Performativity and Contingency

Despite the achievements of research in this field in recent years, I was always drawn to David Tudor’s electronic work as it demonstrates a coherent and convincing performative aspect. His own compositions, such as Neural Synthesis #2, involving electronics have an organic feel, which arguably originates from the extensive experience he had as a performer. He appears to have managed to develop instruments that lend themselves to a remarkable rich variety of subtleties in tone production. The dynamics and texture of sounds show a wide degree of variation and continuous relation which retain, or at least convincingly suggest, that the sounds are not only subject to some contingent element during their production but there is also a means to gesturally interact with these. Although there is the possibility that the contingencies in control results from, at least in part, the use of analogue electronic circuits, I would also see the nature of his interfaces as an important element. Tudor's circuits enables immediate interaction by means of instant adaptation and adjustments but also sufficient interferences to allow contingencies in the sound production.

Contingencies will be discussed within a variety of contexts and perspectives in the following chapters, for now it will be sufficient to elaborate briefly on the potential contingent elements in musical performance. Contingencies are to be found within the balance of control and unexpected sonic outcomes. Specific control is replaced by intent and elicitation: the control structure allows to aim for a certain sound and the result is reciprocal to the executed gesture. If repeated, the result would never be a carbon-copy 99 _{Croft 2007, 62.}

100 _{See section 2.3.2. for further discussion.} 101 _{Croft 2007, 62.}

of itself, because it would contain a degree of deviation. The scale and complexity of these deviations is clearly related to the differences between the gesture (e.g. speed and velocity).

The degree of general flexibility, potential for instantaneous adaptations and adjustments within any given performance system is one of the most crucial aspects within forms of music making that have a freer approach to musical content and are less structurally determined. This recognises that performative activities on acoustic instruments involve a continuous and instantaneous adjustment of a sheer unlimited amount of parameters, such as strength, position, speed, ... mostly defined through the technical skills of the performer to engage with the instrument.

It is therefore not surprisingly that Croft continues to stipulate “conditions for instrumentality”102_{, which demand the computer instrument’s response “must be} proportionate to the performer’s action”103 _{and that it “must share some energetic and} morphological characteristics with the performer action”104_{, as well as featuring a} “synchronous” onset. These points certainly have their validity in relation to electronic instruments. But to demand synchronicity – when considering augmented instruments, – appears to be less important, because the acoustic sound always links to the performance gesture. The electroacoustic augmentation might be perceived as a development of the acoustic decay phase of the sound. Omitting the relationship between acoustic sound and electroacoustic modification during the sustain and decay periods of the acoustic sound also gives a polemical twist to his request that there “must be a timbral continuum, affinity, or fusion between the untreated instrumental sound and the response of the electronics”105_{. But Croft has compelling reasons to draw attention} to “purified” instrumental relationships. It highlights the widespread problem to find satisfaction in elaborated sound creations as a means to enhance the spectacle of performance rather than to explore the relationships.

102 _{Croft 2007, 64.} 103 _{Croft 2007, 64.} 104 _{Croft 2007, 64.}

105 _{Croft 2007, 64: To complete Croft’s list, he also urges to consider:}

- The relationship between the performer and the computer must be stable - The relationship must be scrutable

- The relationship must be learnable by the performer - The mapping must be sufficiently fine-grained.

Croft’s paradigms can assist in defining an informed opinion and help to evaluate existing works, but they can replace neither a continuing investigation of a relationship between the acoustic and the electronic nor a scrutiny of the role and purpose of electronics in society. The experiments with lo-fi electronic devices, novel control gadgets, as well as the application of sophisticated algorithms for audio analysis, networked performance systems and generative sound modification have validity. But scrutiny about their purpose ought to be in place too: So many times they only show that one can employ such technologies. They exploit the novelty factor for a shallow spectacle alone, thus the age of the technology becomes a criterion for the evaluation of the musical result.106

Although Alvin Lucier’s sine-tone107 _{pieces use simple technology they manage to} establish an intricate and fragile relationship between the acoustic instrument and fixed tape playing slow sine-tone sweeps. The listener will experience that the fascination with technology is not necessarily linked to complex algorithms and modifications. This resonates in Croft’s conclusive remarks:

In our well-intentioned search for reliability and repeatability, perhaps we forgot what performance meant, and development ran ahead of poetics to create an impressive (if still unreliable) array of score-following algorithms and a multitude of remarkable (all too remarkable) transformations. But perhaps we need to step away from all this. It is inevitable that aesthetically pertinent ‘liveness’ involves relatively simple relations

between input and output.”108

The role and purpose of technology will be thematicised in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6, but throughout this discourse implicitly stated and also more explicit references will highlight social and political concerns where seen appropriate.