INTERVENTION!

will · Post by **will** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:32 am

matt wrote:richard said:
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.

here's my edit of the above:
there?s a received convention adhered to by many improvisors that the music being produced in the moment is a finished statement; the sounds are where the musicians wanted them and they?d like them 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.

user_3091 · Post by **user_3091** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:58 am

Yes, but less so. A lot of people play free improvisation because they're bored of fixed forms, of knowing what's going to happen. And intrusions from an audience member don't preclude the musicians continuing to be be able to place their sounds where they want to. Well, not inevitably anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I think the content of Mitch/Matt's original post was flawed in so many ways.

Not least the fact that he starts off from the massive presumption that "those sets of quiet, minimal sounds are often more fun for the musicians than the audience" (I realize I'm paraphrasing). Well, I don't find that. I would even go as far as saying that THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.

mitch · Post by **mitch** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:43 am

matt wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I think the content of Mitch/Matt's original post was flawed in so many ways.

Not least the fact that he starts off from the massive presumption that "those sets of quiet, minimal sounds are often more fun for the musicians than the audience" (I realize I'm paraphrasing). Well, I don't find that. I would even go as far as saying that THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.

Um, I think we're off track here again london-matt...

I, mitch/matt, did not write the quote you attribute to me two paragraphs above. That was jpeatt. That quote was, in fact, part of what I was railing against in my original post! I agree with you about the major flaw inherent in that reasoning.

-mitch/matt

user_3091 · Post by **user_3091** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:43 am

Shit, sorry mate. I need to learn how to read.

will · Post by **will** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:44 pm

matt wrote:Yes, but less so. A lot of people play free improvisation because they're bored of fixed forms, of knowing what's going to happen. And intrusions from an audience member don't preclude the musicians continuing to be be able to place their sounds where they want to. Well, not inevitably anyway.

Agreed, that there is a difference, but there's also a difference between being tired of fixed forms and wanting to have one's train of thought interrupted. If the improvisors in question are exicted about having anyone jump in, good for them, but without knowing this, I think that the politeness standard I've observed would dictate that the audience stay the audience. I would point out that we refer to improvised music audiences as audiences, not as "equal co-participants", which suggests something about how we think about the doer-receiver relationship in that situation.
I agree less with your second point, which is that there's no real harm done by jumping in to someone else's music. Sure, it's possible that the musicians could nimbly sidestep some unwanted sounds, but why should they be asked to do that, and why should the audience get taken along for the ride?

faster · Post by **faster** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:11 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0L3PC2uZhk" onclick= "window.open(this.href);return false;

bryan · Post by **bryan** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:46 pm

Faster wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0L3PC2uZhk

flies · Post by **flies** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:20 pm

I'd really like to see more audience participation in general. allusions to drum-circles aside, I think people are already highly conscious of themselves coughing and shifting seats already, so for them and those around them to consider this behaviour as more constructive would I think allow for a very new and engaging experience of social sound.

jon abbey · Post by **jon abbey** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:27 pm

ugh, I couldn't agree less.

the_semen_incident · Post by **the_semen_incident** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:35 pm

Who the hell thought those video bubbles were a good idea?... I'm sorry to be getting off the subject, but that's annoying as hell.

Anyways, like what's been said one hundred times before, I don't think it should be a definite one way or the other *all* the time... I can't really see why it's so awful that someone else participates, seeing as how not every event is the same... it's not always "your", "his/her" "their" concert, "that" music, and "that" setting... so "ugh" seems like a response to a *specific* group/style/place, but it depends and there's far too many variables getting in the way of a definite answer... I just feel like there's a time and a place... It's really not that big of a deal either way. life goes on......... Even after the concert that got RUIIIINED.

flies · Post by **flies** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:18 pm

I should clarify that what i want is more oppurtunities where participation is encouraged, not to encourage participation in general.

jon abbey · Post by **jon abbey** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:06 pm

sorry, I still can't think of a situation where this is a good idea, assuming the music being performed originally is of any interest whatsoever. obviously every situation is different to an extent, but for me personally, I think there's virtually always a good reason for the implicit boundary between the audience and the performer/s. so "more opportunities where participation is encouraged" just means to me that the musicians probably have less to say in the first place.

I am interested/do enjoy at times 'environmental improv', like sean meehan/tamio shiraishi's guerilla series of outdoor shows around NYC. but to me there's a huge difference between people walking by and talking/cars going by/birds calling back to tamio and someone deciding that their duo needs an added guitar, or a freestyle singer. the latter would almost definitely irritate me, whereas the former I generally find very compelling. just my perspective...

the_semen_incident · Post by **the_semen_incident** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:29 pm

alright, I can see what you mean. Of course, I did mean that intentional addition and not "accidental noise" or "natural noise". I suppose, in a way, it's can be seen as insulting... the last (and as of yet) only time I played an "official" performance, the sound guy kept getting on the mic, saying shit like "play ball" over and over and singing the national anthem when I picked up a guitar near the end... I knew he wasn't really into what we were doing so a few minutes later I just said we should probably quit soon. I was pretty annoyed, but I didn't get that upset over it... I suppose it just depends on the person. Still, I feel like it's totally different if some person I know comes up saying some goofy line like "do you mind if I JAAMMMM with you?" (which is usually what they say, haha). I would be glad to let them! I am certainly not trying to mock anyone when I say this, but maybe the reason I don't mind so much is because though I'm serious about what I do, it's not quite as "DEEP" and "DESERVING" of attention as others may feel what they're doing is... If someone wants to get on the PA or do some stupid dance in front of me/us or anything, I don't let it bother me too much... If they don't like what I'm doing, then too bad for them!

It only gets personal when they begin to assault me and my gear!

Also, just to let everyone know, I wouldn't intentionally "jump in" either, especially if I didn't know the performer(s) on a personal level... I'm not going to break out a trumpet and start wailing on it unless someone in the group actually asked me to do it or there was some "invitation" put out to interact (Peelander-Z did this a good bit the one time I saw them... it was quite fun!-- but that's totally different music from the examples mentioned here.)

dave quam · Post by **dave quam** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:16 pm

sine wave circle

AlbionMoonlight · Post by **AlbionMoonlight** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:53 pm

Mattin is so annoying in that video. Does he think this shit is inventive?

bryan · Post by **bryan** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:42 am

AlbionMoonlight wrote:Mattin is so annoying in that video. Does he think this shit is inventive?

I could be a dick for saying this, but that "performance" came off as fascist to me. Just the vibe I got.. humorously reinforced by his look in the beginning (see captured pic above).

If I'm interested in a musical performance, the only thing that can be more annoying than accidentally adding obtrusive sound is doing it on purpose. It's just about consideration, really. But then again, there can be a time and place for it.

It's funny, after the Malfatti/Mattin performance at ErstQuake last year my brother was chatting with Greg Davis about the topic of this thread. My bro felt the urge to add some additional noises during the performance but thought the better of it. Greg thought that doing such would be an act of ego. I'm inclined to agree with that.

jon abbey · Post by **jon abbey** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:20 pm

SeventhHarmonic wrote:It's funny, after the Malfatti/Mattin performance at ErstQuake last year my brother was chatting with Greg Davis about the topic of this thread. My bro felt the urge to add some additional noises during the performance but thought the better of it. Greg thought that doing such would be an act of ego. I'm inclined to agree with that.

yeah, that's a great example. if you look at that set on its own, as a discrete musical entity, I totally agree, anytime after the first 10-15 minutes.

but where the ego comes in is in thinking you have a better grasp of what the musicians are trying to create/present than they do. this is one thing in an ad hoc night (still pretty egotistical), but that festival was obviously very carefully put together, with that set opening saturday night for good reasons. I don't expect all of the sets in a festival I curate to be great, some of them are more intended for the effect they'll hopefully have on the succeeding ones., or for the festival as a whole (hopefully more than the sum of its parts, AMPLIFY-ed).

one funny incident along these lines was at the first AMPLIFY in 2001, the last set on the first night, the quintet of poire_z and otomo. it was a pretty exciting atmosphere, tonic had never hosted nearly that many electronic musicians at once before. here's the soundcheck from the second night (the first was the same except no marclay):

otomo yoshihide, sachiko m, christian marclay, andy guhl, erik m, g?nter m?ller, norbert m?slang (l to r)

we had so many technical problems on the first night that there was very close to a musician revolt and no festival at all. but once we got started, the music was great. first filament, then a superb duo by 'm&m', erik and sachiko. the place was jammed for the last set, and finally all five were on stage, the place became hushed, the musicians got ready to begin...

and into this silence, from the bar, I hear earl howard, my thoroughly wasted genius mastering engineer, sing the single line, not too loud but very melodically: "hey-ey, mr. tambourine man". it was funny, but it wasn't fair to the atmosphere that the musicians were trying to create. it's much more appropriate with someone like han bennink, who generally feeds on that kind of thing (and I've seen him and earl go back and forth, they're buddies), and maybe the incident that joe describes initially is more along those lines.

Alastair · Post by **Alastair** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:26 pm

Someone's probably already said this, but that picture looks like The Last Supper.

flies · Post by **flies** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:53 pm

jon abbey wrote:sorry, I still can't think of a situation where this is a good idea, assuming the music being performed originally is of any interest whatsoever. obviously every situation is different to an extent, but for me personally, I think there's virtually always a good reason for the implicit boundary between the audience and the performer/s. so "more opportunities where participation is encouraged" just means to me that the musicians probably have less to say in the first place.

I freely admit that what i want is rather hard to come by, which is a different kind of musical event, not a performance. Yea, basically pie in the sky musings here, but if the 'performaners' were considered like the leaders and the 'audience' were able to participate without attempting to exert a dominant influence, meaning that the audience as a whole was less active than the performers as a whole, so that the performers could have a strong, directing influence on the audience... On the one hand it's a lot of variables but on the other i bet that that descriptoin more or less applies to t eh situation in the thread opener. The idea of somebody standing up and singing would definitely drawing too much attention to him/herself.

Allowing that I have no real expectation of this happening, i don't think your objections hold much water. I konw that point by point argumentation is tiresome to some so bear with me. You say that if the music was interesting in the first place that the audience participation would make it worse. I'm not really sure how that works. I can only imagine what you might mean, why that might be true, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Obviously taking a working ensemble and adding members doesn't automatically end up with worse music.

the second objection, that the musicains must hae less to say seems to elide the idea that there might be some positive artistic reason to this participation. The metaphorical democracy of improv rests on a very terse hierarchy between audience and performers. at the very least, would be interesting to see what happens when this rigid structure is destabilized.

The point of music is of course to make and organize sound, but the reason to go to a show is also to have a musical experience. I tihnk it would be possible to intensify the experience for the audience if they were able to participate.

This would definitely mean different goals and different music. I'd like to think that this isn't just idle speculation, although i'm certainly not about to go out and make this happen, so it's probaly just that.

jon abbey · Post by **jon abbey** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:48 pm

I think I've been quite clear in this thread already, as have others (bhob, for one), and I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this.