[no subject]

> for someone who usually doesn't go to live shows all
> that often, i've
> certainly gone out of my way last week with the 9th
> edition of the
> electroacoustic festival rien à voir (in montréal). 

Your review was excellent.  I really enjoy this kind
of content, which seems altogether relevant to both
appreciation and practice of these new (and
not-so-new, but nonetheless mysterious) forms of
sound-work.  Your reviews did raise a few questions
here, though.

> moore's
> rendition of _klang_ (1982 piece made exclusively
> from the sound of
> earthenware casseroles, by jonty harrison, another
> englishman) 

If it's a "rendition," was it actually performed,
physically?  (I know it's a little passé to fixate on
the 'physicality' of performance...that's
Carducci-hysteria.  But I wanted to bring up a minor
distinction that's plagued me a bit; more on this
below.)  Was a recording played through an optimal
speaker apparatus in a suitable space, with a prepared
audience, or were the casseroles "actually" (please
take w/grain of salt) played? 

>some
> people on this list (who know who they are) may
> question my repeated use
> of the word "performance" when "all that's happening
> is someone pushing
> a button".  well, truth be told, gilles gobeil
> _embodies_
> electroacoustic performance....his use of
> the loudspeakers as
> musical instruments is unparallelled

But were the Gobeil pieces being played as they were
intended to be played, albeit through a terrific sound
system/space?  That would seem to be _presentation_,
not performance.  Reproduction, rather than
production...although clearly reproduction under
special circumstances.  The difference, if this is the
case, is in the speakers and playback apparatus, not
in the production of the music itself.  I mean, I have
no doubt that he uses the speakers artfully, but
wouldn't that come through in any venue, whether a
"performer" was present or not?  If I set up a fine PA
system and play a Gobeil CD, am I performing? 
Paintings are generally _shown_ (presented) publicly,
not performed.  (The grafitti/DJ axis is noticeable
exception...more on that below.)  So unless the sounds
are being produced in (more or less) real time, how
are we witnessing a "performance"?

> his carte blanche set served an excellent
> introduction: he mixed classic
> works (smalley's _pentes_ (1974), stockhausen's
> _gesang der jünglinge_
> (1956, featuring plenty of tape hiss!)) with recent
> strains of
> post-concrète improv (wolfgang mitterer, martin
> tétreault/rené lussier).

Did he actually mix them together, or arrange them
adjacently?  I think of really interesting "DJing" as
being performative, to a greater or lesser degree,
because it can involve twisting pieces of music into
one another, forging (forcing!) connections that might
not normally, or "naturally", have existed before. 
This confounding of expectations seems to be most
artfully pulled off when the transgression is subtle,
and the music being played _seems_, on its surface, to
be fulfilling its ordained function.  

>here, the "cinema for the ear"
> metaphor is at its
> most most accurate; it's as if gobeil weren't
> composing songs but
> writing scripts.  

That's a nice observation.  Incidentally, do you
remember which Gobeil pieces were included in his solo
set?  Are they available as recordings?

BTW, these (perhaps academic) distinctions aren't
intended as discussion-imperatives or rhetorical
Socratic bon-bons; I haven't figured any of this out,
but composers and experienced listeners on-list might
have some interesting things to say about these
issues, if they are bored by them...

Thanks again, BTW, for the vivid descriptions.  Hate
to have missed that...

-----s

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/