WEBVTT 00:00:00.050 --> 00:00:01.670 The following content is provided 00:00:01.670 --> 00:00:03.820 under a Creative Commons license. 00:00:03.820 --> 00:00:06.540 Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue 00:00:06.540 --> 00:00:10.130 to offer high quality educational resources for free. 00:00:10.130 --> 00:00:12.700 To make a donation or to view additional materials 00:00:12.700 --> 00:00:18.295 from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare 00:00:18.295 --> 00:00:20.796 at ocw.mit.edu. 00:00:20.796 --> 00:00:21.720 PROFESSOR: Okay. 00:00:21.720 --> 00:00:25.020 So this is our second session with Phil 00:00:25.020 --> 00:00:26.550 [? Scarf, ?] please welcome him. 00:00:29.370 --> 00:00:32.630 So we're going to have our presentations based 00:00:32.630 --> 00:00:36.210 on the design assignment that Phil came up with. 00:00:36.210 --> 00:00:37.740 So who would like to go for first? 00:00:46.800 --> 00:00:47.755 There you go. 00:00:47.755 --> 00:00:48.255 Thank you. 00:00:57.470 --> 00:00:59.550 PHIL SCARF: Can you tell us your design? 00:00:59.550 --> 00:01:02.600 STUDENT 1: So we chose a raga. 00:01:02.600 --> 00:01:05.740 We decided on the notes C, Db, F, G and Bb. 00:01:13.870 --> 00:01:16.900 And we went with a more traditional, 00:01:16.900 --> 00:01:23.580 where you start out slow and you slowly expand the range. 00:01:23.580 --> 00:01:25.635 And then you add in more players and then 00:01:25.635 --> 00:01:29.750 you play a melody line together and then alternate whoever 00:01:29.750 --> 00:01:31.870 is improvising. 00:01:31.870 --> 00:01:36.092 And then we did a little bit of extrapolation 00:01:36.092 --> 00:01:38.873 halfway through by changing one of the notes 00:01:38.873 --> 00:01:42.040 in the raga actually. 00:01:42.040 --> 00:01:44.760 And just for a little different style and then we go back. 00:02:16.477 --> 00:05:32.108 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:05:32.108 --> 00:05:35.170 PHIL SCARF: That was very impressive. 00:05:35.170 --> 00:05:38.750 So let me just ask the performers. 00:05:38.750 --> 00:05:42.240 Did that performance go the way you envisioned it going? 00:05:42.240 --> 00:05:44.070 Since we're improvising, you never 00:05:44.070 --> 00:05:46.319 know what's going to happen when you improvise, right? 00:05:46.319 --> 00:05:48.740 So I'm just curious if that's the way 00:05:48.740 --> 00:05:52.037 you had planned for it to go, or you thought that anything 00:05:52.037 --> 00:05:53.120 might have been different. 00:05:53.120 --> 00:05:54.455 STUDENT 1: So when I was describing it 00:05:54.455 --> 00:05:56.012 I said there was a section where we 00:05:56.012 --> 00:05:58.310 change one of the notes in the raga. 00:05:58.310 --> 00:05:59.154 That didn't happen. 00:06:02.607 --> 00:06:05.148 At the end, we had the option of going into that or stopping. 00:06:09.900 --> 00:06:12.430 PHIL SCARF: Anything else? 00:06:12.430 --> 00:06:16.300 STUDENT 2: So we sort of knew vaguely what different sections 00:06:16.300 --> 00:06:17.940 were going to be like, and sort of what 00:06:17.940 --> 00:06:20.992 we would try and do with them. 00:06:20.992 --> 00:06:23.700 But that was completely different -- like, we tried, 00:06:23.700 --> 00:06:26.670 we run through it a couple of times before, today. 00:06:26.670 --> 00:06:30.630 That was kind of different to what we'd done before. 00:06:30.630 --> 00:06:32.632 PHIL SCARF: That's improvisation. 00:06:32.632 --> 00:06:33.590 It should be different. 00:06:33.590 --> 00:06:34.610 That's actually the point. 00:06:34.610 --> 00:06:35.270 It should be different. 00:06:35.270 --> 00:06:36.840 If you start doing the same thing over and over again, 00:06:36.840 --> 00:06:38.990 it's no longer improvisation, right? 00:06:38.990 --> 00:06:39.670 So that's great. 00:06:39.670 --> 00:06:40.944 Good. 00:06:40.944 --> 00:06:42.360 So any comments from anybody else? 00:06:46.930 --> 00:06:47.915 Any thoughts? 00:06:47.915 --> 00:06:49.540 STUDENT 3: There were a couple of times 00:06:49.540 --> 00:06:53.020 when you played in unison, and I didn't really 00:06:53.020 --> 00:06:56.066 see any cues into those sections. 00:06:56.066 --> 00:06:59.090 I was just wondering if you were all improvising, how did you 00:06:59.090 --> 00:07:03.316 move from improvisational section to unison section? 00:07:03.316 --> 00:07:05.796 STUDENT 4: We have this one particular melody, 00:07:05.796 --> 00:07:11.403 so when one person started, we could recognize that melody. 00:07:11.403 --> 00:07:13.236 Or one person began it, we would go into it. 00:07:13.236 --> 00:07:14.972 And there was a couple times we repeated it, 00:07:14.972 --> 00:07:16.708 so one person would get to the end of it 00:07:16.708 --> 00:07:18.692 and then we'd go straight into it again. 00:07:25.209 --> 00:07:26.500 PHIL SCARF: Any other comments? 00:07:31.033 --> 00:07:32.491 PROFESSOR: I'll just say, I thought 00:07:32.491 --> 00:07:36.915 it worked very well as a composed improvisation. 00:07:36.915 --> 00:07:39.060 I thought the framework was well thought out. 00:07:39.060 --> 00:07:41.390 And the realization through improvisation 00:07:41.390 --> 00:07:43.007 made a lot of sense. 00:07:43.007 --> 00:07:43.981 Very good. 00:07:46.903 --> 00:07:49.270 PHIL SCARF: I think you really captured the frameworks 00:07:49.270 --> 00:07:50.896 very well. 00:07:50.896 --> 00:07:52.520 Why don't you want to tell us about it? 00:07:52.520 --> 00:07:55.100 Because everybody needs to know. 00:07:55.100 --> 00:08:04.773 STUDENT 4: So basically we came up with our own scale 00:08:04.773 --> 00:08:07.270 to base the improvisation on. 00:08:07.270 --> 00:08:13.220 And we decided to look into the range and note density 00:08:13.220 --> 00:08:15.340 frameworks at first. 00:08:15.340 --> 00:08:18.330 So we're each starting in different parts 00:08:18.330 --> 00:08:22.580 of our register, which is maybe different than what 00:08:22.580 --> 00:08:26.024 would be done traditionally, perhaps. 00:08:26.024 --> 00:08:30.315 But then we'll move out and expand, 00:08:30.315 --> 00:08:32.898 which is pretty similar to some of the stuff that happens with 00:08:32.898 --> 00:08:35.844 [INAUDIBLE]. 00:08:35.844 --> 00:08:40.480 And then we'll also be moving from pretty simple melodies 00:08:40.480 --> 00:08:45.135 and pretty simple [INAUDIBLE] to more complicated things 00:08:45.135 --> 00:08:48.320 that come up and we'll try to then [INAUDIBLE]. 00:08:48.320 --> 00:08:50.280 It won't start with a [INAUDIBLE] rhythm, 00:08:50.280 --> 00:08:53.220 but then we'll try to get into a rhythmic groove later on. 00:08:56.562 --> 00:08:59.020 STUDENT 6: One more thing, I'm going to start with a drone, 00:08:59.020 --> 00:09:02.004 to imitate the tambura, and we're 00:09:02.004 --> 00:09:03.795 going to add ornamentation to the melodies, 00:09:03.795 --> 00:09:05.290 to imitate [INAUDIBLE]. 00:09:05.290 --> 00:09:09.696 PHIL SCARF: OK, sounds good. 00:09:09.696 --> 00:12:24.994 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:12:24.994 --> 00:12:25.702 PHIL SCARF: Nice. 00:12:33.350 --> 00:12:35.490 So any thoughts about that piece? 00:12:40.990 --> 00:12:44.590 So did the performance went the way you expected? 00:12:44.590 --> 00:12:48.184 Did you do anything different that you were thinking about? 00:12:48.184 --> 00:12:51.076 STUDENT 6: I'd say in general, the note density and range 00:12:51.076 --> 00:12:53.970 [INAUDIBLE]. 00:12:53.970 --> 00:12:59.089 We were hoping to get a motif in there, but I don't think -- 00:12:59.089 --> 00:13:02.071 STUDENT 5: We were going to just let it develop organically. 00:13:02.071 --> 00:13:06.050 But we just kind of played off each other. 00:13:06.050 --> 00:13:10.879 STUDENT 6: And the rhythm wasn't 3-3-2 like we were predicting, 00:13:10.879 --> 00:13:13.750 it did settle. 00:13:13.750 --> 00:13:17.540 PHIL SCARF: Yeah, it did become rhythmic, about halfway 00:13:17.540 --> 00:13:19.680 through. 00:13:19.680 --> 00:13:20.470 Yeah, good. 00:13:20.470 --> 00:13:21.166 Anything else? 00:13:27.680 --> 00:13:29.450 [INAUDIBLE] 00:13:29.450 --> 00:13:30.950 STUDENT 5: Yeah, a little bit, yeah. 00:13:30.950 --> 00:13:32.782 PROFESSOR: And then you jump right on. 00:13:32.782 --> 00:13:35.028 STUDENT 6: Well yeah, I used the bass to really -- 00:13:37.097 --> 00:13:38.930 PROFESSOR: But that was very good listening, 00:13:38.930 --> 00:13:41.590 because it didn't take more than a second or two 00:13:41.590 --> 00:13:44.440 to really coalesce. 00:13:44.440 --> 00:13:45.980 And how about the ending? 00:13:45.980 --> 00:13:48.900 Had that been thought about? 00:13:48.900 --> 00:13:51.120 STUDENT 5: We planned to just bring 00:13:51.120 --> 00:13:53.618 the range back in, basically, to where 00:13:53.618 --> 00:13:55.034 we had been in the beginning. 00:13:58.810 --> 00:14:01.790 That fade-out, literally fade out. 00:14:06.162 --> 00:14:07.680 PHIL SCARF: That worked out great. 00:14:07.680 --> 00:14:09.030 Anybody else have any comments? 00:14:09.030 --> 00:14:10.155 Any thoughts, observations? 00:14:15.940 --> 00:14:16.680 Yeah. 00:14:16.680 --> 00:14:18.880 STUDENT 7: Well in the beginning, 00:14:18.880 --> 00:14:21.020 I thought the piano player was going 00:14:21.020 --> 00:14:24.023 to drone on for the entire song, and just sort of be a drone. 00:14:24.023 --> 00:14:25.564 And I was waiting for him to come in, 00:14:25.564 --> 00:14:28.916 and finally I felt relieved when he 00:14:28.916 --> 00:14:31.642 came in and built on the violin. 00:14:34.369 --> 00:14:35.035 PHIL SCARF: Yeah 00:14:35.035 --> 00:14:37.810 STUDENT 6: Yeah, we didn't have any unison melodies planned, 00:14:37.810 --> 00:14:40.880 so I didn't want it to be really dense too early. 00:14:43.070 --> 00:14:45.320 PHIL SCARF: I mean, I thought that was nice, you know? 00:14:45.320 --> 00:14:48.770 Because we had one solo voice with a kind of accompaniment, 00:14:48.770 --> 00:14:51.840 and then it became more of a duet. 00:14:51.840 --> 00:14:56.068 So there was an element of progression there. 00:14:56.068 --> 00:14:58.036 STUDENT 6: Another thing we didn't anticipate, 00:14:58.036 --> 00:15:02.464 Austin focused on the mid-upper part of the scale, 00:15:02.464 --> 00:15:05.270 and I was just doing the first three or four notes. 00:15:17.107 --> 00:15:18.190 PHIL SCARF: Anything else? 00:15:22.350 --> 00:15:24.110 Cool. 00:15:24.110 --> 00:15:24.610 OK. 00:15:24.610 --> 00:15:25.294 Next group. 00:15:25.294 --> 00:15:27.710 STUDENT 8: So I actually didn't come up with my own scale. 00:15:27.710 --> 00:15:29.863 I just decided to use the D Dorian mode. 00:15:32.689 --> 00:15:35.990 It's a little bit more humble for me to play around with. 00:15:35.990 --> 00:15:43.222 My vision is around the piano to form a sort of drone, in low D. 00:15:43.222 --> 00:15:47.667 And use that, and also drone, and then as a little bit goes 00:15:47.667 --> 00:15:54.563 on, build up into a [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] necessary. 00:15:54.563 --> 00:15:57.509 It starts at [INAUDIBLE] but then 00:15:57.509 --> 00:16:01.487 I do have a melodic motif that I was going to center it around. 00:16:10.541 --> 00:16:12.540 PHIL SCARF: Can I just ask, is the melodic thing 00:16:12.540 --> 00:16:15.270 a raga or scale idea? 00:16:15.270 --> 00:16:18.380 STUDENT 8: I just came up with something on the guitar. 00:16:18.380 --> 00:16:20.380 PHIL SCARF: So are there any specific frameworks 00:16:20.380 --> 00:16:24.170 from the set of 12 that we're using here? 00:16:24.170 --> 00:16:27.916 STUDENT 8: I was looking at -- I can't remember -- 00:16:27.916 --> 00:16:30.411 there were two [INAUDIBLE] I was looking at. 00:16:30.411 --> 00:16:32.910 Looking at a little bit no density. 00:16:32.910 --> 00:16:37.030 Kind of applying it towards the [INAUDIBLE] notes, or the lower 00:16:37.030 --> 00:16:37.530 end. 00:16:37.530 --> 00:16:40.347 So the drone has a little bit of freedom, 00:16:40.347 --> 00:16:42.430 in terms of picking up, as he wants to [INAUDIBLE] 00:16:42.430 --> 00:16:45.554 tremolo, rhythmic framework, I guess. 00:16:45.554 --> 00:16:46.970 PHIL SCARF: So is the note density 00:16:46.970 --> 00:16:49.640 going to change throughout the piece? 00:16:49.640 --> 00:16:50.290 Or not? 00:16:50.290 --> 00:16:51.290 Yes. 00:16:51.290 --> 00:16:53.324 Do you have a view of how that would change? 00:16:53.324 --> 00:16:54.740 Or is that going to be improvised? 00:16:54.740 --> 00:16:57.720 STUDENT 8: I envisioned it as starting out slow, building up, 00:16:57.720 --> 00:17:01.256 more dense, little faster, slowing down towards the end. 00:17:05.585 --> 00:17:10.520 And the other one I was looking at was using the framework, 00:17:10.520 --> 00:17:17.370 the little melody, I guess, and working that around -- 00:17:17.370 --> 00:17:18.977 I can't remember what it was called -- 00:17:18.977 --> 00:17:20.560 PHIL SCARF: Oh, the [INAUDIBLE] maybe? 00:17:20.560 --> 00:17:21.435 That's what you mean? 00:17:21.435 --> 00:17:22.099 Melodic motif. 00:17:22.099 --> 00:17:22.599 Yeah. 00:17:22.599 --> 00:17:24.879 Yeah. 00:17:24.879 --> 00:17:25.379 Good. 00:17:31.716 --> 00:18:08.070 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:20:51.892 --> 00:20:52.600 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 00:20:56.337 --> 00:20:56.920 That was good. 00:21:00.290 --> 00:21:01.130 I like that amp. 00:21:01.130 --> 00:21:02.345 That's pretty convenient. 00:21:21.010 --> 00:21:23.240 So any comments from the performers? 00:21:23.240 --> 00:21:27.100 I'm particularly interested in what the collaborators may 00:21:27.100 --> 00:21:28.850 think about this, since they didn't have 00:21:28.850 --> 00:21:34.944 much notice before playing the piece. 00:21:34.944 --> 00:21:36.527 STUDENT 9: I didn't have any idea what 00:21:36.527 --> 00:21:37.818 it would be like going into it. 00:21:37.818 --> 00:21:40.080 But having the framework really set 00:21:40.080 --> 00:21:42.405 an expectation of gradually increasing 00:21:42.405 --> 00:21:44.265 note density and the range. 00:21:44.265 --> 00:21:45.985 And having the motif definitely helps. 00:21:45.985 --> 00:21:47.470 PHIL SCARF: That motif was cool. 00:21:47.470 --> 00:21:50.280 And the way that it was used was good. 00:21:50.280 --> 00:21:53.465 STUDENT 10: I think it was just enough to provide 00:21:53.465 --> 00:21:57.730 a cool little phrase to work on. 00:21:57.730 --> 00:22:00.470 STUDENT 8: That was one of the visions I had. 00:22:00.470 --> 00:22:01.660 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 00:22:01.660 --> 00:22:03.390 That was great. 00:22:03.390 --> 00:22:07.136 The first group that's used the [? chellan ?] framework, 00:22:07.136 --> 00:22:09.434 so that's good. 00:22:09.434 --> 00:22:10.225 Any other comments? 00:22:10.225 --> 00:22:13.152 What about the designer? 00:22:13.152 --> 00:22:16.700 Do you have any comments about how this went? 00:22:16.700 --> 00:22:19.330 STUDENT 8: I just didn't know what to expect going into it. 00:22:19.330 --> 00:22:23.730 Because again, I just sort of did this myself, yesterday. 00:22:23.730 --> 00:22:26.900 And I didn't know what the performers 00:22:26.900 --> 00:22:28.280 would think going into this. 00:22:28.280 --> 00:22:35.140 And from the outset, I knew, I guess the piano 00:22:35.140 --> 00:22:38.550 sort of provided the rhythmic background, I guess. 00:22:38.550 --> 00:22:40.610 And set the overall tone. 00:22:40.610 --> 00:22:43.300 And then I came in with some free time 00:22:43.300 --> 00:22:44.790 before I settled into the motif. 00:22:44.790 --> 00:22:46.806 And then everybody settled around that, as well. 00:22:49.799 --> 00:22:51.590 PHIL SCARF: Anybody else have any thoughts? 00:22:51.590 --> 00:22:52.760 Observations, comments? 00:22:55.749 --> 00:22:57.290 STUDENT 7: I really liked that motif. 00:22:57.290 --> 00:22:59.040 It really brought it all together. 00:22:59.040 --> 00:23:02.850 And I think it gave the collaborators 00:23:02.850 --> 00:23:05.450 a really solid base to start from. 00:23:05.450 --> 00:23:08.325 And build off of. 00:23:08.325 --> 00:23:11.250 Seems like a cool way improvise and make a framework. 00:23:11.250 --> 00:23:13.602 Just start with a tiny motif and then see 00:23:13.602 --> 00:23:15.247 where you can take it from there. 00:23:15.247 --> 00:23:16.080 PHIL SCARF: Exactly. 00:23:16.080 --> 00:23:18.970 And then, the listener also gravitates towards that, 00:23:18.970 --> 00:23:19.570 as well. 00:23:19.570 --> 00:23:23.810 Every time it comes back, it's familiar material. 00:23:23.810 --> 00:23:28.170 In fact, I think that kind of illustrates one 00:23:28.170 --> 00:23:31.350 of the attractive elements of Indian classical music 00:23:31.350 --> 00:23:33.370 is use of [? chellan ?]. 00:23:33.370 --> 00:23:35.630 Even if it's something you haven't heard before, 00:23:35.630 --> 00:23:37.710 by the time you finish hearing it, 00:23:37.710 --> 00:23:40.334 you've heard the [? chellan, ?] some of the key phrases, you've 00:23:40.334 --> 00:23:44.000 heard them so many times, it become familiar. 00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:46.930 So like this motif, by the time we finished, 00:23:46.930 --> 00:23:48.320 it sounds like a familiar piece. 00:23:48.320 --> 00:23:50.111 Even though none of us had heard it before, 00:23:50.111 --> 00:23:51.355 except perhaps, the composer. 00:23:53.960 --> 00:23:55.060 So it's nice. 00:23:55.060 --> 00:23:57.689 Any other thoughts? 00:23:57.689 --> 00:23:58.730 So what's your framework? 00:23:58.730 --> 00:24:00.540 Can you tell us about your framework? 00:24:00.540 --> 00:24:05.400 STUDENT 11: OK, so basically, we based off a [INAUDIBLE] 00:24:05.400 --> 00:24:12.270 in terms of -- we have a motif that we start out with. 00:24:12.270 --> 00:24:16.670 And then we're going late on build on it 00:24:16.670 --> 00:24:18.240 by adding some chords. 00:24:18.240 --> 00:24:20.262 And then while one person plays the melody, 00:24:20.262 --> 00:24:22.230 the other person will improvise on it, instead. 00:24:28.066 --> 00:24:31.000 STUDENT 12: We had wanted a beat to feed us. 00:24:40.780 --> 00:24:42.111 He'll learn it. 00:24:42.111 --> 00:24:42.736 STUDENT 11: OK. 00:24:42.736 --> 00:24:47.150 You'll get the melody after we play it. 00:24:47.150 --> 00:24:50.588 So basically, us two will play it, 00:24:50.588 --> 00:24:57.012 and then you can come in after four times or something. 00:24:57.012 --> 00:24:58.470 And then we'll take turns improving 00:24:58.470 --> 00:25:12.876 while one person drones on a D. 00:25:12.876 --> 00:28:18.760 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:28:18.760 --> 00:28:20.970 PHIL SCARF: So any thoughts? 00:28:20.970 --> 00:28:22.280 How did you think it went? 00:28:22.280 --> 00:28:24.200 STUDENT 11: I think it went pretty well. 00:28:24.200 --> 00:28:26.476 I think originally we were supposed to play the melody 00:28:26.476 --> 00:28:28.059 and then harmonize a little bit to it. 00:28:28.059 --> 00:28:29.970 And then kind of stretch up from that melody. 00:28:29.970 --> 00:28:32.095 But in the end, we just started improvising instead 00:28:32.095 --> 00:28:35.770 so I guess that worked out. 00:28:35.770 --> 00:28:37.830 PHIL SCARF: But there was harmony introduced 00:28:37.830 --> 00:28:41.100 as the improvisation evolved, too. 00:28:41.100 --> 00:28:43.910 It's coo. 00:28:43.910 --> 00:28:45.910 Any other comments or thoughts? 00:28:45.910 --> 00:28:47.785 How about the flutist? 00:28:47.785 --> 00:28:49.910 STUDENT 1: I was playing in F natural for too long. 00:28:53.830 --> 00:28:57.750 I was like there's probably not an F# in this scale 00:28:57.750 --> 00:29:02.150 if there's a Bb, [INAUDIBLE] really confused. 00:29:02.150 --> 00:29:02.650 [INAUDIBLE] 00:29:10.040 --> 00:29:13.288 PHIL SCARF: Anybody else, have any comments? 00:29:13.288 --> 00:29:15.276 STUDENT 2: I thought it was pretty cool how 00:29:15.276 --> 00:29:20.743 the rhythmic moment of the melody 00:29:20.743 --> 00:29:22.731 became stronger almost, throughout. 00:29:25.720 --> 00:29:27.955 It was like a little more free in the beginning, 00:29:27.955 --> 00:29:30.672 maybe, when you decided to push time. 00:29:30.672 --> 00:29:36.600 [INAUDIBLE] almost like a very driving. 00:29:39.564 --> 00:29:41.046 PHIL SCARF: That's true. 00:29:41.046 --> 00:29:44.030 Good observation. 00:29:44.030 --> 00:29:47.730 It was very effective, too. 00:29:47.730 --> 00:29:49.952 PROFESSOR: So that's the second one that did that. 00:29:49.952 --> 00:29:53.848 Where it evolved into the rhythmic spectrum. 00:29:53.848 --> 00:29:57.340 It's an interesting way to do it. 00:29:57.340 --> 00:30:00.576 STUDENT 13: So this is D Mixolydian 00:30:00.576 --> 00:30:03.470 rather than picking a new scale. 00:30:03.470 --> 00:30:07.290 And [INAUDIBLE] Jamie is going to set up 00:30:07.290 --> 00:30:10.930 a low drone at the beginning. 00:30:10.930 --> 00:30:14.320 And once Jamie has this low drone, 00:30:14.320 --> 00:30:19.307 the flute and trumpet come in on vibrato type lines. 00:30:19.307 --> 00:30:20.890 And then the flute and trumpet explore 00:30:20.890 --> 00:30:21.973 the different [INAUDIBLE]. 00:30:21.973 --> 00:30:25.785 So I tried it in a low range, [INAUDIBLE] Flute 00:30:25.785 --> 00:30:28.340 is going to start with low note density 00:30:28.340 --> 00:30:30.032 and gradually increase density. 00:30:35.440 --> 00:30:40.880 Also Jamie is going to gradually adopt a rhythmic progression 00:30:40.880 --> 00:30:44.380 and eventually start playing [? jala. ?] And I think you 00:30:44.380 --> 00:30:47.450 said the [? jala ?] will be in different rhythmic groups, 00:30:47.450 --> 00:30:50.490 so that we also have a little bit of [? livhari ?], 00:30:50.490 --> 00:30:52.860 or rhythm play. 00:30:52.860 --> 00:30:55.100 And that will go on for a minute or two. 00:30:55.100 --> 00:30:56.766 We don't really have specifics of what's 00:30:56.766 --> 00:30:59.360 going to happen in there, it's just to improvise. 00:30:59.360 --> 00:31:03.004 And at the end, I drop out, flute drops out, 00:31:03.004 --> 00:31:05.170 and then Jamie just sort of continues with the drone 00:31:05.170 --> 00:31:06.414 and fades out. 00:31:06.414 --> 00:33:35.662 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:33:35.662 --> 00:33:36.370 PHIL SCARF: Nice. 00:33:40.753 --> 00:33:43.326 So do we have any thoughts from the performers? 00:33:46.820 --> 00:33:48.820 STUDENT 7: I thought it went pretty well. 00:33:48.820 --> 00:33:50.910 We just sort of set up the framework last night 00:33:50.910 --> 00:33:52.284 and just ran through it once. 00:33:52.284 --> 00:33:54.450 We were like, alright, we'll do something like that. 00:33:54.450 --> 00:33:57.540 So it turned out similar manner. 00:33:57.540 --> 00:34:00.926 Had sort of the same feel. 00:34:00.926 --> 00:34:03.501 I think it went well. 00:34:03.501 --> 00:34:05.850 STUDENT 13: I don't think it sounded quite as Hindustani 00:34:05.850 --> 00:34:08.560 as a raja, but was totally using the framework. 00:34:08.560 --> 00:34:10.790 Like it had the same idea, and it 00:34:10.790 --> 00:34:13.540 was easy to communicate with someone 00:34:13.540 --> 00:34:18.052 who just heard the framework today, what to do. 00:34:18.052 --> 00:34:20.280 PROFESSOR: I like the rhythmic of the banjo. 00:34:20.280 --> 00:34:25.429 You really sounded almost like a mix between a tabla 00:34:25.429 --> 00:34:27.996 and something, I'm not quite what else. 00:34:27.996 --> 00:34:30.750 STUDENT 7: Yeah, I almost wanted to play it on my lap. 00:34:30.750 --> 00:34:31.889 PHIL SCARF: Maybe more like a [? surod, ?] 00:34:31.889 --> 00:34:33.763 actually it's a little like it's [? surod, ?] 00:34:33.763 --> 00:34:39.510 which is played with a pick and it's got more of an attack. 00:34:39.510 --> 00:34:42.050 Cool. 00:34:42.050 --> 00:34:43.414 How about the flutist? 00:34:43.414 --> 00:34:44.830 Because this is the first time you 00:34:44.830 --> 00:34:46.854 had been introduced to the piece. 00:34:46.854 --> 00:34:49.035 Any comments? 00:34:49.035 --> 00:34:52.089 STUDENT 1: I liked it, it was easy to follow. 00:34:52.089 --> 00:34:54.005 [INAUDIBLE] set up the right image [INAUDIBLE] 00:34:59.074 --> 00:35:00.740 PROFESSOR: You're a utility [INAUDIBLE], 00:35:00.740 --> 00:35:02.239 we bring you in whenever we need it. 00:35:04.810 --> 00:35:06.092 Thank you for that. 00:35:06.092 --> 00:35:07.800 PHIL SCARF: I was going to say, I thought 00:35:07.800 --> 00:35:11.320 it was cool because the way you used the frameworks, 00:35:11.320 --> 00:35:14.770 you had assigned different frameworks to different people, 00:35:14.770 --> 00:35:16.440 which was interesting. 00:35:16.440 --> 00:35:19.370 First time, I think, we did that today. 00:35:19.370 --> 00:35:20.722 So that was cool. 00:35:20.722 --> 00:35:21.460 Good idea. 00:35:24.860 --> 00:35:26.360 STUDENT 7: I really liked playing it 00:35:26.360 --> 00:35:30.102 because it sort of fit my instrument very well. 00:35:30.102 --> 00:35:32.730 I could do like the slower bluegrass picking, 00:35:32.730 --> 00:35:36.492 and just leave that D open the entire time pretty much, 00:35:36.492 --> 00:35:37.700 and that leaves a nice drone. 00:35:40.465 --> 00:35:43.432 That makes it easy to play around on the top three strings 00:35:43.432 --> 00:35:45.939 and it was a lot of fun. 00:35:45.939 --> 00:35:48.230 STUDENT 13: Actually, the reason we split up frameworks 00:35:48.230 --> 00:35:52.040 is the first time we decided what to do, Sarah 00:35:52.040 --> 00:35:54.290 and I were both just like, yeah, we can both do range, 00:35:54.290 --> 00:35:55.810 we can both do note density. 00:35:55.810 --> 00:35:58.260 And then we ended up running through the piece once, 00:35:58.260 --> 00:36:00.420 and I focused more on range, and she focused more 00:36:00.420 --> 00:36:01.410 on the note density. 00:36:01.410 --> 00:36:03.750 So we said, well, why not just make that the framework 00:36:03.750 --> 00:36:04.250 instead? 00:36:04.250 --> 00:36:05.833 PHIL SCARF: Yeah, that's a great idea. 00:36:05.833 --> 00:36:07.880 That is a very cool idea. 00:36:07.880 --> 00:36:08.380 Excellent. 00:36:13.787 --> 00:36:15.870 STUDENT 10: At the risk of overworking the flutes, 00:36:15.870 --> 00:36:20.742 can I ask one of you guys to -- alright, cool. 00:36:26.121 --> 00:36:29.180 So like most of the other groups, 00:36:29.180 --> 00:36:36.150 the frameworks we ended up using are range and note density 00:36:36.150 --> 00:36:37.840 again. 00:36:37.840 --> 00:36:40.310 So I was going to start toward the lower end of the range 00:36:40.310 --> 00:36:41.434 and then gradually work up. 00:36:41.434 --> 00:36:45.265 And then vice versa for the oboe. 00:36:45.265 --> 00:36:46.890 So I guess rhythmic progression is just 00:36:46.890 --> 00:36:50.190 like a natural part of that, as well. 00:36:50.190 --> 00:36:54.074 So we are thinking of playing in concert G natural minor. 00:36:58.320 --> 00:37:01.500 Yeah, so we're going to start off just alternating, 00:37:01.500 --> 00:37:04.897 with one person doing a drone on the concert G. 00:37:04.897 --> 00:37:07.355 And then the other person just kind of soloing off of that. 00:37:07.355 --> 00:37:09.809 And then just interchanging a few times. 00:37:09.809 --> 00:37:11.350 Maybe two or three times or whatever. 00:37:11.350 --> 00:37:15.830 And then, just gradually working into playing together. 00:37:15.830 --> 00:37:16.830 PHIL SCARF: That's cool. 00:37:16.830 --> 00:37:19.455 And did you have a specific idea about the rhythmic progression 00:37:19.455 --> 00:37:21.250 and how that would work? 00:37:21.250 --> 00:37:26.290 STUDENT 10: Just in the vague sense of gradually speeding up. 00:37:26.290 --> 00:37:28.850 Starting off with slower, sustained whole notes 00:37:28.850 --> 00:37:33.995 and working to faster rhythms. 00:37:33.995 --> 00:37:36.470 We kind of wanted to work some [? chellan ?] in there, 00:37:36.470 --> 00:37:38.140 as well. 00:37:38.140 --> 00:37:40.968 We don't have any kind of set phrase we wanted to repeat. 00:37:40.968 --> 00:37:42.634 I guess it's something we kind of wanted 00:37:42.634 --> 00:37:43.906 to figure out as we go. 00:37:43.906 --> 00:37:45.910 If we find something worth holding on to, 00:37:45.910 --> 00:37:46.980 then we'll do that. 00:37:54.700 --> 00:40:22.462 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:40:22.462 --> 00:40:23.170 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 00:40:27.641 --> 00:40:28.140 Nice. 00:40:28.140 --> 00:40:31.480 PROFESSOR: So you're just coming into this cold, right? 00:40:31.480 --> 00:40:34.528 So I noticed, you were watching him. 00:40:34.528 --> 00:40:36.830 Had you determined that you would watch each other 00:40:36.830 --> 00:40:42.590 and do those phrases toward the end in synchrony? 00:40:42.590 --> 00:40:44.299 STUDENT 2: That was just based off his -- 00:40:44.299 --> 00:40:46.715 he said that he wanted to do something with [? chellan, ?] 00:40:46.715 --> 00:40:52.480 so I was trying to pick up some very distinctive phrases 00:40:52.480 --> 00:40:56.320 and see whether I can put them into different ranges. 00:40:56.320 --> 00:40:59.041 And so I picked out a couple, and just tried 00:40:59.041 --> 00:41:02.190 to repeat them and then put them in different notes 00:41:02.190 --> 00:41:05.180 with the same rhythm. 00:41:05.180 --> 00:41:07.802 But by and large, most of it was just like, oh, 00:41:07.802 --> 00:41:09.490 that sounds nice. 00:41:09.490 --> 00:41:11.740 PROFESSOR: Well I personally thought it was very good, 00:41:11.740 --> 00:41:13.865 the way it worked out, and very interesting the way 00:41:13.865 --> 00:41:15.300 it all synchronized. 00:41:15.300 --> 00:41:17.350 I mean, it was like you planned it. 00:41:17.350 --> 00:41:18.850 Which obviously, you didn't. 00:41:21.519 --> 00:41:24.060 STUDENT 10: Yeah, one problem we ran into when Ben and I were 00:41:24.060 --> 00:41:27.424 rehearsing was just, when we got toward the end each time, 00:41:27.424 --> 00:41:29.266 and we tried to make the rhythm go faster, 00:41:29.266 --> 00:41:32.830 it kind of became more difficult to play in synchrony. 00:41:32.830 --> 00:41:35.645 Because there's just so much loudness going on. 00:41:39.590 --> 00:41:41.215 PHIL SCARF: Anybody else have comments? 00:41:45.340 --> 00:41:46.840 STUDENT 7: You could really tell you 00:41:46.840 --> 00:41:50.640 could find that [? challen ?] motif, 00:41:50.640 --> 00:41:52.600 you repeated and played off of. 00:41:52.600 --> 00:41:55.050 I think it worked out nicely. 00:41:58.139 --> 00:41:59.180 PHIL SCARF: Anybody else? 00:42:02.765 --> 00:42:05.098 PROFESSOR: I was just thinking, it would be interesting. 00:42:05.098 --> 00:42:08.610 We can do this through the magic of taping, 00:42:08.610 --> 00:42:12.510 to play all these exactly in sequence. 00:42:12.510 --> 00:42:14.800 And then hear them as a unified suite. 00:42:14.800 --> 00:42:20.008 Which we could do through the mystery of taping. 00:42:20.008 --> 00:42:24.200 [INAUDIBLE] It was very interesting 00:42:24.200 --> 00:42:30.482 how we started with a slower idea doing some things. 00:42:30.482 --> 00:42:33.095 Then we got more rhythmicized as we got to the middle. 00:42:33.095 --> 00:42:35.950 Then we had this as the ending. 00:42:35.950 --> 00:42:38.202 Well, your thing just before that and then this thing 00:42:38.202 --> 00:42:39.701 at the end, which is very different. 00:42:45.377 --> 00:42:46.085 PHIL SCARF: Cool. 00:42:49.584 --> 00:42:50.500 Thank you. 00:42:50.500 --> 00:42:52.960 So what I thought is, maybe, as a group, 00:42:52.960 --> 00:42:55.570 we can try some of the frameworks that 00:42:55.570 --> 00:43:00.150 didn't get selected for today's assignment. 00:43:00.150 --> 00:43:03.286 So I was thinking, why don't we do -- 00:43:03.286 --> 00:43:06.210 I forget what I called it, the constrained range. 00:43:09.500 --> 00:43:10.470 Confined range, OK. 00:43:10.470 --> 00:43:12.940 So there's one called [? tans ?] confined range. 00:43:12.940 --> 00:43:16.510 And then we have the expanding and contracting [? tans. ?] 00:43:16.510 --> 00:43:19.680 So maybe we can try those. 00:43:23.330 --> 00:43:28.880 And actually, why don't we as a group figure out a a design? 00:43:28.880 --> 00:43:30.760 Why should I say what the design is? 00:43:30.760 --> 00:43:32.660 Let's use those frameworks. 00:43:32.660 --> 00:43:34.640 And who wants to volunteer, who wants 00:43:34.640 --> 00:43:38.180 to give us an idea of how we can start? 00:43:38.180 --> 00:43:39.870 Or how to use the frameworks? 00:43:47.820 --> 00:43:50.864 I see an elbow going up. 00:43:50.864 --> 00:43:52.510 You got to be careful. 00:43:52.510 --> 00:43:57.500 It's like you're at an auction, and if you 00:43:57.500 --> 00:44:00.068 do something like that, you just bought it, you know? 00:44:05.307 --> 00:44:06.890 OK, well I know you guys been thinking 00:44:06.890 --> 00:44:07.889 about these for a while. 00:44:07.889 --> 00:44:09.722 Yes, go ahead. 00:44:09.722 --> 00:44:12.305 STUDENT 7: Normally with range, we start low and then go high, 00:44:12.305 --> 00:44:14.221 why don't we start high and slowly incorporate 00:44:14.221 --> 00:44:15.040 the low notes? 00:44:15.040 --> 00:44:16.370 PHIL SCARF: That's fine. 00:44:16.370 --> 00:44:17.210 That's cool. 00:44:17.210 --> 00:44:18.600 And so that takes care of range. 00:44:18.600 --> 00:44:25.150 But who can think of what to do with this confined range idea? 00:44:25.150 --> 00:44:26.780 And then expanding and contracting. 00:44:26.780 --> 00:44:29.830 What could we do with those two things? 00:44:29.830 --> 00:44:31.410 When you say start high and move low, 00:44:31.410 --> 00:44:35.180 did you mean we have the confined range times? 00:44:35.180 --> 00:44:35.710 OK. 00:44:35.710 --> 00:44:38.480 So the confined range times, we'll start high. 00:44:38.480 --> 00:44:41.344 And then what are we going to do? 00:44:41.344 --> 00:44:42.760 STUDENT 7: Expand them slowly out? 00:44:42.760 --> 00:44:44.000 PHIL SCARF: So expanding. 00:44:44.000 --> 00:44:44.500 OK. 00:44:44.500 --> 00:44:44.830 Right. 00:44:44.830 --> 00:44:47.246 So expanding more down, because we're going to start high. 00:44:47.246 --> 00:44:48.970 So expanding them down. 00:44:48.970 --> 00:44:51.650 And when we do the expanding and contracting, 00:44:51.650 --> 00:44:53.180 these are more like linear. 00:44:53.180 --> 00:44:55.510 So you're kind of going up and down, 00:44:55.510 --> 00:44:57.450 progressively up and down. 00:44:57.450 --> 00:45:01.330 So you would make the point, if you're expanding downwards, 00:45:01.330 --> 00:45:04.340 you'll say you'll start here, and go down and back up. 00:45:04.340 --> 00:45:05.970 And then go down, farther and back up, 00:45:05.970 --> 00:45:07.178 and then farther and back up. 00:45:07.178 --> 00:45:10.420 Every time, you go progressively farther and farther. 00:45:10.420 --> 00:45:12.300 And then, is that it? 00:45:12.300 --> 00:45:14.570 Or anybody else have anything else to add? 00:45:14.570 --> 00:45:16.028 STUDENT 13: Maybe when we contract, 00:45:16.028 --> 00:45:21.352 we can contract the top note, so that the top end of the range 00:45:21.352 --> 00:45:22.060 is getting lower. 00:45:22.060 --> 00:45:24.610 And then we can track down to the bottom tonic. 00:45:24.610 --> 00:45:26.270 PHIL SCARF: That is a killer idea. 00:45:26.270 --> 00:45:27.680 I love that. 00:45:27.680 --> 00:45:28.540 OK. 00:45:28.540 --> 00:45:29.350 So that's good. 00:45:29.350 --> 00:45:33.640 And then, anything else? 00:45:36.500 --> 00:45:38.170 I think that's enough. 00:45:38.170 --> 00:45:40.090 So I think we can play with that. 00:45:40.090 --> 00:45:42.579 So let's just review this one more time, 00:45:42.579 --> 00:45:43.870 make sure I got this right, OK? 00:45:43.870 --> 00:45:46.161 I'm going to try to summarize what I think we're doing. 00:45:46.161 --> 00:45:48.750 So we're starting with a constrained range 00:45:48.750 --> 00:45:50.910 or confined range [? tans, ?] which 00:45:50.910 --> 00:45:53.589 are fast lines, as opposed to these slow lines which 00:45:53.589 --> 00:45:54.880 everybody's been starting with. 00:45:54.880 --> 00:45:57.440 So we're starting something fast. 00:45:57.440 --> 00:45:59.600 But you've got to pick just a few notes. 00:45:59.600 --> 00:46:02.030 Like three or four notes, and just stick with those notes 00:46:02.030 --> 00:46:04.990 and just keep going fast passages using those notes. 00:46:04.990 --> 00:46:06.660 And then after a while, we're going 00:46:06.660 --> 00:46:08.540 to start doing expanding and contracting, 00:46:08.540 --> 00:46:13.110 expanding [? tans. ?] Expanding downwards, 00:46:13.110 --> 00:46:14.800 progressively farther downwards. 00:46:14.800 --> 00:46:20.040 And then start doing it but reducing the upper part 00:46:20.040 --> 00:46:25.030 of the range, and then wind up with some probably confined 00:46:25.030 --> 00:46:28.170 range, constrained range [? tan ?] at the bottom. 00:46:28.170 --> 00:46:29.850 Yeah. 00:46:29.850 --> 00:46:30.490 OK. 00:46:30.490 --> 00:46:32.390 Great. 00:46:32.390 --> 00:46:35.140 So any questions or anything about? 00:46:35.140 --> 00:46:37.218 Does that reflect what you guys want to do? 00:46:37.218 --> 00:46:40.430 STUDENT 13: Do you want to pick a mode or the key? 00:46:40.430 --> 00:46:42.520 PHIL SCARF: That's a great question. 00:46:42.520 --> 00:46:44.080 I am tempted to say no. 00:46:44.080 --> 00:46:45.737 Because everybody's doing that. 00:46:45.737 --> 00:46:47.570 So I think we should do something different. 00:46:47.570 --> 00:46:51.301 My two cents is no. 00:46:51.301 --> 00:46:51.800 No. 00:46:54.490 --> 00:46:56.207 That's just my two cents. 00:46:56.207 --> 00:46:58.040 Because everybody seems to be still worrying 00:46:58.040 --> 00:46:59.569 about the modes and the scales. 00:46:59.569 --> 00:47:01.360 STUDENT 13: But there's like a dozen of us. 00:47:01.360 --> 00:47:03.760 Won't it -- 00:47:03.760 --> 00:47:04.470 PHIL SCARF: OK. 00:47:04.470 --> 00:47:05.990 You guys, feel free to override me. 00:47:05.990 --> 00:47:08.156 My two cents is I wouldn't get too worried about it. 00:47:08.156 --> 00:47:11.070 But if you want to pick a starting note maybe. 00:47:11.070 --> 00:47:13.675 That might be good. 00:47:13.675 --> 00:47:14.800 STUDENT 4: We can try both. 00:47:14.800 --> 00:47:15.633 We can try it twice. 00:47:18.804 --> 00:47:19.762 We could just try both. 00:47:19.762 --> 00:47:21.490 We could just try it as you say first, 00:47:21.490 --> 00:47:23.902 and then see what it sounds like. 00:47:23.902 --> 00:47:24.610 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 00:47:24.610 --> 00:47:26.440 Because, hey, we can always do it again. 00:47:26.440 --> 00:47:31.470 So let's try it without overly defining this too much. 00:47:31.470 --> 00:47:32.470 And see how it goes. 00:47:32.470 --> 00:47:33.720 And then we can talk about it, and see 00:47:33.720 --> 00:47:35.220 if it's something we want to change. 00:47:35.220 --> 00:47:36.580 How about that? 00:47:36.580 --> 00:47:38.540 All right. 00:47:38.540 --> 00:47:42.861 So I'm going to let you guys start -- 00:47:42.861 --> 00:47:43.860 maybe I won't even play. 00:47:43.860 --> 00:47:45.776 I'll let you guys play, why do I need to play? 00:47:50.900 --> 00:47:53.778 Is everybody ready? 00:47:53.778 --> 00:47:54.742 OK. 00:47:54.742 --> 00:48:34.055 [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:50:24.060 --> 00:50:25.680 PHIL SCARF: Cool. 00:50:25.680 --> 00:50:26.180 OK. 00:50:26.180 --> 00:50:27.470 That was nice. 00:50:27.470 --> 00:50:30.130 So any thoughts about this? 00:50:33.210 --> 00:50:35.857 STUDENT 13: One thing I noticed, is by the time we ended, 00:50:35.857 --> 00:50:37.940 I think, most people already done the contracting, 00:50:37.940 --> 00:50:39.071 and I hadn't. 00:50:39.071 --> 00:50:42.250 And it was just very difficult to listen to other people, 00:50:42.250 --> 00:50:45.710 to figure about what kind of range they were in. 00:50:45.710 --> 00:50:49.890 Since everyone was in a different part of their range. 00:50:49.890 --> 00:50:53.164 I couldn't just listen to the sax and be like, oh yeah, 00:50:53.164 --> 00:50:54.580 he's in the low part of his range. 00:50:54.580 --> 00:50:57.565 Because listening to the flute or the banjo would like 00:50:57.565 --> 00:51:00.298 get me sort of confused about what range everyone was in. 00:51:06.710 --> 00:51:08.710 PHIL SCARF: Well there's so many people playing. 00:51:08.710 --> 00:51:12.300 It's pretty thick with everybody playing. 00:51:12.300 --> 00:51:15.260 You know, the thing, in Indian classical music, of course, 00:51:15.260 --> 00:51:18.770 normally there would be one lead performer, 00:51:18.770 --> 00:51:20.430 one lead melodic performer. 00:51:20.430 --> 00:51:23.580 There might be two if it's like a duel under your duet 00:51:23.580 --> 00:51:26.090 kind of program. 00:51:26.090 --> 00:51:30.520 There would typically be an accompanist or even two, 00:51:30.520 --> 00:51:36.790 but they would be playing a much more secondary role, usually. 00:51:36.790 --> 00:51:40.450 So we wouldn't have this kind of size ensemble. 00:51:40.450 --> 00:51:41.160 Wouldn't happen. 00:51:41.160 --> 00:51:44.170 So these frameworks, really, we can certainly 00:51:44.170 --> 00:51:46.930 apply them to a large ensemble. 00:51:46.930 --> 00:51:50.950 Traditionally, it wouldn't be like this. 00:51:50.950 --> 00:51:52.750 Any other comments or thoughts? 00:51:56.110 --> 00:51:58.230 STUDENT 12: I felt like we sort of ended up 00:51:58.230 --> 00:52:06.558 finding a modal center, but we had 00:52:06.558 --> 00:52:10.094 some type of tonal center of some sort. 00:52:10.094 --> 00:52:12.165 I don't know. 00:52:12.165 --> 00:52:13.790 PHIL SCARF: Yeah, I think you're right. 00:52:13.790 --> 00:52:15.280 It's sort of emerged. 00:52:15.280 --> 00:52:18.109 PROFESSOR: I thought you all started on one. 00:52:18.109 --> 00:52:20.608 Sounded to me like you were all, I don't know what that note 00:52:20.608 --> 00:52:24.840 was, but -- anybody else notice that? 00:52:28.568 --> 00:52:31.150 I mean, after all that discussion. 00:52:31.150 --> 00:52:34.150 Everybody just intuitively said, okay, we're going to do over, 00:52:34.150 --> 00:52:36.650 and that was pretty interesting. 00:52:36.650 --> 00:52:40.360 And again, I was the only non-playing observer, 00:52:40.360 --> 00:52:48.821 but in addition to this concept, of the range increasing and all 00:52:48.821 --> 00:52:51.490 that kind of thing, contracting, you're 00:52:51.490 --> 00:52:53.700 also dealing with texture. 00:52:53.700 --> 00:52:55.330 So the whole thing could be looked 00:52:55.330 --> 00:52:58.072 at as an exercise in texture. 00:52:58.072 --> 00:53:00.280 Particularly in the beginning part and the last part, 00:53:00.280 --> 00:53:01.880 as I was hearing. 00:53:01.880 --> 00:53:03.080 Which is interesting. 00:53:03.080 --> 00:53:10.930 Which means that your specific contributions, 00:53:10.930 --> 00:53:14.290 it's the overall that's more important. 00:53:14.290 --> 00:53:15.412 To me, anyway. 00:53:15.412 --> 00:53:17.036 I don't know what you think about that. 00:53:26.820 --> 00:53:30.360 PHIL SCARF: I don't know, with so many people playing, 00:53:30.360 --> 00:53:32.304 everyone has their own contribution. 00:53:32.304 --> 00:53:33.220 Everybody's listening. 00:53:33.220 --> 00:53:34.969 And there's so much going on, it's hard -- 00:53:34.969 --> 00:53:37.770 some people are probably trying to pick out maybe what one 00:53:37.770 --> 00:53:40.228 person is doing, or maybe others are kind of trying to hear 00:53:40.228 --> 00:53:42.762 the overall sound. 00:53:42.762 --> 00:53:44.470 When you have so many people improvising, 00:53:44.470 --> 00:53:48.241 it's challenging to figure out how to fit in. 00:53:48.241 --> 00:53:48.740 Yes. 00:53:48.740 --> 00:53:50.652 STUDENT 12: I thought speaking of fitting in. 00:53:50.652 --> 00:53:53.042 I think this was the first time in this class, 00:53:53.042 --> 00:53:57.310 for me, at least, that I wasn't trying to fill a space. 00:53:57.310 --> 00:53:59.240 I was just like, oh, I'm just going to go. 00:53:59.240 --> 00:54:03.920 Because we had talked about having that type of texture. 00:54:03.920 --> 00:54:06.930 And I think, most of the time when you improvise, somebody 00:54:06.930 --> 00:54:09.757 starts something, and then somebody else comes in and is 00:54:09.757 --> 00:54:11.340 trying to fill a space that they left. 00:54:11.340 --> 00:54:14.280 And this was different because we were just, like, 00:54:14.280 --> 00:54:16.730 who cares about each other's space, 00:54:16.730 --> 00:54:18.710 and just went all over it. 00:54:18.710 --> 00:54:19.420 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 00:54:19.420 --> 00:54:20.968 That's right. 00:54:20.968 --> 00:54:23.384 STUDENT 7: I think one thing that really would have helped 00:54:23.384 --> 00:54:25.856 is if we'd trickled in at the beginning, 00:54:25.856 --> 00:54:29.494 that way we could have sort of set a -- 00:54:29.494 --> 00:54:31.440 STUDENT 12: I liked it, I mean, we've 00:54:31.440 --> 00:54:34.920 never sounded like that before. 00:54:34.920 --> 00:54:36.600 PROFESSOR: The effect was pretty strong. 00:54:40.050 --> 00:54:42.910 STUDENT 7: I feel like we did sort of start funneling in. 00:54:42.910 --> 00:54:45.595 The beginning just started as chaos, 00:54:45.595 --> 00:54:47.220 everyone was doing something different. 00:54:47.220 --> 00:54:51.240 We did start to funnel in towards the end. 00:54:51.240 --> 00:54:53.582 We might have been funneling in to two or three 00:54:53.582 --> 00:54:57.762 different places, but we were funneling. 00:54:57.762 --> 00:54:58.640 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 00:54:58.640 --> 00:55:01.800 You know, part of improvisation can be chaos. 00:55:04.865 --> 00:55:05.855 It doesn't have to be. 00:55:05.855 --> 00:55:09.320 But it can be. 00:55:09.320 --> 00:55:11.260 So that's part of the game, you know? 00:55:11.260 --> 00:55:13.580 If it goes into chaos, then where's it go from there, 00:55:13.580 --> 00:55:14.080 you know? 00:55:14.080 --> 00:55:16.050 Does something start to gel? 00:55:16.050 --> 00:55:16.955 Or come together? 00:55:19.620 --> 00:55:22.800 Improvisation, especially when you're doing with a group, 00:55:22.800 --> 00:55:25.134 it has a life of its own, you know? 00:55:25.134 --> 00:55:26.800 And everybody's kind of going with that. 00:55:30.380 --> 00:55:31.480 Anything else? 00:55:31.480 --> 00:55:32.080 What else? 00:55:37.200 --> 00:55:37.720 OK. 00:55:37.720 --> 00:55:38.620 Cool. 00:55:38.620 --> 00:55:42.550 So let's try something different. 00:55:42.550 --> 00:55:51.300 Let's try -- OK, I'll take ideas. 00:55:51.300 --> 00:55:53.430 Ideas about how to set up an improvisation. 00:55:57.170 --> 00:56:02.250 Let's say we want to use the constrained range, 00:56:02.250 --> 00:56:06.400 I want to do this constrained range, confined range. 00:56:06.400 --> 00:56:07.020 OK. 00:56:07.020 --> 00:56:09.710 We use the confined range idea. 00:56:09.710 --> 00:56:11.890 But this time we're going to extrapolate it. 00:56:11.890 --> 00:56:14.470 And instead of picking notes that are close together, 00:56:14.470 --> 00:56:17.250 pick three or four notes that are far apart. 00:56:17.250 --> 00:56:18.520 And use that. 00:56:18.520 --> 00:56:20.820 But I also want to change this density. 00:56:20.820 --> 00:56:24.110 So that's it's not continuous high, like everybody 00:56:24.110 --> 00:56:25.200 playing all the time. 00:56:25.200 --> 00:56:30.060 So I want to solicit some ideas about how we should do that. 00:56:30.060 --> 00:56:33.075 How can we make it thinner? 00:56:33.075 --> 00:56:38.425 STUDENT 7: We could designate people 00:56:38.425 --> 00:56:42.760 who would be more drone, lower, longer pitches. 00:56:42.760 --> 00:56:46.170 And who would be higher, melodic type instruments. 00:56:48.356 --> 00:56:50.480 That way we can sort of differentiate between that, 00:56:50.480 --> 00:56:53.176 and not everyone's trying to do melody. 00:56:53.176 --> 00:56:53.800 PHIL SCARF: OK. 00:56:53.800 --> 00:56:54.840 That's a cool idea. 00:56:54.840 --> 00:56:58.270 So by default, people would be droning. 00:56:58.270 --> 00:57:02.840 And then those who are going to play the so-called lead part 00:57:02.840 --> 00:57:05.950 would emerge. 00:57:05.950 --> 00:57:06.780 OK. 00:57:06.780 --> 00:57:07.960 Yes? 00:57:07.960 --> 00:57:13.739 STUDENT 2: We could maybe have a shifting window of maybe two 00:57:13.739 --> 00:57:19.907 or three people at a time, who are out there trying to make 00:57:19.907 --> 00:57:25.991 a new motif, or kind of -- even for the people who are just 00:57:25.991 --> 00:57:27.699 droning, they might be playing something. 00:57:27.699 --> 00:57:31.595 But maybe designate a moving group of people. 00:57:31.595 --> 00:57:33.543 Not any one, but like. 00:57:33.543 --> 00:57:38.959 You know, Ben can experiment more, I guess. 00:57:38.959 --> 00:57:41.500 PHIL SCARF: Playing the lead -- we'll call it lead and drone. 00:57:41.500 --> 00:57:43.260 Just to differentiate the roles, right? 00:57:43.260 --> 00:57:46.060 So having small groups of two or three people at a time 00:57:46.060 --> 00:57:47.091 playing the lead. 00:57:47.091 --> 00:57:47.590 Right. 00:57:47.590 --> 00:57:48.090 Yeah. 00:57:48.090 --> 00:57:49.520 That's a good idea. 00:57:49.520 --> 00:57:53.130 So any thoughts about how do we implement that? 00:57:53.130 --> 00:57:54.630 How are we going to know who's going 00:57:54.630 --> 00:57:56.760 to play the lead part at any given time? 00:57:56.760 --> 00:57:57.720 Any ideas? 00:57:57.720 --> 00:58:00.600 STUDENT 2: You can just start with first two or three, 00:58:00.600 --> 00:58:03.014 and then when one drops out, the next person -- 00:58:03.014 --> 00:58:04.180 PHIL SCARF: OK, that's fine. 00:58:04.180 --> 00:58:04.679 Cool. 00:58:04.679 --> 00:58:05.850 So we'll start with three. 00:58:05.850 --> 00:58:08.552 When the first person drops out, the next person adds in. 00:58:08.552 --> 00:58:10.510 That person drops out, the next person adds in. 00:58:10.510 --> 00:58:13.230 And we work our way across the room, how about that? 00:58:13.230 --> 00:58:14.215 OK. 00:58:14.215 --> 00:58:14.715 Great. 00:58:22.190 --> 00:58:23.680 This is for the lead part. 00:58:23.680 --> 00:58:26.500 By default, everyone's going to be droning, more or less 00:58:26.500 --> 00:58:27.305 all the time. 00:58:27.305 --> 00:58:29.430 And then when it's your turn to play the lead part, 00:58:29.430 --> 00:58:31.180 you jump out, you emerge out of that, 00:58:31.180 --> 00:58:32.850 and you go into the lead part. 00:58:32.850 --> 00:58:36.640 And I was just thinking also, maybe 00:58:36.640 --> 00:58:40.400 we should put in one more element here. 00:58:40.400 --> 00:58:41.870 Like a note density element. 00:58:43.990 --> 00:58:44.490 Yeah. 00:58:44.490 --> 00:58:46.460 Everybody's going to pick like three or four notes, which 00:58:46.460 --> 00:58:47.793 don't have to be the same notes. 00:58:49.559 --> 00:58:51.100 You can pick whatever notes you want. 00:58:51.100 --> 00:58:52.933 And you could base it on what the people are 00:58:52.933 --> 00:58:54.280 playing who played before you. 00:58:54.280 --> 00:58:55.230 Or not. 00:58:55.230 --> 00:58:57.450 It's up to you. 00:58:57.450 --> 00:58:59.070 But let's do this. 00:58:59.070 --> 00:59:02.630 Let's start it at a very high density, 00:59:02.630 --> 00:59:05.761 and work our way to a low density. 00:59:05.761 --> 00:59:06.260 OK? 00:59:06.260 --> 00:59:09.400 But still, the notes should be rapid. 00:59:09.400 --> 00:59:13.850 So to achieve a low density with rapid notes, what 00:59:13.850 --> 00:59:16.280 you have to do is maybe play a few notes and stop. 00:59:16.280 --> 00:59:17.620 Play a few notes and stop. 00:59:17.620 --> 00:59:21.260 So that it's not as dense, but when you play the notes, 00:59:21.260 --> 00:59:24.410 you're playing rapid lines. 00:59:24.410 --> 00:59:28.180 So let's not play sustained -- the lead players should not be 00:59:28.180 --> 00:59:30.630 playing sustained notes. 00:59:30.630 --> 00:59:33.200 It's only the droners who are playing sustained. 00:59:33.200 --> 00:59:35.850 And let's do the drone -- let's pick a note. 00:59:35.850 --> 00:59:38.120 Who wants to pick a note for the drone? 00:59:38.120 --> 00:59:40.130 A tonic? 00:59:40.130 --> 00:59:41.570 F. OK. 00:59:41.570 --> 00:59:43.030 Cool. 00:59:43.030 --> 00:59:44.100 So let's start. 00:59:44.100 --> 00:59:47.240 And we're going to start over here and work our way around. 00:59:47.240 --> 00:59:50.030 Three people at a time. 00:59:50.030 --> 00:59:51.069 OK. 00:59:51.069 --> 00:59:51.860 Is everybody ready? 00:59:54.854 --> 01:03:53.820 [MUSIC PLAYING] 01:03:53.820 --> 01:03:54.570 PHIL SCARF: Right. 01:03:54.570 --> 01:03:55.069 Good. 01:03:55.069 --> 01:03:56.150 So comments? 01:04:03.710 --> 01:04:05.180 How well do you think we followed 01:04:05.180 --> 01:04:06.630 the framework, or the design? 01:04:12.486 --> 01:04:14.150 STUDENT 7: We followed it pretty well. 01:04:14.150 --> 01:04:16.460 It seemed like we were keeping to the groups of three. 01:04:16.460 --> 01:04:17.168 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 01:04:17.168 --> 01:04:18.900 We were keeping to the groups of three. 01:04:18.900 --> 01:04:19.450 That's true. 01:04:19.450 --> 01:04:23.357 I was kind of helping that along. 01:04:23.357 --> 01:04:24.940 Because sometimes it was getting hazy. 01:04:24.940 --> 01:04:25.717 But yeah. 01:04:25.717 --> 01:04:27.925 STUDENT 13: I didn't hear the change in note density, 01:04:27.925 --> 01:04:28.800 I guess? 01:04:28.800 --> 01:04:29.508 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 01:04:29.508 --> 01:04:32.070 The change in note density didn't really seem to happen. 01:04:32.070 --> 01:04:33.280 It wasn't too obvious. 01:04:33.280 --> 01:04:36.840 Maybe a little bit, but it wasn't nearly as pronounced 01:04:36.840 --> 01:04:38.090 as I was hoping it would be. 01:04:38.090 --> 01:04:39.121 STUDENT 12: I guess I wasn't sure 01:04:39.121 --> 01:04:41.190 exactly what that meant when you described it. 01:04:41.190 --> 01:04:41.898 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 01:04:41.898 --> 01:04:45.890 Well I'll try demonstrating that with my reed -- aw man, 01:04:45.890 --> 01:04:47.160 I'll tell you, this weather. 01:04:47.160 --> 01:04:50.410 When it's cold and it's dry in here, the reed dries up. 01:04:50.410 --> 01:04:53.225 While we're talking I'll try to get this resolved. 01:04:53.225 --> 01:04:55.600 Picking three or four notes and only playing those notes. 01:04:55.600 --> 01:04:58.590 I was hearing like scales and different things going on, 01:04:58.590 --> 01:05:01.650 which wasn't really part of the design. 01:05:01.650 --> 01:05:03.640 So that was the other observation I had. 01:05:09.026 --> 01:05:10.401 STUDENT 7: I thought we were just 01:05:10.401 --> 01:05:13.240 supposed to start with three notes and then build out. 01:05:13.240 --> 01:05:15.190 PHIL SCARF: Oh. 01:05:15.190 --> 01:05:17.110 That's not what I had in mind. 01:05:17.110 --> 01:05:20.920 But that's certainly a possibility. 01:05:20.920 --> 01:05:27.229 But it wasn't what I was trying to communicate. 01:05:27.229 --> 01:05:28.770 PROFESSOR: If I could just interject. 01:05:28.770 --> 01:05:32.718 It's almost the most difficult thing, is just [INAUDIBLE] 01:05:32.718 --> 01:05:34.622 a reduced parameter. 01:05:34.622 --> 01:05:37.954 So three or four notes, that's really hard. 01:05:37.954 --> 01:05:42.650 Because our inclination always is to expand. 01:05:42.650 --> 01:05:44.530 So the idea of staying with this limited 01:05:44.530 --> 01:05:46.949 whatever it is, range or density or something, 01:05:46.949 --> 01:05:48.490 it's one of the hardest things to do. 01:05:48.490 --> 01:05:50.284 So just something to keep in mind. 01:05:50.284 --> 01:05:52.450 We'll probably try to work on that as we go forward. 01:05:52.450 --> 01:05:53.541 PHIL SCARF: I agree. 01:05:53.541 --> 01:05:54.040 That's true. 01:05:54.040 --> 01:05:55.620 It's a very natural tendency. 01:05:55.620 --> 01:05:59.130 Once you start with whatever the parameter is, 01:05:59.130 --> 01:06:03.170 you try to build something. 01:06:03.170 --> 01:06:03.970 OK. 01:06:03.970 --> 01:06:08.930 So for example, I'm going to pick three notes 01:06:08.930 --> 01:06:12.470 and just play some rapid lines with just three notes. 01:06:31.150 --> 01:06:32.720 So that's pretty high density. 01:06:32.720 --> 01:06:35.160 To go to lower density without reducing the speed, 01:06:35.160 --> 01:06:36.630 you just leave space. 01:06:36.630 --> 01:06:37.130 So. 01:06:47.700 --> 01:06:52.784 And you could reduce the density without changing the speed. 01:06:52.784 --> 01:06:54.700 So that's more like what I was thinking about. 01:06:57.510 --> 01:06:59.360 So I don't know if we want to try it again. 01:06:59.360 --> 01:07:03.774 Maybe try it again with that in mind and see what we can do. 01:07:03.774 --> 01:07:07.770 PROFESSOR: So just time-wise, we have room for one more. 01:07:07.770 --> 01:07:08.520 PHIL SCARF: OK. 01:07:08.520 --> 01:07:09.020 That's cool. 01:07:09.020 --> 01:07:10.830 So we'll do this. 01:07:10.830 --> 01:07:12.684 So we'll do the same basic thing, 01:07:12.684 --> 01:07:14.100 with everybody droning by default. 01:07:14.100 --> 01:07:16.640 And then we'll have our window of three. 01:07:16.640 --> 01:07:20.597 And I may just do the same thing. 01:07:20.597 --> 01:07:21.430 So let's just start. 01:07:23.950 --> 01:07:27.760 Yeah, still on the F. 01:07:27.760 --> 01:10:22.202 [MUSIC PLAYING] 01:10:22.202 --> 01:10:24.160 PHIL SCARF: Still have a couple minutes, right? 01:10:24.160 --> 01:10:24.868 OK, any comments? 01:10:31.060 --> 01:10:31.950 That was much better. 01:10:31.950 --> 01:10:33.695 Much closer to what we were trying to do. 01:10:33.695 --> 01:10:34.195 Yes. 01:10:34.195 --> 01:10:34.695 Good. 01:10:38.720 --> 01:10:41.950 So how did that feel? 01:10:41.950 --> 01:10:46.070 Start to compare the last two, from the performer's point 01:10:46.070 --> 01:10:46.670 of view. 01:10:46.670 --> 01:10:48.128 How did it feel the play those two? 01:10:55.324 --> 01:10:56.490 STUDENT 7: It's interesting. 01:10:56.490 --> 01:10:58.610 Because we look at it on a micro scale. 01:10:58.610 --> 01:11:00.450 Each individual person is playing 01:11:00.450 --> 01:11:03.828 this random, chaotic assortment of just three notes. 01:11:03.828 --> 01:11:06.036 And when you look on the macro level, 01:11:06.036 --> 01:11:07.494 when everyone was playing together, 01:11:07.494 --> 01:11:11.306 it actually sort of made sense. 01:11:11.306 --> 01:11:12.012 I don't know. 01:11:12.012 --> 01:11:13.970 But if you just listen to each individual part, 01:11:13.970 --> 01:11:18.630 it really didn't make sense, it was just sort of random. 01:11:18.630 --> 01:11:21.030 PHIL SCARF: OK. 01:11:21.030 --> 01:11:23.090 Anything else? 01:11:23.090 --> 01:11:24.390 Other comments? 01:11:24.390 --> 01:11:27.324 STUDENT 1: I feel like high density is also 01:11:27.324 --> 01:11:30.132 just as restricting as like low density. 01:11:35.360 --> 01:11:37.186 There's only certain things that you 01:11:37.186 --> 01:11:41.834 can play if you're forced to play fast. 01:11:41.834 --> 01:11:44.497 There's certain things when you're forced to play slow. 01:11:44.497 --> 01:11:46.080 But you're restricted to those things. 01:11:49.632 --> 01:11:51.590 PHIL SCARF: As opposed to having a full pallet, 01:11:51.590 --> 01:11:52.435 of all possibilities. 01:11:52.435 --> 01:11:52.900 STUDENT 1: I didn't mean restricted as a bad thing. 01:11:52.900 --> 01:11:55.576 I meant, it's just definitely more constraint 01:11:55.576 --> 01:11:56.243 than I expected. 01:11:56.243 --> 01:11:56.950 PHIL SCARF: Yeah. 01:11:56.950 --> 01:11:58.790 You have to work within certain limitations, 01:11:58.790 --> 01:12:04.350 and it generates a certain thing. 01:12:04.350 --> 01:12:07.850 And, you know, these kind of concepts -- 01:12:07.850 --> 01:12:09.910 it's great to think about it ahead of time. 01:12:09.910 --> 01:12:12.090 And have this design worked out, and then try 01:12:12.090 --> 01:12:13.310 to implement the design. 01:12:13.310 --> 01:12:19.150 But you can also spontaneously just play, and use these ideas 01:12:19.150 --> 01:12:20.990 as you go. 01:12:20.990 --> 01:12:24.070 And let the framework, or let the whole design 01:12:24.070 --> 01:12:29.070 itself kind of evolve spontaneously. 01:12:29.070 --> 01:12:31.570 It doesn't have to be something that you've 01:12:31.570 --> 01:12:33.920 planned out before hand. 01:12:33.920 --> 01:12:35.420 PROFESSOR: The one thing I would say 01:12:35.420 --> 01:12:39.386 is I thought everybody, comparing the two, 01:12:39.386 --> 01:12:41.318 is the second one, everybody was listening 01:12:41.318 --> 01:12:43.250 much more closely than I thought. 01:12:43.250 --> 01:12:45.070 Which is why I think it worked out better. 01:12:45.070 --> 01:12:46.570 Because you got to listen as much as 01:12:46.570 --> 01:12:49.320 you make your individual contributions.