On the 4^th of February I conducted workshop about the theme ‘sitting not knowing’ at the Walter Maas Huis. I introduced the idea that you can begin an improvisation in different ways. You can enter an improvisation for instance as sound, as communication, as looking for rhythmic patterns, as an exercise, as a slightly dramatic personage leaving your chair, as a performance with meaning included and so on.

Having improvised you can do the same with the conversation afterwards. You can uncover different layers of meaning. There are different ways to interpret what you did. This is how meaning and significance can grow.

In my approach I tried to change quickly the perspective all the time. I asked the musicians to play ensemble. Then I interrupted and asked duo’s to play. Gradually in this constant changing tasks I noticed that I did a combination of improvisation and what I usually do in moderating a conversation. It was being a director on the spot.

This approach of high tempo, changing tasks, combining musicians asking for response can grow further. Some of the participants, composers without an instrument, where left out of my tasks. This was a pity because they missed in actual participation. They remained listeners, observers. But I failed in asking them for their observations.

What where in my opinion remarkable moments?

- I let the viola and the piano play duo and challenged the other players to a ‘fitting- contrast’ contribution. The harp entered with a real groovy base line. This result came from the task to start with a ‘compositional’ introduction with again a contrasting second part and then for the third one to find a relevant counterpoint. It resembles a bit finding arguments in a conversation. The word compositional was difficult. What do I mean by that? Spontaneous musicians where immediately scared off. Now they had to do the real stuff: composition! My intention however was to get clear and in itself meaningful fragments. I my approach I don’t want to go too much into melody and harmony. These things you have to practice. But I don’t want lo loose form, texture, structure and rhythmic patterns.

- ‘I’m getting unhappy’ said the flute player at a certain moment. ‘I’m used to play a score and never did these free things. I can off course play a lot of weird sounds on my flute but that is as much my repertoire as are the scales. I’m still not improvising. And I feel the handicap of the instrument, also in dramatic situations. What can it do more than play notes?’

These remarks I addressed in the workshop. I started to challenge her and as one of the participants said to provoke her in a positive way. I walked over her and started plucking the cello nearby. She responded and quite soon we where engaged in a experimental dialogue, she playing flute with a lot of strong and sharp attacks and partly plucking the cello as well. So I succeeded to open up some conversation, in between with big shared laughter about the strange sounds we where producing. But… later I realised that she was not so shy at all. I had seen her acting in the hall of the house rather free. It was more that she had indeed not yet a musical idea what to do somewhere between scales and strange sounds. Therefore my workshop was to fast and the time was to short. If we are in the section of dialogue as an entrance we could focus more on the quality of dialogue. It is very easy to exchange some motives, let the motives grow or change in short exercises. Especially motives with some of the notes played twice or three times as little structuring cells are good to start with. Those cells are musically, concrete, easy (everyone can do it) and fun to exchange as well. This is helpful to give some content to participate in improvisation.

- Then came the part where we experimented with a more dramatic approach. This was an eye opener for me. On beforehand I expected this change in the programme to be difficult. Until so far it was all music now we had to act or to become more than musicians a kind of personages. In the duo I did with the viola player we came nearer and nearer. He triggered some articulated rhythm and we turned out to be almost in a fight. But it was nowhere rude but all the time very stylish with a lot of tension. What is missing in this short time is the moment of reflection afterwards. Then came the improvisation with the teacups, the cello bow and the samba balls! And then came the harp and percussion session where the harp grew to a giant circling through the room, with some love affair ingredients from the musicians. All these short improvisations were rich and meaningful. Actually you always have to start a small conversation afterwards to do an interpretation. (on the other hand you need the tempo).

- Then came the last ‘dramatic improvisation’. It seemed complete anarchy with two groups playing, people entering other instruments, as if not listening at all. So a lot of things happened at the same time. After that I challenged the participants to ‘tell the story’ that was in. After each contribution I asked for another interpretation. Doing so we got deeper and deeper in understanding that this last improvisation was about entering territory. Then we saw the similarities in the two different groups going on. For me that was in dramatic terms the ‘turning point’ of the workshop. That was a moment where some things felt in place. At that moment I could say something about the whole idea of the flow of sitting not knowing in combination with a reflection afterwards that has to question thoroughly what the meaning is or could be. In this last improvisation was a lot of potential hidden to continue with improvising with the whole group. Because two camps where created and this theme of territory, the element of play came in (as described by Huizinga in Homo Ludens). The element of play is very much about this antagonist approach, about contest, about two or more parties competing. I you exploit it a lot of interesting material can come out. This background of ‘play’ was present in all the dramatic improvisations.

We concluded with taking some words in mind and putting these words in a music-theatre setting. That was a bit anticlimax (for me). In the given task it stays all a bit too impressionistic. It is stronger when participants are challenged to tell really a short story, an experience, a statement or describe an image. When the language is longer they become personages with textual solos and the musicians have to accompany them.

To conclude: next time more time is needed in order to explore further some parameters like:

a. the actual musical material (frases, cells, structural elements) and the possibilities of rhythm and structure.

b. positive critical interventions to stimulate quality (repeating, a new try, dividing and so on)

c. reflections after each improvisation to deepen the questioning for meaning and interpretation

d. the element of play in spatial organisation of an ensemble and using this basic energy of contest and ‘play’

e. The role of silences before playing, try to stop thinking and so on

Parameters which are connected as well with my personal research the last years in conversation-improvisation.