SWOT analysis with Aine after CJA at Shift Happens

Overview
- Although I am dealing with issues that can be seen to relate to postdramatic theatre, CJA is very dramatic
- the black footer focused the eyes ion the human NOT the performer
- It obscured the technology and therefore 2 of the performers
- due to pros-arch the audience were forced into their normal role;
- there was no immersion as no surround
- normal density of signs (Lehmann)

STRENGTHS

• scale
• attractive visuals
• 'slick'
• normal density of signs ~ no confusion with spectators role and engagement
• not handed a pre-digested narrative

WEAKNESSES

• Audience removed from the performers
• framed - lacked immersion
• audience relegated to the normal engagement role
• watching something/ looking at something
• the gaze went through the 4th wall at/upon an event
• recieving the visuals and THEN the aural

OPPORTUNITIES

• mind and music PRIMARY mediums
• did the lack of visuality give the lighting designer a lack of confidence which forced him to fill the void?
• any visual statement is TOO powerful ... they need to make room for the mind
• IS THEATRE THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THIS?
• more immersion
• What was it about Farruquito at Sadlers Wells in 2004

THREATS

• The visual void - do not fill it
• Is the black box/ pros arch paradigm the place for this?
  

REFLECTIONS:

If we are to pursue this investigatory line with Ciaran as Lighting Designer then he needs the opportunity to explore the meaning of the work and his engagement with it.

Furthermore: if we are going for the 'cinema meets theatre'-ness (Cruden) then we need to employ televisual projection of the je and cv.
The big question here is were is this taking this research project?
Am I satisfying others need to make it visual?
Does this digital performance territory help inform digital opera?

CJA staged as Opera

Email sent to
Ciaran Bagnall - lighting artist
Damian Cruden - staging director
AIne Sheil - opera theorist

Hi Ciaran,

Below are a couple of things to consider in your approach to the next CJA performance. I have included Damian and Aine in on this dialogue too; as you know Damian will be our eyes out front and use all his magic to bring this thing together, and Aine is an expert in Opera and staging at York University and is interested in this piece from the perspective of digital opera.

Firstly: I really like the way you have expanded on Damian's initial thoughts on the cinema-ness of the piece and introduced more than one gauze - the scope here is immense: an opportunity to use the whole stage as a 3D lighting box, and establish different strata. I imagine it will also give you the option to bleach the performers out and simply focus on colour or image, likewise to spot focus on Jon and I.

The piece is still in an experimental stage and I am keen to maintain this exploration for this performance. As such I want to encourage you to be experimental too. The Cape Jeremy Affair is not a piece of music about the report, nor is it with the report – as in a libretto – but something that is more inbetween. In this sense the music is created from within the report; that is to say, the imaginary dimension that the report generates when read, or was in the mind of the author when written.

What I want to suggest is that your light and visual show is not a direct reaction to the live music, but is something that evolves from the same place. By that I mean its creation is from within the sledge report (see abstract below) and that you create a 'light show' that is about this. Sometimes it will be in harmony with the music and sometimes it will be in dissonance. This is desirable! I believe that you will always make sense of it somehow; you will in your abstract/ literal responses to the evolving music get to grips with the situation ... and therefore the audience will too.

Damian has already had some profound response's to this piece and there will be moments where we will stage these (e.g. a moment when the musicians look at each other could be cue'd by the lighting state.) But also Damian has pointed out that the audience's relationship to the performers and to the music is always in flux - this relationship at times (perhaps at all times in a quantum sense) stretches across time and space: it is both now and then; the beginning and the middle and the end of the report; reflective and in the moment; here and there; intimate and human, vast and planetary. This multi-dimensionality of perception is embedded in the music and therefore any action to fix an interpretation using visual specificities could disrupt this delicate balance .... more reason to play with it too.

I do describe this piece as a play for musicians - although I am starting to understand it more as an opera. There are many clues in the word play for how you could approach this piece. Check out these http://www.thefreedictionary.com/play


I hope this is both food for thought and challenging and that we can have a playful time.

I look forward to that drink!

Cheers
Craig




Notes to the Light Artist (Taken from the original score)

Although this is a composition created for aural theatre the role of the lighting designer is still important to the wholeness of the audiences’ understanding of the theatre of sound and its sense of place.

Pre-performance design

Having read the abstract and having been present through some of the rehearsals the LD will design a lighting rig in response. The aim of the design is to help in the audiences transition from the visual to the auditory by illuminating the space in such a way that the colours and textures evoke a sense of place within the reality of the text. The role of the lights is not to light up the musicians, or audience, although they may be lit due to the pre-performance decisions.

Post-design performance

The LD will ‘mix’ the lights live during the performance, using either prepared states, or individual lanterns or a combination of both. It is not important to tell the ‘story’ of the evolving piece through light and colour, but to accompany it and provide a visual polyphony to the aural and the imagination. In this sense this improvised design is sensorial and not cognitive.





Abstract (verbatim):

“Tendebantque manus ripae ulterioris amore”

We proposed to do the journey with 20 days food taking the majority from Moraine Cove Depot (laid by “John Biscoe” in March 1968) and go via Terra Firma Islands, Mushroom Is, Puffball Is to K.G. Sound. We decided to keep clear of Terra Firma and Mushroom Islands due to pressure areas and low tabular bergs found there last year and also keep out from Bugge Islands for he same reason. The fact that we were carrying over 400 lbs of Geology/Geophysics equipment and clothing and other essential items for the Fossil Bluff “castaways” was a worry from the beginning but all items were considered vital even after severe pruning several times prior to our departure.

All went well to Terra Firma Is and from there on foul weather, bad surfaces and tide cracks plagued us until we got to Cape Jeremy. The dogs appeared to suffer from short rations. Once in the midst of the tide crack area it was hard to know what was happening around us and especially north. With such a short distance to go to where we thought KG Sound Barrier might be we were keen to push on hoping to get out of the cracks instead of returning over the route we had come south on.

By retreating after the first crack we had doubts whether we would in fact be able to make it back to Moraine Cove without support from Stonington; whereas the route south; where the work lay also; was still deemed possible. As always when sledging and working in the Antarctic the safety versus work angle was weighed time and time again.

During the time of the severe rationing our main concern was our paraffin supply for cooking and drying clothes. Each time we travelled, fed dogs, went outside the tent at all the accompanying high temperatures and drizzle soaked ones clothes. Also sleeping bags, gloves and footwear were also wet and the problems of a cold spell coming on with wet equipment was somewhat of a worry. Luckily in the first and second day of our return trip north the sun shone and the bad weather cleared so we were able to festoon our sledges with wet gear and dry everything out at last. The food shortage was not so much of a problem as long as we could shoot seal for men and dogs. We found that we were able to “stretch” the standard food box and although food was uppermost in our minds for much of the time; as mentioned above; fuel was the main concern.

We resigned ourselves to the sea ice conditions and possibilities of cracks opening up under the tents or between the sledges when travelling but there was little control we had over this factor. Strong winds from the south caused concern as to the possibility of the sea ice in Marguerite Bay going out but the majority of the wind was from the north with accompanying bad weather.

The return journey north was bliss compared with what we had experienced on the southern trip and was completed in 6 days compared with the 24 days outward journey over virtually the same route. The assistance of the relief party (Sledge “WHISKEY”) was sought firstly to lay a depot at Mushroom Island but they made good progress south on the improved surfaces and we finally met them at the Puffball Islands and all 6 sledges returned to Stonington together.

On the nature of opera

In considering the CJA as 'opera' I broached the subject with 2 people who would offer an unbiased opinion. These bullet points suggest further interogation.

Aine Sheil (lecturer York University)
- is CJA not a radio play?
- Approach to scale?
- Visual dominance ... Rick Altman's redundancy of image in cinema .. audio-visual contract is a conceit.
- full staging - in a Montiverdi sense i.e. framing the music rather than re-telling the story using another (perhaps contrasting and confusing) sense
- post authoritarian direction
- new media devices creating improvised/ generative libretto
- Opera is dead. Long live opera ... but what is it? Where can we find out? What is the recipe in 2010?

Tom Wallace
- does CJA still have voice, musicized language, instruments, dramaturgy (as opposed to the pre-digital concept of linear narrative/ the 'story LINE'), staging?
- am I entering this phase through a study of the opera canon? cv-no have accidentally found myself in the confluence of music and theatre through an interest in the phenomenological effects of listening and seeing.

Reflection and development of CJA

1. Areas for development:
1.1 Quad version
1.2 Staging in collaboration with Damian Cruden
1.3 Max patch for VJ to improvise with in performance

2.The question of reference material ... does it relate to the pluderphonics principle of 'to be and to refer'? The use of SA by RVW, to me, introduces a homeopathic dose of somewhere else into the piece. I consider that within the notes and lines is embedded a sense of somewhere else - as much as any tune that I may write could do.

3. Having introduced staging and lighting succesfully in so much as they do focus the eye onto the ear. AND that Damian Cruden insists its a piece for mainstage as it operates as both a 'human drama' and 'isolated in a vast landscape' - am I not heading towards a new opera paradigm through this application of music, technology and theatre?

Further discussion of CJA at YTR

1. Further discussion in pub immediately after performance.
1.1 AA - what is my purity of intention?
1.2 AA - black box comes with lots of baggage ... perhaps a white room installation space would suit it better
1.3 AA - visuals should never be allowed to distract the eye
1.4 je - wow ... that was difficult [studio]. cv - do you think we need a 'get out of jail card'? je - how would that effect the quartet dynamic? Shouldn't the laptops have a button if we don't play anything? cv - No buttons, we just need to develop better strategies for moments when the laptops are 'sulking' ... suggestion is the amplification of breath, of human presence.
1.5 BP - need to develop all elements
1.6 Ambrose Field - what was left in the memory after the performance?
1.7 DC - this sits between cinema and theatre. It has the danger of theatre*. The piece stretches across time: now and then, beginning of journey and lost in the journey. Both reflective and immersive. A theatre of the mind ['patatheatre? ed.]

2. Responses via email to the question "What did you take away with you"
2.1 Angie Atamadjaja: Visual memory of two almost lonely isolated beings on stage, both with full intense concentration at their own personal task and yet there's a quite and hidden communication between them. Quiet white noise that seems to pan in the background of the aural world. Craig talking to a walkie talkie. Sounds of dogs in the wind, for a moment, I felt as if I had been transported to the Antartica. Subtle moving lights, dark line light shapes and shadows of both performers in the first version. The large slow moving projection in the second version.
Is ‘theatre’ something that happens in a black box (ie something additional to the content of the work itself, which somehow is generated by the space/conditions/atmosphere) or is it intrinsic to the content of what is played out in that space?

The work you’ve tended to do in non-theatre space, vs the work you have done in theatre spaces – is there a difference in purpose?

eg you spoke about the work you’ve done for theatre spaces as ‘soundtracks’. Isn’t a soundtrack an accompaniment to other content (eg the play)? A play with sound accompaniment is conventional content for a theatre space and therefore conforms to the expectations/conventions of ‘theatre’ in that space? as opposed to what you’re attempting to do at the moment which is sound as content – which therefore is much harder for an audience to understand in that space, and may not feel like theatre to them? (Ie it may not achieve the sense that you spoke about of being in a black box and feeling that thing, whatever it is, that you think is theatre…)

Performances today

First version – its all about me, I’m deep in my own head behind my eyes. My experience is in a space that opens out beyond my vision, inside me. Its intimate, close to me, detailed, subtle, nuanced. I am lead by the sound narrative, and immersed in a sensitive, subtle place in my head that I have to work hard to process. It is leading me, but I am working hard to keep up, feel the shape, try to understand. I am not allowed to drift, it requires me to be singular. There is nothing else to carry me, distract me, allow me to rest.

Note – is this because I am an inexperienced listener? That I am used to seeing the world not hearing it? Is this what causes the concentration, the focus, the intensity?

Second version – it is all about me interpreting meanings. I drift, with noise in the background, on my own thought train. The experience of the sound and images carries me, quite passively. I create meaning for myself, stream of consciousness, word[image/sound]-association style. A city skyline silhouette shadow with orange streelights, the Blitz reigning down on the city, whirlpools in a storm. Its all the same, big, sound, which frees me to float on my own trajectory, think my thoughts. I am not following a sound narrative, I am immersed in an experience, which involves sound. I am drifting in and out, the experience is guided, suggested, not led. Its easier than version one, but much less startling, and less intense, and less subtle. Dreamy. Floating. The sound is the backdrop to the experience.

Note – perhaps this is because I’m an inexperienced listener? That I cannot keep the sound foregrounded if there are other competitors? That overall this experience is too busy for me to take it in, and so I make choices and the sound accompanies rather than leads?

Scribbles from notebook made in the dark, fleshed out:

In the second piece, there is a time when I think (sometimes contradicting myself, but perhaps it shows a journey!):

“Shapes – shadows, huge blocks of dark against the crawling screen. Large geometrical blocks of darkness, 2D screen but hints that these blocks of shadow / shape could create 3D perspective. This is exaggerated by the projection against the front of the desk jumping in space to the screen at the back. Interesting…

Shifting shapes, shadows and colour instead of image? Is this a potential solution for the ‘having-to-light-‘something’ problem ?

“Shapes of your bodies at angles - degree of tilt Jonathan is sitting

echoes geometric lines of shadow.

shafts/pillars of orange light upwards.”

Orange in the film and the stage lights.

I’m not listening to the words. I did last time

“I want to see the visuals now! But the desk and shadows of their heads are in the way.”

“Their movement / presence is a distraction rather than a lynchpin. They’re in shadow anyway – why are they there?”

* What does Damian mean by 'the danger of live theatre'? Is he inferring that the empathy that one enters into, and therefore the phenomenological journey our mind makes, when watching live theatre is a very private happening that could take us to areas of the 'human condition' that perhaps we wouldn't want to experience or consider in our 'real' lives, and therefore the presences and proximity of participant-audience and participant-actor reminds us that we are in the company of others, and should I be feeling theses things - case in point the empathy felt for Eichmann in White Crow, i.e. he is just an old man who couldn't say 'no'.

Private Performance at York Theatre Royal

Date: 11th March 2010
Location: York Theatre Royal a) Studio theatre, b) Main stage

Purpose:
To interrogate the experience of CJA from the audience perspective and to assess the role of lighting/ video polyphonic accompaniment. Each performance - with appropriate staging/ design - was presented to the audience. After which a group discussion interrogated its nature and meaning over the broad spectrum of aesthetic and artistic backgrounds.

Present:
Damian Cruden - Artistic Director of YTR
Dave Simpson - Deputy Chief Electrician, sound engineer, technical support for CJA
Mike Kenny - dramaturg, writer and play write
David Lumsdaine - Composer, Honorary Visiting Professor York University
Nicola LeFanu - Composer, Professor Emeritus York University
Ben Pugh - Producer, commissioning producer of 'Superfield [Mumbai]' for Bradford Mela
Mary Oliver - Reader in Performance, Head of Performance Research Centre, University of Salford
Peter Boardman - Late Music
Jonathan Eato - composer, improviser, lecturer York University, CJA performer
Hannah Bruce - choreographer, producer
Patrick Wildgust - Curator Laurence Strene trust at Shandy Hall
Angie Atmadjaja - Composer, Sound artist
Ciaron Bagnall - Lighting Designer for CJA (unavailable to attend in person)


FULL TRANSCRIPT AS PDF


EMAIL to Cairan Bagnall - lighting designer

Hi Ciaran,

clearly you are the man for this job - I enjoyed watching the Space
programme vid, really liked the tangible way you interacted with the light
source amongst the other art forms; embodying your artform and speaking
through it in the same way musicians do through their instruments.


So - what to do. Well, in the long term I would feel very comfortable and
happy having you on board, so that's that sorted. But in the short term I
am in the final stage of development so not all is lost. Perhaps a solution
would be to have someone at YTR realising your ideas - I have Dave Simpson
for the session, perhaps I could convince Chris Randell to man the board
(??) - the whole event would be documented and we could develop our
collaboration from that point.

Another thing you should know is that the CJA started life as a test piece
for a much bigger 'pocket opera' to be commissioned by the Laurence Sterne
Trust - a sound theatre adaptation of one of his books. CJA was developed
to convince them of the process and concept but turned into a really
interesting piece by itself. Anyway, the premiere for that will be in
November 2010 ... and it will be the same setup (except more musicians).

The common - and overarching - principles these projects have are
interdisciplinarity and embeddedness. By that I
mean that which is in-between disciplines; an area of creative, open space
suspended between the disciplines it sits amongst. Sound Theatre, is
in-between
listening and seeing, as such, it embeds one discipline within the other so
as they co-exist and become fused and inseparable. AND 'wholeness' of the
idea of the report/book i.e. if we take the sum imagination of all the
people that have read a particular book, or have seen a particular film, or
are sitting in the audience waiting for a performance of CJA, then this is
the territory that this composition attempts to explore [so narrative, or
dramaturgy, comes from within each individual].

Sooo - tell me what interests you and I will try to arrange that to happen
on the 11th.


BTW: other coincidences include Adel and Nettie, I was working with them at
the same time you were (but on a different project). Also would you let
Vicky know we have child number 2 due imminently, as she is the fairy god
mother of William. Andie sends a big hello.

Thanks for your positive response, and your great energy.

regards
Craig


Original Message:

Subject: Re: The Cape Jeremy Affair


Craig!

You will not believe it but I was literally just talking about you !!!
I'm currently working with Vicky Ireland, and we where just discussing
your piece at the Unicorn!! We're working together on a production in
Belfast..she sends her love!

Thats fantastic news re your child number 2! Yes, last time I seen you
both was at York Theatre Royal, how's Andie? Send her my love.

Also funny is the fact that I was also just talking to Damien Cruden
yesterday! Small world eh? :-)

Next massive coincidence is the piece you are developing. A couple of
years ago I was part of a group of artists in a project called "the
space programme"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz5z7dhUeqc

It was a first of its kind theatre initiative which included
architects, composers, actors, choreographers and visual artists
coming together for two weeks to collaborate and make work. My
strongest connection was with a composer and singer, we created pieces
working directly with musical score and reflected light, this then led
to my own experiments with dancers and a single source of light. Since
then and outside of my 9-5 Theatre work I'm obsessed with finding a
union between light and sound, studying Klee's work with painting and
music, working when I can with live music and constantly "seeing
sound"...

It goes then without much more saying that I'm EXTREMELY interested in
working with you on the Cape Jeremy Affair - I've just watched your
demo video and it's left my head buzzing with thoughts!

Killer is though that I'm not available on the 11th of March....I'm in
tech for a production in Belfast all that week and we've two dress
rehearsals that day...where does that leave us?? Do you have more than
one day to work on the project at York? My show opens in Belfast on
the 12th and I'd be willing to fly over to York on the Saturday 13th
if it was of any use?!

Gutted not to be free on the 11th....

Let me know what we can do to make this work!

Speak soon
Ciaran


Ciaran Bagnall Design

Further Development

The Cape Jeremy Affair
First Public performance
Adelphi Studio Theatre, Salford
Performed by ev2 19-02-2010




1. assess audio library
1.1 The audio library was found to be misrepresentational of the report regarding ratio of sounds mentioned in report. Even though the initial aim was to include the correct ration of wind/ environmental sounds to other or phenomenological sounds, errors crept in during development of the initial test scores. As such from a list of 43 sounds mentioned in the report 27 mentioned the horrendous weather - currently this ratio is 9/23 ... more wind needed will plunder my FI, Icelandic and Antarctic libraries.

1.2 The electroacoustic miniatures were also lacking. Areas for development should include more psychological efefects of the weather, hyper-wind, wind loops, terror and fear.

2. On the visual presentation of CJA as theatre
2.1 Damian's observation of the demo video (second half) being 'ordinary', 'utilitarian' etc described my own feelings when I watched the video back; we want to make sense of what we see with what we hear - what is the importance of that cable, what is the importance of that musician.?I decided that the eye and the space and the musicians needed treating live.

2.1.1 In a direct response to this, and to present a useful document to the ROH Firsts I decided to treat the video footage to replicate low level lighting environment: with surprising results - my engagement was enhanced, the musicians looked like they were part of an installation/ set, I was sucked into a world rather than presented with the ordinary.

2.2Q: do the musiciains need to be seen live?

2.3 Three possibilities for development i) a LX designer - using video footage, live still projection, lanterns, gobo's, mobiles etc - lights the musicians and the stage in response to the live score; ii) the audience and the stage are treated as one, and lighted as an installation, in response to the live score; iii) the laptops generate the LX design or (as Mick Wilson mentioned) each score is projected onto each musician in an abstract lighting type way.

Reflection & Feedback on First Public Performance

On the whole very successful. je and cv thought the performance of the material was good, and strangely that the laptops performed well.

Half the audience were given programme notes before the performance. However, during a straw pole of the audience no one admitted to not being transported somewhere else. Typical words were - solitude, emptiness, alone (no one mentioned fear or the storms which dominate the text)


1. Questions immediately after focused on:
1.1 Should this be a radio play?

1.2 Should the audience be watching the 'score' to relate sound to an interpretation? (This point was again mentioned by DC - my immediate response was to say that we are, but through our ears!)

1.3 What does the score look like, and which software?

1.4 What is the software logic?


2. Meeting with Damian Cruden (artistic director of York Theatre Royal): Before watching performance on computer
2.1 Paradigm is very interesting as it breaks down forth wall conventions of participant-actor participant audience.

2.2 The freeing of the imagination because of the openness of imagination will be augmented by the communal-ness of theatre spectatorship - one that can not be replicated in cinema: we are all experiencing this live and is a constant reminder that we are spectators, which in turn should allow braver thoughts and illicit more vivid and daring flow of imagination.

3. DC after watching performance on computer (visuals in 2 halves: i) development stills, ii) live gig)
3.1 up until the live performance footage the see-hearing was working. Composition excellent. BUT the eye, and therefore the mind, was seeing 2 guys on a dodgy table pouring over with cables - this utilitarian relationship damaged the mental image and should be seen as a warning.

3.2 Additional elements that need considering
3.2.1 be careful what the audience see's in the vicinity of the gig - it all has meaning
3.2.2 Perhaps an LX designer is needed to work with the tapestry of the stage
3.2.3 Do we need to see the musicians? The CJA setup is not normal therefore we prescribe meaning to it unlike an orchestra whos form is ubiquitous in its theatre environment
3.2.4 If seen the musicians need to engage with audience - not 'panto' have a presence i.e. what is the nature of their connection?
3.2.5 What is the 'animal' communication in the CJA - what primeval/ overarching feeling do I want to convey?
3.2.6 At which point - and how - does it stop being a witness of a live 'radio broadcast' and enter theatre?
3.2.7 cause and effect - if we see them the musicians are responsible for this in their audience


4. Future development
4.1 cv to revisit the library - is it representational enough?

4.2 organise 2 private performances back to back for a gathering of professional creatives in York at YTR - mixed M/F music/theatre. The purpose is to present, explore and discuss at length the implications of musician presence as opposed to lighting/stage presence

First Public Performance - Salford 19-02-2010

Salford composition staff - interview

Present:
AW: Alan Williams (Reader in music)
JD: Joe Duddell (Reader in Music)
MW: Mick Wilson (Head of Composition)

Questions arising from CJA
1. Form - why random/ generative
1.1 the wholeness of the forensic ontology and its library is the composition, the random process allows an unlimited progression through this material. Furthermore, my 21st century life (social, cultural) is not based on a predictable sonata or ternary form, as such surely my music should be influenced by this. AW mentioned Umberto Eco's poetics of the open composition -
1.2 "The addressee is bound to enter into an interplay of stimulus and response which depends on his unique capacity for sensitive reception of the piece. In this sense the author presents a finished product with the intension that this particular composition should be appreciated and received in the same form as he devised it. As he reacts to the play of stimuli and his own response to their patterning, the individual addressee is bound to supply his own existential credentials, the sense conditioning which is peculiarly his own, a defined culture, a set of tastes, personal inclinations, and prejudices. Thus his own comprehension of the original artefact is always modified by his particular and individual perspective. In fact, the form of the work of art gains its aesthetic validity precisely in proportion to the number of different perspectives from which it can be viewed and understood. These give it a wealth of different resonances and echoes without impairing its original essence; a traffic sign, on the other hand, can only be viewed in one sense."

1.3 "The multiple polarity of a serial composition in music, where the listener is not faced by an absolute conditioning centre of reference, requires him to constitute his own system of auditory relationships. He must allow such a centre to emerge from the sound continuum. Here are no privileged points of view, and all available perspectives are equally valid and rich in potential... The possibilities which his work’s openness make available always work within a given field of relationships. As in the Einsteinian universe, in the “work in movement” we may well deny that there is a single prescribed point of view. But this does not mean complete chaos in the internal relationships. What it does imply is an organising rule which governs these relationships. Therefore, to sum up, we can say that the work in movement is the possibility of numerous different personal interventions, but it is an amorphous invitation to the indiscriminate participation... In other words, the author offers the interpreter, the performer, the addressee a work to be completed. He does not know the exact fashion in which his work will be concluded, but he is aware that once completed the work in question will still be his own. It will not be a different work, and, at the end of the interpretation dialogue, a form which is his form, will have been organised, even though it may have been assembled by an outside party in a particular way that he could not have foreseen. The author is the one who proposed a number of possibilities which had already been rationally organised, oriented, and endowed with specifications for proper development."
Umberto Eco (1959), The Poetics of the Open Work

1.4 "When a composer feels a responsibility to make, rather than accept, he eliminates from the area of possibility all those events that do not suggest this at that point in time vogue for profundity. For he takes himself seriously, wishes to be considered great, and he thereby diminishes his love and increases his fear and concern about what people will think. There are many serious problems confronting such an individual. He must do it better, more impressively, more beautifully, etc. than anybody else. And what, precisely, does this, this beautiful profound object, this masterpiece, have to do with Life? It has this to do with Life: that it is separate from it. Now we see it and now we don’t. When we see it we feel better, and when we are away from it, we don’t feel so good."
John Cage (pub 1959, written 1952)

2. Narrative
2.1 CV mentioned that, without meaning to, I appear to have surfaced in a musical territory that could be described as experimental music theatre. However, the theatre occurs in a place within the mind between the extrinsic (senses) and the intrinsic (memory, imagination). As such, the internal dialogue that occurs in this dimension of each listener will be individualized, therefore the purpose of the composition is to elicit a dramaturgical flow without out a prescribed narrative direction.

3. What distinguishes it from electroacoustic composition, contemporary composition, or installation?
3.1 The intention from inception of ideation through conceptual development, etc, has always been about creating a seeing through sound and music. Furthermore, the piece is performed in a theatre environment, it has a definite start and a finish.

4. JD Does the audience need to have read the book/ report prior to the performance?
4.1 No: however, the programme notes become vital - they need to clearly establish a horizon for the minds ears to wonder and to set up a mode of phenomenological listening that can achieve this. However, it is not a problem if the audience decide to listen using their preferred mode (casual, semantic, reduced (Chion)) although it must be stressed that the composition was created to be completed by the audinece using the phenomenological listening mode.

5. AW did not get the differentiation between "about, with and inbetween"
AW proposed a explanation for his interpretation of my differentiation where a Hungarian composer has auralised the data of moon transits with the result that something from the character of the movements of the moon where captured within the music. CV negated this analogy but in retrospect AW was closer than I understood at the time for 2 reasons:
1) embeddeness - something of my report is embedded within the music
2) we should have explored the score and had tangeble and not intellectual reference.

Reflection on second rehearsal

1. Immediate reflections (with Paulo)
1.1 It is not about the report or the place within the report, but appears to be about the man in the report.
1.2 Authenticity of the narrator has a huge bearing on the validity of this project - it is hard to accept that if an actor had read the report it would offer more than a radio style play.
1.3 It is becoming more and more difficult - as the musicians become to understand the play - to discern the disembodied from the live voices. They all appear to be coming from inside the established dimension set-up by the concept and the performance technology.
1.4 If it is not about a place - as in SFM - then is still 'theatre', by that I mean a profound seeing?
1.5 Ditto ... is it still 'inbetween' the report and its music and its theatre.

2. One week later
2.1 The wholeness of the composition is the most important element with this project. Enlarging the notion brought forward from SFM regarding the library of field recording being the composition, and its performance through random generated computer software, still valid. Here, the library is extended to include re-imaginings by the composer, and the authors voice (hinting at another dimension: the man behind the voice, behind the words), and live responses by improvising musicians.
2.2 The software development appears to be allowing many ways through this wholeness exposing for exploration all manner of possibilities, that perhaps would never have been considered if 'composed' or fixed in traditional ways - or 'vogue for profundity' as Cage once said. This Ariande thread through each performance will be different each time allowing a huge variation in the experience of the audience imaginings - an ideation.
2.3 Another way of thinking about this project might be: if we take the sum imagination of all the people that have read a particular book, or have seen a particular film, or are sitting in the audience waiting for a performance of CJA, then this is the territory that this composition attempts to explore. And: if this is the case, then what is the place for linear narrative exploration? The best technology for this would be a book.

3. Further development
1. Do we need more of Alistair's vox? Current = 25%
2. What would happen if there were multiple voices in the book ... say King Lear?

Notes from Second rehearsal

Extract 6 - voice only improvisation



1. 10mins of voice improvisation
1.1 je - became aware of the Zorn-esque abrupt changes to the visual score.
1.2 cv - did je follow this? Yes
1.3 The addition of the blue did affect the improvisers
1.4 je: Does it matter where the audience are taken ... (each version we do perform feels very different)
1.4.1 je: What is the composers intention? Does he have a fixed idea of how the end result will be?
1.5 je: Is the performance environment allowing flexibility for the improvisers to achieve what the composer desires?
1.6 cv: the voice only experiment appeared to allow more playfulness from the musicians ... exploring more of the definitions of the word 'play'. Q: Is it important to include this list of definitions in the performer notes?

2. 10mins of minimal improvisation
2.1 Abandoned as the minimum amount the live musicians could do was nothing

3. Extend duration of CJA
3.1 Ran out of time - did not attempt

4. Third run through (see video below)
4.1 je surprised how different it is from the last versions
4.2 At 11'50" the direct musical underscore accompaniment of the 'seal' story caused a split, je felt the 'sound painting' was 'weak' and predictable, cv didn't object to it
4.3 je and cv feel they are understanding the 'play' and the concept more


Screen Grabs from new colour images

Second Rehearsal

In preparation:
1.1 Added an extra visual folder with lo-res colour photos of Antarctica. cv questioned the dominance of black and white imagery upon the performance decisions of the improvisers.

1.2 Created an option that allowed the duration of the piece to be 20, 30 or 40 mins. The duration of events stretched in according ration

1.3 Suggested devised focus:
1.3.1 10 mins exploring the meaning of voice only
1.3.2 10 mins examining the minimum amount of music performable by the improvisers.


The Cape Jeremy Affair
Third devised performance
Performed by ev2 21-01-2010

Questions arising from reflection of first rehearsal

1. Immediate
1.1- to what extent where the improvising musicians reacting in response to acoustic information generated by the other performers, as opposed to creating a 'sense of place'?

1.2- Does this matter?

1.3- What new insights is this research project generating?

1.4- Are these new means (the computer, software, the approach) creating new meanings, or am I rehashing old concepts?

1.5- How important is the role of a lighting designer?

1.6- Does the predominance of B&W imagery in the score affect the composition?

2. 3 weeks after
2.1 cv: is this forensic ontological approach similar to my working process as a theatre composer? Can productions such as 'Independent People', 'History of Icelandic music', 'White Crow', ev2's new album offer context?

2.2 je: after some distance of time, listening back to both takes from first rehearsal, enjoyed the music - although it did contain some not-so-interesting moments; forgivable considering the musicians were 'sight reading' and their 'characters' in the play not yet developed.

2.3 je: what felt like disparate elements during performance became coherent elements within the collage.

3. possible questions to ask the audience about the experience
3.1 Did you perceive a conflict between the relationship between the mediated performers and the live performers?

3.2 How did the 'liveness' of the 2 human performers interrupt or augment the 'dimensionality' generated in your mind?

3.3 Did the musicians 'disappear' in the same way puppeteers do?

3.4 With SFM the the mental ‘seeing’ evoked from field recordings creates the dimensionality. However, with the inclusion of the disembodied voice where did you find your mind place it in relationship to the field sounds?

3.4.1 Did this voice have a different 'aura' / 'presence'?

3.4.2 How did you mind rationalise this juxtaposition?

3.5 Same question as 3.4 but in relation to the addition of music.

4 SWOT
4.1 S - Did you feel drawn into a world from within the report?

4.2 W- see above

4.3 O- In terms of understanding this work and contextualising it, where should CV look for further insights?

4.4 T - What areas threaten my aims if I was to continue developing works in this way?

Reflections on first rehearsal

JE and CV in conversation immediately after sight reading play through (not verbatim):

SWOT analysis

1. Strengths
1.1 On the whole nice environment (score and instrumentation) to work with. Balance of logic (distribution of source materials) felt good and initiative.

1.2 cv: did je object to the RVW reference elements within the CJA score [a previous conversation had questioned the purpose, validity and cultural issues of employing such 'referencing' techniques]? je: difficult to know what to do; tried to avoid literal interpretation as it could "go pitchy"

1.3 cv: did je find he was dovetailing sections for smooth transitions? 50:50

1.4 cv: did je perceive to be 'inside' the reality of the text? je: combination of improvising in response to the piece and proactive 'ev2' style engagement.

2. Weaknesses
2.1 je: too short ... felt the desire to be involved in music passages (combination's of the quartet) that were longer than possible with the current software logic. Music takes a while to establish, develop ideas and explore the score. Spoken text, however, is much quicker and more immediate.

2.2 cv: biggest problem was using the clean mic creatively.

3. Opportunities
3.1 The walkie-talkie was a useful tool for musicians, not used to using their raw voices in performance

3.2 je: if the piece was longer, say a couple of hours with longer durations for event, it would be possible to explore the act of improvising rather than improvising with the soundworlds. Q: is cv precious about improv opportunities?

4. Threats
4.1 je: does the audience perceive our efforts? Do they link the performance and resulting composition with its intention? Why not play them something from the new ev2 album and call that the CJA?

4.2 je: why a computer and not CD's on random shuffle?


5. AFTER listening back to a recording of first run
5.1 je: felt better to play than to listen back to it. Not I enjoyed the playing because of the computer generated visual score ... should the audience see this too?

5.2 cv: it feels like the performance does not embody the wholeness of the report, but more an Ariadne thread like exploration through it.

5.3 cv: sounds like there is more improvising to the sounds and not improvising to create the theatre from within the report

6. SECOND RUN THROUGH
6.1 je: will explore literal interpretations of RVW score.

Audio Extracts from first rehearsal

Take 1 - Sight Reading

Extract 1 - 0'00" - 5'00"




Extract 2 - 11'45" - 15'40"




Take 2 - First Run

Extract 3 - 1'20" - 6'45""




Extract 4 - 7'30" - 12'45"





Extract 5 - 15'00" - 17'55"

Screen Grabs

Background

My Sound Theatre compositions (Antarctica (2004), Play: Antarctica (2006),
Superfield [Mumbai] (2009), White Noise (2009), and corresponding cyber-widgets)
are experimental interdisciplinary performances combining field recordings, live
computer music, the mental ‘seeing’ evoked from sound and a theatre performance
environment. They are a creative open space in-between disciplines and function
using the phenomenological qualities of sound, music and theatre.

Their main concern is the see-hearing imaginary landscape. Within the
presentation of these interdisciplinary compositions the ultimate aim is to ‘infect’ the
audience, take their mind to other places, create a ‘dimension’ for their minds ear to
wander. As such they create a living dream of hallucinogenic clarity, where the
internal dialogue between listening, memory and imagination evokes a cinema
without a screen; a play without a set or actors.

The “polyphony of sense” present in Sound Theatre is one of its most
interesting concepts, and one that I think makes it literally interdisciplinary. By that I
mean that which is in-between disciplines; an area of creative, open space
suspended between the disciplines it sits amongst. Sound Theatre, is in-between
listening and seeing, as such, it embeds one discipline within the other so as they co-
exist and become fused and inseparable.

The use of randomness during performance is of paramount importance as
each library of field recordings is the composition: a multidimensional sonic ‘DNA’ of
a place and its people at a particular moment in time. They are ‘a thing and a
reflection of a thing’ and should remain open and free from any hierarchical
structuring.

The Cape Jeremy Affair is the most recent stage of this investigation, and one that
marks a change. Here, the library is a multidimensional sonic ‘DNA’ of a written
sledge report from 1968. The concept of the library now includes elements other than
field recordings and can be said to be more forensic ontology. Extra elements
include:
⋅ the text of the report
⋅ sounds mentioned in the report
⋅ musical responses to the text
⋅ manipulated and processed field recordings
⋅ music recordings surrounding the report (suppositions)
⋅ audio readings of the report

This library also contains visual elements:
⋅ scans of the report
⋅ photographic evidence surrounding the report (suppositions)
⋅ scans of manuscript pages from music surrounding the report

This piece is scored for two performers (ev2) and two laptops. During the 20 minute
performance the laptops act as score and performer (currently being developed).
Each laptop will contain a software application hosting this forensic library. Each will
randomly choose a sound and/ or a picture and/ or silence or black. Each performer
can ‘PLAY’ and respond to the acoustic-visual stimulus with varying degrees of
collaboration or abstraction: using spoken voice, sung speech, song with a
microphone, or their instrument - percussion and soprano saxophone. The overall
result will be a constantly shifting image of this library: it will start and then stop, and
the stuff that happens inbetween will be both the report and the music. And
completely unique at every performance – as will each audience members’
perception of the chain of events ... making sense of it, somehow, as people do.

Stage 1 - Acquisiation of material - software development

UNDER -DEVELOPMENT

Each computer generates a soundscape from a fixed library of

- A recording of the original text recited by the author

- Field recordings from places mentioned in the text

- Field recordings of sounds mentioned in the text

- Electroacoustic miniatures created in response to the text or are treatments of the above field recordings

- Silence

And: a visual score for the musician to follow generated from a fixed library of:

- Scans of the original pages from the report

- The first five pages from Sinfonia Antartica by R. Vaughan Williams (study score)

- Black screen

Initial research aims

The use of live voice and live music in a previously mediated performance concept raises some significant issues that this practical project hopes to gather insight into:

- The experience and subjectivity of sound-led theatre

- The phenomenology of the voice in Sound Theatre

- The connection between live voice and the disembodied voice

- The relationship between the imagined, the re-imagined in the presence of musician-performers


The research process will be in four stages:

1. Acquisition and creation of audio and visual material for the 'score'; software development

2. Devised rehearsals; interrogation of score and its meaning

3. Private performance to peers and mentors - interrogation of it experience regarding its aims

4. Public performance

Introduction

The Cape Jeremy Affair is an experimental music theatre composition for 2 musicians and 2 laptop computers. It is created from a text: a 1969 sledge report from the British Antarctic Survey that described an arduous, and ultimately aborted, rescue attempt by four dog teams from Stonington Island to Fossil Bluff, where several geophysicists had sought shelter following a plane crash. The 30 day trip started as a routine dog sledging expedition conducting a geophysical survey along the way. But it ended up being a survival exercise with 4 men and 27 huskies adrift on an ice floe.

It is not a piece of music about the report, nor is it with the report – as in a libretto – but something that is more inbetween. In this sense the music is created from within the report; that is to say, the imaginary dimension that the report generates when read, or was in the mind of the author when written.

Theatre is usually a place of seeing, however, I am interested in it being a place of see-hearing. The main concern is to take the mind of the audience to other places, and create a ‘dimension’ for their minds ear to wander. The overall result is a constantly shifting image of this dimension: it will start and then stop, and the stuff that happens inbetween will be both the report and the music.

I describe this piece as a ‘play’ for musicians, in so much as each musician has a responsibility to a narrative exposition – however abstract this may be – and approaches the performance embracing any of the definitions for the word play (noun or verb).

The role of the musician is to contribute to a sense of place – in this case the reality within the written report. The role of the computer is both functional (score generator) and performative, as such this piece should be considered a quartet.

Each musician auralises a response through improvisation using their voice or their instrument. As such each performance of the piece will be different ... an Ariadne thread through a non linear sphere of possibilities inbetween the report and its performance.