log jam

[by nick]

last thursday at the graham avenue branch we had heaps of fun, or at least i did, and we made great progress on log rhythms. we were very fortunate to have both tim rox and miri present for playtime, both of whom have background and knowledge of improvised performance. i think their presence helped push us to the next level. so thanks to them. i wanted to outline the variations of log rhythms that we now have on the experimental table, discussing the issues surrounding each (as i understand them) and offering the order of these variations as a potential order in which the performance might happen. these models and names of models are the result of crankys discussion paper presented in rozelle about a month ago, and the subsequent trials of and additions to these models.

model 1: the central text generator, or the chance generator.

in this model a central text is used as the “conductor” around which the “loggers” orientate or “trigger” their logs. the central text is required, it seems, to be made up of a string of repeating words or numbers, the order of which alters. each logger chooses one of the triggers, and no-one chooses the same one. it has been suggested that numbers work best as the central text, in that they are the easiest to hear amidst the total group sound. in trialling, this model has been the most likely to become cluttered and descend into shouting over one another. three things have been suggested in this regard. firstly, the encouragement to silence if the total performance needs it. secondly, having a larger number of words or numbers in the central text which weren’t don’t act as triggers. and third, reading the central text at a much slower rate. is it left to the reader of the central text to decide the tempo?

[a thought: perhaps the tempo of reading the central text could be itself subject to chance. one way would be to establish a tempo range, i.e. a faster and slowest tempo at which the performance still "works", i.e. doesn't become incoherent. we could have as a range, for example: fast, medium fast, medium, slow, very slow, extremely slow. if we said that we intend to use all of these tempos within the one performance, we could randomise this order.]

model 2: the conductor rules.

someone takes on the role of the conductor, and freely controls who logs when. potentially, they also control volume and tempo. the next question is, how do they trigger each log? when joel was conductor at rozelle, he used names. astrid stumbled upon another way at marrickville last week, when she used numbers, ostensibly to trial model 1, but ended up knowing each loggers number trigger, and thus conducted the piece. the most obvious issue with this model is the power ceded to the conductor, and how that sits within the wider idea of the performance, and it’s collectivity.

model 3: the map

someone, prior to the commencement of the performance, draws a map (like a single line graph) visible to everyone, and the performers interpret the map and guage from each other where on the map the performance is. there is wide ranging possibilities in this model, depending on how much the map is left to interpretation. a structure to inform the performers of where on the map the performance is at has been suggested to reduce differences in interpretation. alternatively, it has been argued that the variations in interpretation are precisely what’s interesting about this model, and rather than eliminating them, work with and revel in them.

model 4: the jam.

we tried this as the last thing of the night, and despite the general tiredness, it was the one that, i sensed, really excited everyone and made the night really worthwhile. interrelationships between loggers and their logs began to emerge and play themselves out delightfully. there was synchronism, contrast and dynamic beginning to happen. this was because we reached a new level of listening to each other and to the total group sound. i wonder how other people feel about this, but it felt to me that the free jam has the potential to be the pinnacle realisation of the log rhythms project.

an interesting variation: the nemesis.

as suggested by tim rox, in reference to something that the sydney based splinter orchestra do, we can have a variation, for any of the above models, whereby each logger chooses another logger to be their nemesis. one way to realise the nemesis variation is to say that: you can never be logging whilst your nemesis is logging. It seems to me that there could be many fruitful ways of having a nemesis, perhaps only excluding the type where you try to shout over the top of your nemesis.

post-script:

pinnacle or no, i think it’s a good idea to rephrase something that diSmithive said about improvised jazz. these jazz musicians come to the improvisation from a basis of high skill and discipline in their instrument, and that this discipline and skill is a large part of what allows the freedom and comfort within the improvised performance. in other words, we need to hone our logging material and becomes experts in how we log it.