« Return to Thread: Paul Lansky pulls the plug

Re: Paul Lansky pulls the plug

by James Harkins-2 :: Rate this Message:

On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Donald Craig wrote:

I had forgotten how much fun it is to have a discussion with someone with such a different viewpoint.
I think we are going to wind up agreeing to disagree.

Yes, it is lots of fun. Disagreement is okay with me, although based on your e-mail we might actually be agreeing to disengage. To me, disagreement implies some understanding of the other's position, but when I read something like this...

Yours somehow reminds me of American Idol (yeesh!)

... it feels like what I'm saying hasn't been understood at all.

Anyway, I've been there, done the Adorno thing, bought into the whole ball of wax, then looked again and found it wanting. So you may jokingly suggest that one should be a disciple of Adorno or else be a disciple of Simon Cowell, and that's okay with me because it has nothing to do with my goals.

Throw in my general irritation with the whole notion of authenticity, which is so slippery and amorphous, and just
an aggravation to deal with, if one is honest about it.

Here, we can agree to agree!

, that one measures authenticity by the number of people who show up.

Whoa, there. I *never* said that. I think you are reading something
into my post that isn't there.

Again, this is not directed at you specifically. However, a social activity does require people to show up, no?
If only one person shows, is this sufficient? Is the music just as valuable, or less, or more?

Broadly defined as interaction, a strange sort of disembodied interaction does take place if a composer produces a recording and somebody listens to it in private. Apropos this discussion, actually Lansky planted some of the seeds of my thinking when he visited Duke while I was in grad school to talk about Things She Carried. I specifically remember him mentioning that he wanted to create an electronic "opera" that would make sense to listen to in a living room. That is, it was not initially meant for concert diffusion then released in a compromised stereo form for home listening, but rather that home listening informed the very conception of the piece. Come to think of it, I didn't realize until this discussion how influential that remark has been for me.

Another influence is a performance (really, diffusion) of work by Bernhard Gunter at a festival. The sounds themselves were not so remarkable, mostly close mic'ed sounds of natural objects rustling, or being rubbed or struck together, but the change in the atmosphere of that space was astounding. Over the course of an hour, he had everyone in the room meditating -- breathing more calmly, listening carefully but without expectation or judgment, just the delight of discovery. It was very clear that we weren't meant to try to understand the music as structure or composition, and we weren't meant to appreciate composerly skill in assembling the sounds. But the sounds changed the way we sat in the room together. Everyone left smiling. And this was without trying -- I mentioned the meditation effect to him after the show, and he said he didn't know anything about meditation or Buddhism... but there it was.

In that vein, I'm trying to imagine ways of music making where it is not the composer (as authority figure?), or the sonic product, or the composer-performer axis that is privileged, but rather where the music somehow changes the space and fosters a different way of being (just being) together. That can happen with 2, 10 or 100 people in the room. Quantity is not quality. (My work hasn't done a lot of this yet, at least not so explicitly as a social happening, but several of my pieces since grad school have been moving noticeably in that direction.)

But anyway, my current piece is for violin and computer and will be performed in a recital hall. I'm not dogmatic about it. To me the concert hall is a space to be used, but not held axiomatically as an ideal.

Okay, so now who's building straw men? I don't know any composers who
feel this way. (Admittedly, I can't see into their heart of hearts!)

Yes, that was exaggerated and I meant it to tweak some nerves. I don't know any composers who would admit to feeling this way. But, let's try a thought experiment. Suppose some random sampling of composers are asked to produce a live set (or a CD, the live part is not important) to accompany a gallery opening, with the stipulation that the event is first and foremost a gallery opening and during the performance/diffusion, people will be milling about, talking, admiring the art, and maybe sitting down from time to time to listen carefully to the music. There would be no layout with rows of chairs facing the performers/speakers (though there could be chairs with cafe tables in the vicinity).

I expect some nontrivial percentage of those composers, especially university composers, would at least be uncomfortable with the arrangement, perhaps feeling that the effort of composition would be wasted for so little attention. Some might even feel that this sort of thing would be somehow beneath them. That was my point, that's all.

mine is probably the well-heeled, holding a snifter of brandy, and pissing
and moaning about the decay of civilization!

You're probably too young to have become so old so fast. :) (Positioning oneself above the decay of civilization is just another form of ego-stroking.)

I'm also very interested in Mark's questions about the practical realities of making non-traditional performance spaces happen, but I'm out of time for tonight.

hjh

: H. James Harkins

: jamshark70@...

: http://www.dewdrop-world.net

.::!:.:.......:.::........:..!.::.::...:..:...:.:.:.:..:

"Come said the Muse,

Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,

Sing me the universal." -- Whitman

« Return to Thread: Paul Lansky pulls the plug