Thursday, 25 February 2010
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.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
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
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
Thursday, 11 February 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.
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.
Monday, 1 February 2010
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?
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
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
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
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
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
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)