Ullén’s starting point in her improvisations seems to be in a pre-decided area, perhaps a certain setup of piano preparations, or a musical idea. There’s a flirtation with the idea of playing “etudes”, but there are departures from the suggested etude, which are, as I see it, what makes this music brilliant.
While listening in the beginning, you get cradled into a kind of universe, a very strong atmosphere. Many musicians would settle for that. But not Ullén. She enteres with a completely contrasting thing, and can let that become the center of attention instead. You go on a very strange journey in this music, strong atmospheres morphing into something else. There’s at times feelings of impossible dimensions, bringing to mind the memory of images of M.C. Escher or Francis Bacon.
I think this effect is largely coming from Ullén’s sense of rhythm and timing which is quite unique. There is something in her rhythm which brings to mind the listening experience of hearing early Cecil Taylor playing standards (but I must stress, that they do not sound similar). This rhythm is also complemented by a very captivating use of pauses and placement of changes in direction, that seems fresh in every moment. Ullén’s temperament is also something very fascinating. There is a kind of meditative, introspective ground, with quite excentric deviations happening at unexpected moments. I have a strong feeling that all the decisions made in this music are by a wise person.
It’s also this balance between expressivity and introvertedness, between etude and free flowing improvising, that makes this music so vital. The exploration of a limited area becomes more meaningful because of its relation to a contrasting way of playing, and vice versa.
Although this record has three pieces that are played twice, I still think of it as being free improvisation. It seems to me that the composed element is only a starting point, that is there for her to be free within and that she can also deviate from. The recurring sounds, or harmonies, are there consistently, which give each piece the feeling of being a song. But she plays these songs like a jazz musician, which is what sets her apart from the many improvisers that I mentioned in the beginning of this review. The harmonies are there, but what happens melodically, gesturally, rhythmically is unpredictable. The composition is there as a “place”, and the stories which take place there are endlessly renewable. It would be no problem to make seven more versions of these pieces, just as it isn’t a problem to listen to seven different versions of Coltrane play “Impressions”.
This music is obviously made by someone who has gone very deeply into her craft. The richness of sound, harmony, ideas and form is a gift to the listener who can revisit this music over and over and always find new details.
Out of curiosity, I googled reviews of this record. I was very disappointed by the lack of reflection about the actual music. It seems that no one, or at least very few writers have the competence to write about these things. Instead they discuss what is written in the press text, or in the worst case just copy/paste sentences from there. They discuss the story around the record, the concept, the outer layers, but not the actual music. This is what gave me the urge to start this blog. The writing in this community is too shallow, and I want to make an attempt to write reviews which go deeper. To reflect in a more serious way on what makes a great album great, and what sets it apart from the rest.
Comments
Post a Comment