I don't research anything.
Even if it is difficult playing with other people - sometimes it's great, sometimes it isn't, but that is kind of the point of it. It loses its point playing solo.
In fact it's quite gratifying for me to see some of the people who really objected to this method of working now being quite so profligate in their use of it.
Playing music is not really susceptible to theory much. Circumstances affect it so much.
The first Company concert was a single concert with a quartet who all knew each other, although they didn't play together regularly.
I think the blues is fine for blues players, but free blues has never made much sense to me.
I don't think it is any different from what it was, except that the method is now familiar so you can't set up some internal shock situation.
I think playing solo is a second rate activity, really. For me, playing is about playing with other people.
Younger players in this music often turn out to be middle aged; it is not a young music.
In the absence of that, I am happy to play solo, but I don't think there is any comparison.
For me, playing is about playing with other people.
Personally, I've found one of the more stimulating ways of playing in recent times has been to kind of move outside the free improvised area and work with people who are probably improvisers but they have a particular way of working.
I have always been attracted to the cottage industry side of this business.
For me, Company is still the best way for me to work.
I wouldn't want to be ideological about it but I think of it as being the best way to approach this kind of playing. I don't think it works in other music, other kinds of playing.