Showing posts with label Cambridge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cambridge. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 July 2010

Some Thoughts Re. Cambridge Duo



I enjoyed the performance, overall – I think. Maybe enjoy is not the right word. I tend to find it quite hard to collect my thoughts after doing a live performance, as opposed to a private session – and doing a ‘post-mortem’ of something that only existed when it existed, that is now ‘not there’, in a sense, might be a tad unhelpful. That said, part of the rationale behind the whole ‘sine language’ project is to provide some sort of framework for examining certain things I’m interested in with regards to performance, improvisation, the context in which music is presented – so I’d consider the ‘post-mortem’, the pre- and post-performance writing, to be part of the project as well, rather than simply as an ‘added extra’. (Which is why I liked JH’s idea of reading read something out before we performed – or, I suppose I should say, reading something out as a preparatory part of the performance.)

There were a few moments when I felt that my own contribution possibly put JH out on a limb in a way that was a little unfair. Someone said afterwards that there seemed to be an element of playing God to it, in the deployment of sudden loud sounds and samples; or the throwing of objects onto the ‘stage’. I guess this was dialogue though, feeding back on itself. My throwing of the objects (which, initially, I wasn’t sure that I was even going to use, or thought that I might occasionally use as percussion instruments) perhaps arose from a sense of the theatricality of the occasion; a desire to move across from being ‘just a musician’, doing ‘musician things’, to some involvement, however peripheral, with the ‘acting’ side of things. Did the throwing possess a certain violence to it at all? (That’s probably imparting too much ‘narrative’ to things, too much connotative force that, while it can’t be said *not* to be there, isn’t really very important or conscious for either of us). So maybe the throwing could be conceived more in spatial terms – objects thrown in a diagonal line – like a kind of live sculpture.

If the whole performance was in some senses a ‘dialogue’, it was also an occasional *parody* of dialogue: my bashing out a rhythm, on the floor, with a drumstick, followed by a pause, followed by JH’s ‘delayed reaction’ response – shouting “Achtung!” – followed by “Heil!”. This wasn’t, though, parody in a programmatic, illustrative, facile way – not “this is us showing that dialogue is impossible” – just a different mode of dialogue. Perhaps dialogue is not the right word to use, anyway, as it implies speech - it could be replaced by ‘language’ (as per the project’s title) – but even that doesn’t feel quite right – it could be replaced by ‘communication’ (or its failure). ‘Commune’ does suggest a certain togetherness, and also a bringing into contact with something else – ‘communing with the spirits’ – which is what sampling a recording (like the shamanic birdsong imitation I used) *is*, I suppose – a technologically-enabled version of what the shaman does in the first place: channelling something they don’t claim to ‘originate’, or ‘create’ as such. That’s not to say that one is simply tapping into pre-existent forces, because *reaction* is an element here; as you pointed out, *liveness* is crucial.

In itself, that’s actually a bit odd, given that this was the first time I’ve performed the ‘sine music’ in a live situation (my previous use of electronics at gigs has tended to be more ‘reactive’; what Derek Bailey would call an “instrumental” approach to the music). It was also only the second time that I’ve played it in a duo situation, the first being just a few days before, and, just like on that occasion, unexpected things happened – which is what I was hoping for. Perhaps the fact that we weren’t able to use the initial plan provided the element of risk I mentioned in the ‘programme note’. (This plan, which we’d developed in brief conversation before the performance, was for JH to fall, very slowly, until his head was submerged in a tank of water, while dropping things out of his pockets – stretching an action which would normally take, say, 2 minutes, to 15 or more. As things turned out, no water tank was available, and the fall had actually been completed about half-way through, and so the ‘second half’ of the performance found JH on the floor (almost a ‘second action’, I guess, though not separable from the first, that of falling)). In any case, I’m glad to have made the first forays with this project, both private (Bristol) and public (Cambridge). As for what’s to come, who knows?

A Brief Note on The Sine Language Project (Introduction to Cambridge Performance, 20/06/2010)

Duo Between Jeremy Hardingham & David Grundy: Drama Studio, English Faculty, Cambridge, 20th June 2010 (as part of ‘Wrecking Balls’ evening)

The following text was read out by JH to introduce the performance.

This duo is part of something called the ‘Sine Language Project’; this is a provisional title to cover a proposed series of collaborations between myself on electronics, and various other musicians, actors, and other artists. Sine waves are electronic tones which offer ‘pure’, unwavering pitches, not subject to the imperfections of an instrumentalist trying to sustain a pitch. The ‘Sine Language’ title is therefore a fairly crass pun: I’m interested, with regards to this particular ‘project’, in exploring sine-tones, or sine-like tones, generated from a laptop, and this might be said to comprise some sort of ‘language’, or effort at ‘communication’. On the other hand, the music’s possible ‘blankness’ and lack of event might be said to indicate an unwillingness to be ‘emotional’ or ‘communicative’, by some. In any case, there are paradoxes and questions that unfold themselves on the prompting of the title.

The idea behind the ‘project’ is it to collaborate with performers who’ll add something different and unpredictable – even seemingly incompatible – providing new perspectives and forcing new accommodations and meanings within the ‘sine system’. This involves an element of risk, and perhaps of failure: indeed, one might argue that failure, and its risk, is that which makes the work *matter* more than polish or 'success' could.

Some have argued (particularly in relation to theatre) that failure is a necessary condition of the work – that it is bound to fail. On the blog ‘crow: instigated’, one finds the following statement: “theatre communicates the failure to communicate. which is theatre and what theater necessarily fails at in the same instance.” Here, in theory, some intriguing connections spring up between experimental music of the kind which I perform, and experimental theatre, of the kind made by Jeremy. The hope is that this might translate from theory into practice – and that is what we will now attempt to do. DG