Introduction: Theorizing Improvisation (Musically)

Introduction: Theorizing Improvisation (Musically)[1] When talking about improvisation, as George E. Lewis wryly remarked at the AMS/SEM/SMT conference session at which versions of these papers were first presented, we ought not unreflectively conflate topic and process. Thinking about improvisation does not mean that we can just make things up as we go along. That being said, the papers we introduce here are, in a sense, the product of an improvised gesture-one meant to take advantage of the rare opportunity for musicologists, ethnomusicologists, and music theorists to come together and discuss a topic that cuts across disciplinary lines. The idea was simple: create a temporary forum to reflect on the ways in which improvisation might reconfigure our commitments as scholars of music and culture. Rather than trying to orchestrate a coordinated performance, we aimed for a productive heterophony.[2] The last occasion for such a conversation would have been in 2000, when AMS, SEM, and SMT met jointly in Toronto, and thus before the recent groundswell of scholarship in improvisation studies. A brief and very partial inventory of recent developments would not be out of place here. Many music theorists will of course be familiar with recent research on Italian partimenti pioneered by Robert Gjerdingen (2007). A special issue of the Journal of Music Theory focused on jazz improvisation and music analysis (2005, no. 2). In 2011 the SMT Interest Group on Improvisation convened for the first time in Minneapolis. Interest in improvisation is hardly limited to music theory, however, as the founding of a special interest group within the Society for Ethnomusicology just one year prior illustrates. Along with journals like Critical Studies in Improvisation, launched in 2004, we are eager to amplify interdisciplinary resonances. In addition, music educators have increasingly brought improvisation into their teaching; philosophers (Benson 2003, Peters 2009, Velleman 2009) and scientists (Berkowitz 2010, numerous articles in Music Perception) have made unique contributions to this expanding area of inquiry; and scholars such as Ajay Heble (2000), George E. Lewis (2008), and Fred Moten (2003) have compellingly coupled improvisation with critical theory and African American experimental music. The two-volume Oxford Handbook of Critical Improvisation Studies, edited by Lewis and Benjamin Piekut, will soon be published.[3] Though no single panel could possibly reflect the breadth or depth of improvisation studies, we nevertheless aspired to be as wide-ranging as possible. Maximizing chronological, geographical, cultural, and theoretical breadth would draw more music scholars into the rapidly evolving discussion on improvisation. At the same time, it would have been presumptuous to prescribe topics to our panelists. Fortunately, the resulting papers were as rich and varied as we had hoped they would be. If it was too much to process during the limited question and answer period in New Orleans-which it was!-we are gratified to have the opportunity to continue and expand the conversation here.[4] Somewhat surprising to us is the way certain thematic consistencies emerge from this heterogeneous set of papers. Improvisation compels us to reconsider the ways language is used to represent not just music, but ephemeral activities in general; it complicates linear notions of temporality and causality; and it forces us to think carefully about the nature of performance. Perhaps these themes express anxieties engendered by the concept of improvisation. Perhaps they evince an enthusiasm for the promise improvisation seems to make. Perhaps the two are inextricably entwined.[5] Problems of language are part and parcel of scholarship, but improvisation throws a particularly glaring light on the conflict between representational and deictic uses. While it is easy to say, "That is improvisation," providing positive content for "that" proves considerably more difficult. …