Improvisation

Introducing Dissonance (a response to Glenn Osbourne)

I recently received an email from Glenn Osbourne's blog with the title "Introducing Dissonance" which got me thinking. As Glenn says, it's a common axiom in improvisation that "there are no wrong notes in improvising" and this theory - possibly circulated by improvisers to cut some slack, reduce nervousness, encourage fluency etc. - is of little use when improvising in certain styles which have quite clear constraints or rules about wrong or right notes! One of the challenges of improvising in a classical style is coping with expectations set up with that style .. for example, if I start improvising with a J.S. Bach-style motif, then for sure, I create a context in which listeners' associations with J.S.Bach will be activated. At least, it often feels as if I must live up to these expectations, and this sensitivity to audience expectations may be described as a conditioned response originating in my training as a classical performer, through which I learnt to present commonly regarded works of genius to a discerning and critical audience. 

Although I may question the basis of my perception of 'wrong' notes (in my experience listeners outside of musical institutions are seldom concerned about stylistic purity), the challenge remains to propose a method or approach to consciously control the levels of dissonance within the style I'd like to improvise in. Glenn offers one such approach in his adaption of species counterpoint: in these adaptions, the basic species are retained, though the accompanying voices are given new constraints according to the level or type of dissonance being tested. I believe the main advantage of this approach is that it is a conscious and scientific investigation. The problem otherwise is that without such an investigation I am left with my instincts regarding dissonance, and, as Glenn points out, our ears are no longer tuned to the dissonance/consonance relations of historic styles. In fact, when I adopt an historic style, I'm looking backwards not forwards. By this I mean that it's actually very difficult to put myself in (for example) J.S.Bach's shoes (please excuse the metaphor!) Whereas J.S.Bach inherited a tonal world which he manipulated to expressive effect, I am viewing the same world from a very different perspective. One in which many future developments in dissonance took place and which form the tonal world which I have inherited.

When Joseph Fux (1660-1741) informs me in his Gradus ad Parnassum that some consonances such as the sixth or third are less perfect than the fifth for example, I have at first to accept this distinction in good faith as it's difficult to perceive this naturally. For example, it's difficult at first for me to perceive a perfect fourth as anything approachng a dissonance! Only through practice at the exercises, and by following the rules explicitly and painstakingly do I start to 'feel' the governing rules of consonance and dissonance of this style. This is why I believe it's nonsensical to propose that intervals have inherent properties of dissonance. All the expressive tensions of dissonance take place within a certain context which is not only historical (to compare the use of dissonant intervals between J.S.Bach and Wagner for example), but also dependent on aspects of tempo, texture, instrumentation, phrase length etc. even within one genre. 

So, what is the purpose and reward of Fux's exercises? After all, the workable solutions, particularly in the first few species are hardly beautiful. The effect is of structural solidity rather than fantasy or emotional effect. Yet, there clearly is an influence of species counterpoint which goes beyond the vaguely moral feeling of obeying musical rules. Fux himself suggests "it is almost incredible how useful such exercises, built upon a cantus firmus, are to him who pursues this study". Perhaps it is the experience of refining musical inclination through explicit constraints: Is this not one of the most significant and enduring challenges of improvisation? How often have I pursued the products of imagination with the feeling that I lack a map with which to find my way home; how often do I try to pursue ill-conceived 'rules' of harmony and voice-leading at the expense of all imagination?

Perhaps too, it has to do with experiencing at first-hand the deep structures which are present in tonal music: Fux assigns functional properties to intervals of dissonance, which dictate the subsequent movements towards consonance and resolution (7 to 6; 4 to 3 for example). To become aware of these rules is, for me, a significant advance over my previous approach or conceptualisation of dissonance. For too long I have been a slave to certain chords which I know (my hands can form them easily), and I am aware that these chords have expressive potential, as they contain dissonant intervals which sound good to my ears (also because they are extracts or distillations of musical moments that are significant to me). However, even while playing these same chords, I am not able to fulfill the expressive potential that I perceive in them: I move speculatively from one harmony to another, trying to maintain or correct the movement of inner voices as I move. This disorganised and unsatisfactory way of proceeding seems too, to rarely improve. Though I may find temporary (harmonic/contrapuntal) solutions as I go along, I have no framework for understanding how I arrived at these solutions; nor can I perceive if indeed the solutions are good or bad, as the halting, unsatisfactory context in which they are performed contains no definite aims against which I could assess the success or failure of my methods

By absorbing the functions which Fux gives to dissonant intervals, and the rules of progress from one interval to another, I begin to understand the power of restraint. In my previous search for expression I tended to amass dissonance; through species counterpoint I learn to honour the resolution of a dissonance before establishing another.

Once the moment-to-moment function is learnt, it is a natural process to extend the same relationship of dissonance to consonance over a longer period of time - to improvise on the function itself, perhaps over the length of a phrase, eventually over still longer periods. Within these longer periods, other sub-resolutions can take place, and so it can be seen that a hierarchy of dissonance can potentially be managed. For me, the important factor is the awareness of the functional properties of dissonant intervals as proposed by Fux. It requires the exercise of conscious restraint, but this restraint results in a greater clarity and power of expression.

These rules of movement become internalised through the experience of completing the exercises of species counterpoint. Later, when improvising, my awareness of dissonance has changed. It is not a clear or explicit change - I hardly expect to improvise according to the rules of strict counterpoint any time soon, nor is that my particular aim - rather, it is a sense of possessing new information which enables me (1) to recognise in familiar chords and textures the presence of certain dissonant intervals which can be treated in formal ways; (2) to move my previous speculative wandering into an explicit framework in which the various trials and errors can be assessed, valued and understood. 

One final thought: I don't believe there is one system only for controlling dissonance (or regulating counterpoint, harmonic movement or any other device for organising music), just that I do believe improvisation needs some sort of system in order to be effective. This system might only exist for one particular improvisation, or it might incorporate the work of a lifetime. Species counterpoint offers a rather complex set of rules for organising texture, controlling dissonance and possibly (though secondarily) harmonic flow, amongst other things. I imagine that Fux and other advocates codify these rules with certain aims in mind, though the application of these antique rules to improvisation in the 21^st century must involve an adaption of these aims.