I've just been listening to a Harry Partch interview in which he talks
about music requiring 'corporeality ' and 'ritual'. Tangible computing live
coding at my funeral then I hope.
On another related note, I don't know how much you all hang around
libraries at the moment but if you get a chance to see Journal of New Music
Research 32:3 Andrew Schloss' article 'Using Contemporary Technology in
Live Performance; the Dilemma of the Performer' he has much to complain
about. I quote directly from his conclusions list to be provocative on his
behalf:
'
1. cause-and-effect is important, at least for the observer/audience in a
concert venue
2. corollary: Magic in a performance is good. Too much magic is fatal!
(boring)
3. a visual component is essential to the audience, such that there is a
visual display of input parameters/gestures. The gestural aspect of the
sound becomes easier to experience.
4. Subtlety is important. huge gestures are easily visible from far away,
which is nice, but they are cartoon movements compared to playing a musical
instrument.
5. Effort is important. In this regard, we are handicapped in computer
music performance.
6. Improvisation on stage is good, but "baby-sitting" the apparatus on
stage is not improvisation, it is editing. It is probably more appropriate
to do this either in the studio before the concert, than at the concert in
the middle or back of the concert hall.
7. People who perform should be performers. A computer music concert is not
an excuse/opportunity for a computer programmer to finally be on stage.
Does his/her presence enhance the performance or hinder it?
'
I will not respond to these points directly, seething as I am, except to
mention my own comments on Schloss' live performance in Cuba 2001:
Ultimately, Andrew Schloss on radio drum and Ernan Lopez-Nussa at the piano
played Schloss's Blind Data together. The best I can hope for is that it
was guided improvisation. Certainly the percussive speed of the duo was
impressive. Those wands blurred in mid air, the gestures were viscerally
convincing. A case of nice performance, shame about the output. The aural
result was often an unfocused mess, and not helped by the terrible ( I
hesitate to make the ultimate accusation of general MIDI) patches being
controlled by the radio drum. Imagine- now I'll dramatically shift to
channel 9- The Gong Patch. The Steinway on it's own would have been of
wonderful acoustic quality, if a flawed end to a computer music concert.
Ultimately, we can all sympathise with the sort of improvisation where you
know the musicians are having fun and perhaps the audience's ears are
extraneous.
_______________________________________________
livecode mailing list
livecode_at_toplap.org
http://toplap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/livecode
Received on Wed Apr 07 2004 - 08:15:43 BST