Re: [microsound] Re: Alternative performance devices

[Michael Arnold Mages <marnoldm@xxxxxx>]

Responding on multiple threads (Hope it stays coherent)...

On Fri, 30 May 2003, The pHarmanaut wrote:

> 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.

It seems like you *do* agree... my words can be limiting at times...but
sometimes polemic statements help to make a point.  In my mind, avoiding
that dominating performance paradigm involves creating avenues for
response and interaction.  A good recording can give a degree of
interaction--even if that interaction is just inside the head
of the listener. This cerebral/spiritual interaction can be just as
compelling as being involved in the performance in a more
physical/visible/visceral way. I still say that it is the responsibility
of the artist/performer to provide avenues for some kind of
interaction--the audience-participant is someone who needs to be
considered as a vital part of the performance experience.
Just as the performer is responsible for creating a fora for meaningful
interaction, so is the listener responsible to show up ready for an
interaction. To what degree that interaction is directed by the performing
entities or laissez-faire is up for grabs depending upon many of the
things that you mentioned.  But the interaction is key. Otherwise, the
whole thing ends up being a bunch of musical wanking, which nobody needs.

Miles may have said that he didn't care what the audience thought, but he
obviously did, because he was _there_, at the gig, and not at home in his
living room.

> 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?

Yes. I didn't mean to say that there is only one road to a good situation.
I have been in performance situations in (just about) every genre where the
audience didn't "get it", and the performers didn't care, or didn't know
how to connect, or were having a bad day of it...

> 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.

Well maybe so, but it's a chicken-and-egg question.  The technicalities
begets the interaction begets the spiritual quality begets the...  And the
separated and elevated performer model has it's positives too, there is
just more of a danger(temptation? of broadcast devolving into a
spectacular wank-fest that robs the audience of the ability to think for
themselves. (as recently evidenced by the majority of the Gulf War II
media coverage). For me, the performer remains perennially responsible to
his audience to create a meaningful interaction.

> > > 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.

Yes, I do.  And I mean physical separation as much as cult-of-personality
separation.  European/US style performance tends to be an insular thing.
And I think that that presupposing of insulation fosters an abdication of
responsibility in the performer--and this occurs regardless of genre...

> > 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.

Yes, and most of those instances are where an audience member doesn't "get
it"--again, a shared responsibility of the performer and audience member.
Personally, I would try to incorporate the interruption into the set--but
that's me...

But I do question the value of the celebrity performer as manufactured
by the entertainment megalopolists.

> > 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.

I completely agree.  But I place a large part of the responsibility on the
performer for creating that environment--bad or good.

> > Performance context varies by genre: it seems self-evident that an Arena

> > > A jazzer makes a lot of eye contact (esp. with the drummer and

> > Well, as a counter example, you could cite Miles Davis, who intensified

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

There are always counter-examples to any given stereotype, but I think
that the stereotype can have limited usefulness in discussing these sorts
of things.  I think that we can agree that there are overarching
performance practices that vary in quality and degree from genre to genre,
and within these divisions  there is a spectrum of different approaches,
overlapping and interpenetrating. But when discussing difference, it can
be useful to say that "Men are typically taller and heavier than women."
even though there are many women who are either taller or heavier than me,
as long as we are aware that any generalization implies a degree of
distortion.

>
> > 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.

Amen brother. But as far as it goes, this sort of thing is part of our
history as experimental musicians--many of whom were (and are) academics.
But you are right. There is far too much desire to "sex it up" with lots
of discussion about the poststructuralist foundations of the computational
language that was founded as a result of hegemony of the interplanetary
hoosegow.

> Rather, as I believe devslashnull was first to observe, the
> laptop has turned computer-based music into the new folk music.

I really hope so.

> > 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.

Yeah, but as mentioned by someone else, there is something ultimately
limiting about software, where all the permissible paths have been defined
by a programmer (even if that programmer is you...).  You could call  a
violin a "hardware controller for a wooden transducer"  Heck, everything
has it's limits, but to (mis?)quote Stravinsky: Freedom is defined by
moving about within those limitations.

> 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?

Again, maybe it is my instrumental side talking, but I see the gesture as
tied to the expression, tied to the music.  Physical motion seems to be a
necessary part of making (understanding?) music, and it seems that the
set of motions associated with the interface of the laptop are a
hinderance, not a help...

-Michael

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