There are plenty of musicians out there looking to cut corners in hard times, but this lot turn sloth into principle.
The Norwegian ensemble Supersilent has one rule, we are told: no rehearsals. They believe in free improvisation and, apparently, in free lunch.
They are coming on tour this winter without so much as a scratch session in an airport lounge. They are being co-funded by Arts Council England, would you believe… by its scandal-rdden Sound and Music department. Maybe there’s a warning here for UK orchestras.
Here’s how Supersilent sound. Press release appears below.
A SOUND AND MUSIC TOUR
plus support from AKI ONDA
UK Tour – November 2012
Produced by Qu Junktions
The combined elemental force of one of the world’s most questing musical units and Led Zeppelin’s legendary multi-instrumentalist resonates deep over a select set of UK dates in November 2012. The art of instant composition will be taken to new and beautifully realised places by a peerless group of musicians. Over decades and across innumerable live and recorded projects, both sides of this remarkable collaboration have embedded themselves on the map of exploratory contemporary music: this tour will see them push each other further, harder, wilder and freer… a heavyweight collaboration entering uncharted sonic zones.
The Norwegian ‘deathjazzambientavantrock’ ensemble Supersilent have just one rule: no rehearsals. Every recording and concert is entirely improvised, approaching each show with a conceptual rigour that makes each one a distinct and coherent soundworld. they have released 11 wildly contrasting albums on Rune Grammafon/ECM, playing live across the globe to rapturous and committed audiences. Whether dreaming up coruscating noise, minimal ambient meditations or electro-acoustic explorations the trio, comprising of Arve Henriksen(trumpet, electronics, drums, vocals), Ståle Storløkken (keyboards) and Helge Sten aka Deathprod (electronics) instinctively push to the outer limits and are capable of creating compositions of both profound beauty and elemental power.
A prolific session musician in the 1960s, John Paul Jones (bass) played, arranged and recorded with artists including Dusty Springfield, Tom Jones, The Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart and Cat Stevens. Following his unparalleled career as founder member of Led Zeppelin, he worked as a performer, arranger and producer for artists and groups including Diamanda Galas, REM, Brian Eno and La Fura dels Baus. He released his debut solo album Zooma in 1999, followed by The Thunderthief (2001). Since 2004, his sonic explorations have also led him to perform as part of John Cage’s Music Circus at the Barbican under the direction of Stephen Montague, touring with bluegrass trio Nickel Creek, and working as co-composer and performer for Merce Cunningham’s Nearly Ninety.
In 2009 John co-founded the band Them Crooked Vultures, with Dave Grohl and Josh Homme, releasing a universally acclaimed album and touring the world to sold-out venues. In 2011 John toured with Seasick Steve, appeared and performed in Mark-Anthony Turnage’s opera Anna Nicole, and is currently writing an opera based on Strindberg’s The Ghost Sonata.
Line up: Helge Sten, Ståle Storløkken, Arve Henriksen, John Paul Jones
AKI ONDA
Aki Onda (USA/Japan) is an artist whose musical instrument of choice is the cassette Walkman, which he has been using for over 20 years. He captures field recordings on tape and manipulates his source material electronically in spellbinding electro-acoustic performances. Onda started making music with Eye Yamatsuka (of The Boredoms) and Nobukazu Takemura in Osaka in 1990. He then became a sought after producer before starting his travels and recording his own poetic and highly personal solo albums, the result of re-examining moments of time he has spent travelling and recording.
TOUR DATES
NOVEMBER 2012
Wed 14 BIRMINGHAM, TOWN HALL (co-presented by Capsule)
8pm / £16.50 adv / 0121 345 0498 / www.thsh.co.uk
Thu 15 GLASGOW, THE ARCHES (presented by AC Projects)
8pm / £15 adv / 0141 565 1000 / www.thearches.co.uk
Fri 16 MANCHESTER, RNCM
7.30pm / £15 adv / 0161 907 5555 / www.rncm.ac.uk
Sat 17 BRISTOL, ARNOLFINI
8pm / £15 adv/ 0117 917 2300 / www.arnolfini.org.uk
Sat 18 LONDON, VILLAGE UNDERGROUND
8pm / £18 adv / www.villageunderground.co.uk
Produced by SAM www.soundandmusic.org, toured by Qu Junktions www.qujunktions.com
Sound and Music promotes contemporary music and sound art through a range of projects, incorporating live events, touring, learning, artist development, audience development and digital platforms. Sound and Music embraces complexity and risk-taking to invite the audience to listen in new ways.
For more information and press tickets please contact:
Julie Allison at Riotsquad Publicity - T: 01273 475980 E: julie@riotsquadpublicity.com
‘deathjazzambientavantrock’ – it’s always been a particular favourite of mine. Pleased the ACE are digging deep with all that spare cash and spreading in such an underdeveloped and deserving area. Perhaps when the various powers that be have finished with the Press, Police and now the Bankers, somebody could have a look at the fools that hold the purse strings at ACE.
Is your whole argument based on the makeshift genre they gave themselves? If so, it is as short-sighted and spurious as the article itself.
This group are an amazing sonic experience live. Well worth anybody who interested in experimental music’s time and money.
Do you know anything about the tradition of European free improvisation – musicians like Derek Bailey, Evan Parker, John Stevens, groups like AMM and SME? If so you would know how facile the idea that Supersilent “won’t rehearse” is. Your critique would be absolutely fair enough if the group existed to interpret a written score which its composer expected to be rehearsed, but clearly that’s not what Supersilent are attempting to do. Free improvisation in its purest form is about starting from nothing – searching for sounds and structures in the moment of playing, precisely NOT relying on what it is you already know how to do.
This is beautiful work – makes me wonder what talent may have once existed before any systems for replication were developed…
Sir:
The absence of a written score or prompts does not obviate the need for rehearsing. Anybody with experience of any sort of ensemble playing will know that co-ordination and balance alone require a lot of work, even if each player were able to perform their individual role flawlessly. In fact, I find that poor cohesion is harder to disguise in the medium of improvisation than in a written medium, so the importance of rehearsing *as an ensemble* is actually augmented. This is *not* to say that they need to set in stone what they play in performance; rather that they need to become accustomed to playing together, so that they can concentrate on the improvisation. Besides, good improvisation does not happen overnight; without prejudice to the inherent spontaneity of the medium, it — like most musical skills — is acquired and ameliorated by practice and experience.
Cohesion is unquestionably important. However these are all musicians who have played together on countless occasions, not just in Supersilent but in a broad range of projects in the European jazz and improv community. By now they have an instinctive understanding of each other. You say “they need to become accustomed to playing topether” – done, long ago. So now let them play.
I’m not a particular fan of Supersilent, though I am a fan of Arve Henrikson in some of his other projects (say with Christain Wallumrod, or Dhafer Youssef). But I’d *far* rather see funding for artists such as Supersilent, originals whochalleneg the listener, than for yet another recital of an overplayed mainstay of the classical canon – not matter how well rehearsed the latter might be.
It’s facile to suggest that the value of a performance lies in any way in the amount of rehearsals leading up to it. That’s just quantity over quality. Methinks the original author is letting his prejudices hang out …
A trip to Pseuds Corner, I think.
Pouring scorn on things one doesn’t understand, probably not the best way to contribute. Here’s another example:
Last year the Arts Council squandered millions of pounds on music that WASN’T EVEN WRITTEN BY THE MUSICIANS PLAYING IT! Outrageous!
‘deathjazzambientavantrock’ No need for me to be dishing out the scorn. The work’s done for me.
What do you mean?
Mr Hallam, your wonderfully patronising comment above seems to have missed the irony of such a label completely.
where is the need to reherse sound effects.
Hmmm, echoing many of the comments above in favour of this music, but also…the idea of non-rehearsal and free improvisation is a structural principle of music, not a way of dodging work. I am sure John Cage would agree, he (in part) started it!
It’s very easy to scoff at somewhat pretentious press releases, and then make a snap judgement about a group by quickly glancing at a youtube clip. Music like this needs to be heard on a decent hi-fi to really make sense…. just as classical music does. The album Supersilent 6 is a modern classic, mixing up electronics and noise with superb improv – these guys can really play. When it came out in 2003 it seemed the next logical step forward and almost 10 years on it’s still a defining album. I saw them twice within a week in the same year and both concerts were unique, contrasting performances. I for one will be booking tickets for the dates later this year – thanks for flagging it.
“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land, and don’t criticize what you can’t understand.”
If your complaint is about the musical content then it is an irrelevant one. You’ve as much right as anyone else to simply state your opinion of the music, but please don’t suggest that the ‘ARTS’ Council (note the word ‘art’…) should not support this art form because it isn’t to your taste.
You seem to spurn a rich tradition of European improvised music with this rather bitter and small-minded article.
The only scandal here is your breathtaking ignorance and arrogance, Norman. Jazz and improvised music is abysmally poorly funded here in the UK (just over £1m in total for the entire genre from ACE). You should be writing blogs decrying this failure of ACE’s instead of taking poorly researched, bigoted pot shots at a genre you clearly don’t understand.
In general the level of work, commitment and knowledge jazz and improvised musicians have is at the highest level of any musician working in any genre. I will not join your childish genre bashing game, but safe to say any classical musician that disagrees is ignorant and would do well to realise where their musical abilities are lacking. I have trained in both genres at conservatoire level and have a great deal of respect for classical musicians – this is not a dig.
In short, we suffer enough from this kind of short sightedness and simple mindedness at the top of the arts council. We can do with out bloggers and journalists shoring up their uneducated position.
Dear Jack
Thank you for the warm abuse which I publish in the general interest of enlightenment.
Allow me to remind you of the legally constituted purpose of the Arts Council, without having to recite you the entire charter.
ACE exists to nurture cultural activity in England, to foster improvements in artistic standards and to apply public money where those aims can be met.
It does not exist to fund imported foreign musicians, or commercially successful pop stars, or (I would argue) the art of improvisation which is, of necessity, a momentary inspiration that adds little of lasting value to the cultural development of the country.
This third point may be open to reasoned discussion. The previous two are enshrined in law. By giving money to Supersilent and Mr Jones, the ACE has overstepped its legal boundaries.
NL
As a UK taxpayer, and a musician, I expect this tour will nurture my cultural activity despite/because of those foreigners. It will probably inspire me no end and thus improve my own artistic standards. Ergo, no legal boundaries are overstepped. Please don’t worry about it anymore, it’s all fine.
I could not agree with Jack Davies’ comments more. They are not ‘abuse’, rather an honest appraisal of Mr Lebrecht’s vastly out of touch views on this subject. And, “In the general interest of enlightenment”, with the assertion: “the art of improvisation which is, of necessity, a momentary inspiration that adds little of lasting value to the cultural development of the country”, Mr Lebrecht has in one fell swoop further demonstrated that his patronising and deeply misguided views on the art form alienate him from generations of creative artists in this country and abroad.
Would you also suggest ACE stops subsiding all the “foreign” players in orchestras and cease funding for concerts featuring rich soloists, conductors and opera singers?
Jazz represents the biggest opportunity to get a huge amount of cultural output for minimum financial outlay. If ACE invested £10m per year in the genre the results would be incredible. The same sum would barely pay for a few sets at the opera house. Your third point is so bafflingly bizarre I don’t really know where to start!
No, no and no. There is an obvious difference between bringing a foreign ensemble on tour and investing in Uk cultural infrastructure which, of necessity, involves the happy, gainful and non-discriminatory employment of many non-UK musicians. I am not getting into the jazz vs opera argument. It is irrelevant to this particular issue.
Ok, now I understand – a sound is only meaningful if it has been written down first.
I wish someone had pointed this out to me 30 years ago.
Norman, it is remarkable that the validity and worth of improvised music vs other art forms is suddenly “irrelevant to this particular issue”. It is the entire subject of your original blog post. If you had chosen to question whether the Arts Council’s funding of foreign ensembles in general is justified then there may have been some room for reasoned discussion. In your original post however you do not even raise the fact that Supersilent are not British as a contentious issue, merely stating that they are Norwegian. Instead you choose to present your bigoted view of free improvisation, a genre for which you evidently harbour a particular distaste. Unfortunately, your follow up blog post seems to further reveal your ignorance by questioning the “tradition” of a music for which you can name no key practitioners.
Norman, while I am an admirer of “When the Music Stops”, with respect, you are seriously off the mark in your suggestion that “the art of improvisation … is, of necessity, a momentary inspiration that adds little of lasting value to the cultural development of the country”.
Do you similarly disguard the value of much music pre-1800, continuo in general and the French organ tradition, let alone the obvious contributions of imporvisors to musical activities in the 20th century and the creation of a new art form? Hopefully not!
Simon Purcell
Head of Jazz
Trinity Laban
Simon
I have nothing against improv. On the contrary, I’m quite a fan of it, in many forms.
What I balked at – to get back to the point – was a band that makes its USP the boast that it doesn’t rehearse.
Set aside all quality considerations. As a candidate for public funding, this falls short on every count.
Funding is designed to preserve and create heritage. Improvisation is, of its nature ephemeral.
It is a very tricky proposition for dispensers of public cash and what caught my eye in this instance was the contradiction between the band’s stated aim and the legal qualifications for subsidy.
best
Norman
The full USP in the Supersilent blurb is that they don’t rehearse because “every recording and concert is entirely improvised, approaching each show with a conceptual rigour that makes each one a distinct and coherent soundworld.” The not rehearsing bit isn’t a boast, it’s simply part of them laying out their modus operandi.
Norman, you seem to be basing your objection to their being funded largely on the fact that the band doesn’t rehearse, but this is to ignore the context of the music and the working practice of the group.
Instead of rehearsing, they perform. They have been doing this for years and they are highly skilled improvisers. They are not lazy, it is an aesthetic decision. (One could also argue that they are saving the tax payer money, as rehearsals are paid under ACE funding guidelines).
Given that there is no primary text to rehearse, and that they are fully cognisant of each others playing, what would be the point of rehearsing?
If they played a concert and nobody came, would it be a rehearsal?
And if an improvisation is recorded, is it still ephemeral?
Hello again,
I have little problem understanding your other points, they are critically important. However, you say:
“Funding is designed to preserve and create heritage. Improvisation is, of its nature ephemeral”…
Regarding the relative value of genres and performance practices, I prefer that we are mindful that many tradtions throughout the world are partly defined by their improvatory practices, hence cultural heritage is frequently informed by the practices of musical improvisors. As for an assertion that improvisation is by its nature ephemeral, we might instead consider the fact that thousands of people can recall the experience of improvised performances, professional improvisors are able to recite music that was originally generated in “real” time, while thousands of lay folk can sing along and recall Miles Davis’s solos on “Kind of Blue”. More importantly, I am also able to recall not only an impression of music that I heard improvised by Tony Oxley and Gordon Beck in 1979, but can still recall the feeling and intensity today. As a conservatoire trained musician myself, I prefer to share my experience that Britten and Bill Evans, Coltrane and Chopin, Miles and Messiaen, all reach equivalent levels of depth, aesthetic worth and lasting value, just in different ways and sometimes accessing different parts of the psyche.
Best wishes,
Simon
Norman, suddenly stating that this is not a discussion about improvised music vs other art forms is just baffling to me, as you have clearly harboured such ill informed prejudices against it in your original post.
The smallest amount of research will tell anyone that Supersilent formed in 1997, have toured extensively since then and recorded and released 9 albums. I personally would say that is a little more than a ‘scratch session in an airport lounge’ which you claimed they couldn’t even be bothered to do.
The band is comprised of three of the most renowned and respected improvisers in the world who are generally considered to have made huge contributions to the advancement of this art form. A band that has been active for 15 years may choose not to rehearse immediately before touring to achieve true spontaneity during live performances. This comes only from experience and years of hard work leading up to that point, not laziness.
It is unsurprising to me that this blog has been met with ‘warm abuse’, as you have chosen to belittle an underfunded, often misunderstood art form that many of us dedicate our lives to. It is hurtful and ignorant.
I believe that everyone should be entitled to a subjective opinion on any issue, but only if it is informed subjectivity.
The lack of rehearsal makes a group slothful and irrelevant? Does this also mean that the individuals are without talent, without training, do not practice their instruments endlessly, don’t acquaint themselves with their form or genre, aren’t well-read in theory and analysis, etc. etc.? I wonder why group rehearsal has suddenly become the only method one can take to a valid artistic result.
By and large, orchestras also get very little time for formal rehearsal (as it’s far too expensive). According to the spurious logic of this article, we should dispense with them as well.
“Funding is designed to preserve and create heritage. Improvisation is, of its nature ephemeral.”
Mr Lebrecht, I’m a little confused by this statement. If I go and listen to an orchestral symphony, I hear the sound created by the orchestra in real time. This moment is finite and present and does not exist either side of the moment in which I hear it. It is a ‘real-time’ experience.
The same is the case with an improvised performance as it is, by definition, with any sound which we hear, or any sensory experience at all for that matter. No aural performance of any kind can be anything but ephemeral. We may quibble about taste, and I suspect your grievance is more to do with the “content” than the “format”. But your above statement seems to suggest that because a piece is written down before it is played, that means it is somehow permanent. Paper and scores might be, but sound is not. It also implies that it is more worthwile to preserve the past than to encourage innovation in the present. Can’t it do both? Surely funding should exist to support and foster performance in a general sense, not simply to further propagate our ‘heritage’, and that is not to say that it should not form a reasonable part of its function.
As for your point about importing foreign musicians, it is absurd to say that ACE should carry out this task to the exclusion of any non-British musicians! British artists have the privilege of going and performing in any number of European countries under the support of their respective funding bodies, so why should it be any different here? Performing original (non-classical, ‘heritage’) music, improvised or otherwise, for a living must necessarily be a cross-border affair today, especially for those living and working in such a culturally under-funded country as ours?!
I welcome your opinion on any of the above points.
Rgds,
Conor
Very nicely said chaps – that is to say Chris Batchelor, Conor Chaplin, Jack Davies, Liam Noble, James Opstad, Simon Purcell etc. All of which I know for a fact have put in tremendous hours and extreme dedication to be such fine improvisers/composers and highly valuable members of the British music scene – frequently enhancing the UKs cultural ‘heritage’ despite the lack of financial encouragement to do so. Heroes! Why do they do what they do nevertheless? Because it is beautiful.
Laura
Improvisation is any important element of many musics outside the ‘Western Classsical’ tradition. From Indian Classical to African Drumming (and many, many other forms) it helps to keep the music vital and evolving. If these traditions were excluded from being performed in the UK then the cultural scene would be a lot worse off. On a global scale the notated and rehearsed approach to making music is probably in a small minority. The Classical tradition also used to include improvisation and is arguably the poorer for having lost this ability. This article reeks of elitism and xenophobia, but these two appear to be fashionable at the moment in the UK. All this makes me very glad I moved to Brasil 8 years ago.
I mean AN important element, of course.
I have just got home from a ‘Roda de Choro’. This was an informal jam session of Choro musicians. There was no rehearsal and no-one was reading music. They could have read the music as most of the tunes they played have been written down but the players prefer to play from memory as that makes the performance more spontaneous and allows room for improvisation. They don’t need to rehearse as they have spent many years learning tunes and playing together in different combinations. Sometimes the accompanying players don’t know a tune but they are able to invent their parts on the spot because they have great ears and understand the logic of the melody to provide suitable harmony. Some of the performers were professionals but no-one got paid, they just enjoy playing together for the sheer pleasure of the musical encounter. The audience didn’t pay to watch either, although in my opinion this is where some of the finest music making happens in Brasil. If you are aware of the incredibly rich musical culture of this country you will understand that is saying something very postive about this way of making music. I rest my case.
Dear Norman,
You state:
” . . .the art of improvisation which is, of necessity, a momentary inspiration that adds little of lasting value to the cultural development of the country.”
Lest we all assume you are just being blindly and vacuously opinionated, precisely how do you justify this statement? What arguments or evidence would you offer to back it up?You have so far dodged the issue in your subsequent postings whilst some other commentators have tendered good arguments to refute your assertion.
Regardless of genre, (I do hope you are not a musical bigot?) – why precisely should any form of musical thought or expression have more value simply by dint of having been written down? As it happens, improvisation was, until the 20th century, regarded as integral to the culture and practice of western classical music (for want of a better label). For example, this, from Arnold Dolmetsch’s article ‘The interpretation of the music of the XVII and XVIII centuries’:
“Couperin wrote his eight preludes (from L’art de toucher le clavecin”) in full for the performer who did not have the genius for improvisation. It is probable that performers played even the written Preludes from memory to help create the illusion of extemporaneity. . .. ”
It seems to me that you are labouring under the rather complacent establishment assumption that classical music (along with a rather narrow and historically atrophied culture a props the understanding of the music and of its performance practice) has an automatic and unquestioned right to predominance over other forms of art music for no reason other than that is with what you are most familiar and comfortable.
So please – can you explain and justify your statement with some convincing arguments.
Dear Mr Lebrecht.
Clearly a rehearsal for a group of expert improvisers would diminish and weaken the performance because the musicians would be less able to be spontaneous. Musical phrases which have been played in rehearsal may start to creep into the performance which immediately means that the spontaneous music is becoming “degraded”. When this begins to happen it can be impossible to perform with the correct “balance of mind” and the entire performance would be weak, if not rather pointless.
Good improvisation is the ability to communicate using your instrument as well as the capacity to have something to say. If you and I met to discuss this topic, I may research the subject before our meeting but I think that you would be offended if I only spoke rehearsed phrases at you and refused to communicate with you properly.
Music is merely a means by which humans can communicate. This communication has the capacity to express emotion in a way which language falls short. We have written texts by Shakespeare, which are recited all over the world, everyday. We can admire the beauty, structure and ideas (some are performed well, some are not). There are public speakers, who, using language, communicate their thoughts to a listening audience and it is likely that they have rehearsed to some extent. We also have the ability for group discussion, which can be organised, coherent, intelligent, articulate and yet the idea of a rehearsal would be inane.
It is only after many years of dedication that a musician may begin to have the ability to communicate ideas that they are feeling right now, in the moment. This is not something that comes with practise alone. One has to assimilate a huge amount of music, understand it, hear it in your own mind and have the technique to express those ideas accurately. For many great improvisers there is hardly a waking moment where this process isn’t happening to some extent. Is that enough “rehearsal”? Or would you prefer it if we turned up to an Arts Council funded session for couple of hours and run through the notes (which have all been kindly written down for us)?
Your comments regarding improvisation show a deep lack of understanding.