4.2 John Butcher and Feedback Saxophone
John Butcher is a British saxophonist who began seriously improvising in the 1980s after leaving an academic career in physics. He has recorded 74 albums as soloist or leader; five with the ensemble Polwechsel; and 23 with other ensembles.1 According to musician and author David Toop:
There is an established tradition of solo improvisation, a kind of public research through which the vulnerability of the instrumentalist is exposed, his or her skill simultaneously undermined by the naked air yet reinforced by being laid bare, as if to say, this is what exists in all its eloquence in isolation. John Butcher is exemplary within this tradition, of course, yet through the nature of his playing, lyrical even in extremis, brings to mind unaccompanied solos by reed players from a very different time…Whereas jazz is a form of dynamic counterpoint, such solos seem closer to torchlit lines extended into darkness. They impose and stretch their own limits, within which the line remains identifiably a line. In John Butcher's case, the line is not so much taken for a walk as fuzzed, scuffed, smudged, multiplied or expanded to probe the space through which it cuts.2
Despite Butcher’s prolific contributions to saxophone improvisation and performance practice, little has been written about him in academic sources. For this analysis therefore, I draw from a personal conversation I had with him. Much could be said about Butcher’s improvisation practice, but this discussion focuses on his use of the microphonic process in “feedback saxophone.” Feedback saxophone is only seriously practiced by a handful of professional artists3 and could be described as an instrument, a technique, or an approach. At its core are the interactions between a microphone, loudspeaker, and space, all mediated by the saxophone to induce and control acoustic feedback.
Butcher uses two approaches to feedback saxophone. The first involves a microphone on a stand, which I refer to as the “freestanding” approach,4 while the second involves a microphone fixed to or inside the bell of the instrument, which I refer to as the “fixed” approach.5 In the freestanding approach, the positions of the microphone and loudspeaker relative to each other are static, as are their settings. Butcher consequently controls the feedback by means of changing the distance between himself and the microphone – even without the saxophone, the mere presence of a body in a space affects the resonant frequencies within the system. When Butcher intentionally engulfs the microphone with his instrument’s bell, moving the keys impacts the resonant frequencies and allows him to control the feedback tones.
In the fixed approach, a small microphone, sometimes referred to as a “lapel mic,” is placed inside the bell of the saxophone. In this case, the distance between the microphone and the saxophone is static, whereas the distance between the amplified saxophone and loudspeaker can be manipulated. The positioning of microphone here gives Butcher immediate access to “keyed” feedback pitches, provided that an appropriate volume/distance relationship relative to the speaker is maintained. To facilitate this relationship, Butcher uses a volume pedal to control the signal sent from the microphone to the loudspeaker and shape the feedback tone.
Butcher’s streamers6 is representative of his feedback saxophone practice that comes from the free jazz tradition, in that it does not adhere to forms related to traditional jazz or classical idioms, and does not centre on harmonic rhythm or conventional phrase structure. Instead, Butcher’s feedback works focus on timbral and rhythmic development in free forms or forms that are not obvious lacking detailed analysis. One could not conceive of a structural approach more contrasting to Stetson’s. streamers is consistent with much of Butcher’s feedback work in that he does not combine the feedback tones with the saxophone’s conventional sound.
In this improvisation, Butcher develops two sound sources using the fixed approach to feedback saxophone: amplified key percussion and acoustic feedback. Due to the incredibly sparse nature of this work, the key percussion is far more exposed than in Stetson’s work, revealing two distinct sounds, a slightly pitched thud when a key is depressed, and a knock, occasionally accompanied by a rattle, when a key is released. The feedback tones change as Butcher manipulates the keys, with what sounds to be a direct key-to-feedback relationship. Occasionally, there are moments when no key sound is heard, yet the feedback tone changes. This could be due to Butcher changing the distance between the saxophone and the loudspeaker, or by slight key pressure changes that are inaudible yet still impact the feedback pitch. Likewise, there is dynamic movement in the feedback, which may be caused by changing position and/or by the additive nature of the feedback itself – it can get louder as it sustains. The occasional volume swell, to decrescendo, to silence, without significant pitch bending suggests that Butcher is using a volume pedal, which is consistent with his fixed approach.
Butcher’s work shares various connections with his microphonic predecessors. Like Hendrix, he uses an instrument to mediate feedback as a way of extending his instrument’s expressive capabilities. Where Hendrix used the microphonic process to combine feedback into his already loud, visceral performance style, Butcher instead uses the microphonic process so that he may strip down the saxophone to create a much more fragile aesthetic. In this sense, Butcher uses the microphonic process to portray an intimate image of the saxophone, what Bing Crosby may have sounded like had he engaged in free jazz crooning. Most important is the connection between Butcher’s work and Davies’ Quintet. While they both employ space as part of their microphonic instrumentaria, a story from Butcher points to fundamental differences between them.
At the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival7 in 2019, Butcher spent a considerable amount of time preparing a feedback saxophone improvisation in the multi-speaker venue where the performance was to take place.8 While he prepared, he was the only person in the space, but during the night of the concert the venue was filled by an audience dressed in their heavy winter coats. The new presence of many dense, sound-absorbing materials and bodies drastically altered the acoustic properties of the space and eliminated many of the resonant frequencies Butcher had been working with, forcing him to perform in a far different manner. If Huddersfield is indicative of Butcher’s broader practice, the recording of streamers likely was made in the same way: with some preparation but ultimately freely interacting with the resonant frequencies of the time and place. In comparison with Butcher’s work, Quintet’s performers are bound to follow the instructions in the score and therefore are more limited when it comes to interacting with the space. In this sense Butcher employs space as an active musical component in his microphonic instrumentarium, whereas space plays a more passive, supportive role in Quintet.