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
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Friday, 15 January 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?
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?
Thursday, 14 January 2010
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.
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"
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"
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.
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)
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
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)