Since Piaras Hoban published an algorithmically generated text for his Lab report, and since I’m not averse to conversations with technics, I thought I’d follow his example with a conversation with Eliza (in this case Charles Hayden’s Java implementation of Eliza), the grandmother of Turing-test contenders. Here’s a more-or-less unedited conversation on the October Stet Lab:
Han-earl Park: Hello.
Eliza: How do you do. Please state your problem.
Not exactly a problem, but a kind of…. I’m wondering about what happens when old… when there’s a meeting of improvisers.
Is it because you are wondering about what happens what old that you came to me?
Sorry? No, what I mean is what happens when there’s an on stage reunion I suppose.
Please don’t apologise.
Okay. Take the performance by Marian [Murray], Tony [O’Connor] and myself. How does that compare with the work we’ve done in the past?
Why do you ask?
Well, Marian’s been out of the Lab equation since July ’08, and Tony, spare the cameo appearance in January [2009], the same.
In what way?
In what way? I haven’t really been performing with them, and they, with each other, for a while. The last Lab was, in that sense, a kind of reunion.
Does that question interest you?
Well, that is the question.
I’m not sure I understand you fully.
Does the most recent musical meeting accentuate past patterns, or do you bring new stuff to the table?
We were discussing you—not me.
Okay, do we bring new stuff to the table?
Please go on.
If the purpose of the Lab was to bring improvisers (their practices and approaches) from far afield, how does this reunion play into that?
Do you think its likely that the purpose of the Lab was to bring improvisers (their practices and approaches) from far afield?
Well, I did write the mission statement!
You say you did write the mission statement?
Well, I did.
Can you elaborate on that?
I’ve already done that elsewhere so no, not really.
Are you saying no just to be negative?
I feel I’m getting off topic.
How long have you been getting off topic?
Probably from the start.
What does that suggest to you?
That I’ve not got a clear picture of the situation.
Do you feel strongly about discussing such things?
Yes.
You seem to be quite positive.
Thanks.
I’m not sure I understand you fully.
Take the meeting with Thomas Buckner earlier this month. There’s a dynamic, between Jesse [Ronneau] and myself, and the negotiation between us and Thomas.
Please go on.
The first-time, real-time, on-stage meeting with, in this case, Thomas creates interesting tactical problems for the improvisers. And I get to interact with Jesse in a totally new environment—context.
Do you say and you get to interact with Jesse in a totally new environment / context for some special reason?
Well, and I don’t mean this in a bad way, but it’s no particular secret that Jesse and I don’t always see eye-to-eye on things improvisative.
Don’t you really mean this in a bad way?
Not at all. That difference is surely what fires the engines of improvisation.
What is it you really wanted to know?
I suppose what I want to know is whether that Murray-O’Connor-Park trio was familiar or unfamiliar.
What would it mean to you if you got to know is whether that Murray-O’Connor-Park trio was familiar or unfamiliar?
Okay, how about this: to what extent, and in what way, was that trio a familiar retread, and to what extent was it something outside the comfort zone?
Are such questions much on your mind?
Given some comments by Paul [Hegarty], Mel [Melanie L. Marshall] and the recent encounter with Thomas, yes.
You are sure.
Yes.
I see.
But perhaps I am simply fetishizing the novel and new.
You don’t seem quite certain.
Most of my work in the last few years has been in the jam session mold. People fly in, or I fly out, and there’s an ad-hoc meeting. What I miss is the band.
Your work in the last few years has been in the jam session mold?
Yup. Even the concerts.
Does that have anything to do with the fact that your work in the last few years has been in the jam session mold?
Well, I suppose one leads to another.
That’s quite interesting.
But I miss the bands. The time to work on specific tactics and approaches.
You say but you miss the bands?
The Church of Sonology, say, or even the ensembles that exist for a few days or weeks. That gives the performers enough time to develop stuff that doesn’t happen in one-off meetings.
What does that suggest to you?
I’m neglecting stuff?
Do you believe it is normal to be neglecting stuff?
Well, it’s good to abandon stuff, not get too attached to it.
Do you feel strongly about discussing such things?
Well, [Evan] Parker admired [John] Coltrane for his ability to abandon. [1]
I’m not sure I understand you fully.
Again, I’m not sure about the fetishizing of the new.
Do you enjoy being not sure about the fetishizing of the new?
Not that—I wonder about the politics of it.
Can you elaborate on that?
Oh, I don’t know. Is it a form of middle-class, upward mobility—transcendence?
Why don’t you know?
Because it [the new] can also be about revolution.
Is that the real reason?
Hard to say. How can I perform one political maneuver while avoiding the other?
What answer would please you most?
That it is about change, but not…. Not sure. That I’ll need think about that.
notes:
1. Graham Lock (1991), ‘speaking of the essence’, Wire (issue 85, March), pp. 30–32.