Re: Alternative performance devices

[vze26m98 <vze26m98@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/30/03 at 8:44 AM, Michael Arnold Mages <marnoldm@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Hey Tad, sorry for the way long response...

Not at all, very interesting stuff...

(Apologies for the heavy ediiting of your message!)

> that barriers between audience and performer/composer are
> residue of an antique political situation (aristocracy), and
> that we need new listening models that reflect a more
> egalitarian situation...

> I think that the performer has a responsibility to avoid
> domination of the audience, or to make sure that avenues for
> participation in the performance exist--aside from clapping at
> the end.

> It seems to me that any instrument involves some separation
> between the audience and the performer--they have one, the
> audience doesn't; they are skilled in playing that instrument,
> the audience isn't.

>From the above, it seems you acknowledge an a priori distincion between
audience and performer, and then proceed directly to a negative
evaluation of this separation. Granted, much of the separation is
mainpulated by the entertainment meglopoly, but it's not inherent in the
asymmetry. I'd say it varies by musical genre.

Exploration of audience participation has its issues as well, Martin Rev
and Alan Vega's experience in Brussels, and Alan Kaprow's (or Whitman's)
stories of switchblades coming through the cardboard at their happenings
come immediately to mind.

The point I was making is that much of the experience of a performance
is defined upfront, before the events begins. The audience brings their
set of expectations, and the venue's aura, architectural design/interior
layout and event management (did you go through a metal detector?) form
a context that a performance can go with, or struggle against, to lay
out just two possible strategies.

Performance context varies by genre: it seems self-evident that an Arena
Rock event creates a very performance context than a Jazz date at a
nightclub.

> A jazzer makes a lot of eye contact (esp. with the drummer and
> bassist) to set up the groove (not quite so relevant in a
> microsound context) and with the audience.

Well, as a counter example, you could cite Miles Davis, who intensified
his persona in the 1950's by refusing to acknowledge the audience and
their appreciation...

> My thinking was to make the gestural aspects of computer-based
> performance more transparent to an audience,

> But maybe an alternative type of controller could open up that
> tight human-computer feedback loop for someone playing a laptop
> gig?

> I just wonder if the tool could be made more appropriate to the
> task--or if that is even necessary?

I'll use another jazz example if I may: John Coltrane didn't move a
whole lot on stage, closing his eyes and making relatively minor
gestures across the keys of his saxophones. (I mean minor in comparison
to other instrumental performers, not necessarily among Jazz
saxophonists.)

I think his audience didn't need a lot of information about what he was
up to, for most, they understood he was playing jazz on a saxophone.
What notes he was playing might have interested some, but when we get to
his filing of his teeth, or use of a metal mouthpiece, I think we've
crossed a line where information about the performer's activity becomes
pretty meaningless.

So I think projecting the computer screen for the audience (as someone
suggested) is overkill; better the performer should begin with a lecture
on the techniques of digital synthesis.

Finally, I think one of the great seductions of computer based music is
the very mutability of the interface. Just as composers aren't limited
to a range of timbres, they also aren't limited to a narrow range of
control options.

So while I think that custom controllers offer an enhanced contact with
the machine, they also work to freeze the nature of the interface:
musical exploration appears to slow down.

Whether this continual lure to experimentation on every musical front is
aesthetically valuable (or in what way?) is an open question.

Best,

Tad

<tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

------------------------------