i don't think you and i have the same process or the same goals musically but i am still curious about your opinion. i'm putting together a set of songs that are basically a religious service like there are liturgical functions for each one except the religion is fictional and this is a sort of alternate universe where everybody knows what to do in this kind of service so it's gotta sound both deeply ingrained and spontaneous so there are no instruments it's all singing, stomping and clapping. the constraint i gave myself to keep this project from taking 8 khgpillion years was that every single first-track take has to be improvised and then i stack more improvising as reactions on top of that track. fastest one (there should be about 16 when i am done, rn i have 5) took 2 hours, slowest one took 2 weeks because the initial improv was both extremely irregular and extremely precise and i had to basically learn it to improvise over and react to it in a
  way tha
 t sounded good to me. FINALLY A QUESTION FOR YOU do you think if you engaged in this sort of improvise-stack-more-no-precomposing-allowed that you'd let yourself get more weird and less polished or would you allow so much re-improvising that it eventually just became a kind of postcomposition? i am having some trouble with the bits of the improvs i don't think are as successful; should i allow chop-ups or is the one-initial-take rule a good one? i thought i could get this done faster if i hobbled my perfectionism by specifying ONLY spontaneous improv allowed, but there are so many ways to elude the spirit of that law and no external deadline requiring i actually do it any faster. what u think
it sounds like a good idea in theory, but i've tried that sort of thing and it definitely does not work for me. what does work however, is to do a lot of improv and use certain bits for writing purposes. what also works well is to try to write very fast