Ensemble Activity: Strictly in the Pocket, Musically in the Pocket

Briefing
The phenomenon of participants being unable to return to their original preferred attack after 'pushing' is indicative of a lack of conscious control/determination: their preferred attack was subconsciously determined instead of consciously selected. This is not unusual; just like everyone has a natural cadence when they walk, everyone has a preferred attack when perform a rhythmic activity.

The original intention was to explore the limits (early and late attacks) of the beat boundary to engender the realisation at the beat, instead of being a small slice of time, is actually expansive. However, having participants being able to return reliably to a central position is more valuable for developing their sensitivity to what different attack positions feels like - in this case, 'pushed' and 'in the pocket'.

To help participants understand the 'in the pocket' attack without using a metronome (which can be a musical straight-jacket) I needed a metaphor...

Learning Metaphor
"Imagine you're dancing with someone whose timing is all over the place: early, late; and (s)he is hopping around unpredictably. We've all been there right? (nods of agreement). Imagine that you wanted to provide strict time to your partner, 'command time' if you will, telling your partner exactly and clearly where the beat is."

Exercise One: Dancing and playing maracas with the learning metaphor
Solo practice, son montuno maracas rhythm, atiempo embodiment rhythm, to music. The maracas where played with the learning metaphor in mind; in strict middle attack as if indicating to an imaginary partner where the precise centre of the beat was.

Results
The outcome of the exercise could be divided into two groups:

1. one group of participants interpreted the exercise correctly played their maracas 'in the pocket'; and,
2. the other group interpreted the learning metaphor as if they where to accommodate their less-proficient imaginary partner as much as possible. They adjusted their attack to 'late' in order to do so.

While the latter was interesting and will be useful in a few sessions' time, it was the former group which was chosen to provide the group activity bench-mark. The difference between the two, put bluntly, is "dictating to your partner what to do" and "accommodating your partner as much as possible".

All participants, being socially-astute, observed that they would be disinclined to dictate timing to their dance partner in the former manner - it felt selfish and arrogant. I agreed, but indicated that there might be some conditions e.g. in rueda de casino performances when it would be appropriate.

The session was fortunate to have two participants whom played two variations of 'in the pocket': 'strictly in the pocket' (rigidly metronomic) and 'musically in the pocket' (flexibly metronomic). Both of them where used as benchmark references during the ensemble activity.

Exercise Two
Group practice in circle, son montuno maracas rhythm, atiempo embodiment rhythm, to music. Participants began in ensemble until they were synchronised. Three roles where specified, with responsibilities similar to those in the previous session with some minor changes (underlined):

• 'Director'
  cues the playing of maracas on or off while embodiment rhythm was maintained;
• 'Producer'
  indicates the attack and its quality of implementation using the cues 'push' and 'in the pocket'; and,
• 'Synchroniser'
  cues the ensemble to 'synchronise', and to reduce the 'offset' between maracas attack and embodiment attack.

The roles where made non-exclusive i.e. the selected participant had general responsibility for the allocated functions, but others could intervene when they felt appropriate. This was pitched as a maximisation of learning opportunities within the group.

Observations

The 'in the pocket' benchmarks succeeded in neutralising the forward creep of the middle attack when the ensemble moved between 'push' and 'in the pocket' attacks. (Observed last week.)

Rendering the roles non-exclusive stimulated playful exploration, eliminating defensive behaviour and uncertainty. (Observed last week.) This aspect was hyper-corrected: all participants keenly engaged with the exploration, leaving none of them with a strong sense of what each role entailed. This will have to be addressed in a later session.

Participants observed that the two flavours of 'in the pocket' was bench-marked as: tightly synchronous on the maraca tone marking the quarter beats (vocalised as 'chik'); and loosely synchronous on the maraca tone marking the eighth beats (vocalised as 'a').

Most participants observed that the 'in the pocket' attack was marginally earlier than their preferred/default attack. This will be the focus of further exploration in an upcoming session.

Conclusion
Issues noted in the previous session have been resolved. However, the roles have dissolved and will need to be coalesced for the sake of future activity. The number of roles will be increased, and the functions of each will be expanded in future workshops, to establish a broader palette of elements which participants may create from. In keeping with this trajectory, the 'late' attack will have to be addressed imminently.

Loo Yeo