Name: Ingrid Frivold
Nationality: Norwegian
Occupation: Musician, composer, improvisor
Recent release: Ingrid Frivolt's Blitz 191119 is still available from Olivias Rekorder. A new release with Petr Vrba is out now via Prague-based label A.n.t.i.m.o.t.h.e.r.

If you enjoyed this Ingrid Frivold  interview, visit her on Facebook, twitter, and Soundcloud. 



When did you first start getting interested in musical improvisation? 

Allthough having been curious about improvisation, the score-bound tradition I was schooled in didn't leave much room for delving into the joys of improvisation before I started studying at Trinity College of Music.

There, there were some classes on improvisation. They were mostly directed towards pianists, but I found great joy joining in at the french-horn, leading into further explaration, and focusing my master-dissertation on John Zorn's "Cobra".



As this was back in -98 there wasn't much literature, but that search getting me onto listening to Bill Laswell, Terry Riley, Derek Bailey and at the same time being aware of bands like Coil and Nurse with Wounds that together with Arne Norheim have influenced my thinking of sound.

[Read our Bill Laswell interview]

Which artists, approaches, albums or performances involving prominent use of improvisation captured your imagination in the beginning?

I wouldn't say there was an album more than the personal freedom I found in improvising that was my greatest pull.

Although Cobra and the process to work towards how Zorn gradually made the pieces “Lacrosse”, “Pool” etc with increasing complexities revolutionised my way of seeing how to structuralise improvisations.

During my studies at Trinity, Philip Coleman had some classes focusing on classical improvisation. They were mostly aimed at pianists, but there was a couple of other people joining as well. This was also a great pull to challenge the improvisational instincts.

Focusing on improvisation can be an incisive transition. Aside from musical considerations, there can also be personal motivations for looking for alternatives. Was this the case for you, and if so, in which way?

Personally one of the strongest pulls I had from leaving the world of classical behind, was the frustration of repetition. Learning a phrase or a classical piece after the masters felt limiting when considering the traditions of performing and studying the repertoire.

Also the feeling that the more I was aware of tradition, the stronger I felt bound in performance. The «play», was gone from playing. And it took me some years of re-learning to be comfortable with just improvising.

What, would you say, are the key ideas behind your approach to improvisation? Do you see yourself as part of a tradition or historic lineage?

Allthough being aware of tradition and techniques, I felt free to grab ideas and sounds I heard other performers use in a way and develop them into my own techniques. Coil has been a marked influence on my soundscapes, as have been other ambient artists. John Hassel and Arve Henriksen have been infuential in how they have challenged timbre on the trumpet.

But it was reentering the improvisation scene after having spent years performing with bands like Beglomeg ("Pønkføkket") and Frank Znort (Nå tändes åter ljusen) gave me tools from both the active life on stage the experience I brought with me. In both bands, I was familiar enough with the repertoire so I could have fun with the parts I was playing. And I had a certain level of improvisation with both those bands, both as soloists and flexibilities within the arrangements.




But it was first when I got the opportunity to start doing more free improvisation that I felt more comfortable, first in different ensembles I put together, before I finally had the confidence to go solo. Developing this outside of the jazz-scene, concentrating more on collaborating with musicians from other genres gave me an independence of thinking.

What was your own learning curve / creative development like when it comes to improvisation - what were challenges and breakthroughs?

The greatest challenge in the beginning was freeing myself from the thought of being right. An inhibition I think most improvisors coming from the classical scene struggle with. Later it was finding the confidence of what I was doing was actually an idea that could work. Having done much ensemble work at college I was used to having to be attentive to what the music around my part was doing.

But the greatest breakthrough was probably doing the first solo-impro gig. March 8th 2019. At a sardin-packed venue it was either make it or get embarrased, which created lots of openings for new cooperations and ways of perforiming that I had been limited from earlier. 2022 also gave me a couple of new experiences.

Composing and preparing music for the Norwegian production of Jo Cliffords' «Gospel according to Jesus, Queen of Heaven», how to do live music that is going to be a background-sound for a monologue, and doing music to silent-movies both first such as Calgaries Cabinet, Salome and Nesferato, and improvising with not only musicians but dancers and slam-poets have been challenges that have been great experiences, but also great learning-experiences.



Tell me about your instrument and/or tools, please. How would you describe the relationship with it? What are its most important qualities and how do they influence the musical results and your own performance? 

An intuitive feel for the instruments is something that I strive for. Allthough all instruments take some work to attain a certain sound-quality and some level of repetivity, it has to align with what would be natural to include.

Preferably the tools, wether they be plug-ins or hardware, should be something I can easily implement, but also something I can take out of the sounds, without the character of the music changing abruptly.

This matters because fluidity in movement between ideas is something I strive for, especially when I'm performing solo.

Can you talk about a work, event or performance in your career that's particularly dear to you? Why does it feel special to you? When, why and how did you start working on it, what were some of the motivations and ideas behind it?

There are a number of events I could put here, but I'd say the Norwegian production of «Gospel according to Jesus, Queen of Heaven» is one of the projects that's been most humbling for me to be a part of.

Being asked to use the musical landscape of Frvldz as a backdrop to the performance, was a challenging and profound journey. Finding how I would solve the different scenes, picking psalms for the different moments. Being the first time working with a major theatre-company, surrounded by legends, both the director Terje Strømdahl and the actor performing Jesus, Esben Esther Pirelli Benestad, have immense careers. Terje, as actor and director, Esben Esther mostly as professor Emerit in sexology, GP, and long time advocate for trans-medical help and visibility, as she first came to prominence as the person in focus in her son Even Benestad's movie «All about my father».



The noise in the press from Christian conservatives was expected, but therefore more heart-warming was the acceptance of the piece by the high clergy in the Norwegian Church, and we are still recieving more requests to perform this important piece.

How do you feel your sense of identity influences your collaborations? Do you feel as though you are able to express yourself more fully in solo mode or, conversely, through the interaction with other musicians? Are you “gaining” or “sacrificing” something in a collaboration?

I feel I manage to have a nice balance of doing solo and collabs, and especially after locating to Prague I've found it easier to find performers I connected with on stage, where I didn't limit myself while having that musical conversation on stage.

I feel there is less stress doing solo, as I can plan longer ahead with how I think the lines and ideas, only being directed by the level of the alertness of the audience. But I also love the alertness that is required when performing with others, how the ideas they give out affect how I should perform.

Derek Bailey defined improvising as the search for material which is endlessly transformable. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his perspective, what kind of materials have turned to be particularly transformable and stimulating for you?

For me it has been more tecniques that I use on the trumpet that I put into the feeds, either extended techniques on the trumpet, or rhythmical playfulness.

Some ideas and materials follow me for a longer time than others, but I still feel they are more of a toolbox that I pick from the head when I see it fit with the performance.

When you're improvising, does it actually feel like you're inventing something on the spot – or are you inventively re-arranging patterns from preparations, practise or previous performances?

After having done a number of performances there is sometimes a frustrating feeling of wanting to reinvent myself, finding new effects, and recognising my own sound, and having a kind of safety in knowing the tools I use.

But I find that in most performances I do bring in new ideas and perspectives. Some ideas have been more a permanent fixture, building up sound-patterns within the sends. Some impulses come from playing with others or seeing others perform, that I bring in to my own solo-work, or ideas discovered and incorporated when in performance getting new ideas I bring with me to later performances.

Also planning for more prepared performances, like performing along movies or directed our coreographed plays and performances gives me challenges that I meet in the incrorporation process that I also bring when I perform solo or when collaborating with others.

To you, are there rules in improvisation? If so, what kind of rules are these?

I try to live without too many rules. When playing solo, I aim to have some structure, regarding volume and intensity. When performing with others, the golden rule is being aware of what is happening around you: Are there ideas your co-player are working with that you can join in on?

Like a conversation on stage with spoken words, one would tend to like people being sort of on-topic and say something in conjunction with what the discussion is focused about. Why should an improvisation be different? A good leader of a panelled discussion would also be aware of all the participating panelist and allow them to get their word in, to evolve the conversation, clarifying differences.

A novel I've been inspired by is the game explained in Herman Hesse's Glass Bead Game, stringing together ideas from different fields to create an analysis or story.

In a live situation, decisions between creatives often work without words. How does this process work – and how does it change your performance compared to a solo performance?

If you come with a mind-set that everything could happen, and are awake to signs and communicative gestures from your co-players, I don't really see why you should be having a problem, when doing collaborate works live-

I like to be placed in a position where I can have eye-contact or easily maneuver myself to a position where I can both see and hear what the other performers are doing. While doing a solo set, my only responsibility is the communication with the audience.

There are many descriptions of the ideal state of mind for being creative. What is it like for you? In which way is it different between your solo work and collaborations?

The best moments are when ideas come as I want them to come. But without listening to what is happening, it is hard to do an improvisation, regardless of whether you're playing solo or as part of a collaboration.

Having the time to focus and no bad news just before the performance helps a bit. But those are maybe factors that are hard to do anything with.

When doing less planned impros, I tend to enjoy bringing the mood into the improvisation though. These have sometimes been some of my strongest perrformances.

How do you see the relationship between sound, space and performance and what are some of your strategies and approaches of working with them?

The last couple of years I've had the luxury of performing on a variety of places,

The Emanual Vigeland Museum with its 8 seconds long reverb, where, for the second set, I chose to just play with the room when performing with Sysselmann. An open-air concert that was also sent through water-tunnels where people got transported with electrical boats. And the premiere of «Queen of Heaven» that took place in «Hamardomen» which are basically stone-ruins that have a glass-structure built on top, with 4-5 seconds of reverb.

I have developed a love for outdoor performances, where the music reaches those that didn't spesifically plan to listen to my music, but would also love to explore more with both rooms with extended reverb, and in open air.

In a way, improvisations remind us of the transitory nature of life. What, do you feel, can music and improvisation express and reveal about life and death?

As I have no memory of having experienced death, I can't answer to that. But the ability of music to trigger emotions, and let those emotions find a comfort together with other people listening is probably the strongest reason for me of doing music.

Both joy, sorrow and anger have their place in life, and so they do within music. The transitory aspects of music, especially of improvisation, mimic this even better.

When the script is put aside, and the changes of life are free to float, my personal experience is that this is when the magic happens, both in life as in music.