Emerging from the desire for "complete, uncompromised freedom,"1 in what could be considered the pinnacle of jazz practice, the New York music scene boasts a plethora of diverse experiences, among which one particular author stands out for his innovative approach to this practice. John Zorn, basing the first part of his long and eclectic career on the reinterpretation of gaming dynamics within the jazz-derived musical context, emerges as the author of several albums dedicated to Game Pieces, specifically from the late 1970s to the early 1980s. An essential characteristic of these pieces is the absence of a predetermined sequence of events. They unfold freely according to certain rules, akin to a sports game. Therefore, the Game Pieces feature elements of improvisation. Various methods, such as hand gestures, cards, or other visual cues, can be used to determine the direction and evolution of the music. In these compositions, signals, rules, and strategies are employed to organize and impose rules on the performers' improvisation. Thus, it is not true free improvisation but rather a controlled form of improvisation, determined by the dynamics with which the players move within the set of rules.
In Zorn's case, the pieces are inspired by physical, sometimes team sports. The track titles include Baseball (1976), Lacrosse (1976), Dominoes (1977), Curling (1977), Golf (1977), Hockey (1978), Cricket (1978), Fencing (1978), Pool (1979), and Archery (1979), and each piece possesses a set of rules for the interaction among musicians that evoke or mimic movements made during the games, according to precise and meticulously crafted dynamics. Cobra (1984), for example, is the most successful piece in this series, which has enjoyed lasting success despite the composer's opposition to spreading the score (or rather, the game's rules). In this game piece, the basic functioning of the improvisation set involves the presence of a kind of "prompter," commonly identifiable as the conductor if not the composer himself, who conveys and directs the overall progress of the entire performance. By using a series of signs and symbols on cards to communicate with the ensemble, the "prompter" effectively shapes the formal structure of the piece. It would be straightforward if the conception of the piece stopped there; however, there is an additional layer of interpretation and execution resulting from dividing the entire group of musicians into a subgroup called the "Guerrilla," who can temporarily ignore the prompter's commands and activate personalized techniques or "tactics." The piece thus unfolds as a sort of "battle," in line with its original inspiration, which drew from one of the most famous World War II simulation games ever produced. The goal with Cobra was to "harness" the creative developments of improvisation and extended techniques in a semi-structured manner, without hindering their performance; Zorn was interested in telling the musicians when to play and with whom, without telling them what to play. This composition, however, is termed controlled improvisation because it is not entirely free. Another definition could regard the conception of this set of rules as another medium, a different element that interacts with the performance in the same way that the score, the composer's instructions interact with the performers' execution.
Zorn's music focuses heavily on sound. For example, in Cobra, there is explicit indication of the possibility of forming an "Ivesian Trio" that plays in the style of composer Charles Ives, overlapping and contrasting with the rest of the piece2. This detail demonstrates how gaming dynamics are, indeed, a means, a vector tool of another message—in essence, good substitutes for the score of the classical tradition, not a true destabilization of its function. The role of the “prompter” is indeed to make sure the overall result is fine and works, and to make sure not to encounter actual obstacles. Of course as part of the improvisation practice, mistakes and “failures” are generally more than accepted; however, there is an underlying effort to strive toward the achievement of a specifically determined performance.
Moreover, although Zorn's stated intention was to extend indeterminacy beyond the generally stable structures of even the most avant-garde jazz genres, the degree of unpredictability in his productions is nevertheless less than that of Cagean-inspired scores, simply because the starting premise (and the desired outcome) is different. Zorn's attention to sound is dominated by a clear aesthetic image; for Cage, sound is instead part of a philosophical process of conceptual rediscovery and redefinition of boundaries and context. Another crucial difference lies in the fact that Zorn not only expressed the intention not to distribute the scores of his game pieces but also not to allow their performance unless supervised by an expert trained and sent by him to the venue - when, of course, the performance needed to happen within people with a certain degree of knowledge and expertise in music. Other meaningful differences between the two, that outlines the different work’s focus, rely on their background (Zorn has always been an improviser, while Cage’s interest for music per se has even been unstable). It is probably unnecessary to mention, but when examining these confrontations through the lens of game pieces, the intention isn't to pass judgment on the quality of each composer's work, as the beauty of each piece distinctly depends on its unique characteristics and circumstances. This approach only demonstrates how Zorn is decidedly determined to have a very specific musical outcome or development, indicating a high level of attention to the piece, whereas Cage's works expressed the desire to be performed by a huge variety of different people, and where all published and accessible.