Improv2@halas.am Track

Experimental
Israel Grisha Shakhnes Less PrescribedThe 35th
installation of Experimental Israel hosts Grisha Shakhnes, who opens his
interview with an improvisation dedicated to the recently deceased, Pauline
Oliveros. Other than a well-deserved homage, Shakhnes describes his setup as
quite similar to that used by Oliveros in her first tape compositions, in which
Shakhnes can almost recognize the echo created as a default of the machines
used. His particular setup includes an old Revox tape player with 3 heads
(enabling recording and erasing). The Revox is fitted with and empty quarter
inch tape, and is set on record. This motion becomes delicate sound that is fed
into an external mixer, which is fed back into itself. And finally, all of this
is sent into a control mixer through which the EQ is employed. Into this same
mixer are fed the possible lines of a few other smaller tape recorders and
other provisory objects that Shakhnes uses. He is vehemently opposed to any
kind of external effect use, claiming that his intention is to keep the
instruments’ sounds clear, so as to see what their innate possibility offers,
and more so, in order to avoid a saccharine sound.Since 2008,
Grisha Shakhnes is an active performer, and this although he isn’t trained in
music at all. His forays into performance were prompted via works from
different art forms. He mentions Jack Kerouack’s “On the Road”, as a vivid
memory. In this story there are various mentions of what Kerouack possibly
perceived as “crazy jazz solos”. Affected by the writing, Shakhnes followed
through these same mentions, discovering that Kerouack’s and his own idea of
crazy do not correspond. However, this sent Shakhnes down a particular jazz
trail that brought him to John Coltrane’s “Ascension”, which to him embodied a
definitive sound he was looking for. This was not and would not become
Shakhnes’ sound, but it was the right event to send him down a trail from jazz,
to free jazz, to free improv, to electro acoustic setups and indeed to his own
setup. And it is important to follow through and state here that the
aforementioned setup is Shakhnes’ instrument. He imagines himself continuing
using this basic setup throughout his career. Apart from the love Shakhnes has
for tape sound, he recognizes this sound as his own aesthetic – an aesthetic he
has not managed to recreate on any other instrument. Shakhnes presents
us with what one could easily call a structured improvisation. In fact, what he
does has no proper terminology, but I’m sure that many of the readers will
recognize the style of his creative process. Shakhnes sets himself up for
performances with prepared tapes and objects he knows he might end up using. He
then leaves the process quite open for discovery. However, Shakhnes has a
pretty good idea of what his musical destination will be, and hence he shies
away from calling his practice improvisation. Improv, tells us Shakhnes, is
based around the process at its epicentre. The focal point of the improvising
practitioner is to explore, which is why it is so open and prone towards
collaboration or group practice. For Shakhnes, in improvisation, one can have a
wonderful and successful process yet a complete aesthetic failure. However, he
is interested only in aesthetic outcomes, which is why he always maintains some
control over a process, and indeed why he predominantly shuns collaboration or
group scenarios. And the destination Shakhnes wants to arrive at, or indeed the
compositional sound he is drawn to, is an aesthetic dwelling comfortably on the
boundaries between through composed and improvised music. However, Shakhnes
recognizes the inner rhythm of every composition demanding a need for change.
This becomes a contentious point when listening to Shakhnes’ output, as it is
usually quite drone oriented, and hence corresponds well with process music.
This is probably also why Shakhnes recognizes the need for an ongoing shift,
which, in effect, recolors the composition and thus reshapes it. This technical
aspect also relates to an interesting definition we chance upon during the
interview: Shakhnes describes his work as “live composing”, and not
improvisation. The reasoning here, again, has to do with planning and the
following of a known trajectory. The improviser, claims Shakhnes, is at the
mercy of the process, whereas live composition entails a known process with
varying details left to be decided on the moment of performance. Shakhnes finds
similarities to his day job as chef – here too, he claims he seldom opens a
recipe book, yet always has a dictated plan taking him through the course of
preparation.  And what of
experimentation? As if having heard all of our past installations, which I am
sure he didn’t, Shakhnes skims through all the potential pitfalls of defining
experimentation. This journey takes us through two main keywords: awareness and
relativism. Shakhnes avoids falling into any traps and claims that any
definition of experimentation is subjective. In fact, he enjoys the fact that
he has no concrete answer, yet hopes that he is both adventurous and experimental
with his own music. Yet still, Shakhnes veers closer in an attempt to shed some
more light on the topic with his claim that experimental art does not prescribe
as much of the experience for the audience as do other genres and styles. And
indeed, there is something to be said for art that leaves you in a sort of
limbo between different, sometimes contrasting realms of expression. I have to
say, that that’s exactly how I felt when I heard Shakhnes play.