Re: [microsound] Re: Alternative performance devices

["The pHarmanaut" <pharmanaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all. I'm dropping in a number of comments and threads to both sets of
input from Michael and Tad:

> > 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.

I don't agree, from either a performer or audience perspective. This
overlooks the mental and spiritual participation of the audience, as well as
the ability of the exceptional artist to engineer and direct collective
states of consciousness. Beck at Red Rocks (for the _Odelay_ tour) was
fantastic at doing this. Also, I've been watching the Rolling Stones film,
_Gimme Shelter_, about their "disastrous" Altamont Speedway show; that's a
prime example of the strange synergy generated between performer and
audience, though of course that show involves a number of "fourth wall"
violations as people try to get up on the stage, as Hell's Angels roam about
the stage, and so on. Still, the Stones' songs never seem as dark and
dangerous to me as in that setting, at that event.

And "aside from clapping at the end"? What about dancing? What about getting
blasted out of one's mind and grooving? What about singing along?

Point being, I'm interested in pursuing the spiritual rite aspects of
performance, and the ability of the separated and elevated performer to
provide a focus for the alignment and motivation of multiple sites of
consciousness. I think that much of this discussion is overlooking the finer
mysteries of live performance to focus on technicalities of delivery.

> > 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.

I don't think it varies simply by musical genre but within musical genre, as
well. This depends on: the quality of the performer; the particular venue;
the particular audience on a given night; the weather. It's odd to me,
becuase it seems that you're perpetuating a bias against the division
between the celebrity performer and the audience; but most of the analogies
from laptoppers and DJs alike that we've read on this list the past few days
are about how annoyed said laptoppers and DJs get when an audience member
gets too close, interrupting their set.

> 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.

Sometimes this is true. But I've been to shows where this falls apart
completely. I've been in supposedly intimate gallery settings in which the
division between "ARTISTE" and audience was as manufactured and
antagonistically dividing as at any big arena, and at arena shows that felt
startlingly intimate.

> 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...

And what about the whole "shoegazer" scene in rock? Again, I'm not
comfortable with these broad genre definitions.

> 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.

This overlooks more nuances. Point is, at a certain time in Coletrane's
career, a lot of people DIDN'T think he was playing jazz on a saxophone.
Once he escalated past hard bop to space jazz, he completely alienated much
of his former fan base.

> 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.

Both options suggest far too much of an academic-environment for me. I'm
getting tired of the hyper-intellectual associations between computer music
and academia. Rather, as I believe devslashnull was first to observe, the
laptop has turned computer-based music into the new folk music.

> 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.

I agree completely. This is partly why I'm wary of the tendency to move into
hardware controllers; though convenient to be liberated from the
mouse/cursor, there's still something ultimately limiting about hardware.
Plus, I don't see why just having a visible controller of any kind would
make the performance more transparent. Would the audience understand any
better how a particular sound is generated and, more importantly, why?

-=Trace

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