|
Andrew Hodges
(July 2008)
There is a major problem with improvisation as a metaphor because musicians
and composers are unable to agree what improvisation is. In some
arts circles improvisation is even regarded with
some suspicion. Not only that, musical and theatrical performance are
coloured by the same characteristics as those that exist in business,
e.g. perfectionism, a potentially destructive blame culture, overweening
control dramas, and a hypersensitivity to the fear of error. What
musicians do seem to have on their side is a passionate commitment to
freedom of expression and seeking the effective means of personal
creativity.
Can
the musical community form an understanding of improvisation and its
relationship to the output of their creativity? For many musicians,
improvisation is in some way separate from composing and performing. In
the case of performance, as this mainly consists of playing and
practising previously composed pieces, the player normally focuses on
what he or she sees on the paper in front of them and would find
difficulty in perceiving ‘something between the notes’. The processes
of practice, preparation and performance seem not to be viewed as
remotely connected to the characteristics of improvisation.
From
this one could draw a generalisation from some musicians that there are
things which are distinctly improvisational and some things which aren’t
such as musical pieces and recordings. For survival's sake there
is a strong need to objectify musical output e.g. create ‘pieces’,
notate them, record them and get them played if at all possible. This
raises the question of the ‘reality’ of music. Is music a ‘thing’ or is
it actually rather more ephemeral? There is a kind of
‘either-or-ness’ about musical creativity which seems to hint at musical
creativity being somewhat dualistic in character; the object that music
becomes and everything else that isn’t. This peculiarly
bipolar world can be somewhat artificial and rather unhelpful.
If
instead composing and its performance on the one hand and
improvisation on the other are seen as part of a continuum then it becomes possible to consider the
notion that all musical behaviour could in some way be improvisational,
that improvisation is not a separate activity. It might even be more
beneficial (and a good deal more interesting) to consider composition
and performance subset of improvisation.
If
the improvisational universe can be extended, with composition and its
performance being a more controlled part of that universe and
improvisation itself tending towards the freer, less controlled
dimension then something rather interesting occurs in the ‘fuzzy space’ between the two
extremes.
Einstein said: “So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are uncertain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality”. Reality is not bipolar. Truth is blurred, even to the
extent of seeming chaotic. Improvisation seems to offer some kind of
order to chaos. If reality is truly ‘fuzzy’, we can expect form &
process to emerge from the fog just long enough to be useful. Process
doesn’t remain fixed. Instead it’s recycled. Improvisational
behaviour with its fuzzy processes seems to offer us a more creative and
productive route towards effectively managing our moment-to-moment
relationships with people.
In
the improvising music group, excessive ‘noise’ and extraneous sounds may
be produced from time to time but the process of improvisation seems to
fold these aberrant activities back into the improvisation either to be
utilised constructively or to be, ‘without judgement’, quietly dropped
as ‘not helpful’. In business, this might mean that after transforming
current-style management to an improvisational management style, we
might expect the newly transformed managers to say that their world has
been made significantly easier now that the team has started to perform
optimally. This is because they will be intervening less. We might
expect this because the now more effective team should have reduced
substantially old negative behaviours such as excessive ‘gossip’ and
other compensatory behaviours. The ‘sounds’ they now produce no
longer lead to disharmony that ordinarily would have led at some point
to management intervention.
It
means that by adopting improvisation as the general case, to foster
creativity, we need to be in position to flexibly move between different
parts of the improvisational universe. If the improvisers and the
composers can agree that all musical behaviour is in some way
improvisational then both as a metaphor and maybe even as reality the
notion that all behaviour is to a greater or lesser extent
improvisational is extremely helpful.
By
adopting a global improvising mindset we can start to view control
processes in a different context and with a different meaning to their
purpose. We can begin to rebalance the machine-like stranglehold that
modern existence seems to have over us. Within a musical improvisation
there is little evidence of blame and a strong desire to work
cooperatively on a shared basis. This means that whilst aiming for high
standards of workmanship we can equally value and utilise creatively the
well-intentioned mistake. The output at any moment can be thrilling,
engaging, motivational or at the very least sufficient for the purpose
at that time. This is the kind of mental map that will aid creativity
wherever it’s needed, both inside and outside the field of music.
The
improvisational metaphor supplies the nurturing landscape through which
which we creatively move. We no longer need be driven purely by the
loneliness and rigidity of process.
This is part of a series of articles on Business Improvisation by Andrew
Hodges,
classical violinist, improviser
and
business coach.
We’ll keep you updated when he provides us with the next exciting
instalment. |
