, it will most certainly bring new perspectives to this mode of performance. New questions, new thoughts about whether this is really as different as I think it is. New experiences, new methods and work modes, new tools and techniques, and most importantly to hear this kind of musical performance done with another aesthetic and musicality than my own.

3.How is my playing / my mode of musical interaction different in T-EMP, compared to other ensembles or constellations that I am involved in?

I strongly feel that my current mode and style of musical performance has been developed through the work with T-EMP, and this affects the way I play also in other settings. This way of working began in the duo “Little Soldier Joe” together with CHW in 2010, so it is a mode of thinking about and performing music that has been active for me over some time. Due to this it is a bit hard to compare directly how this is different, as it is this that is now.

It is of course very different to perform solo pieces than performing in the ensemble, and I may think compositionally different about a solo piece because I have the sole control over long term development. This difference would still be the same when comparing any solo to any ensemble, so it does not really count. But I have noted that my sensitivity to timbral composition, to making longer musical structures based on timbral variation and development alone, have become more focused during the period we have been working with LSJ and T-EMP.

4. How do I experience the relationship between rehearsal and concert?

Somewhat simplified, we might say that we focus on single specific elements during rehearsals while we to a greater degree “just let things happen” during a concert performance. The attention to producing something that could be worthwhile for an external listener also influence my actions during a concert. In some ways one could say that the direction of energy flow and focus is inwards during rehearsals and outwards during a concert. Still, this is an oversimplification. Sometimes during a concert, we might use a specific exercise that we have rehearsed as the springboard for a longer improvisation. When we rehearsed this exercise, we would try to stick as closely as possible to the “rules” of the exercise, while in concert we will let it flow more freely and allow the music to develop on its own terms. If we, in rehearsal, allow the “exercise” to develop into “music”, we are in fact rehearsing two things simultaneously: a specific exercise on a singular musical element and an exercise in generating a greater musical whole. This was commented under a T-EMP seminar at NTNU on April 12th, some jazz students would take for granted that you always develop a musical whole and that it needs to flow freely. I have no objections to the point being made that what we play will always constitute a musical whole, but I will still insist that it can be methodically useful to rehearse one thing at a time. By separating different elements from each other it will be easier to focus on and refine specific aspects of the performance. This is obviously a basic question: What is the best rehearsal method? Rehearse separate elements and then assemble, or always look at the big picture and try to adjust and refine separate parts while retaining focus on the whole? A choice of perspective.

Another perspective on the distinction between rehearsal and performance became apparent when we worked with Michael on some typical conceptual compositions of the 1960’s experimental music scene. For example compositions by Christian Wolff, Cornelius Cardew, Morton Feldman, Howard Skempton, Pauline Oliveros. The compositions are often written as relatively simple statements in text, instructions for what the performer should try to do. The interpretation of the instructions will to a significant degree fill the composer’s structural or meta-level plan with actual content, and there is a strong negotiation of intention between performer and composition. The score of Howard Skempton’s “For Strings” [2], consist of three words: “Waves” / “Shingle” / “Seagulls”. When we have played compositions like this, I (we) approach “playing free” differently than when we play free without this compositional guideline. The composition demand that we play something that relate to these three words but does not describe any further what this “something” should be. I read this as a call to play free and think about the musical whole in terms of these three words. Perhaps do I also take a more respectful attitude towards the music, because we are not just playing anything but we are playing a composition. Maybe this also reflects the relationship between rehearsal and concert performance, where the rehearsal can be focused on details but the performance is aimed towards the projection of a musical whole.

5. Which new possibilities for musical expression do I experience, performing as a member of T-EMP?

I perceive the aesthetic and the mode of performance in T-EMP to be focused on timbral features, and the use of specific timbres and timbral transformations act as the basic building blocks (i.e. motifs and themes) of the music. In other musical settings, I’ve improvised using “notes and chords” (even if I have worked extensively also with sampling and processing earlier). In T-EMP it is almost impossible to think in terms of notes and chords other than what appears by coincidence. Sometimes this may configure itself into relatively traditional modalities and harmonic strata. Perhaps we have something to gain from working more consciously with these elements too. …well, that was probably a digression from the actual question.

The main new thing I experience in T-EMP is related to interaction and interplay between the roles of sound generator and sound processor, as instantiated by two different human performers. We have developed a mode of interplay where we experience tight interaction between for example CH and me. The way he plays is a direct consequence of my processing of his sound, and my choice of processing is a result of what he plays.

6. Which limitations (or challenges) do I experience in T-EMP?

It is a challenge finding ways to generate a musical impulse, in an instrument based solely on processing audio input. When the instrument does not have its own source sound, but rely on an external impulse to be processed, the initiative to create an impulse is hard to express by means of processing alone. That said, there are ways of overcoming this, for example by using the background noise always present as the signal source to create a new impulse. However, it is more complicated in terms of immediate performative action that what is possible on a traditional instrument where the impulse and the processor (i.e. exciter and resonator) are operated by one performer.

It is also a challenge to play on a common monitor mix and attain a good balance therein. It is probably a natural urge for all performers to hear themselves slightly louder than other sound sources in the mix. This is also natural if we think of acoustic instruments in an orchestra; each performer will always hear herself louder than the sound from musicians sitting around her at various distances. In T-EMP we have opted for the philosophy that we should all adjust the mix of our individual contributions according to a final full mix that could be delivered as is to the audience. One important reason for this is the timbral improvisation that forms the basis of the musical activity in the ensemble: An external sound balancing engineer can never be able to guess where I want this sound that I produce to be positioned within the final sound image. I may play a sound that has the characteristics of a loud sound, but I want it positioned softly at a low amplitude as a far away call in the sound image, or I may play a very soft sound that should appear extremely close and up front. So, according to this philosophy of the monitor mix, all musicians should have the same monitor mix and be responsible for adjusting and mixing own output levels to make one’s sound fit as intended in the full output mix. Now, since we do improvise with sound processing, and also using a live (and improvised) audio input source for the processing, it can be quite hard to predict exactly what my output level is going to be. The output level of the processing may vary significantly due to slight fluctuations in the input sound characteristics. This is a challenge regardless of monitor mix philosophy, and an even harder challenge when combined with the responsibility to position and mix the signal “perfectly” and also the responsibility of not damaging the other musician’s hearing due to sudden excessive levels.

There is also a related challenge inherent in my design philosophy when building my instruments: I want the instrument to challenge me, such that it is complex to a degree that might border on unpredictability (but still giving the exact same output presented with the exact same input). This type of instrument fosters and extra attentive focus on how does it sound now, and as such it might require an extra clear and separated listening situation in order for me to gain fine control over it. The very rich response patterns that I seek when building the instrument is intended to ensure maximum flexibility and a large array of options to solve any musical situation that may arise during improvisation. At the same time, the plethora of options may become a hindrance to flexibility and playability when combined with a difficult listening situation (mix) and the technical challenges the instrument in itself has (as described above).

7. Are there any exercises or musical situations I have experienced as difficult or problematic?

Most of the exercises we have done are hard. In that way I think they have been good exercises. I have not experienced any of the situations as problematic. Just hard, challenging-

Another aspect of our way of working, we talk a lot. This may be problematic. It has happened that an apparent disagreement, due to linguistic differences, may escalate to an actual musical conflict. Sometimes we do talk too much, myself included, and I have a feeling that we sometimes refine our linguistic formulation of the situation or problem so that the description is very precise and we can agree on it. However, the actual musical situation has not changed due to changing the description of it. Perhaps we have allowed this to happen because we are supposed to do research, and in that respect also intellectualize and dissect? I clearly see that we have gained much from discussing verbally, openly and at length, but perhaps the time is ripe for changing the strategy regarding the talking?

For the concert performances I sometimes find it hard to grasp and control the whole duration and development of a long piece as a collective effort. This is a challenge I recognize from other musical situations in other ensembles, so it is not specifically related to T-EMP.

8. Are there qualities in my own playing, developed through T-EMP, that I bring with me into music making in other ensembles?

Yes, especially concerning techniques for interplay via processing. And the listening to the full mix, using the final balanced mix as my monitor mix. It is a simple and conventional statement to say that one should “take a step back and listen to the whole”, but this has gotten a much deeper and refined meaning after the work with T-EMP.

9. How did I experience the input and response from the various guest musicians?

The response has been very positive, and I note an attitude towards curiosity and engagement from all our external contributors. The different guest musicians have each provided new voices that has added to and challenged our group sound. My ability to open up my own produced sound image to give room for others has definitely become better. I think that perhaps Brian and Patrick got drowned a bit by the natural chaos going on in the group sound at the time. Our different guest producers/mentors, John, Bent, Michael and David each contributed very valuable insights, with specific advice and suggestions for alternative strategies. John Lato helped us in the first workshop session in Maynooth, where we struggled to figure out what this ensemble and this music was all about. Bent Sæther helped us by focusing on making music and creating an outward directed energy, as opposed to being focused on technical or methodical details and toys. Michael Duch worked with us on the compositions and listening strategies of the 1960’s, heightening the attentive focus. Perhaps the most specific was David Moss that we did the very last workshop and performance with. After half an hour he wrote us a list of our habits (“you tend to always solve this kind of musical situation by doing …”), and suggested we might perhaps try to break them up. That was admittedly a hard lesson, because I think we all felt very transparent and vulnerable, but ultimately very very useful.

All these external listeners/guides have been extremely valuable in identifying which of the issues we did assume as problems where actually things that needed fixing, and also in bringing in fresh perspectives on what we are, what we do, and how we could do it differently.

10. To what degree do I experience T-EMP as an ensemble playing free improvisation?

To the degree that improvisations can be free, I’d say T-EMP is an ensemble playing free improvisation. Relatively free of stylistic conventions (at least ideally), and relatively free of pre-agreed compositionally or other structural determinations. The instruments and the type of sound we usually make will oftentimes be related to electroacoustic art music, although influences from pop, rock and jazz can also be traced. Musicians in any freely improvised setting has the presupposition that they bring in their total reference and experience up to that point, and any expression generated by this person will be related to this background, consciously or unconsciously.

11. To what degree can I identify the other musicians’ voice/contribution in T-EMP (as well as my own contribution)?

Some are obviously easier than others. Those who produce acoustic sound are by far the easiest to identify. There may be situations where it is hard to identify who of Trond and Bernt is making a specific contribution. This is related to the listening situation as described above, and the fact that all of us producing electronic sound (Bernt, Trond, Tone, Øyvind) can generate very big sounds and this may lead to a cluttering of the overall sound image. Each of us can easily make a complete full spectral range wide stereo spread image with no space left for anyone else, so we rely on each other to take care of not using up all available space. The identification and separation between Trond and Bernt is also complicated because they both drive their processing chain with a guitar signal. The newly won capacity that we all can do improvised live processing and use any signal as input does not help identification as it allows confusion with sounds that Øyvind and or Tone makes. Still, in many cases identification of individual statements is helped by certain expectations about what each of us prefers to play. Coming back to David Moss’ identification of our habits, this is both a good and a bad thing. I guess we just have to play more to discover better ways of identification. The use of duo constellations (both as exercise, and in actual performance) is a proven method to make distinction of individual contributions more prominent.

12. What is my experience of the common monitor mix? Does this affect my playing?

Yes, it affects my playing to a high degree. As mentioned earlier, there are big challenges connected to the listening situation. Challenges so big that it might appear unfruitful to follow this idea any further. It is still my belief that in an ensemble like this, where many (all) can fill the whole sound image completely if he wishes, and this is combined with a “free composition” strategy, it is imperative that everyone takes responsibility for positioning his own utterances where he intends them to be (front/back/loud/soft/filtered/spatialized/reverberated/etc). It is also my belief that this is only possible to do if everyone hears the same mix. It is an inherent danger that playing under these conditions may hinder my own personal development of fine tuned nuances in my own instrument, or at least that it will hinder such development to happen spontaneously during group improvisation. As such it requires an even higher degree of personal rehearsal time to alleviate this potential problem. It can also be alleviated by frequent use of duo constellations where both the listening and the musical situation in general become more transparent.

Bernt Isak

1. How does my role in T-EMP change me as a communicating musician?

Which musical parameters do I use?
How is communication executed? Do I communicate differently with different musicians in the ensemble?
How do I experience my own role in relation to the others’ roles?

My communication has for the most part been almost solely auditive. I both take and give cues trough what is played by the others and by what I play myself. For instance if I want to get into a rhythmic part, I wait for the right moment (even though often the idea of e.g. a rhythmic part can be spawned by the fact that the moment right now is the right moment to start a rhythmic part) and then cue the others just by starting to play my idea. This method has its drawbacks in that it can be very difficult to do for instance quick changes (especially with so many players), but it has been the consensus of the band to keep the communication this way. Of course this method also at lot of positive sides and have for the most part worked nice for me since I’m very often looking down at my pedals and I also feels that it makes me more concentrated on what’s happening musically.

I think Carl Haakon is the one I’ve been communicating most with (making rhythmic patterns for instance) while playing and maybe Trond the least, but it’s not a very clear and big difference to me. I think the reason why me and Trond haven’t communicated that much (and I’m thinking of communicating now as making some musical statement together in some sort of way) is the fact that we both play guitars and maybe both are afraid to make to much of the same type of sounds (guitar duo) – even though we have quite a different palette of sounds.

I think I’m one of the more active players in the group together with Øyvind and Carl Haakon (active in terms of not being silent). We have often talked about that maybe everybody should be better at taking rests and making space and I do feel like we (both me personally and together as a group) have made some progress in that area, even though there is probably a lot more to go.

2. What is the most important contribution I make to T-EMP?

I think my eager to try out new things/ways of playing personally sometimes helps us as a group to go new places. I have also been advocating the link (both harmonically and rhythmically) to conventional music to enable us to be (in my perspective) even freer in our improvisation. I find this area on the border to conventions to be a very interesting place to explore for making music.

I also believe that I add some different flavors to the sonic palette by using guitar amplifiers in addition to line signals. This difference seems to be more pronounced in a studio setting with headphone listening than in a live setting with big monitors. Of course I also add a problem for the ideal stereo listening by using amps, where in a live situation I’m almost in the same situation as Carl Haakon in terms of hearing my own instrument much better than the rest.

On a more practical note, I think I have contributed some to pushing things forward in terms of being a band (like making, finishing and releasing a record), not just an artistic research project.

3. How is my playing / my mode of musical interaction different in T-EMP, compared to other ensembles or constellations that I am involved in?

I don’t play in any other free improvisation constellations bigger than two people, so the confusion of who is playing what is quite different. This can even involve not knowing that I’m making a sound myself. Together with a lot of the exercises (like copy the sound of another player), this has forced me to be much more aware of the possibilities and sounds of my own setup. Experience from playing in T-EMP have helped me in redesigning parts of setup that didn’t work so well – both in terms of instrument control and musical output. This has also really helped me as a performer in other constellations.

4. How do you experience the relationship between rehearsal and concert?

There is definitely a different vibe to playing a concert. The tension of (almost) not knowing what is going to happen and the fact that there is an audience affects the way we play – both in a good and bad way. We might be more open to impulses and more focused on getting this piece to fit together as a musical whole, but in the heat of the moment things we have rehearsed and talked about (like playing less, making duos etc.) might be forgotten.

The other big difference between rehearsal and concert is the fact that we often have rehearsed specific more or less technical exercises and not so much “just made music together”. If we had more time to play together, then maybe we would have used more of the playing time for this.

5. Which new possibilities for musical expression do I experience, performing as a member of T-EMP?

I experience bigger and more varied spaces of sound in this ensemble than any other similar setting I’ve played. The fact that we are so many players with the ability to make so much sound and everybody listening to the stereo mix, have forced us to both clean up both our own sounds and what we put into the whole mix (thinking more as producers, not just individual musicians). When we succeed we’re able to make very interesting, transparent and complex sounds with subtle variations, ultimately producing very satisfactory musical results. It feels like a very dynamic group who are quite good at adapting to whatever strategies, experience or feedback we get (at least in the long run).

6. Which limitations (or challenges) do I experience in T-EMP?

Since we’re so many players (and don’t use visual cues), it can often be difficult to do quick changes with the whole group. Added that most of the players have a very wide palette of sounds it is sometimes difficult to know who is making which sound (also making visual communication more difficult). Even though this is better now after getting to know the individual musicians in the group better, this confusion happens quite regularly.

I also still feel a clear aversion towards both harmonic and rhythmic (more of the latter) elements from the majority of the group. This feels like a limitation in terms of where we can go musically as a group and also where I sometimes want to go. There are good reasons to be skeptical of falling into conventions, but I don’t think we have explored this area enough to be sure that it is a place to avoid.

7. Are there any exercises or musical situations I have experienced as difficult or problematic?

Most of the quick response exercises have been very challenging, but most of them very rewarding and making me a better performer (I think). I also remember the make instant sound and copy it three times (or something like that) as very difficult and painful, but a very helpful exercise.

The phrase exercise have sometimes been a bit problematic for me musically as it often feels to random (what I am playing myself) and when we have used it in a musical context (like at a start of a concert) feels a bit locked (like you could lock yourself in a groove) and that we often haven’t been able to go to something else in very interesting or natural way. We’ve often talked about how great it would be if this phrase thing would come up naturally in a longer piece, but I don’t think we’ve ever managed to do that so we’ve ended up starting with it instead. Maybe if we had some more musical exercises where the goal was to play a phrase part sometime during a 30-minute piece?

8. Are there qualities in my own playing, developed through T-EMP that I bring with me into music making in other ensembles?

I think I bring most of the qualities developed through T-EMP to other ensembles in a way or another. Maybe not every aspect to every ensemble, but especially the way of thinking stereo mix of a group as a whole has definitely had a big impact on the way I think in all different kinds of musical contexts. The quick response exercises have, as I mentioned previously, made both my instrument and my playing more flexible and responsive.

The way we have worked with music structure (especially with Bent and David) has given me a lot of valuable experience which I use all the time both when playing solo and together with others in free improvisation ensembles.

9. How did I experience the input and response from the various guest musicians?

I have felt all guest musicians as valuable input both in a direct and an indirect way. For instance did I sometimes got inspired by the sounds that Arnfinn made with T-EMP, which I hadn’t thought of putting in my self. This both expanded the sound palette and varied the music of the band and inspired me (and I would guess other members of the band too) for future playing. This was maybe most pronounced with Arnfinn and David who has sometimes very strong and clear musical voices. They where able to have their voice heard without drowning in the sounds and habbits from the rest of us. I don’t recall how I felt about this with Michael, but Brian and Patrick definitely got sucked up in the group for the most of the time. I believe it is good thing for us to play with other players and/or groups that have a clear identity so that we get challenged and maybe forced out of our patterns.

10. To what degree do I experience T-EMP as an ensemble playing free improvisation?

In terms of whatever traditions of free improvisation there is (not that I have very good overview), I often experience T-EMP as a free improvisation ensemble. I even experience that we quite often can go outside the “clichés” (based on my own references of course), so in the world of sort of sound sculpting free improvisation it definitely feels like a free improvisation ensemble. As previously mention I do sense some aversion against more conventional elements and the exploration of this border area. In these terms I definitely don’t experience as improvising freely.

11. To what degree can I identify the other musicians’ voice/contribution in T-EMP (as well as my own contribution)?

The acoustic drums of Carl Haakon and voice of Tone are easy to pick out. Tones more electronic sounds (when there is no voice left for instance) can sometimes be more challenging to recognize. Some of Øyvinds drum processing sounds are quite easy to pick out (even after both Trond and me started to process drums too) and also some granular sounds (especially when used on voice) and the dry Hadron synth sounds. Trond have a quite recognizable tone when he plays melodic stuff and also some powerful sub sounds, big crescendos and high pitched grain clouds from the Grain Delay in Live.

How good control I have over my own sound/contribution depends a lot with the monitoring. Since I have an amp sound mixed with line signal, it can sometimes (like on a big stage) be a distance between the two and not letting them blend as goods as I want to. This often makes it more difficult to control everything and can result in the line signals feeling foreign to me. This is easier in a controlled studio environment where the amplifier is placed in a different room. The problem in this setting is that the sound from the mic’ed amp can quite easily drown when the line signals from the other players are starting to max out. In a post-production setting where you where to mix these signals, you could apply for instance compression and some leveling to compensate for this, but I don’t have this control when we play.

12. What is my experience of the common monitor mix? Does this affect my playing?

I think this is the only “right” way to do it (at least without having a sound engineer as an active part of the band), but I’m not 100% sure and I guess I will never be since it is impossible to achieve the goal of completely common monitor mix.

What I have been most unsure about is whether or not to play with my amps removed/placed in another room. Of course it makes sense to remove them from the common room in terms of getting the best possible mix, but at the same time it’s a very wrong thing to do since the amps are a part of my instrument so you basically change my instrument to adapt to this situation. The change is significant and definitely affects my playing. I’m used to have a physical connection to the amp, which serves as both a sound sculpting tool (feedback for instance) and a sort of haptic feedback (feeling the sounds). Moving the amp to a different room breaks this connection and sometimes makes my instrument feel foreign, though this is not as bad now after doing this a few times and starting to get used to this way of playing.

Another problem I have with my instrument in this group is (this is mostly present in the studio) that it feels like the dynamic range doesn’t match the rest of the group. It often feels like a compromise where I can choose to have a good mix on when we’re on low to middle level, but then disappear when we’re getting closer to max or I can choose to have enough power to be a part all the way to max, but then often end up being too loud on lower levels. Even though we have fought this issue with every studio session, it still needs to be worked on. I think we need to do something about the fact that Carl Haakon and me can’t entirely produce our final sound the same way as the rest of the group can. EQ, compression, panning etc. are all static on all drum mics and amp-mics.

Trond

Some comments prior to answering the questions:

Static/ dynamic sound processing:

Not quit sure under which point this should be, but should we divide between static and dynamic sound processing? The word static here referring to typical insert effects, which remains unchanged, by the processor during insertion. Dynamical referring to parameter changes within the effect over time. I believe this also pinpoints a level of interaction during interplay between the sound maker and sound processor when it comes to live processing. And… should we define terminology for the different roles/changing of roles along the way?

Is it true that it is often difficult to identify who is doing what?

I believe that at present time, with the current line up, it is quit easy to identify who’s playing or producing what. This level of instrumental/musical transparency has evolved during the project period based upon experience-based knowledge about each musician’s individual expressions and outputs. This experience has also made it easier to grasp the guest musician’s contributions since the musicians inside the basic line up at this point are identifiable. The biggest challenge concerning this topic is currently identification of who is doing what when there are several instances of live or inter processing going on at the same time. This is not about identifying who’s the sound maker or which sound source being processed, but it is attached to who is doing the processing.

On the contrary I still believe that a person outside the ensemble will have problems with identifying both the “sound source makers” (core sound?), with the exception of Carl Haakon and Tone. I believe a listener would find it even harder to identify separation when introducing live or inter processing.

To answer the question IS THIS TRUE?: I believe that it is no longer true, and that this is a direct consequence of the knowledge we have gained about the musicians individual expressions during the project period.

1. How does my role in T-EMP change me as a communicating musician?

Which musical parameters do I use?
How is communication executed? Do I communicate differently with different musicians in the ensemble?
How do I experience my own role in relation to the others’ roles?

I use tonality, rhythm, sound structures, and materiality (both mechanical/electrical, as for example strings, e-bow etc., but also through effects (in particular convolution techniques).

Sound production wise I work with placement in the stereo image, but also use a lot of attention on the depth in the total sound image.

There is a difference in the communication line depending if I contribute as a sound maker producing sound from my guitar, or if I contribute as a sound processer interacting with other musicians through my sound system. As a sound processer I find it easier, but also most interesting to communicate with musical inputs that differs most from my own instrument. (As for example Carl Haakon and Tone). When taking the role as sound processer opposed to sound maker I more often try to differ and contrast my output from the sound from Øyvind and Bernt (structural, production wise, choice of effects etc.) than to follow their direction. My experience is that imitation between several lines of live processers often has a tendency to blur the total sounding output. Independent of my roles I try to seek visual communication with the other musicians in order to introduce new elements or directions or to follow up on their musical statements.

My experience of my role is that I to a large degree hold back both sound level and musical statements more than the others (without this feeling negative). My role has been more to substantiate what’s already present than to introduce new directions. By using the background and depth in the ensembles sound image I have tried to “glue” different elements together in the total output.

2. What is the most important contribution I make to T-EMP?

I think my most important musical contribution to T-EMP has been to seek and to found depth perspective in the stereo mix. I have tried to substantiate and develop introduced elements. I have tried to be conscious about finding places to fill in the background in the total sound image based upon the ensembles strategy for collective stereo listening.

3. How is my playing / my mode of musical interaction different in T-EMP, compared to other ensembles or constellations that I am involved in?

I use much less space in the total mix than I usually do both in terms of sound spectre, sound level and playing frequency.

I am more focused on the sound production element through my instrument, and also use the instrument more actively as a sound generator more than performing through a more traditional instrumental practice.

4. How do I experience the relationship between rehearsal and concert?

This has varied, and has to a large degree been connected to how the listening conditions have been monitored. The largest differences have been when rehearsing with headphones (in studio), and then moved from there to a PA system. The least noticeable difference between these situations during the project period was the concert with Michael Duch when we rehearsed in the same room and had the same listening conditions as when we performed the concert. When it comes to the relationship between specific practise strategies and concert performances I find audible structural and timbral fingerprints in the performance that can be traced back to the rehearsals, even though not always intentional. I think it is more connected to a collective recognition of specific musical situations more than recognition of parameters as rhythm, tonality, dynamics etc.

5. Which new possibilities for musical expression do I experience, performing as a member of T-EMP?

This is to a large degree attached to the further development, processing and playing of my own instrument both mechanical and sonically, but also strongly connected to the instrument augmentation that takes place through live processing.

6. Which limitations (or challenges) do I experience in T-EMP?

One of the challenges is connected to listening conditions during concerts. During concerts the strategy of collective listening condition is more absent (see listening) in difference from headset listening in a studio environment. During concerts there is a tendency that the collective sound image becomes overcrowded. It can therefore be a challenge to work dynamically with smaller details without it disappearing from the audible range both for the other performers and the audience. This is both a challenge concerning listening conditions, but also musically through collective awareness from the different performers.

7. Are there any exercises or musical situations I have experienced as difficult or problematic?

It is difficult to contribute musically under introduction of sounds that has a wide range in the frequency spectrum, and especially if these are repeated through static loops or are being further processed. This challenge is much easier solved in a studio session doing sound on sound through repeated listening, but is still an identifiable challenge during improvisation. I find it challenging to make quick shifts in the music since my reaction time to sound processing isn’t as quick as on my mechanical instrument. (Even thou there has been a vast improvement during the project period)

8. Are there qualities in my own playing, developed through T-EMP that I bring with me into music making in other ensembles?

During the project period I have developed a larger repertoire both instrumental and sound production related which I introduce in interplay with other ensembles. I have also built up a larger degree of “patience” when it comes to musical development and form (for example the use of dynamics or changing directions over time).

9. How did I experience the input and response from the various guest musicians?

The input and response from the guest musicians has been positive. I think the input has been best when the guest musicians have introduced their working methods and views using their framework as a starting point. (Ref Michael Duch)

10. To what degree do I experience T-EMP as an ensemble playing free improvisation?

I experience T-EMP as afree improvisation ensemble even thou parts of the collective rehearsal strategies we have explored during the project period has been established as part of the ensembles musical expression.

11. To what degree can I identify the other musicians’ voice/contribution in T-EMP (as well as my own contribution)?

To a large degree (except situations with several instances of live processing).

12. What is my experience of the common monitor mix? Does this affect my playing?

I believe that the thought and strategy behind collective listening has been an important aiming point through the project period. This has to a large degree helped us to “balance” the ensemble, and have made individual musicians more aware of their personal contribution to the sound image as a whole. As already mentioned I think that the collective listening is best represented through headphones. This is closest to the ideal balance between the acoustic and electronic instruments since it gives the opportunity of separating everyone from the direct sound from their instruments.

Tone

1. How does my role in T-EMP change me as a communicating musician?

Which musical parameters do I use?
How is communication executed? Do I communicate differently with different musicians in the ensemble?
How do I experience my own role in relation to the others’ roles?

• Musical parameters:

- Sound and timbre

- The experience of space: distance/nearness, some times panning.

- The span between natural and processed voice sound

- Text in a broad sense; text as meaning, text as sound, sound that gives ”an impression of meaning”.

- Melody in a span from coherent and tonal, to the less coherent and less tonal

- Rhythm in a span from metric grooves to the experience of impulses and time

- Dynamics

- Density vs. transparency

- Register / frequencies

- Musical parameters in the interplay: impulse / response, foreground / background, ”being in a state ” vs. ”making a statement”

• Communication:

- I think that I communicate more often with:

Carl Haakon on rhythmic interplay

Øyvind on ”joint motions” / sound world

Bernt / Trond: sometimes on picking up a theme, some times on improvising melody / theme while they play kind of accompaniment.

As said, this is more often, but not the general rule.

• Roles:

- I feel in many ways that we have equal and open positions in the first place. Nevertheless, I find that when I use the voice in a fairly recognizable form, I soon turn into a sort of solist. The natural voice often calls for immediate attention, an attention that is different than for the other instruments (see pp.60-88 in Tone Åse: “The voice and the machine- and the voice in the machine - now you see me, now you don´t -” [3]). When Øyvind is using his voice, as he sometimes does, he is playing with the same ”access to attention”, but often (much more often than me) he uses a very processed voice, which seem to blend more than it peaks out.

2. What is the most important contribution I make to T-EMP?

- I think my main contribution to T- EMP is that I bring in the human voice and variations of it (natural/processed). The voice often creates a ”human focus”, and it can bring in text or ”meaning” of some kind (see above on describing musical parameters.) Compared to how a purely instrumental ensemble would sound, the voice therefore often brings in a quite different element, or layer, in the music.

3. How is my playing / my mode of musical interaction different in T-EMP, compared to other ensembles or constellations that I am involved in?

In our last two projects with T-EMP, my voice sound has sometimes been processed by other musicians in the ensemble, both in recordings and in live performance. For me, this is unique to the work with T-EMP. Moreover, in this ensemble one often does not hear / see / know who is doing what, which is - although this may occur in a smaller scale in other ensembles- special for this ensemble. This makes the listening in this ensemble a little bit different than in others, and also I have less control over the design of the music:
I do not always know what's “coming back” from my own impulses
I do not always know whom I interact with.

Because of these aspects, I think my focus is more on the wholeness than the details in larger parts of the musical interplay in T-EMP than in other ensembles. As a comparison, in the parts where I go into a more direct interaction with Carl Haakon, focus shifts towards the interaction between us, both visually and musically, and the focus on the wholeness may therefore be reduced.

4. How do I experience the relationship between rehearsal and concert?

- When we rehearse we often focus on specific exercises and elements that can appear later, in concert (- or not.) We rehearse both disciplined / planned / point focused, and also more openly. We usually have put up some frames for a set/concert, derived from exercises we have done. Often these frames are more like starting points for improvisation than they are strict rules. I find the exercises very important for the live performance. To be able to improvise freely with this relatively large and to some degree uncontrollable ensemble, it is crucial to have some common reference points and strategies. Because we all have so many sonic possibilities, it is very important that we have meeting points that we can identify as a common, unified idea.

- Many of the exercises have been opening up new opportunities through their disciplining effect. An exercise can force you to find new solutions both individually and together. I believe it is especially important for this ensemble to experience this together, one of the reasons being our dependence on technology – a dependence that might lead us to letting the technology set the premises for how we play.

5. Which new possibilities for musical expression do I experience, performing as a member of T-EMP?

T-EMP offers a wider sound palette than other ensembles I play with. I can use sounds that are more "electronic" in nature than I naturally do in contexts where acoustic instruments are involved. So my choices of processed sounds seem to be less restricted in this ensemble.
T-EMP sounds very different than my other ensembles, not just because of the technology and sounds involved, but also the other musical personalities involved.
To sing while another person is processing my voice is a brand new experience. It's challenging, but also rewarding in terms of new sound and new interaction.

6. Which limitations (or challenges) do I experience in T-EMP?

- I mentioned above that the roles are experienced as open, but that I also, as soon as I use the recognizable voice, become a kind of solist. I have also found that I - more often than I really want-, have felt a need for the recognizable voice to be present, to “break surfaces” / create momentums in the improvised progression. I get “impatient”, it feels like there is not enough happening, and therefore I use the recognisable voice to make a kind of musical “statement”. This points to a challenging area that has to do with the experience of time and development in musical improvisation. We are, individually and together, dealing with a balance: on the one side the appreciating of slow progressions and variations through soundscapes in transformation, and on the other side experiencing the need for the music to "do" something (to “tell a story”), see pp.117-122, Åse [3]. In this balancing I often will have to choose between a) make a contribution that takes a clear focus, create a momentum, or b) focus on the small changes along the way, contribute to this with small-scale details or just listen to what is happening- trust the music and your fellow musicians. (The choice of what role to take is naturally connected to the choice of what the wholeness should sound like...) This situation is comparable with other ensembles where I am working with free improvisation, but is perhaps even more challenging in T- EMP. I think this is because the ensemble is relatively large as to work as a free improvising group, and there are a lot of individual ideas, various aesthetics and different conceptions of time at play.

- T-EMP as a group has access to a lot of sounds, much of the sounds being long sounds (delays, loops, reverbs) and rich sounds (wide in frequencies)- and the total “sound room” tends to be easily “filled up”. I have some times found it difficult to contribute with other sounds than the recognizable voice, there is no space left. I have sometimes thought that it might have been more appropriate to have an acoustic singer in this group, because there are so many musicians working with electronic sound simultaneously. But other times I find that there is room to contribute, and that I find opportunities within my sound vocabulary that can bring in important musical contributions.

7. Are there any exercises or musical situations I have experienced as difficult or problematic?

- Exercises with short impulses and / or rapid change was challenging at first, and revealed that I - and others -had to practice this to be able to work intuitively with short sounds. It was revealed how intuitiveness and controller-intimacy is closely connected.

- When several players use "big", spatial sounds, this is sometimes hard to develop further from musically, and also to make a shift from in a dynamic and musical way. If small changes happen, they are often camouflaged by the "big”.

- Gradual changes and shifts of individual musical ideas are happening rather often, and this can lead to a lack of common ideas, clarity , form and consistency in the music. Probably this tendency has several reasons: our competence and skills as improvisators, the fact that we work with electronic instruments, (with sounds that are easy to transform gradually, and a lot of new possibilities coming up all the time), our experience as a band, and also- again- the size of the ensemble.

- I do not always experience that we all listen for the totality of the music. This may be because we constantly work in parallel with our processing of sound, and might be very concerned with just that.

8. Are there qualities in my own playing, developed through T-EMP that I bring with me into music making in other ensembles?

- Through working with T-EMP I have explored new sounds and techniques that I bring into my work with other ensembles.

9. How did I experience the input and response from the various guest musicians?

- Working with composer and producer has been useful. They have in various ways been providing us with different musical strategies and solutions, through exercises and “outside opinions” on how the music and interaction in the band is working.

- Playing with external musicians has been inspiring by the virtue of meeting new "voices", but has also given us a some new challenges in the musical interaction. Again: more people in the musical interaction often make the situation more complex an uncontrollable. An important question arising from the work with T-EMP and also from working with electronic instruments in general, is how many musical impulses and ideas one can relate to simultaneously:

- Working with Michael Duch in a chamber music setting is what I see as the most musical successful collaborative project we have had. I think this was for several reasons:

a) Because we worked with open-form compositions that cultivated common focus points and useful structures, still with much room for improvisation.

b) Because Michael demonstrated very clearly - as a musician in the interaction- how this framework could be used.

c) I experienced that our listening focus increased, probably also because we played in a smaller room, and therefore we were all more restrained.

10. To what degree do I experience T-EMP as an ensemble playing free improvisation?

- That's what we do. Not free improvisation as a genre, but in the respect that very little is planned, and the choice of musical parameters is wide open.

11. To what degree can I identify the other musicians’ voice/contribution in T-EMP (as well as my own contribution)?

- Sometimes it is easy, sometimes difficult. Carl Haakon's acoustic sound is easy to separate from the others, and so is often Øyvinds processing of Carl Haakon’s sounds. For natural reasons I often recognise my own sound easily, but some of it can still be difficult to separate sometimes, especially when I use samples and loops. The two guitarists are often difficult to distinguish from each other, and Øyvind’s sounds can often get mixed up with sounds from the guitarists.

12. What is my experience of the common monitor mix? Does this affect my playing?

- I think shared listening (we all hear the same mix of our sounds in the monitoring) is the only solution for us - although I often instinctively would like to have some closer contact with my own sound. I think this solution is necessary because neither our role in the interplay, nor the music produced, is pre-defined. If these aspects were defined, like in a rock band, we could take more responsibility for our own contribution, knowing that the sound engineer could take care of the balancing. I think a consequence of the shared listening is that I am less focused on details in my own sound, and more focussed on the whole, as mentioned earlier.

Carl Haakon

1. How does my role in T-EMP change me as a communicating musician?

Which musical parameters do I use?
How is communication executed? Do I communicate differently with different musicians in the ensemble?
How do I experience my own role in relation to the others’ roles?

I am the only musician in T-EMP who does not process my own sounds or sounds made by other musicians in the ensemble (except for the acoustic processing involved as a consequence of the different ways in which I am interacting with my instrument). On the other hand, the acoustic sounds that are generated by my playing are often processed by someone else. In the beginning of our cooperation this was done by Øyvind, but now also Bernt and Trond are processing sounds coming from me. – This fact, being processed by others, establishes for me some clear premises and constraints for how my musical communication in T-EMP is expressed.

Musical parameters:

Generally speaking I am very focused on texture and timbre when I am playing with T-EMP. For example, I might choose to play with metal sounds (e.g. different bells, triangle, finger cymbal, afro-bell) for a long period of time. I do this trying to establish a texture-room that communicates an invitation to be processed. If someone responds positively to this invitation, I will often continue within the same texture in order to make it possible to develop an interplay between my sound colour and the processing of my sounds over time. This might also lead to that through our mutual interaction we develop some other sound colour or a different texture.

When I communicate an invitation to be processed, I am curious and I try to be open minded and sensitive to what is happening. My response to the processing will often follow one of the following two directions: I might play short statements and open up for the processed sound to live its own life in the prolongation of my separate contributions, or I might in my playing try to quote or imitate qualities in the processed sound at the same time as the processing takes place, thereby making a kind of textural or timbral feedback. This latter strategy will often lead to a condensation of intensity which might, for example, result in a crescendo, whereas the former often gives a more transparent expression. – If my sounds are not processed (i.e. I receive no answers to my invitation), I will try myself to respond to my invitation by continuing to play within the texture that I have created.

One reason for me to be focused on texture and timbre is that I consider these parameters to be important form constituting elements in my performance and in my interaction and communication with the other musicians in T-EMP. Another important form constituting element is motif/ phrase. I will often repeat/ develop/ improvise around different motifs and in that way try to establish a natural consistency and progress in my playing. If my sounds are processed, the interaction of the processing and my performance might also contribute to develop the motivic material. – To work with motifs and phrases is also a strategy I use actively when I change texture. For instance, I might improvise around a motif that I play with metal sounds (processed or not processed) and the change to play improvisations over the same motif with mallets on the drums (new texture). Thereby I am able to maintain a consistency in my performance even if the texture is changing.

In combination with texture/ timbre and motif/ phrases, when I perform in T-EMP I am also focused on density of events, dynamics, momentum and quasi-groove. All of these parameters are important both for my own performance as well as for the total expression of T-EMP. – Density of events might also mean silence, and can be decomposed to (at least) two sonic dimensions in time: Density of simultaneous events (a measure of how many things are happening at the same time, – i.e. vertical placement of events along the axis of time), and density of events happening after one another (horizontally along the time axis). High density of events (vertical as well as horizontally) might often be associated with high sound level, but I have also experienced great moments in T-EMP when we have played with large density of events on a low dynamical level, for instance when we all start gradually from silence or when one musician makes a sound and we other try to imitate or recreate the timbre of the sound that started (large vertical density), or when we all play soft and make a common phrase together (often large horizontal density within each phrase).

Momentum is a term introduced by Bent Sæther, and for me this represents an element which contributes to development and progress, but does so in a non-uniform way. (It might be that my understanding of this term is somewhat special.) The way I see it, momentum is related to motion, and visually I associate it with the motion of a wheel that is continuously changing shape (e.g. elliptic, circular, super elliptic etc.). Momentum has often got cyclic qualities but flexible and changing cycle period. Seen as such, momentum is also related to quasi-groove, which to me is an ostinato or almost-ostinato that is repeated or almost-repeated with changing frequency of performance or gliding variations in tempo. This is something I sometimes use in T-EMP and can be exemplified by a performance of an accentuated double stroke roll which is played orchestrated on different drums with different variations in tempo. In addition to being a quasi-groove this also represents an element with varying horizontal density of events.

Communication:

I think it is correct to say that my communication in T-EMP to a certain extent changes character dependent upon whether the musician(s) I am communicating with is (are) processing my sounds or not. Of course I often try to communicate with several musicians at the same time, or, in the context of T-EMP, maybe better expressed by saying that I communicate with the totality of what we all are playing together. In this way different types of communication happen at the same time.

The only musician in T-EMP that does not process my sounds, is Tone. Therefore, my communication with Tone resembles largely how I communicate musically in other ensembles where external processing of my sounds is not applied. The way I see it, this communication is basically on the level of statements, i.e. we communicate by performing different musical statements (short or long phrases/ sentences/ utterances) in an interactive interplay. This interplay can have the structure of a dialogue or I might be more commenting or accompanying to what Tone is performing (or vice versa, Tone might comment or accompany me). We might also play in a similar or contrasting way, and we can perform our musical statements at the same time or after one another. This is also how I communicate with the other musicians in T-EMP that are not processing my sounds.

When my sounds are being processed by Øyvind, Bernt or Trond, my communication with the musician doing the processing is to a larger extent on the level of sound objects, meaning that we communicate by developing complex sounds in the meeting between drum/ percussion sounds and the sonic processing of these. In this process of interaction we create new sounds and sonic events that constitute a common musical statement that both of us are responsible for. – In the previous I have already mentioned in what concrete ways I invite and respond to processing, and which parameters I focus on to formulate musical statements.

Roles:

As pointed out above, I am the only musician in T-EMP who does not process my own sounds or sounds made by any other in the ensemble. This implies that in my performance I can have full focus and attention on my physical interaction with my drums and percussion and the external processing of my sounds that may or may not happen. Thus, when I play, the temporal distance between impulse and action is short, and I am able to respond to and trigger musical events very fast. This is something that to a certain extent distinguishes my role (or my musical possibilities) from the roles of the other musicians in T-EMP (even if also those who do processing (of own or other´s sound) eventually will develop very good control of their instruments and thereby are able to react fast). – In other words; in my physical interaction with the drums I have a very high degree of control intimacy. On the other hand I have basically no control of the result of any processing that my acoustic sounds might be subject to. This control lies outside me in the hands of the musician doing the processing. However, through rehearsing and practicing the processing musician and I establish a mutual relationship of trust and a common musical understanding, so that we eventually recognize each other´s way of playing and achieve a common control and responsibility of the musical result.

Something which also makes my role different is that I am playing a percussive, non-tonal instrument. Moreover, in my playing there is a clear and visual obvious connection between the gestures my body makes in the performance and the sounds and sounding events that I produce. These issues will be further commented below.

2. What is the most important contribution I make to T-EMP?

The way I see it, my most important contributions to T-EMP are the following:

I play an instrument that (processed or not processed) complements the other instruments in the ensemble in an exciting way. Drums and percussion contribute to an extended and diverse palette of sounds, and the acoustic sounds that I create are well suited for being processed. Not the least is this due to the percussion sounds being non-tonal, most of the sounds I create have a clear attack, and many of them have short duration.
In my performance I contribute significantly with percussive, rhythmic, quasi-rhythmic and motivic elements in the total musical expression of T-EMP. This represents valuable expressive musical opportunities and qualities in relation to (and in combination with) the more drone-like and ambient contributions.
In my performance there is a clear connection between my body movements and the sounds that I create. This is also true if my sounds are processed, even if the mapping between my gestures and sounds in that case is not quite as unambiguous. Such a clear relation between gesture and sound is not to the same extent present in the performances of the other musicians in T-EMP. It should at this point be mentioned that this identification of the clear connection between causes and results in my performance might be seen to contradict a basic premise in the artistic research of T-EMP formulated in our project description, where we say that it is difficult to know who is doing what. However, my impression is that if the audience experience that what they hear and what they see (to a certain degree) is related to each other, this will represent a positive communicating element.
When (if) I succeed in my performance, I am able to be a musical story teller, i.e. I can (in interaction with the other musicians) create a consistent musical development with an interesting progression of events.
As we all are, I am an important contributor to our critical reflection.

3. How is my playing / my mode of musical interaction different in T-EMP, compared to other ensembles or constellations that I am involved in?

Outside of T-EMP I have been playing in some T-EMP-related constellations: “Little Soldier Joe” (with Øyvind), “Magnify the Sound” (with Trond and Claus Sohn Andersen), a trio with Trond and Rune Hoemsnes, and a duo with Bernt. All of these constellations are based on free improvisation and various processing of my sounds, and in these settings my playing and musical communication is quite similar to how I perform in T-EMP. – Outside the T-EMP related constellations I am today not playing in any ensembles where free improvisation or processing of my sounds are involved. However, I have earlier been working with free improvisation, mostly solo or in duo settings. In these cases my ways of performing have much in common with the musical strategies I chose in T-EMP: Focusing on texture, motif, density of events, quasi-groove, and more general: form and structure. All in all these are parameters that in varying degree are general for much free improvised music as a whole.

What obviously makes my playing and communication in T-EMP-related ensembles different from how I play in other constellations, is that within the T-EMP-related settings another musician is processing the sounds that I create. As I have touched upon in the previous (1) I am in these cases making sounds in the meeting between drum/ percussion sounds and the sonic processing of these. In this process of interaction the processor and I are creating new sounds and sonic events that constitute a common musical statement that we both are responsible for. I have previously mentioned how I invite and respond to such processing.

4. How do I experience the relationship between rehearsal and concert?

During our artistic research with T-EMP we have been working with different external musicians at different times and to some extent these various musicians have given us different challenges and exercises to work with. A list of important and valuable exercises is given in 2.4. A common feature of many of these exercises is that the exercise often focuses on one or a few well-defined musical parameters at a time in order to make us aware of the musical potential of these particular parameters and make us able to recognize the musical consequences of their application. In this way the exercises establish a common vocabulary and a common musical reference which we may apply in our musical improvisation and communication during our concerts. Seen as such, many of the exercises have been quite rigorous with well-defined rules that we are “not allowed to” break. This has been of great importance in the process of identifying and recognizing different musical scenarios, but it has sometimes happened at the expense of musical development and progress. Exceptions to this situation have been exercises where we have tried to make short or longer musical pieces with explicit focus on form, dramaturgy, consistency and development.

When we have been playing concerts we have at different times in varying ways related our performance to specific exercises. Sometimes we have started a piece by playing a specific exercise and then allowing ourselves to develop and expand the musical material beyond the limits of the exercise, e.g. at our concert in Dublin, where one of the pieces started with the phrase-exercise (see 2.4). Other times we have been playing a whole concert without deciding to apply any particular exercise, but rather use various exercises as a common reference for our improvisation, e.g. at our concert with Michael Duch in “Orgelsalen” where the only thing we had agreed on in advance was that the concert should start gradually from silence.

All in all, whether we decide to use specific exercises or not in our concerts, my experience is that the exercises and our rehearsals are very important in establishing a common vocabulary and a musical sensitivity of different musical scenarios which we can apply when we perform free improvisation together. – Actually, I think that we should not be afraid to agree on using some specific exercises as starting points or points of convergence in our concerts since such an agreement might help us to develop a common form, consistency and musical direction in our performance.

5. Which new possibilities for musical expression do I experience, performing as a member of T-EMP?

Again, as I have discussed several times in the previous, the major difference in my performance in T-EMP as compared to other ensembles I am playing in, is due to the fact that in T-EMP (and T-EMP-related constellations) someone else is processing my sounds. This causes a new situation for musical communication where I, in interaction with the musician processing my sounds, am given access to a new sonic palette of sounds and sound events which opens up for new expressive possibilities.

6. Which limitations (or challenges) do I experience in T-EMP?

When I am performing in T-EMP I find challenges related to both the fact that my sounds (sometimes) are being processed as well as to us playing free improvisation. When my sounds are processed a major challenge is to react and interact with the processor in a way which (at least to me) makes sense musically. In the answer to question 1 I have described two ways by which I might respond to being processed: I might play short statements and open up for the processed sound to live its own life in the prolongation of my separate contributions, or I might in my playing try to quote or imitate qualities in the processed sound at the same time as the processing takes place, thereby making a kind of textural or timbral feedback. In both cases the musician doing the processing and I have to adjust to one another and come to some mutual understanding in order to be able to create a common musical statement that (hopefully) makes sense to both of us. – If the person who is processing and I do not come to an agreement on musical development and progression, I might experience this as a limitation for my own musical creativity, and I will probably stop or start doing something else.

I also find it challenging to play free improvisation in a consistent way with good dramaturgy, progression and musical form. This goes both for my own contribution as well as for the total interaction and the expression and musical development of T-EMP. Not the least have I experienced challenges related to establishing a common understanding of musical progression and dramaturgy among all the musicians in T-EMP in real-time free improvised performance.

Moreover, it might be challenging to blend my acoustic sounds with the electronic sounds, especially when my sounds are not processed. It should at this point be mentioned that we made an interesting observation when we played the concert with Michael at “Orgelsalen”: When we all played very soft, the distinctions between the acoustic and the electronic sounds almost disappeared.

7. Are there any exercises or musical situations I have experienced as difficult or problematic?

I do not recall to have experienced any particular exercise or musical situation as difficult or problematic. – On the contrary, I find challenges in every exercise and every musical situation. It might, for example, be a challenge to make decisions, or to make decisions without thinking about which decision to make. I also find it difficult sometimes to get into the mood of free improvisation, for instance by not thinking (too much) about what I did the last time we played. – It is very easy to recall a strategy, choice or idea which was successful yesterday and it might be tempting to try to repeat, or in some way recycle the same idea in my performance today. Of course, this might sometimes work well, but other times not at all. – The challenge in all of this, the way I see it, is to be present in the moment of performance.

8. Are there qualities in my own playing, developed through T-EMP that I bring with me into music making in other ensembles?

As I have mentioned earlier, my performance in the so-called T-EMP-related constellations is quite similar to the way I am playing in T-EMP. Aside of this, I think that my playing in T-EMP has given me a strengthened sense of timbral and sonic qualities and an enlarged understanding of how sound processing can enrich the expressivity of my interactive performance. Moreover, I have extended my repertoire of strategies that may be used in various free improvisation contexts, and I have learned to recognize and identify different musical consequences of choices made on the basis of these strategies.

9. How did I experience the input and response from the various guest musicians?

During our artistic research with T-EMP we have been fortunate to meet and play with many different excellent musicians that in various ways have given us valuable input and response, both to the whole ensemble and to me, on a personal level. – The first external person we cooperated with, was composer John Lato in Maynooth, Ireland. He was very helpful in giving response to different exercises we tried out at a relatively early stage in our musical development. He also suggested some new exercises for us to work on, e.g. “Secret message” (c.f. 2.4). In this respect, his competence as a composer was important since this made him comment upon the development of the various exercises as a whole musical piece. – In Maynooth and Dublin we also met and played with Bryan Quigley (double bass). He joined the ensemble as “one of us”; as a member of T-EMP for some days. Bryan´s role in T-EMP was quite similar to my role. He played an acoustic instrument, he was not processing anybody else, but he was (sometimes) processed by Øyvind. Bryan has in many ways a quite percussive approach to his double bass playing, and I felt that he and I communicated very well. Bryan and Patrick Mc Glynn (shakuhachi and laptop) also came to play concerts with us in Trondheim and Oslo. To me it was a little bit difficult to identify the contribution of Patrick.

We had a three-day studio session with Bent Sæther acting as a producer. Bent was very good at pointing out the importance of form and composition in our performance, both when we were doing exercises during rehearsals and in concerts. He suggested exercises where our focus should be on form, consistency and real-time-composition, and we also played some pieces where we had agreed on some specific roles: Some of us were playing solistic, some others were accompanying. Moreover, Bent gave us some concepts to think about, like ´momentum´ (c.f. my answer to question 1) and ´release´ (Norwegian: ´forløsning´). These concepts probably meant different things for the different of us, but nevertheless they triggered some interesting musical action and development. – I also made an interesting observation during our rehearsals with Bent. We got quite exhausted and worn out during three intensive days, - and to me we played best at the end of day 2 and 3. In other words, as I see it, we made the best performances when we were tired and exhausted. – Maybe this is because we were then not thinking too much, - we just let things happen?

Michael Duch introduced us to some interesting exercises in John Stevens´ book, “Search and Reflect” (Stevens [4]). Many of these were drone-based and related to breathing. Together with him we also played some compositions based on written texts, e.g. “Song of Pleasure” (Cornelius Cardew [5]), “For Strings” (Howard Skempton [2]) and “Horse Sings from Cloud” (Pauline Oliveros [6]). Michael has a very broad experience from playing free improvised music in a large variety of contexts and I learned a lot from him, - I think in particular related to consistency, patience and sensitivity to timbral qualities. We did a very nice concert with Michael playing double bass in “Orgelsalen”. There was relatively little processing of my sounds involved in that concert. The concert room invited us all to play rather soft and, as mentioned earlier, we made the interesting observation that when we were playing soft, the distinction between the acoustic and electronic sounds almost disappeared.

I think that the input and response that we received from David Moss during four days of rehearsals and a concert in many ways has made us rethink our personal musical roles and the total aesthetics of T-EMP. When we were cooperating with David, we had also invited Arnfinn Killingtveit (laptop, electronics, circuit bending) to join us. With his more noise-oriented, “alternative” and sometimes surprising use of electronics I experienced that Arnfinn represented a very exciting and fresh contribution that complemented what was else going on in T-EMP. – David is a very good observer and he was quite concrete and direct in his comments to what was going on. One very important thing that he made us aware of was our musical habits, and he suggested that we should be careful in using these. For instance, he noted that I used a lot of accelerandi and ritardandi in my playing which he found boring, he said that the use of sinus-sounds is a bit easy, Tone should not use harmonizer on her voice, the stuttering cut-up sounds of granular synthesis might be a cliché and Øyvind should be careful using it, the use of crescendo and decrescendo linked with glissando is too obvious, and we should avoid constant evolution. Moreover, David underlined the importance of communication with the audience and visual and gestural aspects in our performance, he said that we should have personal roles and deliver solistic contributions, and that it is important to be able to identify the individual musician in the ensemble. – This latter statement might be seen to be in conflict with a basic aesthetic premise of T-EMP, where the process of processing and inter-processing often creates one ensemble-voice rather than a multitude of different individual voices, and it will at many times be difficult to perceive and identify who is playing what.

David made us also play different exercises where visual or text based cues were used to give structure and progression in our performance as well as to communicate musical development. For example, he made each of us bring a physical object to be kept secret to the other musicians, and then, at different times in our performance, each one of us, one after another, stopped the music and showed the object we had brought to the others (e.g. a shoe, a guitar effect box, a seashell), where after the music was started again. In this way our musical actions were triggered by clearly communicated visual cues and physical objects. This strategy was also applied in our concert with David at Rockheim.

In many respects it makes sense to say that David´s focus on the importance of the visual, gestural, individual, and identifiable aspects of our performance represents an antithesis compared to basic aesthetic premises of the artistic research of T-EMP. At the present time I think it is too early to say what our meeting with David has done to the total musical expression of T-EMP. However, for my own personal sake, I feel that David´s observations of my habits have been very helpful in that he has pin pointed what I tend to do too much. He has also suggested some alternative musical solutions to me, e.g. to play some shorter patterns, bring back past material (don´t allow the past to disappear (this goes for all of us)), and instead of playing long sustained sounds: play continuous sounds with short stops, - then I can quickly go somewhere else during the stop instead of fading out the sustained sound.

Summing up, I think our meetings with the external musicians have all had a great and very important impact on the musical progression of T-EMP as well as on my own personal development as a free improvising musician. Related to this, one thing that I have been thinking about is that now we need some time “alone” as an ensemble to digest and gradually internalize the large amount of input we have received. – We need to “find ourselves” somewhere in the plurality of ideas generated by ourselves and others. – I am also of the opinion that David´s observations of our habits have been very helpful for us to rethink our roles, musical choices and our artistic aesthetics as a whole, and I am grateful for, and I welcome his suggestions of different musical solutions. – At the same time there are, as we all know, good and bad habits, - and, the way I see it, our habits contribute substantially to constitute our personality, which, eventually, gives us an identifiable signature. Therefore, rather than abandoning all my habits I have learned to change some of them and also to use some others in a more balanced way.

10. To what degree do I experience T-EMP as an ensemble playing free improvisation?

Many have discussed and reflected upon the question: What is free improvisation? (E.g. Bailey [7], Duch [8], Hovinbøle [1], Santi [9] and Stenström [10]). I will not take part in that discussion here, but rather comment on how I experience the praxis of improvisation in T-EMP. In T-EMP we do not play pre-composed music and we never sound the same in two different concerts. However, we communicate with one another and in order to be able to do that, we have established a language that constitutes a common reference for our communication (which also is the case on a general level in any communicative setting). This language has been developed through a large number of exercises and various situations of playing together, and has given us a common understanding of different musical parameters, sonic scenarios and modules of musical events. When we perform together, we use this language to express ourselves, but we try to do this in a spontaneous, intuitive way, which makes it possible for us, at any time, to make new choices, or to go somewhere else musically. To me, this characterizes a (freely) improvised communication. At the same time, as I have focused upon in the previous, we are concerned with form, consistency, dramaturgy and development in our performance, so there is also in our playing a strong component of real-time-composition, where we are extending the presence to include reminiscences of the past and predictions of the future. – Seen as such, in the performances of T-EMP we communicate related to a common musical language within which we create music that is balanced between approaches of free improvisation and real-time-composition.

11. To what degree can I identify the other musicians’ voice/contribution in T-EMP (as well as my own contribution)?

To what extent I can identify the different musicians in T-EMP is to a large extent dependent on how much processing and inter-processing is happening. At most times I am clearly aware of my own contributions and the processed results of these. I also identify Tone very well because even if her voice is processed, there is some basic vocal character to her sounds. It is not always easy to identify which of our two guitar players that are doing what, but Bernt tends to often play more rhythmic or quasi-rhythmic material (which at many times invites me into rhythmic, motivic interplay), whereas Trond to a larger extent plays drone-based, ambient or melodic. As to the processing of Øyvind, Bernt and Trond, it is sometimes difficult to know who is doing what, but I am most used to the processing of Øyvind, so I think I identify his processing better than that of Bernt and Trond.

At this point I should also mention that I had a great experience with T-EMP at our studio session/ rehearsal, April 11th. At this event there were no external musicians, we were all playing with headsets, and there was a lot of inter-processing happening. Many times during this session my sounds were processed in a way that made me wonder: What is this marvellous sound? Where does it come from? Where am I? – As a result of all of this I experienced a quite exciting duality of being present/ non-present in the total sonic landscape, and I felt that we all more or less vanished into a dynamic, gradually evolving common sonic expression. – It would be interesting to investigate this further. –

12. What is my experience of the common monitor mix? Does this affect my playing?

Since the very beginning of T-EMP we have applied a listening strategy which establishes that we all basically hear the same total mix of what we are playing together. This mix should also be the same that the audience experience. Moreover, every processing is done in real-time by musicians in T-EMP, which creates a close interaction between the studio- and live/ stage-environments. – All of this implies that we contribute to, and communicate with the total expression of T-EMP, and to a certain extent get more focused on how our individual playing contributes to the totality than on our individual performance as such. To me, this is basically how I focus in my musical performances on a general level. What is of special importance in my performance with T-EMP is that I hear the consequences of sound processing in a sonic realistic way, in order for me to be able to react and interact with the processor in musical meaningful ways. I think that for me the optimal way to establish this is achieved when I am playing with headsets. – However, this issue is currently being discussed in T-EMP.

References:

[1] Hovinbøle, Tom Løberg (2012) Lyttekunst. Samtaler om fri-improvisert musikk, Marhaug Forlag

[2] Skempton, Howard (1969) For Strings. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vTXhAs7e-U

[3] Åse, Tone (2012) The voice and the machine - and the voice in the machine - now you see me, now you don´t, NTNU, Trondheim

[4] Stevens, John (2007) Search & Reflect, Rockschool

[5] Cardew, Cornelius (1967) Song of Pleasure. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Cardew

[6] Oliveros, Pauline (1971) Horse Sings from Cloud. See: https://soundcloud.com/artpractical/pauline-oliveros-clip-for

[7] Bailey, Derek (1993) Improvisation - Its Nature and Practice in Music, Da Capo Press

[8] Duch, Michael (2010) Free Improvisation - Method and Genre. Artistic Research in Free Improvisation and Improvisation in Experimental Music, NTNU, Trondheim

[9] Santi, M. (Ed.) (2010) Improvisation - Between Technique and Spontaneity, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing

[10] Stenström, H. (2009) Free Ensemble Improvisation, Gothenburg: ArtMonitor

Tip

Tip

T-EMP and I

Øyvind

Bernt Isak

Trond

Tone

Carl Haakon