INTERVENTION!

[mitch]

>>I am not saying you don't want people to listen to your music - quite the opposite. You were using whether or not someone was a musician or not as an indication of whether they have a valid or informed opinion. Saying if you disagree you "must not be a musician". I was saying it's not such an easy line, and if someone has a different opinion than you on this matter it doesn't necessarily mean they are or aren't a musician. In general though, this "I'm guessing you aren't a musician" mentality is one of exclusion, and that sort of thing exists among trained people to keep their roles safe and the competition clear.

Well, it's not quite that cut and dry. I was just making an educated guess in your and jpeatt's case [I think I made it clear that I was guessing, also, leaving the possbility implicily open].

I don't think I explicitly, or implicitly, for that matter, said that musician=more valid opinion, and I don't really feel that way. But, musicians/performers do have a perspective that non-musicians/performers will never have. I mean that in a non-pejorative sense. The whole 'it doesn't matter if audience noise is intentional' notion that's sometimes so easily tossed out there just seems to me like it would be more in line with someone who's a career audience member and not someone who's performed much to any degree, that's all.

Now, your subsequent posts have actually shown that we probably aren't radically far apart in reality on the whole thing, but I'm still surprised to 'meet' a musician so sympathetic to jpeatt's original premise.

Anyway, while I never say 'I really like your sig', I actually really enjoy yours.

-mm

[faster]

I played a show once and a girl leaned back against a table with a candle on it.

Someone's hair on fire is a weird kind of addition to a music performance.

[mitch]

>>I played a show once and a girl leaned back against a table with a candle on it.

Someone's hair on fire is a weird kind of addition to a music performance.

Wow. did you stop playing? My impulse would be to stop, I think, though I don't what I'd do next.

[faster]

>>I played a show once and a girl leaned back against a table with a candle on it.

Someone's hair on fire is a weird kind of addition to a music performance.

Wow. did you stop playing? My impulse would be to stop, I think, though I don't what I'd do next.

We sorta stopped, yeah, I think.

By the way, this would be easier if you'd use the quote function.

[Gaendaal]

OK, but whose right is it to make the decision whether to risk wrecking a musician's performance or not? And who decides if it "works" or not? What if the guy sat beside you came to hear the musicians and then had to listen to you as well? What if he didn't think it "worked?" Who gave you the right to ruin the concert for him?

Well, that's why I added the "completely subjective" disclaimer. When does it work and when does it not work? Dunno, to be honest.

I'm not saying that someone can get up onstage and whip out their bongos during a minimalist improv set but people are part of the playing environment as much as the less animate objects are. A studio should be a controlled environment, the live arena is not. I've played gigs in a venue that had the loudest air-con fan I've ever heard. The other bands were complaining (validly) about how it was destroying their sets' integrity. We mic-ed it up and used it as an instrument. Some people feel threatened by external noise over their music (and that's perfectly fair...it is *their* music after all) and some like to use it as a source of inspiration.

As people have said, it's a grey area and I don't claim to have answers. I can only speak from my own experience in the matter and, for me, people getting involved is good (above noted bongo disclaimer still applies).

You'll probably get similar answers from most musicians, I'd think. I'll go out on a limb and say that virtually all of the music anyone likes is the result of the musician[s] doing what they want first and foremost for themselves.

Firstly, thanks for answering my question politely. It was worded a bit more harshly than it should've been. I agree that the best musicians make music for themselves but what if your idea of making music (live, improv music especially) welcomes random, external events? If I want to make controlled music without external input then I do it in the studio. If I want to open the music up to possible random events then I do it live.

I played a show once and a girl leaned back against a table with a candle on it.

Someone's hair on fire is a weird kind of addition to a music performance.

Ouch.

[Richard Pinnell]

The problem with these long messy threads is the quotes go all over the place, the second quote in the above post from Gaendaal isn't from me, but easily done.

i should make it clear that I am in fact a big fan of music that includes external sound into itself. there are some recordings (Malfatti, Durrant and Lehn's Dach is the most immediate one to spring to mind) that are substantially improved by the inclusion of external sound. One of the next Cathnor releases includes the sound of a nearby school playground that could be heard from where the musicians were playing...

There is however a significant difference between intentional and unintentional sound. When a noise is added deliberately, be it someone joining in musically, or someone slamming a door in protest on their way out then here somone is making an attempt to join the performance, be part of the music. In these cases they just shouldn't unless they have prior agreement to do so . They are, as the title of this thread suggests, intervening on someone else's art without asking if that would be OK or not.

Accidental, ot unavoidable sounds are different. Often annoying, sometimes sublime, indeterminacy can be a very useful thing for many improvisors. The point is that a concert is about a number of musicians making music in a space at one time. How the musicians deal with the ambient sound in that space is part of the challenge and can often lead to lovely results. When someone else decides to place themselves onto the bill unannounced however, that delicate balance is destroyed.

[Gaendaal]

the second quote in the above post from Gaendaal isn't from me, but easily done.

Oops, sorry. I copied the quote code from the comment of yours to use for Mitch but forgot to change the name. Fixed.

When a noise is added deliberately, be it someone joining in musically, or someone slamming a door in protest on their way out then here somone is making an attempt to join the performance, be part of the music. In these cases they just shouldn't unless they have prior agreement to do so . They are, as the title of this thread suggests, intervening on someone else's art without asking if that would be OK or not.

How do you ask whether it's OK seems to be the pivotal question here.

I don't disagree that there's a difference between intentional/unintentional sounds but then I'd also say that there's a difference between sounds intended to disrupt (the pointed slamming of a door, for example) or to blend in with the "main" music.

It's certainly an interesting question that's made me think about how I enjoy live music (from the stage and off it). I don't think there's a concrete good/bad answer.

[Richard Pinnell]

Here's a question... woud you go into a gallery with a box of paints and add something to a painting hanging on the wall? I think this could be interesting in certain circumstances, but it would be considered a terrible, disrespectful thing to do if you did it without permission. Why is music any different?

[Gaendaal]

Here's a question... woud you go into a gallery with a box of paints and add something to a painting hanging on the wall? I think this could be interesting in certain circumstances, but it would be considered a terrible, disrespectful thing to do if you did it without permission. Why is music any different?

Heh, interesting question.

I think the difference is that painting over/on an existing painting would (normally) be an irreversible act. "Intervening" in a musical performance, even if it fails miserably, doesn't destroy the original music. Maybe a Banksy-style addition around the painting would be OK?

Interesting.

(At this juncture I should probably state that I would never interrupt/intervene in any musician's performance but I can understand why others might and would accept it from an audience as a musician.)

[mitch]

You'll probably get similar answers from most musicians, I'd think. I'll go out on a limb and say that virtually all of the music anyone likes is the result of the musician[s] doing what they want first and foremost for themselves.

Firstly, thanks for answering my question politely. It was worded a bit more harshly than it should've been.

No prob! I, clearly, have been guilty of the snark myself in the not-too-recent past.

I agree that the best musicians make music for themselves

Actually, I'd say that the notion crosses the boundary lines of quality.

but what if your idea of making music (live, improv music especially) welcomes random, external events? If I want to make controlled music without external input then I do it in the studio. If I want to open the music up to possible random events then I do it live.

I know what you're saying. I'll just say that Richard [and earlier, rainey] is providing a viewpoint that I generally agree with, and in a clearer fashion than I.

best,

-mm

[Gaendaal]

I agree that the best musicians make music for themselves

Actually, I'd say that the notion crosses the boundary lines of quality.

Depends what's meant by "best", I s'pose. The "fullest" musicians? Dunno, that sounds weird.

[user_3091]

mitch said:

met with the kind of arrogant response we got here from matt.

Arrogance doesn't come into it. Someone starts joining in while I'm playing, I might like it and react to it musically. I might dislike it but nevertheless choose to ignore it (which in itself is an informed reaction to it, in a way).

Or I might feel like seeing what happens by challenging that person. In any number of ways ? musically, verbally, physically. In fact, I might choose to do the latter even if I liked what that person was doing. There's not enough experiment in experimental music.

Main point is, I'd welcome an intrusion and would almost be disappointed if it was tasteful and congruent.

(The other point, of course, which is so banal I can't believe I'm actually making it, is that if every audience member felt the same you'd just end up with a free-for-all. A boring jam.)

[mitch]

mitch said:

met with the kind of arrogant response we got here from matt.

Arrogance doesn't come into it. Someone starts joining in while I'm playing, I might like it and react to it musically. I might dislike it but nevertheless choose to ignore it (which in itself is an informed reaction to it, in a way).

Two confusing things - first, I, mitch, am also a Matt - I think I've signed most of my posts in this thread as Matt. Secondly, I didn't write the quote from above, though it's attributed to me. I'm pretty sure that quote was about my original post and not anything you said, Matt from London.

-mm [matt, mitch, etc.]

[user_3091]

oh I'm sorry ? I did notice that and get a bit confused.
Maybe nobody was calling me arrogant. They might have a point though. Hey, just to confuse things further, I'm also an MM (Matt Milton)

[franz bieberkopf]

Here's a question... woud you go into a gallery with a box of paints and add something to a painting hanging on the wall? I think this could be interesting in certain circumstances, but it would be considered a terrible, disrespectful thing to do if you did it without permission. Why is music any different?

not all mediums are created equally.
along similar lines, i don't think it makes sense for people in this thread to speak of some imaginary pervasive fellowship amongst musicians.
if it seems that audience intervention is more feasible in musical performance, and i suspect that it does seem that way for a number of reasons, wouldn't you agree that it is to "music's" advantage? i think the prospect of arriving at something positive through this expanded field of creation would render the occasional transgression well worth while.
i can certainly understand where you are coming from with this analogy, Richard, but i am not fully convinced that it is helpful. (no doubt it spares us a great deal of tasteless creation but...)

i should elaborate on the differences that i've alluded to without defining. As Gaendaal has already begun to intimate, there is a certain perceived existential permanence in a painting that is not so latent in a musical performance. (this is a generalization of course...)
i say "perceived" because it is not impossible to feel otherwise. to say that intervening "doesn't destroy the original music" sounds a tad cowardly or equivocal for my tastes (not that these are always necessarily states to be avoided in creative enterprise). the gallery analogy seems to trump the more permanent "thingy" quality of the performance, the result; and i don't see how an intervention can avoid coming into this (or well anyhow, that's what the idealist in my head insists that i insist).
on the other hand, musical performance, and especially improvised music of the stripe we are talking about, is also very much a dialogue, a process, a fleeting temporal thing. to focus on the result can obscure some of the social value that arises in the moment, regardless of whether the sounds themselves are perceived to be "good".
the language that is being bandied about right now w/r/t the social aptitude of the intervening audience-member is pretty derisive, which might be an accurate depiction 80 % of the time, but i'm not so sure that it makes it a helpful attitude to assume, in the grand scheme of things.

what kind of a gallery is this anyhow? is this the louvre or some artist-run centre downtown... even on a superficial level that kind of language makes me a bit leery... (no disrespect to Richard, i am deliberately taking it to be a more rigorous statement than i think it was intended to be)

[Richard Pinnell]

Heh, well I posed the question as just that, something to think about, pretty sure I don't have any answers.

The question did lead me to wonder about why visual art is continually held in higher regard than music. Why it is that if a musician (in this country at least) wants to apply for a grant from the arts council they are unlikely to be successful unless they are applying for some kind of installation event which could conveniently be named sound-art rather than music? Thats a side issue we probably shouldn't get into here, but it kind of fuelled my question, which was why would anyone choose to directly alter the art of a musician without consulting with them, but think twice before doing the same to a painter or sculptor?

I have got to say, that over 20 years of attending many improv concerts I think I have only once seen an audience member actively try and join in, and this was very recently at a Morphogenesis show during which Ron Briefl, not announced as part of the line-up seemed to go up onstage and tried to join in. This was different though, he was an ex-Morphogenesis member and there was obviously some dispute going on. He didn't really make a terrible set any worse however.

Many a time I have seen external noises and events alter concerts. Last year at a performance of Morton Feldman's For John Cage piece in a church in Huddersfield a car crashed in the road immediately outside the venue entrance. The loud bang was followed by a multitude of sirens and other noise. It seemed to me that at that point the slow, gradually shifting music sped up, the momentary interruption shifting the fine balance of the musicians. For John Cage indeed...

Many years back at what was probably an LMC show in London I saw Les Diaboliques play, an aptly named group featuring Maggie Nicols' vocalisations. Halfway through the set it became apparent that someone had brought a baby into the hall (why oh why do people do these things?) and it predictably began to cry in piercing little yelps. Nicols' obviously joined in, both mimmicking the child and singing it a lullaby. For many this would be an example of the very best spontaneous improvisation, but to me it was obvious, boring and spoilt was already a pretty uninteresting set.
Now if they had let the baby cry and continued to play on regardless, allowing the external sounds to juxtapose with the music then this would have been far more interesting to me. I can't really explain why, apart from one approach is just obvious to me, and the other allows indeterminacy to throw up whatever it chooses.

[user_140]

*the key to making successful music in this style is attentive listening, taking equal consideration of the intentional actions of the rest of the group and the unintentional collaboration of the surroundings. A lot of the time the building's air conditioning was louder than the group, so whether the noise I'm making is intentional or not shouldn't be a consideration.

*to play as little and as quietly as one can is often an exercise which is more interesting to the musicians than the audience. It's a very worthwhile exercise for the musicians involved, but it often doesn't translate to an engaging experience for the audience. By refocusing my own listening from one of a passive audience member, to listening with the idea of making appropriate, if uninvited contribution to the whole I got a new perspective on a performance which wasn't entirely engaging me. I think I got a lot more from the performance by participating as I did than I would have otherwise.

Regarding the first point, I think it would depend a lot on the performers. Did they seem to mind? If they appeared to be OK with this sharing of the creative process, as I think they should be, its probably an ok thing. Also, if they're so hung up in their maximum minimalism that they don't mind being eclipsed by the A/C, I don't see much of a problem with active, sentient participation. Do you think these audience contributions were due to inspiration from the intriguing sounds? Or were they more of an attempt at 'stimming' to avoid utter boredom? Were they respectful, or did they mock? Does it matter?

Point two: I've always felt your premise here to be right on the money. Much like pure noise, I would think this music (from your description) would likely be far more interesting to make (or cause, or allow to unfold...) than to listen to. I guess if you get acid gazes from the musicians or their posse you should stop. Other than that, let yer fancy flow. 8)

[user_3091]

richard said:

Now if they had let the baby cry and continued to play on regardless, allowing the external sounds to juxtapose with the music then this would have been far more interesting to me. I can't really explain why, apart from one approach is just obvious to me, and the other allows indeterminacy to throw up whatever it chooses.

You didn't see Seymour Wright and Ben Drew duetting at the Chisenhale Dance Space a year or so ago? They were playing quite quietly and sparsely; small toddler started crawling around the floor inbetween them, which made a slapping percussive sound, like a halting irregular pulse. Occasional happy babygurgle. Hard to say whether the pair reacted to it. I'd say they did. Music continued in much the same vein, but more interesting, a distinct change in mood.

The painting analogy doesn?t work: there?s a received convention adhered to by all painters that the work is a finished statement; the paint is where the painter wanted it and they?d like it to remain that way, thanks. (Doubtless there are exceptions, blah blah blah) You can choose to break this convention if you want to, but you can?t play dumb about the consequences.

There are also received conventions attached to free improvisation, but it?s different even to other music in that it in its nature resents legislation and policing. (Or at least it ought to: there is plenty of by-the-rules improv out there and it?s boring) Preciousness is an irritating quality from any artist but preciousness from a free improviser is more absurd than preciousness from a composer.

It?s funny how many different people here keep asking the same questions ?is this someone?s house or a concert hall?? ?is this a backstreet gallery or the Louvre?, ?is this a Radu Malfatti concert or some guy no-one?s ever heard of?? I can?t believe someone?s seriously implying it might be OK to vandalise a painting if it?s in a downtown art gallery, but not at the Tate or the Louvre. What?s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: the difference between ?intervening? in these two situations is a matter of cowardice on the part of the ?intervener?.

[mitch]

These are good points, which help crystallize a couple things for me.

There are also received conventions attached to free improvisation, but it?s different even to other music in that it in its nature resents legislation and policing. (Or at least it ought to: there is plenty of by-the-rules improv out there and it?s boring)

re the 'boring' notion - I agree with your statement, that yes, there's lots of boring improv out there, that's absolutely true.

I've been thinking, though, about the notion of boring music as others have introduced it earlier in this thread and I can't help but think that it's a bit of a red herring. I just think that it's impossible to consider the concept of boring beyond one's own viewpoint. Whether an individual musician thinks he is [or a group collectively agrees that they are] playing the greatest shit in the world, or they think that their shit is terrible on a given night, it doesn't matter. Its possible that great music for the musicians can elicit boredom in the audience, and vice versa - sometimes the audience ends up loving music that the musicians themselves are displeased with. I feel it's impossible to telegraph boredom with any useful accuracy, so much so that I'm not sure that it's much worth considering in this context.

Preciousness is an irritating quality from any artist but preciousness from a free improviser is more absurd than preciousness from a composer.

I'd tend to reverse the poles, myself. A composer has comparatively unlimited time to filter out 'preciousness' or other potential irritants, so I find it maybe more frustrating when they make their way into a finished work that I'm 'consuming' in some way. On the other hand, even the most unvarying automaton-like improvisers are subject to momentary whims, pressures of the preceding day, etc., so if an individual or group puts on a less-than-satisfactory performance, I might find it a little more excusable, owing to the more immediately delicate nature of the process.

That's why I don't really feel sympathy for audience members 'joining in', and why uninvited vs. invited makes a difference. By improvising in a concert, musicians are already sharing the creative process with the audience. To consider unwanted audience 'sitting in' part of that sharing just feels hippy-dippy to me.

It?s funny how many different people here keep asking the same questions ?is this someone?s house or a concert hall?? ?is this a backstreet gallery or the Louvre?, ?is this a Radu Malfatti concert or some guy no-one?s ever heard of?? I can?t believe someone?s seriously implying it might be OK to vandalise a painting if it?s in a downtown art gallery, but not at the Tate or the Louvre. What?s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: the difference between ?intervening? in these two situations is a matter of cowardice on the part of the ?intervener?.

well said.

-mm

[the_semen_incident]

Even though the performers more or less knew me, and I myself worked with the "conductor" of that project before, I think I'd been in trouble. Knowing the "conductor", I imagine he'd probably have stopped the concert, insisting there's a difference between performance and happening - I'd "disturbed a performance", as opposed to "joined a happening".

You know, until I had read this far, I was pretty annoyed by mitch's post... But reading that, I can definitely see how this could almost turn the performance into something "comical" or "intentionally comical" (but unintentionally so by you, perhaps) which can take away from the performance and all, and I suppose "cheapen" it.


Still, regardless, there's no need for such a bad "'tude", but I can at least understand your feelings here...

But for me personally, I always enjoy when people engage in what I'm doing, no matter how obnoxious... And even if they decide to just sit "passively" I just like people doing something more than going to the other end of the room to talk.

EDIT: By the way... Too many cat avatars in this thread, or not enough?...