Performances – Solo

The combination of generative algorithms with sophisticated sound retrieval methods will probably remain of immense interest for a number of music, audio and commercial applications. But the simpler algorithms implemented in piano+ (as described in Chapter 4) have shown novel musical potential within a real-time performance system in combination with a more investigative improvisation style. The implemented audio processes are not activated for specific musical and sonic situations but are constantly running with parameter adjustments occurring through a mixture of direct and indirect control. The live audio stream has its impact on the electroacoustic processes in two ways: The sounds are thrown into the processes while they also are a source to influence aspects of the manipulation applied to them. The performer invokes his/her control through the sonic material495_{, as well as retaining the chance to utilise direct control,} even if in the form of the most rudimentary decision as to whether the process is heard or not. These continuing processes create a discontinuity in the perception of the acoustic sound. The character of the piano+ emerges not through the sonic augmentation in forms of accompaniment, but in the transformation of the acoustic. For instance, it may not be necessarily obvious that an acoustic sound is ‘frozen’ using a granulator, but it is more likely that this electroacoustic quality is perceived by gradually emerging out of the decay of the acoustic sound. The perception is therefore a 495 _{Video example excerpt [email protected] .}

subversion of the expected acoustic behaviour (Audio example: Dazwischen: Time minutes 5:00 - 6:59). This is not intended as a ‘magic show’: ambiguity is a fundamental feature, so that even the performer may be uncertain and held in suspense until an intended response occurs, or surprised when such a relationship emerges unexpectedly.

Within these qualities one can find the inherently pianistic qualities of this performance system. Modifications subvert the piano sound; the technology submerges into the acoustic instrument. This ambiguity can go so far that retrospective analysis of performance recordings is limited. It is not always possible to detect where the acoustic sounds have been superseded by the electronic continuation (Audio example:

Dazwischen: Rapprochement minutes 2:15 - 6:30). The piano+ positions itself on a fine

line between deviation from the acoustic to embrace technology and subversion of the acoustic, subsumed by the technological. It exploits the ridge of a close relationship between extended instrumental technique and electroacoustic sounds; each can function as an inspiration for the other496_{. In this manner, the piano can immerse with the} electronic part in two independent – yet intrinsically interwoven – ways: firstly, processes capable of retaining the piano character by subversion of the acoustic, secondly extended techniques which deviate from the conventional.

Figure 6.3: the augmented instrument in terms of subversion and deviation of the acoustic and electronic.

496 _{Jürg Bariletti mentioned in conversations that he aims to create acoustic music inspired by}

Performance outcomes can be plotted in the spherical abstraction in figure 6.3: any moment of a performance will occupy a position within this ‘performance space’. The music emerges through the actualisation of instrumental and personal spheres, with their own musical characteristics that should be perceivable and identifiable for the listener. The performance is a sonic exploration of the space between the acoustic and the electronic in which the performer can engage in a heuristic investigation of the potentiality unfolding itself in between the poles of the spheres plotted. It is within this conceptual construction that the sessions released on Dazwischen497 _{(the German word} for ‘in between’) are each named according to an underlying focus during their performance. Time focuses on the horizontal axis and explores temporal dislocation of musical material within the processes that influence the improvisation through the repetitions and elongations activated by indirect controls. Within the first four minutes the interdependence between the acoustic playing and the electronic responses are clearly evident and indicate the recursive quality between the intentional acoustic direction and the adjustment of the musical activity to the resulting responses. More intentional activity becomes evident in the following three minutes, to steer the music in a different direction (this includes ring modulation and additive synthesis processes). From 6:58 onwards the performance focuses on the immanent modulation, climaxing in an elongated feedback that fluctuates between the acoustic conflicts (phase cancellation) of the feedback through the speakers and microphone and direct control of the tuning of the partials with a tilt sensor (Audio example: Dazwischen: Time minutes 7:00 - 9:07). This section is a prime example for the contingency that can emerge within the system. Although the result might be perceived very controlled and preplanned, it was only a coincidence that the feedback occurred with such intensity that enabled its sustain but allowed these minute modulations: Its simultaneous electronic reproduction through granulation revealed potential as an additional modulator for the delicate acoustic processes which influenced the proceedings significantly.

This piece is also an example of the importance attributed to listening during the performance. A goal-oriented, preconceived approach would have hindered such musical outcome, and any intention to recreate such a texture might be frustrated through the complex interdependencies within the system. The balance between

intentional direction and alertness to the actual events creates structure in the form of a heuristic dialogue. The balance between the ‘self’ – the performer – and the ‘other’ – in the case of solo performance, the instrumental and performance space – is in constant flux. Continuous adjustments are required to allow intentional direction and emerging opportunities of the potentiality space to ‘harvest’ the musical discourse. Within this dialogue a boldness to the proceedings is required to allow oneself to go a step beyond the haven of safety, without losing the connection to the moment, but with conscious avoidance of trapping oneself by remaining within the known.

Defining edges concentrates on vertical modification through filters exploring the

acoustic in relation to clear electronic sound. It is a similar application of the process as discussed in Audio example 2007-01-23_electroStudy.wav. As described above, the non-repetitive and contingent nature of the acoustic performance creates a greater diversity of the resultant microstructures that grow out of the acoustic piano sound.

Rapprochement shows the opposite characteristic. The computer responses melt into the

acoustic to form a sonic sculpture which often remains ambiguous as to where the acoustic stops and where the electronic starts (2:38 - 5:18).

My recordings prior to Dazwischen reveal the difficult balance between the intentional direction and adaptive response. Although the performances unfold within the organic evolution of the material, an often too cautious approach caused by the pursuit of preconceived notion of beautiful and compelling textures results in artificially prolonged and consequently disengaging sections. An exaggerated search for constant renewal endangers the emerging structures by changing too quickly, leaving only fleeting impressions which show that possibilities were overlooked and relationships were not explored. Musical structures are not necessarily achieved through temporal plans. It is proposed here that proportional relationships are more important: size, width, weight, and shape of musical textures and events that interrelate and impact the musical discourse498_{. This can be witnessed on Dazwischen. These attributes are not attached to} the acoustic properties themselves. The loudness of a sound does not inevitably increase its weight within the texture; framing an event with silence can be much more effective.

498 _{Brown’s December 1952 and Cardew’s Treatise have been influential for the personal realisation to}

Furthermore, interest emerges with controversies or even conflicts within the performance. The way a delicate texture is kept alive at the verge of breaking away, or moments at the threshold of uncontrollable chaos is what is considered fascinating here when performing. However, the spectacle of the display of skill to balance contingent elements is not important; rather it is the way one’s situation and position is negotiated heuristically within the performance space. Mastering a situation on one occasion – i.e. contributing in a compelling and stimulating way – does not make it necessarily suitable for another situation. A repetition, or revisit, is only seen as a stage for further departure and negotiation, not for repeated appreciation and entertainment.

In this one finds the difference between the striving for mere novelty and the search to find new meanings and relations within one’s own experience. This is neither modernistic, nor post-modern, but simultaneous reflection and projection of the present. It is an approach to performance that accepts musical actualisation as a result of complex human activity within its spaces, rather than design or the display of emotional states. Underlying narratives or emotional responses cannot be denied, since the activity is a result of one’s personal spaces, but these are subjective elements, not intended to be conveyed in any explicit manner. Narratives might emerge through listening as a subjective journey through the discourse, resulting from active engagement with the music within the listener’s own personal spaces. The space explored in between the acoustic and electronic reveals characteristics that can evoke a range of emotive responses.

There is possibly a form of violence against assumed outcomes which alienates the comfort of the expected in elementary ways. Although informed expectations might be made, according to individual experiences, a subversion of the acoustic undermines these. It is not the new unfamiliar sound of a synthesiser, it is the well established piano sound world which is subjected to scrutiny within every moment. It might be any note taking a turn towards the unexpected within its own sonic life, as if morphing into another. The beautifully compelling texture of a piano note might transform into screaming and piercing progressions. This characteristic is readily achieved by string, woodwind and brass instrumentalist, as for example a saxophonist is able to transform a sustained note by changes to embouchure and breath. Beyond the possibility to realise techniques available on other instruments, the subversion through the electronics

indicates a more fundamental relationship of a hierarchical nature. Technology empowers through the means of amplification, repetition and potential autonomy from human control or decision through its own logic. Dusek cites Langdon Winner that the “consumer does not originate, maintain, or understand the complex technology or complex socio-technology of the system” and that all users involved with a technological system “lack overall intellectual grasp or strategic control of the system”499_{. Within the performance system piano+, a microcosm of the socio-} technological has been established which attempts to counteract such shortcomings. It has been shown that the performer’s ability to extend the personal musical voice by means of diversion and subversion are made possible by engaging with the instrumental potential. The instrument is not just the tool to facilitate personal expression but the means for personal engagement with the material to develop the personal voice within its potentiality space. This approach differs from the common description to become “one with the instrument”500_{, in which the performer transcends the technical} difficulties of mastering the instrument to allow the personal voice to emerge in its full expressive potential. What is described here is that the potential of the instrument is never thought to be transcended, but fully integrated into the creative process. The performer does not wish to go beyond the technical struggle and the conscious awareness of its materials, its surfaces, edges and gaps. S/he is neither subscribing to the content-based transformations offered by the electronics without retaining scrutiny of the musical results. It is in this area of intense and conscious engagement with the instrumental space where the full potential of electronically augmented performance practice merges with the human acoustic musical aspects. It is neither through the attempt to ‘humanise’ the technology to match human musicality nor by adjustment of personal interests and values that this symbiosis is achieved. It is not cyborgism “enhanc[ing] the human body toward a super-human ideas”501_{; it neither presumes an} ‘aesthetic of technology nor does it attempt to keep away from it. The interest to understand and implement the technology is retained, but the approach is not blinded by the technology, neither by its novelty nor by its spectacle. It facilitates the technological potential creatively without making the sophistication of the employed technological algorithms subject of the performance. Most importantly it attempts to understand the 499 _{Dusek 2006, 108.}

500 _{E.g. Bill Evens (Tirro 1993, 415).} 501 _{Kreps 2007, 1.}

social implications, it would not ignore warnings – including Walter Benjamin’s convincing indication that technology facilitates Fascism502_{, a view also strongly} supported by Herbert Marcuse503_.