Universidade de Aveiro 2020

Departamento de Comunicação e Arte

Joana de Sá Catarino Tavares

Listening | the open, trilogy for disruptive bodies -creative processes and the ideas of listening | the open and virtuosity

Universidade de Aveiro 2020

Departamento de Comunicação e Arte

Joana de Sá Catarino Tavares

À escuta | o aberto, trilogia para corpos disruptivos - processos criativos e as ideias de à escuta | o aberto e virtuosismo

Tese apresentada à Universidade de Aveiro para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Doutor em Música, variante Performance realizada sob a orientação científica do Doutor António Chagas Rosa, Professor Auxiliar do Departamento de Comunicação e Arte da Universidade de Aveiro

Apoio financeiro do POCTI no âmbito do III Quadro Comunitário de Apoio.

Apoio financeiro da FCT e do FSE no âmbito do III Quadro Comunitário de Apoio.

À (doce) presença dos meus Avós Dedé, Luciano, Manuela, Às perguntas do meu Avô L., agora quase-respondidas. (E àqueles que já não estando, estão.) Ao sich zusammennehmen da minha mãe Leonor, À desconstrução do meu pai Zé, À ‘nuvem - suspensão’, esse espaçamento fora-do-ser-dentro da minha irmã Rita Ao fazer-corpo criativo, inventivo e prazeroso do Bernardo, da Carlota, do Isaac, do José, da Mia e do Ricardo que crescem todos os dias em várias direcções. Aos amigos-flores silvestres, ‘família tocante’ E por último, aqui logo no início ao Luís *

o júri

presidente Prof. Doutor Fernando Joaquim Fernandes Tavares Rocha Professor Catedrático da Universidade de Aveiro Prof. Doutor Paulo Pereira de Assis Head of Department, Orpheus Institute Prof. Doutora Darla Crispin Vice-Rector for Research and Artistic Development, Norwegian Academy of Music Director for Arne Nordheim Centre for Artistic Research (NordART) Prof. Doutor António de Sousa Dias Professor Associado da Faculdade de Belas-Artes da Universidade de Lisboa Prof. Doutora Helena Paula Marinho Silva de Carvalho Professora Auxiliar da Universidade de Aveiro, Departamento de Comunicação e Arte Prof. Doutor António Chagas Rosa Professor Auxiliar do Departamento de Comunicação e Arte da Universidade de Aveiro

agradecimentos

Acknowledgments I am deeply grateful to the many people and institutions who rendered this multidimensional project possible. My words of gratitude diverge, inevitably, into many disparate directions: à my supervisor António Chagas Rosa, for the support and confidence placed in this project; à Daniel Costa Neves, for the fruitful collaboration throughout the three pieces of the trilogy; à Agustí Fernandez, for the impetus and support back in 2012/2013; à Paulo de Assis, Lucia D’Errico, & Orpheus Institute for kindly receiving me as a visiting researcher, and for the most fruitful discussions; à all the people who have worked in the staging/film/recording processes of the three pieces of the trilogy, namely Daniel Costa Neves, Eduardo Raon, Luis J. Martins, Rita Sá, Miguel Ramos, Hélder Nelson, Ângelo Lourenço, Luiz L Antunes, Nuno Salsinha, Pedro Diniz Reis, Guilherme Proença, Nuno Carvalho, Ainhoa Vidal; à Rita Sá, for the illustrations produced for Listening: the open, which are displayed on the cover and on the intertitles of this thesis; à Pedro Santos, Mark Deputter, for the confidence placed in this work and for ‘hosting’ all the premières of the trilogy at Maria Matos Theatre, Lisboa; à ORT- Peter Kowald Gesellshaft (Gunda Gottschalk, Rita Küster, Klaus Bocken) for the art residency in 2012; à Francisca Cortesão, Manuel Schwiertz, Travassos, Homem do Saco (Luís Henriques & Mariana Pinto dos Santos), Miguel Azguime, Paula Azguime, Paul Craenen, Gonçalo M. Tavares, Helena Marinho, Jorge Salgado Correia. à Luís J. Martins, for the infinity and beyond… à dear family and friends! Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia [Foundation for Science and Technology] whose financial support allowed the realization of this research project.

palavras-chave

Escuta, virtuosismo, corpo performativo, corpo disruptivo, compositor-performer

resumo

Este projeto de doutoramento centra-se no processo de investigação e composição/performance de À escuta | o aberto, trilogia de solos para corpos disruptivos e consta na apresentação deste conjunto de obras musicais e tese. Desconstruindo e pensando para além das dualidades de compositor/performer, ideia musical/performance, subjectividade/objectividade, controlo/fora de controlo, etc., este projeto coloca uma dimensão disruptiva, não-semiótica do corpo como centro nevrálgico da criação artística e da investigação. Intimamente ligados a esta dimensão, são desenvolvidos neste processo: 1) um ‘conceito’ de à escuta | o aberto (que abandona as dualidades sujeito/objeto, dentro/fora), que desempenhará um papel crucial nas estratégias/processos de composição e performance; 2) uma noção de virtuosismo (baseada em conceitos como autoimunidade, transdução (Simondon), eficção e ‘interpretação’ (Szendy)), que traz para o âmago da sua conceção e formulação a noção de indecidibilidade (e vulnerabilidade) como potencial criativo, a vários níveis. .

keywords abstract

listening, virtuosity, performing body, disruptive body, composer-performer This research project focuses on the composition/performance process of Listening | the open, trilogy for disruptive bodies, and its final outputs consist of the presentation of this set of musical works and thesis. Deconstructing dualities of composer/performer, musical idea/performance, subjectivity/objectivity, control/out of control, etc., this project acknowledges a disruptive, non-semiotic level of the body(ies) as a neuralgic centre of both artistic creation and research. Intimately connected with this level of the body(ies), two main ideas have been developed: 1) an idea of listening | the open (that renders the dualities of subject/object, inside/outside inoperative), which will play a major role in the strategies/processes of composition and performance; 2) an idea of virtuosity (based on the concepts of autoimmunity, transduction (Simondon), effiction and ‘interpretation’ (Szendy)) that brings to its core the notion of undecidability (and vulnerability) as a creative potential, at various levels.

TableofContentsINTRODUCTIONI.Fallingapart 1

1. foreword 12. towardsthebeginningofthetrilogy 23. towardsthebeginningofthisresearchproject 4

throughthislookingglass 4InPraiseofDisorder 5

II. Pullingtogether 6

1. findingwaysthroughthetacit 62. findingwaystomethod 83. method–findingreferencepoints 11

referenceI–mainquestions,mainoutputsofthisresearchproject 11referenceII–artistryvs.research 11

4. method–mainstrategies:onhowtoreachtheungraspablebody 12Overview-ClusterI.,II.&III. 12OnClusterI 13

CLUSTERI. I. INCISIONSIN 15

1. Choosingincision/conflictasstartingpoint 152. Musicasincisionandcontradiction–Houston,we’vehadaproblem! 153. Shortcutsthroughsemioticsandsemiology 16

INCISIONI–Musicasabeyond(language):Sonotropism 17INCISIONII–Music–Barthes’firstsemiologyvs.secondsemiology/thesomathemes 20INCISIONIII–Barthes’beatingbody 22

II. DISSECTIONSOF 241. Choosingtheexactbodies,theexactissues 242. Dissectionsofthebody(ies)erased: 25

DissectingtheRomanticvirtuosobody 25Dissectingthevirtuosoinstructuralist/Werktreueapproaches 27

3. Dissectionsofthebody(ies)revealed,exposed,‘emancipated’: 29DissectingthebodyexposedinInstrumentaltheatre 30DissectingthebodyinPost-warvirtuosity&thecaseofBerio’stheatreofvirtuosity 31DissectingthebodyinComplexityandNewcomplexitymusicapproaches 34DissectingthesubjectivebodyinnewPerformanceStudies 39

III. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S) 42

1. Abolishingthebox 422. Towardsadisruptivelevelofthebody–throughthreeclustersofauthors 433. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)I.-(Nancy/Szendy) 45

Areality–Thebodyex-tended/exscribed(Nancy) 45Nancyandthesubjectaslistening 47Interpretationasformationof‘organa’–PhantomLimbs.OnMusicBodies(Szendy) 48Sensesbeyondthesenses–towardsaformoftelepathy(Szendy) 50Predispositionforautophony(Szendy) 51DiscussingSzendy’s‘onehears‘thefingerings’throughtheideaoftactileimageortactileform 52

4. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)II.–MusicExperiment21(Assis,D’Errico) 53

Simondon’stransductionconceptinthecontextofmusicalperformance(Assis) 54Theautonomyofaffect(Massumi) 57D’Errico’sthirdmodalityofperformance–intensiveperformance 61

5. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)III.-(Craenen,Paxton,Gil) 62

Scientificground 63TowardsmicrotimezonethroughClynes’‘doublestreamtheory’ 64‘Sharedphysicality’&‘auraltransmission’ 65‘Requirements’foran‘effectiveimprint’oftheungraspablebodyinmusic 67Realpotentialforcomposition 67Compositionalstrategiesforbringingpulsestructuretotheforeground–Lachenmann 68‘BodyasZeroPoint’(Craenen)&smalldance(Paxton) 70

6.THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)IV:towardsabodyaslistening72 Towardsaformulationoflisteningaslistening|theopen 74

…(abetween):Listening|theopenI-XXVI

CLUSTERII.PRELUDEFORATRILOGYFORDISRUPTIVEBODIES79

I. Listening,opening 79II. Fallingapart|Pullingtogether-methodasmovementandfrictionbetween80

1.Failingapart 802.Writingaboutvs.touching(again) 813.Writingasdynamicmovement:bringingintouchpast,presentandfuture 834.Subvertedorsubvertingtrilogy 835.Aimingtowardsabiggerproject–corpus(apoeticcatalogue) 84

THEBODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDER(S) 85

I. Musicasspreading85

II. Workstrings:conceptof‘work’andgeneralmethodologies871.WorkstringsI.–Amanifestoagainstwriting:drinkme872.WorkstringsII.–Nowriting,butrecording883.Betweenimprovisation&composition:developingoneiricorgans894.Towardsinstabilityofnotation,workandperformance90

III. Musicasengagementwith91

1.Strategiesformusicalcreationthrough(otherformsof)engagementwithanothermusicalwork(instabilityofworkagain):91

Erasingthesemioticrealm–engagementwithSchumann’sKinderszenenop.15’ 92Mutilatingthesemioticrealm–engagementwithJ.S.Bach’sSt.JohnPassionBWV24593

2.Workasengagementwith–CollaborationwithDanielCostaNeves 963.Disruptivemusicalwork&workasengagementwith–networkofcollaborators 97

IV. Fragmentationasacrucialstrategyfortheshapingofdisruptivebodyofmusic. 98

Fragmentnullus 98FragmentI–Intrinsicorextrinsicstrength 99FragmentII–Vertigo 100FragmentIII–() 101FragmentIV–Beyonddualityofcontrol/outofcontrol:composingasworkingwiththespecificoutoflawmechanismsoftheparticularbody 101FragmentV–ARoleisaroleisarole… 101FragmentVI–Anexactandprecisespaceas 102FragmentVII–(im)material 103FragmentVIII–Basicdisruptiveeventandshape 103FragmentIX–Processesforoverwhelming 104FragmentX–(im)possibilitytocapture–photographicalqualityofthefragmentasflexibility 104FragmentXI–(dis)useofharmony 105FragmentXII–Melodicboycott 106FragmentXIII–Abeatingbodyasspace-time106

V. Musicalspace–hereattheimminenceofnowhere107VI. Musicas‘unmediated’relationbetweenbodies–towardsanothernotionofvirtuosity109VII. Instrumentalapparatus111

1.(abetween):Listening|theopen 1112.(Im)possibilitytoescapeofthemusicbodies 1133.Resonance:intangibleinstrumentalbody 1164.Concreteinstrumentalbodies 117

Adoptedstrategytodealwiththeinstrumentasdispersion 117Pianopreparations(TTLG,IPD,LTO) 118Propsandsmallinstruments(TTLG,IPD,LTO) 120Electronics 120SoundInstallations 122

VIRTUOSITY Astepfurthertowardsanothernotionofvirtuosity:virtuosity

(throughtheconceptsofautoimmunityandtransduction) 122

1.Bringingthenarrativesofautoimmunityandimmunitytotheconceptofvirtuosity 1222.‘Classic’paradigmsofautoimmunityandimmunity 1233.Virtuosityidealsas‘classical’immunisationparadigms 1244.DeconstructingautoimmunenarrativesI–Networktheory 1255.DeconstructingautoimmunenarrativesII–Derrida’sconceptofautoimmunity 1266.Notignoringtheundecidabilityoftheparadoxaslistening 1287.undecidabilityasa‘quantummode’thatcantakevariousforms/modes/levels 1298.Reconstructivemovementinscribedrightatthedeconstructivemovement 1309.Transduction(reconstruction)vs.deconstruction–thebodysuspendedinvaccillation–fluctuatioanimi 13010.Towardsanautoimmunenotionofvirtuosity:virtuosity 13311.AutoimmuneCoda 134

CLUSTERIII.

throughthislookingglassTHEBODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDERS 139I. Workasengagementwithotherworks/ideas:outliningaconstellationofaffects 139

1.EngagementwithSchumann’sKinderszenenop.15,Carroll’sAliceimagery,Lispector’sNeartothewildheart,etc… 139

II. Musicasareflection(inalldirections) 141III. Performancedevelopedthroughtwolevelsofsemioticactions 142IV. Engagementwithothercollaborators:DanielCostaNeves 143

1.Film 1442.Staging 146

V. Engagementwithothercollaborators:RitaSá 148VI.Characterconstructionandcostume 149VII. InstrumentalApparatus 149

1. Preparations 1502. Propsandsmallinstruments 152

Insidethepiano 152Belowthepiano 153Throughthestage 153

3. Electronics 154Soundprocessing 154Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions 155Electronicdevices 156

4. SoundInstallation 156

throughthislookingglassI. 13mini(cre)aturesforrobertschumann 157

0. (openingtitle)(…….) 1581. …drinkme. 1582. it’sthesoundofthembeatinglikestarsonthedoors 1593. delightandterror 1634. glocken…spiel 1635. yourmajesty,thequeenOFF(yourhead) 1656. astopoetry,youknow… 1677. …andlisteningonlytotherisingsounds 1688. andilisten:neartothewildheart 1719. itmeansjustwhatichooseittomean–neithermorenorless 17210. eatme? 17311. terrorisdelight 17312. kindL.imeinschlummern 17413. however,saysapoet 176

II. freedommeanslittle.whatidesirestillhasnoname 178

1. turnoutyourtoesasyouwalk–andrememberwhoyouare! 1792. whichdreamedit? 1793. lookingglasscreatures 1804. andIlisten:it’sthesoundofthem 182

5. ibringapowderthatcouldgildeternityitself 1836. neartothewildheart 184

InPraiseofDisorder THEBODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDERS 188

I. Workasengagementwithotherworks/ideas:outliningaconstellationofaffects1881.EngagementwithBookofAA,Mr.Swedenborg&animalescos 1882.Engagementwithothercollaborators:DanielCostaNeves&PedroDinizReis 191

II. INSTRUMENTALAPPARATUS193

1. Preparationsandprops 1932. Electronics 195

Electronicdevices/gadgets 196Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions 197

3.Bellsandsirensinstallation 198 InPraiseofDisorderSecondlevelofsemioticactions 200I. Overture 201II. HierarchyofInsanity 203III. Weaknessofsolids 206IV. Allthatislighthasadarkpart(Lullaby) 208V. Praiseofdisorder 210VI. Reality,imagination(amethodnottogoinsane) 215VII. Theelegantfall 220

Listening:theopen THEBODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDERS 223I. Workasengagementwithotherworks/ideas:outliningaconstellationofaffects 223

1.Engagementwith:Listening&Theopen(Nancy/Agamben) 2232.EngagementwithJ.S.Bach’sSt.MathewandSt.JohnPassionsandNancy’sCorpus 2243.Engagementwithothercollaborators:withDanielCostaNeves 226

II. Instrumentalapparatus 230

1. Resonantmetalplatesinstallation 2302. Themusic-makingbodyasartifice 2353. Anotherconceptionofsound 2364. Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions 237

Listening:theopen(overture 238(I. 240(II. 250(III. 255CODA:Abodyaslistening:virtuosity 262

REFERENCES 269EXTENDEDBIBLIOGRAPHY273

TableofFiguresfig.0–Coverillustration,illustrationV.forListening:theopen©RitaSá.fig.1–IllustrationI.forListening:theopen©RitaSá.fig.2-IllustrationIV.forListening:theopen,©RitaSá.fig.3-IllustrationII.forListening:theopen,©RitaSá.fig.4-Framefromthefilmthroughthislookingglass.fig.5-FramefromthefilmTTLG:detailofpreparationswithscrewsrivetsandlittlewoodenclamps.fig.6-Photo–studiorehearsalforLTOwithmetalplatesinstallation.fig.7-IllustrationVI.forListening:theopen,©RitaSá.fig.8-IllustrationIII.forListening:theopen,©RitaSá.fig.9–Photo©DanielC.Neves.PhotomadeduringtheshootingprocessofthefilmTTLGandusedforpress/promotionofTTLGbyconcertvenues,etc.fig.10-DVDcoverTTLG.fig.11-FramefromtheopeningtitleofthefilmTTLG.fig.12-Photo©DanielC.Neves–stagerehearsalsofTTLG(MariaMatosTheatre2011).fig.13-Photo©DanielC.Neves–stagerehearsalsofTTLG(MariaMatosTheatre2011).fig.14-MobiledesignedbyRitaSáforTTLG,Photo©PauloFernando.fig.15-Notebookwithdetailedindicationsofelementsandinstructionsfortheset-upoftheinstrumentalapparatuswasproducedduringthecreativeprocess(2009/10).fig.16-Idem.fig.17-Photo©DanielC.Neves.PhotomadeduringshootingprocessoffilmTTLGandusedforpress/promotionofTTLGbyconcertvenues,etc.fig.18–Notebookreferredinfig.15,showingplacingofdifferentprops.

fig.19–Notebookreferredinfig.15:detailsofset-up.fig.20–Idem.fig.21-FramefromthefilmTTLG.Detail:mobiledesignedbyRitaSá.fig.22-FramefromthefilmTTLG.Detail:actionofwindingupcritters(automats).fig.23-FramefromthefilmTTLG.Detail:insidepianoplayinginminiature4.glocken…spiel,TTLG.fig.24-Scoreexcerpt:KurioseGeschichtefromR.Schumann’sKinderszenenop.15.Detail:rhythm-snaredrumeffect.fig.25-FramefromthefilmTTLG.Detail:intertitleofminiature7…andlisteningonlytotherisingsounds.fig.26–PhotofromthepremièreofTTLGatMariaMatosTheatre2011.fig.27-Photo©DanielC.Neves–stagerehearsalsofTTLG(MariaMatosTheatre2011).fig.28–VideotexturescreatedbyDanielC.NevesforthestagingofIPD.fig.29–BookletoftheCDIPDreleasedbyShpuuma,2013inaspecialandhandsewnedition.BookletdesignedandproducedbyOHomemdoSaco(LuísHenriques&MarianaPintodosSantos).Photo©NunoCarvalhofig.30–excerptofOLivrodosAA=TheBookofA’s(DinizReis2011).fig.31–TwovideotexturescreatedbyDanielC.NevesforthestagingofIPD.fig.32-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofIPDatMariaMatosTheatre,2013.fig.33–Idem.fig.34–Detailof(semi-)preparationsandpropsforII.HierarchyofInsanity(IPD):differenttypesofmagnets(onstringsandonmetalframe),papersheet,metalball,blu-tack.fig.35–TwonoiseboxesmadebyAndréCastroandusedinIPD.Ontheleft:noiseboxusedinV.PraiseofDisorder.Ontheright:noiseboxusedinIV.Allthatislighthasadarkpart(Lullaby).

Fig.36–Bellsandsirensinstallation.Photo©MárioRainhaCamposatFestivalMúsicaViva,PequenoAuditóriodoCCB,2011.Fig.37–PedalboardforbellsandsirensinstallationdesignedandbuiltbyLuísJoséMartins.fig.38-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofIPDatMariaMatosTheatre,2013:I.Overture.fig.39–Idem:II.HierarchyofInsanity.fig.40–Idem:III.Weaknessofsolids.fig.41–Idem:IV.Allthatislighthasadarkpart(Lullaby).fig.42–Idem:V.PraiseofDisorder.fig.43–Idem:VI.Reality,imagination(amethodnottogoinsane).fig.44–Idem:VII.Theelegantfall.fig.45-Photo©DanielC.Neves.Photomadeduringstagerehearsals(atMariaMatosTheatre,2016)andusedforpress/promotionofLTO.fig.46–PosterofthefilmSummerStormbyTatsumiHijikata.fig.47-PhotoforLTO©DanielC.Neves.Photomadeduringstagerehearsals(atMariaMatosTheatre,2016)andusedforpress/promotionofLTO.fig.48-LightRedOverBlack,1957,MarkRothko.fig.49-Black,RedandBlack,1968,MarkRothko.fig.50-Red,1964,MarkRothko.fig.51–Photoofstudiorehearsals:prototypeI.forresonantplatesinstallation.fig.52–Photoofstudiorehearsals:prototypeII.forresonantplatesinstallation(frontview).fig.53–Photostudiorehearsals:prototypeII.forresonantplatesinstallation(viewfromtheback:speakershangingonmetalplates).fig.54–Set-upschemeI.forresonantmetalplatesinstallation.fig.55–Exampleofoxidisationprocessesexperimentedinsmallmetalprototypes.fig.56–Set-upschemeII.forresonantmetalplatesinstallation.fig.57–Resonantmetalplatesinstallation,set-upatMariaMatosTheatre2016.Inthephoto:

TiagoRorke,MiguelRamos,HélderNelson,DanielC.Neves.fig.58-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016.fig.59-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:(overture.fig.60-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:I.fig.61–Photo©VeraMarmelo,rehearsalsatMariaMatosTheatre,2016.fig.62-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:I.fig.63–Photo©DanielC.Neves,rehearsalsatMariaMatosTheatre,2016.fig.64-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:II.fig.65-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:II.bfig.66-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:III.fig.67-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:III.fig.68-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:III.fig.69-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:III.Fig.70-FramefromthevideoofthepremièreofLTOatMariaMatosTheatre,2016:III.fig.71-IllustrationV.forListening:theopen,©RitaSá.

1

INTRODUCTION

I. Fallingapart

1. foreword

Focusingonthecomposition/performanceprocessofListening| theopen, trilogy fordisruptive

bodies(2009–2019)thisresearchprojectputsforwardsthisthesisandasetofmusicalworks(the

trilogy)asoutputs.Theworksofthetrilogyareprovided,attached, inthefollowingfoldersand

files:

1. TTLG(folder),containing1)thefilmthroughthislookingglass(2010);2)thebookletofthe

DVD/CDthroughthislookingglass(releasedbyBlinker,MarkefürRezentes,2010);

2. IPD(folder),containing1)theaudiooftheCDInPraiseofDisorder(2013);2)thebooklet

oftheCDInPraiseofDisorder(releasedbyShhpuma2013);3)a(live)videowithfragments

ofallthesevenpiecesofInPraiseofDisorder(shotinthepremièreofits‘final’versionat

MariaMatosTheatre,in2013);4)a(live)videoofthecompletepieceInPraiseofDisorder

V.(shotinthepremièreofits‘final’versionatMariaMatosTheatre,in2013);

3. LTO(folder)containing1)thevideoofthepremièreofListening:theopenatMariaMatos

Theatre(October2016);2)theprogramoftheconcert;

Beforeapproachingourresearchsubjectdirectly,itmightberelevanttomakeabriefincursioninto

the‘primordialsoup’thatledtothebeginningofthisresearchproject–first,somefactsaboutmy

musicalpathwhichledtothebeginningofthecreationofthistrilogy(before2009)and,second,a

fewofthedrivesandmotivationsthatfrom2009on,ledtothebeginningofthisspecificresearch

project.Thisinformationmightbemeaningfultobringtothiscontextandanalyse,inconfrontation

withwhatisabouttobecreatedlateron(evenifitmeansbringingsomepersonalexperiencesto

theforeground,incurringinamovementofdispersion).1Thefactthatwebeginthisintroduction

withadispersionmovement–fallingapart–followedbyan‘opposed’organisationmovement–pullingtogether–willbesignificantforoursubjectandforallofwhatisabouttocome:ontheone

hand,wewilldealwiththedisruptiveandnon-semioticlevelofthebody(ies)and,ontheother,

withorganisationandsemioticstrategiesfordealingwiththislevelofthebody(ies)throughoutthe

creative processes of this trilogy. We will use falling apart as standing for the disruptive,

unorganisedprocessesofthebody,responsibleforthedispersionoftheself,andpullingtogether

fortheintentionalandmeaningfulprocessesoforganisationofabody.

1 This personal experience is brought up to this context for the productive relations established with the effectiveprocessesandoutputsofthisresearchproject.

2

Thesemovementswillthereforebeubiquitousandoftheutmostimportanceinallrealmsofthis

investigation and artistic practice. Ultimately, we will try to conceive and approach these

movementsbeyondthedualityofcontrol/outofcontrol.

2. towardsthebeginningofthetrilogy

Mypathinmusicwas,atvariouslevels,anon-linearandatypicalone.Ihadmanyinterestsandwas

doingquitealotofdifferentthings,buttherewerenoconnectionsbetweenthem.Atthebeginning

ofmyteenageyears,betweenmyprivateclassicalpianolessons(whichIstartedatten)andmy

activityasabass-playerinarockband(whichIstartedat13)therewasahugeabyss:itwasthe

samedistancethatexistsbetweenthe‘sacred’andthe‘profane’,asifIweresimultaneouslyplaying

theroleofthe‘beauty’andtheoneofthe‘beast’.Ontheonesidetherewasthesolitary,obsessedhard-workingpathtowardsamusicthatfeltfromanotherworld,andwhichIloved;ontheother

side,thedirectexperienceofplayingwithfriends(andoftenforhundredsorthousandsofpeople),

theexperienceofmakingmusicinastraightforwardmannerandthepleasureanddelightinnoise

andintheimmersioninsound.2

Inthisnon-linear,backandforthpathofstudiesandexperiences,Ifoundincontemporarymusica

kindof‘space-time’thatcouldsomehowemergeinthegapbetweenbothpreviousexperiences:it

hadthedeepnessandcomplexityoftheWestern‘art’music(hereafterWAM)3traditionwithakind

ofnon-linearitythatpleasedme,andatthesametime,theenergyofa‘now’(orsomethingclosest

to ‘now’)andamoredirectrelationtosound. Inmyfondnessforcontemporarymusic,another

subjectivegapemergedbetweenchoosingthesomehowidealisticpathofcompositionorthemore

‘practical’pathofperformance.Studyingcompositionmeant,atthetime,anabstractionIwasnot

willingtoorsimplycouldnotachieve.Forthisreason,Ichosestudyingpiano.

Followingmypianostudies,therearethreeexperiencesthatconstitute importanttriggerpoints

towardstheworkandthesisInowpresent.ThefirstexperiencehastodowithmystudieswithJean

Fassina in Paris, in 2002-04. As a pedagogue, hismethodologywas radical, but it neverthelessfascinatedme: it involvedceasingtoplayrepertoire forabout threeor fourmonths inorder to

concentrateonlyon articulation and listening – listening to the attack, listening to the release,

feeling the ‘electric’ impulse in the finger, controlling tension in order to ‘liberate’ sound,

2ThebandinquestionwasnamedPinheadSociety1993-2000(LuísAndréFerreira,JoanaSá,MarianaRicardo,NunoPessoa)andhadaquiteasignificantactivityinPortugal,playinginmajorvenuesandinthemainstagesofmusicfestivalsaroundthecountryatthetime(VilardeMouros,ParedesdeCoura,Sudoeste,etc.).

3Forpracticalreasons,IwilluseNicholasCook’sdesignationofWestern‘art’music(WAM)(Cook2013,2)throughoutthisthesis,althoughIdonotquiteagreewithit:amusicaltraditionwhoseconceptionisbasedontheassumptionofitbeing‘art’indetrimenttoothertraditionsorgenrescanbeproblematicandfallacious(eveniftheconceptofartmightchange in different contexts). But then again, as this thesis is bringing to the foreground incisions and problematicconceptions of Western music from a ‘classical’ tradition, the designation also embodies these contradictions andproblematics.

3

controllingeverypossibleparameterofqualityofsound,etc….Itwasamentallydifficulttaskbut,

still, a very fruitful and almost life-changing experience. The second step of Jean Fassina’s

methodology felt like itwasgoing tobeeasier in thismentalaspect,but itwas in fact just the

continuationof the first,extendingthisobsessiveprocess throughtime. Itconsisted instudying

RobertSchumann’sKinderszenenOp.15(ScenesfromChildhoodOp.15)andnothingelseduring

aboutsevenmonths.AnditwasnotreallyaboutplayingKinderszenen,butakindof‘playinginto’

Kinderszenen:anintensifiedall-depthapproachthatconsistedinzoominginonfragments,certain

featuresor relationsof thepieces.Allpieceswerestrictlychoreographedand fingered into the

tiniestdetail,andthezoomingexercisesconsistedinapproachingthischoreographyfromdifferent

fragmentarymicroperspectivesormicrorelationsofthepieces.Thiswasdonethroughanextreme

intensificationofthelisteningexperience:itwasaboutcontrollingeverytinylittledetailofgesture,

every tiny, little detail of sound, sound relations, etc. When I was able to master Fassina’s

choreographicandlisteningexercises,IfinallyrealisedthatI‘couldnotreally’playKinderszenen:I

wasblocked for tworeasons.The firstwas that the intense listening fordetailwaspushingmetowardsthemicrostructureofthepiecesinsuchawaythatIcouldnotgetoutandzoomoutof

properly;Icouldnotidentifyorunderstandthesecondreasonbackthen.

Iengagedwithrepertoirefromthispointon,andwhileontheonehandIfeltasifIweredeveloping

newskillsandgrowingasapianistandmusician,ontheotherIwouldsometimeshaveastrange

sensation of feeling trapped. I had had many technical problems before, but I had never

experiencedanyexpressivityproblemsduringmymusicalstudiesorexperiences.Iwasfeelingthem

forthefirsttime,althoughmyworkandperformanceseemedtobehighlyappreciatedbyFassina.

Meanwhile,anoverwhelmingepisodeoccurred,whichmademeunderstandmysecondproblem:

IorganisedaseriesofconcertswithsomefriendsattheMaisonduPortugal(ResidênciaAndréde

Gouveia,atCitéInternationaleUniversitairedeParis)andforoneoftheseconcertsIinvitedafriend

andcolleague(afellowstudentofFassina’s)toplayarecital.Sheplayedawholeprogramandit

sheplayedaNocturne,Op.48no.2inFsharpminor,byChopin,which,bychance,Iwasalsoplaying

backthen.TheNocturnedoesn’treallypresentanytechnicaldifficulties,butforsomereason,Iwas

feelingawkwardplayingit.Mycolleagueplayeditinconcertand,forme,itwasanoverwhelming

experiencethatseemedtolastforages:watchingherwaslikeseeingandhearingmyselfplayinginthemirror.Shehadexactlythesameproblems–wewerekindofacopyofoneanother.Orworse:

wewereacopyofFassina’splaying,orofhiscorporealideaofplaying.Itwashisbodytryingtofit

oursanditcouldonlygowrong.However,someoftheseexperienceswereveryimportantformy

actualwork:thatofintenselistening;thatoffeelingtrappedinabodilyexpressionwhichwasnot

mineand,finally,theintenseexperienceofbeingimmersedinSchumann’smusic.

The second and third experiences I find important to mention here occurred more or less

simultaneouslyafterthat,duringtheperiodintimeofmyfruitfulpianostudieswithPauloÁlvares

andCaioPaganoinCasteloBranco.Onewastheexperienceofimprovisation(throughnewmusic

4

aesthetics)withthegroupPowertrio(withLuísJ.Martins,guitar,andEduardoRaon,harp)4andin

improvisationclasseswithPauloÁlvares;theotherwastheexperienceofapproachingopenforms

andgraphicscores, fromwhichJohnCage’s“Concert forpianoandOrchestra”5wasthehighest

exponent.Bothexperiencesenlargedthescopeofmycreativeroleasaperformer:theymademe

searchfornewresourcesandtechniquesandputmeinasituationwhereIhadtofindnewwaysof

thinkingaboutmusicandinterpretation,havingtomakedecisionsonamorestructurallevelofthe

musicalwork.At thesametime, improvisationwithPowertriowasoftenrecorded inaudioand

followedbylisteningandreflexion,whichwouldthenfrequentlyleadtoakindoforganisationof

musicalideasinmusicalworks.Thiswashow,throughtheseperformativepractices,Iwasfinding

apathandamusicalapproach,whichwasslowlycomingclosertocomposition.

3. towardsthebeginningofthisresearchproject

throughthislookingglass

Throughthesepractices,backin2009/10,Ihadthewill,aswellasthemusicalandtechnicalskills

tostartcreatingtheworkwhichwouldconstitutethefirstpiece–throughthislookingglass–of

thetrilogythatisabouttobepresented.However,andasIsaidbefore,thinkingaboutandmaking

musicwasneveracompleteexerciseofabstractionforme,IfeltIneededa‘concrete’elementto

holdonto.AndthistakesusbacktoSchumann.Ihadsuccessfullyovercomemyexperiencewith

Fassina,butsomehowIstillhadamusicalproblemtosolve: itwasaboutKinderszenen.When I

startedtothinkaboutcreatingthisfirstsolo,Ieasilydecided,longbeforestartingthecomposition

process,thatthe‘somethingtoholdonto’waspreciselythisSchumanncycle.Ifeltaspecialaffinity

withSchumann’smusic,andKinderszenenwas,oddlyenough,averycomplexandcontradictory

music–miniatures,buthavingawholeandimmenseworldwhichisdifficulttograsp;simple,but

veryhardtoperformwell,sinceeverythingissoexposedandsoveiledatthesametime;relatingtochildhood,butrequiringthematurityofalifetime;joyful,butpainful;andmostly,andaboveall,

theyhadthisconnectionorgapbetweenmusicandpoetry:thiswas‘hardly’music,itfeltalmost

likepoetry…

IdecidedthatIwouldcomposeacycleof13miniaturesinintimaterelationtothe13Kinderszenen,

andtotheirpoem-likecharacter.Theminiature,thefragmentandthepoemwereformsortraces

offormforwhichIhadandstillhaveaspeciallovefor,andIwasparticularlyinterestedinexploring

athirdsubjectivegap,thespecificgapbetweenmusicandpoetry,6andthepossibilityforemerging

inbetween,anendeavourandastruggleinwhichSchumannwasperhapsthegreatestmaster.My

4Powertrioisstillanactiveandveryimportantprojectinmymusicalactivity.

5AvideowithmyversionofCage’s“Concertforpiano”(2008)canbeseeninthefollowinglink:http://www.joana-sa.com/projects.php?lang=en&proj=2

6This‘specificgap’willbefurtherexploredthroughoutthisthesis.

5

affinitytoSchumannandforthisparticular‘spaceinbetween’hadtodowithaspecificcorporeal

experience of his music, something which Roland Barthes could capture in hisMusic’s body

(Barthes,1985),acollectionofwritings that turnedout tobean importantdriving forceof this

research.

Istartedthinkingaboutwhatthroughthis lookingglass (hereafterTTLG)couldbeattheendof

2008,andcomposedmostofitinasix-monthperiodbetween2009/10inCologne.Itwaspartofa

projectIdevelopedinthe‘HochschulefürMusikundTanzKöln’,withPauloÁlvaresasatutor,and

forwhichIobtainedanINOV-ARTgrantfromthePortugueseDGArtes–MinistryofCulture.The

pieceturnedouttohavesomanyperformativedetailsthat,whenthinkingaboutitsrecording,I

found that audio would not suffice. I then decided that film would provide the ideal way to

approachthispiece.

With this inmind, I contacted film director and cinematographer Daniel Costa Neves:7 besides

havingaparticularlyrefinedplasticapproachtoimage,hehadquiteavastexperiencewithmusicvideos,andanextremesensitivity forworkingandeditingwithmusic.Hewasveryenthusiastic

abouttheprojectandalthoughwehadnofinancialsupport,weheadedwithourownmeansto

whatwouldbeanenormousandhard-workingadventure,butonethat,attheend,wouldbeworth

allofoureffort.ThefilmoftheperformancewasmadebetweenFebruaryandSeptember2010,

andourworkwasreleased inDVD+CDbyanenthusiasticnew label inColognecalled ‘blinker–

Marke für Rezentes’. The film, in black and white, had such a specific and oneiric ambiance,

orchestratedbyDanielC.Neves,thatwedecidedtore-workandre-constructthisideaforthestage,

aprocesswhichDanielC.Neveswouldalsoberesponsiblefor.Thecompletestageversionwas

premieredmuchlater,in2011,attheMariaMatosMunicipalTheatreinLisbon,whichbecameone

ofthemainsupportersofourworkthroughtime,andwhichwouldbethevenuewhereallpieces

ofthetrilogywerepremiered.

InthisprocessofTTLGIsomehowfeltthatIwasbeginningsomething,thatIwasfindinganidea

whichwashardlygraspable.ItwasnotanabstractcompositionalideathatIcouldputwordson,

thatIcoulddefine.Somehow,Ihadthefeelingthattounderstanditwouldmeantogoandcreate

further:inaway,TTLGwasnotoveryetand,backthen,itmadesenseformetothinkofitasthe

beginningofatrilogy.

InPraiseofDisorder

Oneday,whileworkingontheTTLGfilmwiththevisualartistPedroDinizReis(oneoftheveryfew

collaboratorswhowereworkingwithDanielC.Nevesinpost-production),PedroshowedmetheworkhewaspreparingforhisexhibitionOnedictionary,fouralphabetsandadecimalsystem,which

wasabouttohappenin2011,atCulturgestPorto.TheworkinquestionwasOLivrodosAA=The

BookofA’s(DinizReis,2011)anditwasabookthatlistsallthewordsofaPortuguesedictionary,

7IwasfamiliarwiththemusicvideoshehadmadeforNunoPrataandDeadCombo.

6

moreprecisely96,715words.Thewordswereorderedalphabetically(A-Z)infourcolumnsbypage.

All the letters fromthe listweredeletedexcepttheA’s”8.Theobsessiveandbeautifullydetailed

graphical realisationof this book, containing specific traces (the letter ‘a’) of all thewords in a

dictionaryhadaverypowerfulandpoeticstrength:itlookedatthesametimelikeagraphicalscore

(thatcouldbeeasilylinkedtospecificpoint-graphicsofCage)andavisualpoem,apoemwithno

actual words, just traces of words (that could be easily linked tomanyworks of experimental

poetry).Itwasinfacttouchingthesame‘subject’,asimilar‘spaceinbetween’tothatapproached

withSchumann,andIcompletelyengagedwithit.Pedrothenaskedmetocreateascorewiththese

graphicsandtoplayattheexhibition,somethingwhichInaturallydid.FromthewholeBookofAA’s

Imadeaselectionofpagesandorganisedtheminthreedifferentmovements.Foreachofthese

three different movements, I established different composition/performance approaches with

disparatemusicmaterial,rules.Wedidaconcert inthecontextoftheexhibition’svernissagein

PortoandlateroninCulturgestLisbon,whereheheldanotherextendedexhibitionrelatedtothe

samework.After thisexperience, Iwaswonderingabout ideas for the secondpieceof the trilogy,and this

materialseemedtomeagoodpointofdeparture,asecondelementtowhichIcouldholdonto.

Butifthevisualinputofthegraphicshadpreviouslybeenafruitfulimpulseformakingmusic,now

itfeltas if itwasclosingdoors,as if itwastryingtofixatesomething(oramusic-makingbody),

whichwasnotfixable:mymusicalideaswantedtogofurther,orsomewhereelse,withthepoetic

idea,butbeyondthegraphicsfixedbeforehand.Forthisreason, Idecidedto leavethegraphics

behind,keepingsomeofthemusicalorpoeticalideas,andworktowardsanewsolothatwould

laterbecalledInPraiseofDisorder(hereafterIPD),thesecondpieceofthetrilogy.

Meanwhile,duringtheprocessofcompositionofthispiece,Iagainfelttheneedtogofurtherin

mymusicalapproach,andfoundthatthistime, inordertoachievethis, Ihadtogobeyondmy

artisticpractice.IfoundthecontextofaPhDidealforwhatIwasseeking,andthereforedecidedto

applyforaPhDinPerformanceatAveiroUniversity,aswellastoaPhDScholarshipfromtheFCT–

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia [Foundation for Science and Technology]. Both these

institutionsmadeitpossibletoworkinthisprojectinafull,focusedway.

II. Pullingtogether

1. findingwaysthroughthetacit

My compositional process is, as I mentioned before, highly grounded in performance and a

corporeal experience. Throughout history, authors and philosophers have written about how

8DescriptionavailableatPedroDinizReis’swebsite–http://www.pedrodinizreis.net/Work.aspx?ID=112).

7

difficultitistowriteaboutmusic,andtheywillprobablycontinuetodosountiltheendoftimes.

But it might be even harder to write about a kind of music whose intrinsic thinking is highly

corporeal,andwheretherealmoftacitdimensioncouldbeconsideredtobeevenwider(compared

to most common practices in WAM). This difficulty is inevitably linked to the fact that music

notation(musicalwriting)isnotatallanimportantpartofthiscompositionalprocess,andthatin

fact,Iscarcelywritemusic.Andthisdisconnectiontonotationhappensnotbecauseofaspecific

decision in thatdirection,butbecausemy inherentwayof thinkingmusic resists firmly, almost

painfully,towritingnotation:tomusicwritingingeneral,butalsototheformulationofmymusical

ideasinwords.Therefore,ittookaenormouseffortonmypartandquitealongtimejusttobe

abletograspmyideasandthenfinallyputthemtogether,whichmeantandstillmeans,inakind

of tacit anddispersedpractice: an exercise ofpullingoneself together. Taking into account the

crucialrolethatperformanceplaysinmywork,itmadesenseformeandformyInstitution–Aveiro

University–topresentthisartisticresearchprojectinthecontextofPerformancestudiesinmusic.

Ihavebeenpayingattentiontoongoingargumentsinartistic(musical)research,astillveryyoung

field in investigation.Thediscussionhasbeeninflamedandhasbeenspreadingthroughvarious

mediums – formal and informal ones – from conferences and papers to discussions on the

blogosphere, and even on social media. On the one side are the academies which accept the

practice of composition and performance as research, and, on the other, the loud cries that

Composition is not research (Croft 2015) andMusical Performances are (not) artistic research

(MarcelCobussen)9.Forsuchanewresearchfield,thisunavoidableandhealthydiscussiongives

us, the oneswho are beginning a path in artistic research, a still quite unsteady ground to go

throughbut,atthesametime,it’sgivenusthepossibilityandtheresponsibilitytobeapartofthis

endlessandhopefullyfruitfulprocess.

Thisresearchprojectpresentstwodistinctbutentangledpracticesandoutputs:aresearchpractice

and output (this thesis) and an artistic practice and output (three compositions/performances

providedinattachment).Thesepractices(from2012on,whenthisresearchprojectbegan)have

beenfuellingeachother,influencingandbeinginfluenced,deconstructingandre-constructingeach

otherinaprocessthatfunctionsasamotorbothforartisticcreationandthe(re)formulationofideas.The intentionwasthatthisresearchprojectcouldgofarbeyondmypersonalandartistic

interest,andcouldopensomenewperspectives towards the tacitdomainofmusicandartistic

creation–therealminwhichscience(still)hasmostdifficultiestodiginto,andakindofknowledge

whichstillplaysasecondaryroleinacademia.

9 Conference by Corbussen attended at PERFORMA 2015 Conference on Musical Performance, organized by theUniversityofAveiro,theInstituteofEthnomusicology(INET-MD),andtheBrazilianAssociationofMusicalPerformance(ABRAPEM).https://www.academia.edu/36302896/Musical_Performances_are_not_Artistic_Research

8

Thisthesisproducesareflectiononatacitdomainwhichhasbeenmarginalisedfora longtime

amongacademicsforreasonsandfactorsthatwillbe,inmanyways,ubiquitousinthisthesis:the

still prevailingabyssal lineofWestern thought, a line that tends tomake theother (culturalor

ethnic-cultural)inexistent(SousaSantos2007),butthatalsoandaboveall,leadstotheexclusion

ofthe‘other’inourselves,that‘other’whohidesinthedeepnessoftheSelf,inthesubconsciousor

unconscious regions – that ‘other’ (…)which cannot be verbalized, cannot be captured by the

rational-reflexive discourse (Vieira de Carvalho 2016, 45).10 Erasing the other, this abyssal line

produces a perspective exclusivelyon the side of the line (Sousa Santos) of explicit knowledge,

describedastheknowledgethatcan,tosomeextent,betransferredbytheuseofstringsintheright

circumstances(Collins2010,80).Thegrowingawarenessoftheseproceduresbyourcultureand

societywascomplementedwithnotionsonthetacit,whichbegintobetterunderstandwhatitis

and,tosomeextent,howitworks,sothatapartofitismadeexplicit.Wecanconsidertwomajor

facts:firstly,asystemizedformulationoftacitknowledgeinreferencetoexplicitknowledge(Collins

2010); secondly, the evidence that tacit knowledge plays an extremely important, but ofteninvisibleroleindecision-makingandscienceproduction.Collins(2010)explainstacitknowledgeas

thatwhichhasnotorcannotbemadeexplicitanddividesitintothreecategories(weak,medium

andstrong), regardingtheresistancetheyoffer to theprocessofbeingmadeexplicit.This isof

course a very important step, but it is a unidirectional one, and still not totally compelling: it

approachesthetacitfromtheexclusivepointofview,ways,meansanddistanceoftheexplicit.

Amongmusic academics, the problem is that there often seems to be an almost schizophrenic

dissociationbetweenthediscursive,academicknowledgewithwhichtheydealasmusicologistsand

thetacit,action-basedknowledgethat[they]relyonasperformers(Cook2013,23).However,and

Cookisalsogreatlyresponsibleforthisfact,musicacademiaistakingbigstepstowardsaccepting

theimportanceofthetacit.Andthisisimportantbecausewhatisstillmissingandwherewestill

havealongwaytogoisexactlyinfindingotherpointsofviewandmeaningfulresearchpractices–

complementing Collins’ approach with many other divergent perspectives. The tacit is, by

definition,inaccessible(todifferentextents),butitisouraimtofindotherdimensionsrelatedto

it,othervocabularyandotherstrategiesthatcouldsomehowgiveexpressiontooursubject.

2. findingwaystomethod

Itisimportanttoemphasizethattherewasnotapreviousabstractandexternalideastipulated,

intended to be put in practice in this trilogy. On the contrary, the relations between the

simultaneousactivitiesofthecreativeprocess,bibliographicalresearch,andbothreflectionand

self-reflection led to the creation of ideas and music approaches. One thing, however, was

stipulated: that these relations between practices would have as starting point the corporeal

approachthathadbeguntobedevelopedinaveryintuitivewayinTTLG.

10Translationby theauthor: “tantodaexclusãodo ‘outro’culturalouétnico-cultural, comotambémesobretudodaexclusãodooutrodentrodecadaumdenós,istoé,daqueleoutroqueseabriganasprofundezasdoeu,nasregiõesdosubconscienteoudoinconsciente–esseoutro(….)nãosedeixacaptarpelodiscursoracional-reflexivo.”

9

Inevitably,Iwilldevelopmyinvestigationinakindofresearchthatcouldbecontextualizedwithin

Borgdorff’s ‘researchinthearts’:aresearchthatdoesnotassumetheseparationofsubjectand

object,anddoesnotobserveadistancebetweentheresearcherandthepracticeofart.Instead,the

artisticpracticeitselfisanessentialcomponentofboththeresearchprocessandtheresearchresults

(Borgdorff2006,6-7).Thatsubjectandobjectareassumedasnotbeingseparatedissomething

thatwillbeexploredinmanylevels,asanattemptatrenderingdualityconceptsandontologies

inoperative,bothfromaresearchperspectiveandinanartisticapproach.Thefactthatthereisno

clearseparationofsubjectandobject,researcherandpractiseofart,artisticpractiseandresearch

results,means,inthiscase,thatconceptsofinside/outsidewillbedeconstructedatmanylevels

andthat,distance,aswewillsee,willbeapproachedasaninherentfeatureofeachconstruct.

In the kind of research and artistic practice I’ve been developing, where creative process and

reflectiongohandinhand,thepossiblemethodologycouldbedefinedasM.Tavaresputsit:

Ahesitantadvance:hereisamethod;aforwardmovement,notinastraightline,butinakindofenthusiastic,exaltedlinethatgoesafteracertainintensity;anadvancethatnolongerhasadefinedroute,butaforefeltone,aroutethatisconstantlybeingcalledintoquestion;anyonewhomovesforwardhesitatesbecausetheydonotwanttoknowwheretheyaregoing–iftheyalreadyknewit,whywouldtheygo?Whatcanstillbefoundoutbythosewhoalreadyknowfate?Hesitatingisaneffectoftheactionofdiscovering;onlythosewhohavealreadydiscovered,whohavealreadyputanendtotheinvestigationprocess,donothesitate.“Mydoubtsformasystem,”wroteWittgenstein11(Tavares2013a,26).

Itisrelevanttoacknowledgetheimportanceofdimensionsofthetaciteveninthemethodologyof

thisproject–toacknowledgethat,often,onegoesafteracertainintensitywhichisfelt,andnot

afteraspecificandconcretetarget,andoftennotforaspecificexplainableorconsciousreason.It

ismoreovercrucialtoacknowledgetherelevanceofintuitionandtheaffectiveastacitandquite

non-explainable driving forces that very often can bring one to the most significant sources,

experiences and unpredicted connections – what could be called an exploratory approach in

research.Intuitioninthiscontexthasofcoursetobeentangledwithresearchandreflection:some

tacitknowledgecanbe,toacertaindegree,madeexplicit,andsomeinitialintuitionscan,through

analysisandself-reflection,berationallyunderstoodorinterpreted.Butacknowledgingthistacit

andungraspablerealminmethodologymeans,mostofall,acknowledgingandunderstandingthat

11Translationbytheauthor:Umavançohesitante:eisummétodo;avançar,nãoemlinharectamasnumaespéciedelinhaexaltada,queseentusiasma,quevaiatrásdeumacertaintensidadesentida;avançoquenãotemjáumtrajectodefinido,massimumtrajectopressentido,trajectoqueconstantementeépostoemcausa;quemavançahesitaporquenãoquersaberosítioparaondevai–seosoubessejá,paraquecaminhariaparaele?Quepodeaindadescobrirquemconhecejáodestino?Hesitaréumefeitodaacçãodedescobrir;sónãohesitaquemjádescobriu,quemjácolocouumpontofinalnoprocessodeinvestigação.“AsminhasdúvidasformamumSistema”,escreveuWittgenstein.

10

one isnevergoing to find this ‘unknown’ (in termsofwhat findingmeans forus),and that this

exercisewill often require a suspension of the logic of sense.Wewill not be able to find, but

hopefullywewillbeabletotouch(Nancy)orcapture(Massumi)otherkindsoflogicthatcanhelp

usdevelopstrategiesfordealingwiththiscomplexsubject.

Consequently,inthisapproach,thereisnoobjectivestraightlinepossible,onlythepossibilityofan

exaltedlineofsimultaneouscontinuityandrupture,itspointsofconnection,butmostofall,the

abyssofdisconnection,itsinvisibletrace,shapeandintensity(inMassumi’sconceptionofaffectas

intensity,whichwillbeexploredlateron).

Regardingthisproject,methodimpliesnotonlyacceptingcontradiction,complexityandinherent

conflictsofasubject,butgoingbeyondacceptingit(inwhatcouldbeapassiveapproach)andtrying

togofurther,touchingthecoreofcertainconflicts,deconstructingandre-constructing.Thereisa

Westerncultural tendency for tryingto findoneclear theory immediately,one formalandsolid

explanation, to which one can hold onto. This tendency seems nevertheless to the erase thecomplexityoftheconflictsandtoreducetheirmultiplicityandinstabilityintoasubjectthatiseasier

toencompass,somethingwhich,inthespecificcaseofthisresearchproject,couldnot,atanyrate,

beafruitfulmethodology.Thistendency(fortheexplicittosuperposethetacit)manifesteditself

several times during this research process: it is highly seducing and tempting to try to find a

structuredtheorythatcanexplaineverything,inawhole,integratedandsystematizedway.Butin

thiscontext,theconclusionIreachedeverytimewasthatchoosingclairvoyanceovercomplexity

inevitablyleadstoanamputationofmeaningandanerasingofdimensions.Inthisway,method

requirestakingthetimeandnottakinganyreductionistshortcuts,evenifacceptingthesevarious

layersanddimensionsofaphenomenonmakesthetaskharder,disperseandoverwhelming.AsM.

Tavaresputsit:

Everyresearcherresearchesbecausetheyarelostanditwillbewisenottohavetheillusionthattheywillevernotbe.Theyshould,bytheendofresearch,bestronger.Stilllost,butlostwithmoreweapons,morearguments12(Tavares2013a,38).

Itisthereforeimportanttofindandobsessivelymarkthepossiblereferencepointsinourtrail:not

tofindthe‘rightway’(whichwefoundnon-applicableinthiscontext)buttobetterdealwiththis

redundantfactthat,betweenthem,oneisinevitablylostandwillcontinuetobe.Theaimistofind

newinsights,new‘inlistenings’fordealingwiththeoverwhelminggapsinourmatrixofreferences.

12Translationbytheauthor:Todooinvestigadorinvestigaporqueestáperdidoeserásensatonãoterailusãodequedeixarádeoestar.Devesim,nofinaldasuainvestigação,estarmaisforte.Continuaperdido,masestáperdidocommaisarmas,commaisargumentos.

11

3. method–findingreferencepoints

referenceI–mainquestions,mainoutputsofthisresearchproject Afteralonghistoryandtraditionof‘erasing’thebodyinWAM,thethemeofthebodyemergedas

an important element of the musical approaches and discourses in the 20th century post-war

vanguards,andhasbeengaininganalmostubiquitousrelevanceeversince.Butwhathasthisfairly

recentapproachreallymeant,andwhatkindofbodiesordimensionsofthebodiesaretakeninto

account?Mostofthetime,thethemeofthebodystillseemstobeanopaque, insurmountable

subject, approached within theWestern perspective through the tools of the explicit and the

measurable,buthardlytouched.Whatcanabodydo?Whatkindoflayersaretobefoundwithin-

out,beyond-before,throughout-in,thatmakeitunpredictable,ungraspable?Howcanwepossibly

gain access to them?Would it be possible to take them into the foreground through specific

composition and performance strategies? In what terms can we bring them to the musical

discussion?

Touchingthecoreofconflicts,dichotomiesandincisionsinthethemesofthebodyandmusic,this

researchprojecttriestoanswerthesequestionsthroughathesisandacorpusofworks,Listening

|theopen,trilogyfordisruptivebodies,whosereflectionwillproducetheideasoflistening|the

openandvirtuosity.

referenceII–artistryvs.research

Itisnecessarytoclarifywhatispossibletoclarify,forinstance,thatregardingthespecificrelationofresearchtoitsartisticoutcome,itisimportanttonotethat:

- inthefirstpiece,throughthislookingglassTTLG(2010),thereisnodirectimpactofthis

researchintheartisticoutputsincetheresearchwasdoneaposteriori;

- inthesecondpiece, InPraiseofDisorder IPD/ElogiodaDesordem(2013),theresearch

beginsinthemiddleoftheartisticprocessandhasaspreadingimpactfromthispointon;

- thethirdpiece,Listening:theopenLTO/Àescuta:oaberto(2016/?),istheonlyonewhose

creationprocessiscompletelyentangledwiththisresearchproject.

Thereareother‘non-musicalworks’belongingtothismulti-dimensionalresearchprojectthat

arepartofthisthesisindifferentways,andthatplayaveryimportantroleinthe‘formulation’

oftheideasoflistening|theopenandvirtuosity:

12

- Listening|theopen(collectionoffragments/poems,2018)13

- Abodyaslistening:virtuosity(collectionoffragments/poems,2019)14

Apart from the trilogy, therewereotherpieces that relate to this trilogybutwhichwill notbe

presentedhere:

- Dentrodacabeçanemtudoéclaro[Insidetheheadnoteverythingisclear](2014),solofor

preparedpiano,automatcreatures,bellsandsirensinstallation,noisebox;visualconcept

andscenographybyRitaSá.Pieceforchildrenfiveandup.CommissionedbyFábricadas

Artes(CCB)forBigBangFestival;

- Pássarodacabeça(2014),recordedtape&narrator.PiececommissionedbyMisoMusic

fortheprojectContosContadoscomSom(2014);

- PaixãoefoliaparaSãoJoão[PassionandfoliaforSt.John] (2018,co-creationwithLuís

JoséMartins)withCarlosGuerreiro,EduardoRaon,JoanaSá,LuísJ.Martins,NunoMoura,

Pedro Carneiro, Savina Yannatou, and children André Ferreira &Matias Neves. MajorprojectcommissionedbyMariaMatosTheatreforthelastconcertitheldasamunicipal

theatre.

4. method–mainstrategies:onhowtoreachtheungraspablebody

Overview-ClusterI.,II.&III.Thisthesisisdividedinthreeclusters.Ratherthanmakingindependentandlinearchapters,Ichose

toagglomerateseveraldifferentapproachesintheclusters.Bringingmatterstogether, intouch,

forming a complex,multi-dimensional and sometimes contradictory subject seemed tome the

mostsuitablestrategyfortherequiredtaskandsubject. Inthissense,eachclusterhasdifferent

objectivesandstrategies:

- Cluster I isanattemptat trying to reachandoutlineoursubjectofanungraspable

body through different strategies and perspectives, beginning to sketch an idea of

listening|theopen;

- ClusterIIbringsthethreepiecesofthetrilogytogetherinordertoexploretransversal

featuresandrelationsbetweeneachcreationprocess.Continuingtoexploretheidea

oflistening|theopenindifferentperspectives,itdevelops,attheend,anewconceptofvirtuosity;

- ClusterIIImakesanimmersionineachsolo,analysinghoweachpieceisactualisingthe

relations,featuresandconceptsdiscussedinclustersI&II.

13SeeChapter(abetween),ClusterI.14ClusterIII,Abodyaslistening:virtuosity.Afirstversion,inPortuguese,A‘escuta’comocorpo:virtuosismo,waspublishedintheperformanceartsjournalCoreia#1(Sá2019b)

13

OnClusterIToreachthiscomplexungraspablebodywewilladoptandcombinedifferentstrategiesinaway

thatcanresemblethemethodologyof‘criminalpoliceinvestigation’.Wewillgoaftertheinvisible

tracesofthe‘ungraspablebody’throughdifferentstrategiesinthreesteps:Incisionsin;Dissectionsof;Thebodyasitsoutsider.

InI.INCISIONSINthestrategywillbethatoftryingtogetcloser,throughsemiotics,onlytofindthe

subject slipping throughour fingers, fruitfullyarriving,however,atBarthes’ collectionofessays

Music’sBody(Barthes,1985).Asamethodwewillusethecriticalanalysisonontologicalissuesof

conceptionsofmusicinWesternsocieties.

In II.DISSECTIONSOFthestrategywillbetheopposite: insteadofgoingafter the ‘ungraspable’

body, the strategy will be one of ‘dissecting’ and deconstructing the paradigms of virtuosity,

carefullyanalysinghowdisciplineanddifferentsocialrulesdealwiththisungraspablebodythrough

differenttimeperiodsandaesthetics.Again,ourmethodwillbeacriticalanalysisofdifferentideals

ofvirtuosity;

InIII.THEBODYASITSOUTSIDERthestrategywillbeoneoffinallytryingtotouch(Nancy)orcapture

(Massumi) a disruptive level of the body through different clusters of authors, multiple andfragmentary perspectives of philosophy,music and artistic research. In spite of their havingno

apparentconnectionbetweenthem,wewillfindcommondenominators–aconnectiontoBarthes’

writingsonSchumann’sbeatingbody,andaconceptionofthebodythatcallsintoquestionnotions

ofinsideandoutside,encompassingintheirformulationsofbody(ies)anon-localised,non-linear

andnon-semioticbutsituateddimensionofthebody.

14

fig.1

CLUSTERI

INCISIONSIN|DISSECTIONSOF\THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER

15

I. INCISIONSIN

1. Choosingincision/conflictasstartingpoint

Tothinkandtrytotheorizeaboutmycorporealapproachinmusicimpliestryingtofindawayto

reachthemusic-makingbodyandtounderstanditspositionandroleinthecreationprocess,as

wellas itsrelationtoawidermusicalcontext. InWAMthebodyis, infact,astageforconflicts,

dichotomies and gaps/ruptures enveloped in different (and sometimes not so different)

approachesthroughtimes.Inmymusicalpracticethedrivingforcescomefromandgotowardsthe

edgeofcertaincriticalconflictpoints,touchingthemdirectly–withthebody. Ittriestoexplore

theseconflictpoints–incisions–tryingtodeconstructthemthroughdifferentperspectives,and

tryingtocreateotherpossibilitiesofre-constructionofthebodiesthroughthem.Itisatendentially

fragmentarymusic,Icouldevensay,amusicwithahighpotentialforbreakdown,focusingonthis

corporealpotentialforrupture,morethanonanarrativerealm.Inordertounderstandthesefacts,

abriefimmersioninontologicalquestionsofbothmusicandbodyinourWesternculturewillbe

inevitable.

2. Musicasincisionandcontradiction–Houston,we’vehadaproblem!

Anthropogenesis is what results from the caesura and articulation between human and animal. This

caesurapassesfirstofallwithinman(Agamben2004,79).

Inreality,thepassagefromanimaltoman(…)wasproducedbysubtractinganelement(…)thatinstead

waspresupposedastheidentifyingcharacteristicofthehuman:language(Agamben2004,34).

WAMhasbeengenerallycharacterisedinoursocietyandexplainedthroughtimesasopposedto

spokenlanguage.Itsineffableandidealisticcharacterisregardedaswhatisbeyondreason,logic

and the explainable. This reasoning can draw to Plato’s conception of music as the only non-

mimetic art, but its formalisation gains a special strength in the Enlightenment, with Kant’s

‘unspeakablewealth’(Kant1914,218)andRousseau’stheoriesonlanguageandmusic(Rousseau

2012).ForRousseau,musicisseenasanoriginary‘proto-language’thatallowshimtoposit,(….),

theanthropologicalmissinglinkthatconnectssemioticstoorigins,culturetonature,andmanto

animal;theoriginoftheoriginofculture(Hickmott2015,485).ForAgambenthis‘anthropological

missinglink’isthemostproblematicruptureofourWesterncultureandthinking,thecoreofevery

otherconflict:aliminalspacewheremansuspendsanderasesitsanimality/othernesstocreatean

exceptionzone–anideaofhumanity.

ThisgeneraltendencyofWesternphilosophytoproceedasifmusicheldametaphysicalvalencein

excessoftheusualmediatorsoflanguage,culture,andhistory(Scherzinger2012,350),wasrecently

16

conceptualizedassonotropism(Scherzinger),andisbeingmorecarefullyanalysedbyanumberof

studiesthatfocusonhowWesternphilosophy(and,consequently,Westerncultureingeneral)deal

withthesubjectofmusicthroughtimes.Thefactisthatthephilosophicaldiscourseaboutmusic

todayisstillveryoftenentangledwithanontologyofmusicrootedinthisimmaterialandineffable

essenceand/ornaturalorder.Althoughmanythingshavechangedandchallengedthisconception

inrecentdecades–withnewcognition;psychologyandphilosophytheoriesbasedonembodied

theories; the research on musical gesture; new kinds of musical practises that defy these

conceptions, etc. – this tendency, formulated in very different ways by different authors, still

prevails.Theproblemofthisformulationandoccularcentricpointofviewisthatapproachingmusic

asabeyonddoesnotpermitustogofurther,tofindwaysofdealingwithitscomplexity:musicis

thenacloudoffogwithnolayersordimensionstofindorsearchfor–thecloudishomogeneous,

opaque, inoperative. The difference between perceiving an affective dimension in music and

approaching music as standing for the affective is an abyssal one. Sonotropism erases the

multiplicity, complexity and diversity intrinsic toWAM, not tomention the inherent discipline,method,organizationinsocialroles,institutions,etc.Ithidesthefactthat,inaway,therealmof

WAMfoldsinitselfandinadifferentscaleandspacethewholestructureofrelationsdescribed

abovebetweenlanguageandmusic.Frommymusician’sperspectiveI’mtemptedtosayHouston,

we’vehadaproblem…

ItisnotquiteametaphortosaythatWAMinfoldsinitself(initsrelationbetweennotationand

performance)thewholestructureofrelationsdescribedbetweenlanguageandWAM,which,ina

way,reflectstheconflictbetweentheexplicitandthetacit.Infact,fromacertainperspective,this

iswhatPerformancestudiesinmusichavebeentryingtobringtotheforegroundforsometime

now:thatnotation,thewrittendimensionofmusicgainedsuchanidealisticaurainrelationtothe

performativepractice,to‘actualmusic’,thatitbecameitselfthegreatest‘authority’inmusic.The

scorebecamethehighestrepresentativeofthemusicalideaandobtainedthecharacterandstatus

ofthe‘authentic’.Atthesametime,thisstatusbroughtforththe ideaof ‘structure’asahigher

parameterinmusic,asawaytoprovidetheunityofthe‘work’,andreinforcingthisideaof‘work’

as a stable, closed and meaningful ‘unity’ and ‘identity’. WAM developed a highly moral,

authoritativeandhierarchicaldiscoursebasedonidealsoffaithfulness,authenticityanddiscipline

ofthebody,dutyoftheperformertowardsthe‘idea’ofthecomposer–the‘musicalwork’–whichwas, inturn,representedbythewrittenscore. It isprobablytheart formwherethismoraland

authoritativespeechhaditslongestandstrongestimposition.Itissurprising,therefore,thatallof

thesefactsandrelationsseemtobetheexactoppositeoftheidealisticspeechthatphilosophyhas

aboutmusic.However,theseseeminglycompletelyincompatiblediscoursesco-existinoursociety

anddailylives,thesamewayasmusiciansandnon-musiciansdo:theyareinfactthereversedcoin

ofasamereality.AsScherzingerasks:Doesmusic’snon-referentialexcessholdoutthepromiseof

political hope, utopia, becoming, attunement, deconstructive resonance, productive forgetting,

transformation, and so on?Or does its lack of specificity bringdowna curse thereby efficiently

functioningastheideologicalruseforsuchtransformationandhope?(Scherzinger2012,350).

17

WecouldprobablysummariseourWesterncontradictoryconceptionofMusicasbothanexcess

and a lack of, and this could be regarded as a very ambiguous kind of imprisonment – an

imprisonmentassuspensionoutside,inanideal,immaterial,insubstantialandincongruentrealm.

Bringing Agamben’s ideas to this context, one could say that the anthropologicalmachine, the

machinethatincisesthecriticalrupture,ortheabyssalline(SousaSantos),operatesincisivelyand

preciselyinWAM,creatingtheexceptionzone–theseeminglystrictdisciplineofthebodyintends

tosuspendanderasetheother,inordertocreateadistance,adetachment.It’sthestirringapart

ofthemachine:musicturnsintoanidealofsublime,ofpurity,oftheunnaturalprovidingnatural

harmony – affording its connectionwith the livingworld through theminds of few designated

geniuses,themediatorsbetweenthetwodimensions.Andthiscultofthegenius,whichhadits

apogee in theRomantic era, prolonged its existence through timeandanti-romantic aesthetics

throughcontemporaryandnewmusic.AsLachenmannputsit,evennow,thecomposerisseenas

a recognized prophet, object of pity and astonishment in his desert of desperate cacophonies15

(Lachenmann2000,118).Andagain,thistwo-sidedandcontradictoryviewofthecomposer:ontheonesidethepityfor/thelackofand,ontheother,theothertheastonishment/theexcessof.

3. Shortcutsthroughsemioticsandsemiology

InShortcutsthroughsemioticsandsemiologywewillanalysethreekindsofincisions:in3.1wewill

briefly analyse the incisionbetween languageandmusic through two specific and recent cases

(George Steiner and Jean-LucNancy), trying tounderstand some semiotic resonances from the

past;in3.2wewillanalysetheincisioninthemusicsubject,Barthes’claimforasecondsemiology

andhisnotionofsomathemes; in3.3wewillanalysehowtheincisioninthesubjectofmusic is

itselfanincisioninthebody.Wewillalsotrytounderstandhowthesetwolastincisionsareofa

differenttypeoradifferentorderofincisionthatbeginstocallintoquestionnotionsofinsideand

outsideofthebody.

Tryingtofindoursubjectthroughthesesemioticandsemiologicperspectives,wewillfeelitslipping

throughourfingers.Nonetheless,theseperspectivesmighthelpusunderstanditsslipperynature

clearer,andtheywillopenuptoBarthes’fruitfulimageofbeatingbodyandconceptofsomatheme.

INCISIONI–Musicasabeyond(language):Sonotropism

Inthedifficultprocessoffindingconcreteelementstoholdontoandbeginningtooutlineanidea

relatedwithmymusicpracticeandresearch, therewasonestrong intuition/conviction,coming

frommymusicalpractice,thatstoodout.Ithadtodopreciselywithanideaofintensificationofthe

listeningsense,orbetter,anintensificationbeyondthelisteningsenseitself,onewhichseemedto

berelatedwiththespecificcorporealexperiencesbothinTTLGandIPD.

15Translationbytheauthor:commeprophètereconnu,objetdepitiéetd’étonnementdanssondésertdecacophoniesdésespérées.

18

Tworecentbooksbytwolivingphilosophers–Jean-LucNancy(2002)andGeorgeSteiner(2011)–

focusedonthesubjectof‘listening’,tryingtostepbackfromthegeneraloccularcentricpointof

viewinordertofindotherpossibleperspectivesinphilosophythrough‘listening’.Theirdifferent

approachesto‘listening’asakindofintensification(Nancy2002,17)setmyinitialfascinationand

enthusiasm for immersing in these essays. The two books seemed to offer a very fruitful

philosophicalinputformyresearchandtheyhave,infact,broughtmanyusefulinsights.Butthe

inclusionofmusicinthediscourse,whichIinitiallyregardedasahighlymotivatingfactor,turned

out to be quite disappointing, since both discourses revealed to still be stuck to a problematic

sonotropicconceptionofmusicinoppositiontolanguage.Weshallimmersebrieflyinthismatter,

bringing to the foreground the specific articulations betweenmusic and language inNancy’sÀ

L’écoute/Listening(2002)andSteiner’sPoetryofthought–FromHelenismtoCelan(2011).Wecan

start by acknowledging that the initial claimpresentedby these twodifferent discourses has a

commonstartingpoint:theirpremiseacknowledgesthelimitsofphilosophy,orsimplythelimitsof

ourunderstandingasintimatelyrelatedwithanincapacityforlisteningorforstretchtheear/tenderl’oreille(Nancy)andanincapacityforlisteningclosely(Steiner):Nancy’sstatementpointsoutthat

theconstantformulationofideasthroughlanguagedischargesthelisteningfunctionandreduces

possibilitiesofmeaning.Bothpresenttheircompletelydifferentessaysasanattemptatthinking

through this listeningperspective, trying togetaway fromtheusualoccularcentricperspective.

Nancyopenshisessayinthisway:Assumingthatthereisstillsenseinaskingaboutthelimits,oraboutsomelimits,ofphilosophy(…)wewillponderthis:Islisteningsomethingofwhichphilosophyiscapable?(….)Isn’tthephilosophersomeone who always hears (and who hears everything), but who cannot listen, or who, moreprecisely,neutralizeslisteningwithinhimselfsothathecanphilosophize?(Nancy2007,1).

Steinerapproaches the samephilosophicalproblem inacknowledging intuitions thatone isnotcapableofputtingintowordsandthatlanguage,withitsperformativemeansofdisposingwords,

syntaxmodesandpunctuation,isnotcapableofaccessing.Bearingtothesequestionshecompares

languagewithmusic,askingtheemblematicquestionIsthereinsomekindredsense“apoetry,a

music of thought” deeper than thatwhich attaches to the external uses of language, to style?

(Steiner2011,11),andendstheprefaceofhisbookwiththestatement:thisessayisanattemptto

listenmoreclosely(idem,13).ThefirstchapterstartsthenwiththesentenceWedospeakabout

music(idem,15)andexposestheproblematicofspeakingaboutmusicinthefollowingterms:

Tospeakofmusicistofosteranillusion,a“categorymistake”aslogicianswouldputit.Itistotreat

musicas if itwasorwas very close tonatural language. It is to transfer semantic realities from

linguistictoamusicalcode.Musicalelementsareexperiencedorclassifiedassyntax(idem).

Steiner then exposes this problematic through a comparative analysis of music and spoken

languagesandabstractones(mathematics,geometry).Notwantingtoimmerseinthedetailsof

this formulation, what I find important to bring to the foreground to this context is that thearticulationmusic/languageofSteiner’sdiscoursetouches(withslightvariants)theutterancesof

19

thecanonicalmusicologicalsemiotics.Thesecanonicalutterancesarethenusuallyestablishedand

discussed around the following axis: music seen as universal language as opposed to natural

language;musicseenasalanguagewithsyntaxandnosemantics;theimpossibilityoftranslation

ofmusic inoppositionto language;musicasnotrequiringaspecificdecoding(except incertain

cases);theimpossibilityoflyingthroughmusic;andsomenewimportantscientificevidenceonthe

perceptionofmusicvs.perceptionoflanguageregardingthedifferenceinimmediacy/instantaneity

ofitsreceptionatpsychic,nervousandviscerallevels.

Nancy,inturn,makesasimilarstatementtothatofSteiner,wheresoundisregardedasnotbeingabletomatchtherealmoflogicsortheintelligibleaswellasotherdomains:figureandidea,theatre

and theory, spectacle and speculation suit each other better, superimpose themselves on each

other,evencanbesubstitutedforeachotherwithmoreaffinitythantheaudibleandtheintelligible,

orthesonorousandthelogical(Nancy2007,2).Hethenproceedsondiscussingmusicasa‘lesser’

language, that brings the syntactic without semantics (idem, 34), and a directionality and

sequentialitydisconnectedfromsignification,quotingPierreSchaeffer’sclaimthattheonlypossible

introductionoflanguageintomusicisthatofconjunctions.(SchaefferinNancy2007,34).

These sonotropic conceptions resonate former ideas and formulations,which are linked to the

traditionalstudyofsemioticsandwhichcouldbepartiallytracedbacktoFrenchstructurallinguist

ÉmileBenveniste,whoapproachedmusicasalanguagewithasyntaxbutnosemiotics(Assis2018,

159). Following this idea, it might be meaningful to call forth Julia Kristeva’s multidisciplinary

“discipline”ofsemanalysis,thatbringssemioticsandpsychoanalysistogether.InLarévolutiondu

languagepoétique(1974),Kristevaproposestwokindsoftextlayers:thephenotext,correspondingtothenotablerealmofthetext, therealmofthesignifier,and the“genotext”,anon-linguistic,

process-driven field of drive energies (from the unconscious) that precedes and originates the

phenotext.(Assis2018,165).AccordingtoKristeva,thegenotextrevealstransfersofdriveenergy

that‘canbedetectedinphonematicdevices(suchastheaccumulationandrepetitionofphonemes

orrhyme)andmelodicdevices(suchasintonationandrhythm’(KristevainAssis2018,165).Forthe

pulsional and non-symbolic substract of genotext, Kristeva gives, however, another possible

designation–thatofmusicoflanguage.Ontheonehand,sheopensacompletenewinsighttothe

realmsemiotics,and,ontheother,herformulationcontinuestooperateasonotropicperspective:indifferent to language, enigmatic and feminine, this space underlying the written is rhythmic,

unfettered,irreducibletoitsintelligibleverbaltranslation;itismusical,anteriortojudgment,but

restrainedbyasingleguarantee:syntax”(KristevainAssis2018,183,author’sunderline).

Steiner’sformulationofmusicofthoughtechoesthisideaofmusicoflanguage,inwhichphenotext

isassociatedwithspokenlanguageandgenotextwithmusic.Musicis,inthesecontexts,asTolbert

states, ‘elidedwith the subordinate term in oppositions such as culture/nature, human/animal,

mind/body, or reason/emotion. Implicit in music’s feminization is its opposition to language,

exhibiting qualities such as non-referentiality, syntax without semantics, pure form, the music

“itself”Westernthought’slogocentricemphasisonvoice(andthematerialityofsound)aspresence,

20

has the corollaryof alsoprivileging ‘referentialmeaning [. . . and]metaphorical, asopposed to

metonymic thinking’. (Tolbert inHickmott 2015, 487). The fact that music is conceived in this

‘lesser’,emotionaland‘feminine’pointofview,makesitaproblematicsubjecttodealwith:music

isequatedinthiscontextwithanunutterable,abeyond.Iinitiallysawthefactthatthesubjectof

musicitselfwasbroughttotheformulationsofNancyandSteinerasveryexcitingandhelpfulfor

my research. However, it turned out to be the opposite: in this equation, music was the

ungraspable,presentedastheopaquecloud–andonecannotgothroughabeyondandfindapath

orpaths.

Butweshallnot,atanyrate,‘throwthebabyoutwiththebathwater’:althoughtheinclusionof

music in Nancy’s listening formulation can be considered controversial16, it is an extremely

interesting, fruitful and even highly poetic perspective, thatwill be approached in this context

furtheronandthatwillbe,inmanyways,ubiquitoustotheunfoldingofthisthesisandresearch

project.Nancyformulatesaperspectiveonlisteningthatabolishesthedualisticconceptionsofthesubjectaslistener,andsound/musicaslisteningobjectandestablisheslisteningasasubjectitself.

Ontheotherhand,Steiner’sproposalisalsoaveryinterestingone,andalsothereasonwhyitwas

brought to this context.His approachgets closer toour ideaof a ‘criminalpolice investigation’

throughalisteningperspective:asifthroughtheeffortoflisteningmoreclosely,onecouldfindthe

tracesofanon-semioticmodulation(whatSteinercallsmusic),shapingthediscourseofvarious

philosophers’writingsoveravastperiod–fromHelenismtoCelan–throughthedimensionofstyle.

ButSteiner’sideaofmusicalityofdiscourseseemsthentobeclosetoanideaofcorporealityof

writing.Listeningasanintensifyingperspectivetogoafterthesecorporealtraces(morethanan

ideaof‘musicality’)wastheseductivefactorthatestablishedarelationwithwhatIwastryingto

developinmyownartisticpractise.

INCISIONII–Music–Barthes’firstsemiologyvs.secondsemiology/thesomathemes

Inordertogothrough,tofindawaytodealwithmusicasaconcretemultidimensionalrealm,we

muststartwithanimmersiononBarthes’writingsonmusicandonSchumann.Inthecollectionof

essaysMusic’sBody,Barthes,thephilosopher,semiologistandamateurpianist,incisesthecloud

and, recognizing Kristeva’s influence, acknowledges similar levels of phenotext and genotext in

music. At a first instance, andmaking reference to Schumann’s music, hemakes a distinction

betweenmusicofdifferentorders:theoneyoulistento,and‘musicapratica’,theoneyouplay.

Thisdistinctionisalreadyhintingatwhathewillacknowledgelateron–intheessayTheGrainof

16 The aspects most often presented as controversial are precisely its sonotropic perspective and the fact that thecomplexityofthoughtissometimesillustratedbymusicalexamplesthatarequitetonal(liketimbre)andcannot,fromamusicalpointofview,encompassthecomplexityofthoughtthatisbeingdeveloped(e.g.Hickmott2015).Ontheotherhand,somefeaturesoftheformulationofcorpssonorearebeingcalledintoquestionbyfeministpointsofview(e.g.Janus2011)andshouldbetakeninconsideration.

21

theVoice–asthesplittingofmusicsubjectinthetworealmsofpheno-songandgeno-song:

The‘pheno-song’(…)coversallthephenomena,allthefeatureswhichderivefromthestructureofthesung

language,fromthecodedformofthemelisma,theidiolect,thecomposer,thestyleofinterpretation:inshort,

everythingwhich,intheperformance,isattheserviceofcommunication,ofrepresentation,ofexpression:

whatisusuallyspokenof,whatformsthetissueofculturalvalues(…),whatisdirectlyarticulatedaroundthe

ideological alibis of a period (an artist’s “subjectivity,” “expressivity”, “dramaticism,” “personality”). The

‘geno-song’isthevolumeofthespeakingandsingingvoice,thespaceinwhichthesignificationsgerminate

“fromwithinthelanguageandinitsverymateriality”;thisisasignifyingfunctionalientocommunication,to

representation (of feelings), to expression; it is that culmination (or depth) of production where melody

actually‘workson’language—notwhatitsaysbutthevoluptuouspleasureofitssignifier-sounds,ofitsletters

(…)Genosongis,inaverysimplewordwhichmustbetakenquiteseriously:the‘diction’oflanguage(Barthes1985,270-71).

Thatbothalevelofthesignifier(assubjective,cultural,intentional)andapusaltionallevel(which

isoutsidethelaw,beyondthepersonalorsubjectivescope)belongtotherealmofmusicmakeit

farricherandencompassing:music isnotregardedasabeyondoranintangibilityofsomethingelse (language, etc) but it is approachedhas having itself a concrete, organised and structured

dimension(levelofsignifier)andanother,ungraspable,one(thepulsationallevel,orthelevelout

oflaw).

PaulodeAssisstressesthatthissplitsubjectisnotadualism,forthereseemstobeacontinuous

movement between both layers, which are mutually dependent. This movement and friction

betweenbothlayersseemtoberesponsibleforthispossibilityofapproachingtheleveloutsidethe

lawnotasabeyond,butasanungraspablerealmwhichispartoftherealityofthemusic.Thisis

something thatmakes this incision in themusic subject of a different order than the previous

incisionbetweenmusicandlanguage,andsonotropicperspectivesonmusic:itbeginstocallinto

questionnotionsofinsideandoutside,becausethepulsationallevel(asoutside)isregardedasan

insideofthemusicrealm.Barthesconceivesthecontactofbothlayersasaspecificspace,aspace

wheretheytendtotouchoneanother,infriction,formulatedasthegrainofthevoice–thebody

in the singing voice, in the writing hand, in the performing limb (Barthes 1985, 276). Barthes

expands on these ideas in Rasch, the famous essay on his experience of playing Schumann’s

Kreisleriana:

Iactuallyhearnonote,notheme,nocontour,nogrammar,nomeaning,nothingwhichwouldpermit

metoreconstructanintelligiblestructureofthework.No,whatIhearareblows:Ihearwhatbeats

inthebody,whatbeatsthebody,orbetter:Ihearthisbodythatbeats(Barthes1985,299).

He ends up seeking a second semiology in music, one that could deal with the dimension of

signifying,geno-song,andofthisbeatingbody,whileafirstsemiologywoulddealwiththesystem

ofnotes,scales,tones,chords,andrhythms(idem,312).Barthescriesoutloud:nomoregrammar,

nomore issuing from professional analysis – identification and arrangement of ‘themes’, ‘cells,

‘phrases’–itrisksbypassingthebody(idem,307).Thisnewsemiologywouldopenanewpathto

22

anotherfieldofpotentialitiesactinginmusicthroughtheemergenceofdesire,theproductionof

newagenciesofmusicalsignifying(forces,energy,power)thataresituatedbothbeforeandbeyond

linguistically determinable signification (analysis, harmony, themes, cells, phrases) (Assis 2018,

169). But what is particularly compelling and intriguing in this essay is the introduction of the

conceptofsomatheme,whichPaulodeAssis tries tobringout inamultidimensionalapproach,

dealingwiththerealmsofmusic,linguistics,andpsychoanalysis(Assis2018,159).

The name somatheme is only mentioned once by Barthes, but it is described in different

perspectivesmostlyasfigures–bothmusicalfiguresandfiguresofthebody.Regardingthesplit

subject,thesefiguresrelatetotheconceptofgrain,butperhapshavingamoreexplicitlymoving

character,actingbetweenlayersofgeno-songandpheno-song:theyemergefromgeno-song,but

areincontinuousmovement,backandforth,infrictionbetweenbothlayers,makingsudden,subtle

andalmostunperceivableappearancesintherealmofthevisibleandofsignifier.Theymakethe

beatsandtheblowsandthisbodythatdoesnot‘stayinplace’(Barthes1985,300),thatdoesnot

assume meditation’s bearing, infinite persistence and faint posture of subsidence (idem). Thesomathemesdonotsimplyrelatetothemetaphoricalmusicalgesture,butfundamentallyinclude

thephysicalgestureaswell(Assis2018,168).Thesomathemeisacontinuousmovementbetween

both musical layers, an incision in, before and beyond the music-making body, regarded as

pulsation.

INCISIONIII–Barthes’beatingbodyImplicittotheconceptofabeatingbodyistheclaimingforalevelofthebodybeyondsignification,

butwithintherealmofthebody:alevelthatcanbefeltandleaveitstraceormarkinthemusic,

butwhichcannotberecognizableinthescore.Thisformulationimpliesnotassumingthebodyas

abeyondthesignifier,astheopaquesubject,asthatwhichdoesnotpermitustodealwithitinany

way.AsD’Erricopointsout:

Roland Barthes (1985b) seems to suggest that, as there are two mutually dependent yet non-

conformablelevelsinamusicaltext,suchnon-binaryduplicitycanalsobepresentinthebody.The

body—the human body, the body of the performer—must not be naivelymistaken forwhat lies

beyond, or before, sign systems. (…) Barthes’s text seems to hint at the existence of a “first

semiology”alsoofthebody:abodythatiscodified,organised,anatomical(D’Errico2018,129).

AlthoughBarthesdoesnotexplicitlymentionso, itbecomesobviousthatwhathecallsthefirst

semiologyinmusicimpliesthisdisciplinedbodyinmattersoftechnique,ofknowingbothcultural

andsocialcodes,andofhavingthetoolsfortheintentional,andtheexpressive.Thisbodytriesto

createawholenessoutofthemultipleself,throughthemovementof‘pullingtogether’.

Thepulsional,non-semioticandnon-organisedbody,insteadofbeingdivisibleinsingleunits,orcollectableinawholeness,isabodyasdispersion.Butthispulsionalbodyisnolongerregardedas

thetotalunbridgeablebeyond.Acertain,subtletangibilityisassignedbyBarthestothis‘intangible’

23

bodythroughtheconceptofsomathemes,broughtforthas images:HowwouldIuttermybody

except in images? (Barthes 1985, 307). Assis reinforces the fact that these images should be

interpretedinthesenseofFreud’simago,ununconsciousobject-representation,whichcanbean

image,butalsoanemotion,afeeling,abehaviour(Assis2018,168).Butwecouldarguethatthese

imageshaveasudden,raschcharacter:althoughsomemightsounddescriptive,theyareglimpses

orsuddenglances,asimagesthatcannotreallyrenderawholepicture.Barthesgivesusfourteen

examplesofthesomathemesthatcouldagainbebroughtupasimagesoftheoutoflawlevelof

themusicandofthebody,andwhichhepresentsasbothmusicalfiguresandfiguresofthebody.

These figures are (Barthes’) writing fragments, relating to Schumann’s tempo indications in

Kreisleriana score. Assis compiled the fourteen somathemes in the following assemblage, a

collectionofimagesofthisbodyoutoflaw:

somethingbeginsmoving(nottoofast),

somethingstirswithoutdirection,

likeshiftingbranches,

likearustlingagitationofthebody

somethingwakens,rises,liftsitself

(likeamast,anarm,ahead),

somethingprovokes,irritates

(andofcourse:somethinggetsahard-on)

youtakeyourselfdeepinside,

youcollectyourselfatthelimitofthisdepth,

yourbodyisinternalized,losesitselfinside,

towarditsownland

youconceiveyourselfinalimitstate;

bydintofinwardness,insideturnsaround,

asiftherewereanoutsideoftheinside,

thoughthiswerenot,still,theexterior

itstirs,itthrobssopowerfullythat

itmightevencrack

—butdoesn’tcrack

directedspeed,exactitude,preciserhythm...,

rapidstrides,surprise,

themovementofaserpentthroughleaves.17

Assis claims that the “possibility of delirium” (Barthes 1985f, 309) and the centrality of desire

productioncouldbecomecentralfunctionsandcategoriesformusicproductionandreception.Such

opennesstopulsionalenergieswouldcarrya“revolutionary”potential,allowingforacompletely

17RearrangementbyPaulodeAssisoffragmentsfromRolandBarthes’sessayRasch(Barthes1985,310–11),relatingtoRobertSchumann’stempoindicationsinKreisleriana(Bewegt;Aufgeregt;Innig;Äusserstinnig;Äusserstbewegt;Rasch;etc.).

24

differentreadingofmusichistory,composition,andperformance.Barthes’ssomathemecouldact

asthecentralconceptforthisrevolution(Assis2018,169).

II. DISSECTIONSOF

1. Choosingtheexactbodies,theexactissuesThethemeofthebodyemergedasanimportantelementofthemusicalapproachesanddiscourses

inthe20thcenturypost-warvanguards,andhasbeengaininganalmostubiquitousrelevancesince.

AddressingAssisandtherevolutionarypotentialassignedtotheconceptofsomatheme,itmight

bepertinenttoask:canwepossiblystillaimforarevolutionrelatedtothebody–afterall the

‘revolutions’andmusicaldevelopmentsofthe20thand21stCenturies?Whatcornerwaspossibly

leftuntouchedorwhatstonewasleftunturned?

Inanattempttoanswerpreviousquestionsandforfurtherformulationof ideas,wewill, inthe

followingchapter,DISSECTIONSOF,usethestrategyof ‘dissecting’, throughdeconstructionand

carefulanalysis,inordertotrytounderstandhowWAMhasbeendealingwiththenon-semiotic

and non-organised body. This will mean, contradictorily, that we will focus on its ‘opposite’

perspective:onhowdifferentvirtuosityorperformanceidealsconceivedisparateorganisationsof

thebody.Tryingtounderstandhowtheperformingbodyhasbeensociallyandculturallyorganised,

disciplined,constrainedorunleashedthroughdifferentvirtuosityandperformanceidealswillbring

ustothestrategiesusedfordealingwiththebodyoutoflawthroughdifferenttimesandaesthetics.Choosingtoanalysevirtuosityorperformanceidealswillplayamajorroleinourprocessandwill

bring to the foreground the fact that, above all, these ideals refer to a number of choices and

decisions(onhowtodealwithabodyoutoflaw)andnot,atanyrate,tosomethingthatwecan

takeforgrantedinanaturalisedperspective.Thismakesvirtuosityanunavoidableissuetobringto

oursubjectandcanalreadyhintatthenecessityofformulatinganideaofvirtuosityinthisresearch

project.Modelsofvirtuosityreferdirectlytotheidealwayofhowaperformingbodyshouldbeorganised:

theypointoutthelimitsimposedasrestrictionsforbodilyexpressionandthelimitsthatabodyis

supposedtotranscend.Theyaresocialculturalconstructs,whichchangeovertimeandwhichoften

functionasakindofsuperego,imposingamoralperspectiveonwhatisconsideredrightorwrong

inthebehaviourofthebodyinaperformancesituation.Pointingoutthespecificincisionsinthe

body,itwillbecomeperceptiblethatallvirtuosityideals(eventheonesthatrefusevirtuosity)imply

(acertain)violence:thereisnobodyexpressionpossiblewithout(acertain)violence.Theseideals

or ideas of virtuositywill then show us different kinds of violence and their disparateways of

operating.Inshort,wecouldinsinuatethatthethemeofvirtuositywillhelpustocontinuefollowing

25

Agamben’s anthropologicalmachine, focusingon its specific andoperativework in this specific

contextoftheperformingbodyinmusic.

Inthissensewewillunderstand1)howtheperformingbodywas‘neutralised’/‘erased’indifferent

ways in Romantic virtuosity and 20th century structuralist or Werktreue ideals; 2) how the

performingbodyhasbeenexposed,‘revealed’fromthepost-warperiodon,throughinstrumental

theatre,Berio’stheatreofvirtuosity,complexity,andnewcomplexityvirtuosityparadigms;3)how

theperformingbodydemandstobeasubjectinPerformancestudiesagain.Allthesefactorswill

bepresentedasbeingintimatelyconnectedwithissuesofdichotomyofrolesbetweencomposers

andperformers,withdifferentestablishednotionsof ‘musicalwork’andmeaningcreation,and

differentaesthetics.

It is therefore relevant tomake a brief immersion in this realmand,without aiming topaint a

completepicture,weshallfirsttrytoapproachtheRomanticand‘Werktreue’virtuosityidealswithaspecifictarget:weshalllookforthemainaspectsagainstwhichthenewapproachessincethe

post-warperiodtendtorebelandalsotheonestheyseemtogivecontinuityto.

2. Dissectionsofthebody(ies)erased:

DissectingtheRomanticvirtuosobodyAlongwiththestabilisationandconsequentstandardisationofmusicalinstrumentscameagrowingfocusonsoundexploringandanexpandingoftheperformancepossibilitiesthroughnewplaying

techniques,asmeansofexpressionofacertainideaof‘egotisticalsublime’18.Poetsandmusiciansshare this aimof expressionand, in this sense, thepoet isdescribedbyWordsworthasaman

speaking tomen; aman, it is true, endowedwithmore lively sensibility,more enthusiasm and

tenderness,whohasagreaterknowledgeofhumannature,andamorecomprehensivesoul,than

aresupposedtobecommonamongmankind(WordsworthinWatson1992,177).Thiscultofthe

subjective connected with a somehow prophetic role was supported by a structure in the

surroundings of the music19, where most composers were simultaneously performers, and

composition and performance were intimately interlinked and not yet considered completely

independenttasks–therewasalreadyasplittingofrolesbetweencomposerandperformer,but

still not a significant one. The greatest composers of the time were composing a lot for their

instrumentsandperformingtheirowncompositionsthemselves:musicalcreationwas,toagreat

extent,conceivedasperformance.Realisationinsoundtookovermusicalstructure,bringingtothe

18ThisexpressionwasusedbypoetJohnKeatstodescribethepoetWilliamWordsworth(KeatsinWatson1992,83).19InCraenen’s‘spatial’designation,surroundingsofmusicrefertoanareasurroundingthemusicaleventswhichemergesasthemovingcontoursofadynamicthatmakemusicalactivityrecognizableinsociety,inthewiderspaceoftheworld(Craenen2014,20).

26

foregroundmusicalparametersnotgivenarelevantroleuntilnow,aswasthecaseofdynamics

andtonecolourindetrimentofthetraditionalpitch,rhythmandtherelevanceofnotation.Itisa

factthattheRomanticidealcouldonlyfullymakesenseinthisconceptionofcomposer-performer.

Composingwasdirectlyconnectedwith,first,theideaofthemusicalinstrumentasanextensionof

theexpressiveandcomposing/performingbody,and,second,withtheidealofvirtuosity(bothin

performanceandcomposition),asanactofdominationandpossessionofaninstrument.

Mypianoisformewhatthefrigateistothesailor,whatthesteedisfortheArab,andprobablyevenmoreso,becausemypiano,sofar, isme, it'smyword,mylife; it isthe intimaterepositoryofallagitationoccurringinmybrainintheburningdaysofmyyouth;thisiswhereallmydesires,allmydreams,allmyjoysandallmypainswere.Itsstringsshudderedwithallmypassions,itsdocilekeysobeyedallmywhims20(LisztinSzendy2002,13).

Wecouldsaythestrategyisthatoffascinationorevenconjuration:themusicalspaceisunfolded

byanalmostdiabolicbodywhichgathersthepowersofevanescence,ofdivineexhalationofthe

spirit through its overwhelming sound. The musical space is unfolded by the body, but goes

somewhere21,asCraenenproposes,itgoestoasomewherebetweenthenotes,somewhereasa

placewecannotdefine,asadefinitionforthisbodyevaporated,ofthisspiritexhaled,whichcould

be,attheend,theLisztianbody.

ThismagicandpossessionoftheinstrumentareachievedthroughastrategythatSzendycallsa

theatre of domestication (Szendy 2002, 14). The domestication of the music bodies enacted

throughstrictdisciplinedoesnotonlymakethemagicpossible,butactsorfunctionsas‘aperfect

resonator’forthismagic.Thefactthatresistanceandfrictionareneutralisedbydisciplinedoesnotmeanthattheyareperceivedbythelisteningbodyasinexistent–onthecontrary,itistheimplicit

complexity of the act of neutralising resistance that is perceived by the listeners as a glorious

achievement.TheidealofRomanticvirtuosityisthereforesomehowcontradictory(asprobablyall

otheridealsofvirtuosity,indifferentways):theexpressionofthesensible,subtle,andsubjective,

asmediation of transcendent realm is structured and dependent on amost strict and implicit

disciplineofthebody.SzendyevokestheNietzschean“I”andthe“Self”ofZarathustraandaffirms

that more than a struggle with the instrument’s inert matter, musical virtuosity might have

somethingtodowiththehand-to-handcombat[corpsàcorps]betweenan“ego”anda“self”,ina

kindofconjuration(Szendy2016,15).Theselfis,inthisrelation,controlledanddomesticatedby

theego,whichcomesoutofthisdisputeastheglorifiedwinner.Again,itcanbefruitfultoevoke

Watson’s description of the Romantic self as playing an important role in the poet’s creative

process:themorestableandcreativetheself,themoreitcanrejoicein itsrelationshipwiththe

20TranslationfromtheFrenchbytheauthor:Monpiano,c’estpourmoicequ’estaumarinsafragate,cequ’estàl’Arabesoncoursier,plusencorepeut-être,carmonpiano,jusqu’ici,c’estmoi,c’estmaparole,c’estmavie;c’estledépositaireintimedetoutcequis’estagitédansmoncerveauauxjourslesplusbrûlantsdemajeunesse;c’estlàqu’ontététousmesdésirs,tousmesrêves,toutesmesjoiesettoutesmesdouleurs.Sescordesontfrémisoustoutesmespassions,sestouchesdocilesontobéiàtousmescaprices.21ThisnotionisfurtherexplainedinClusterII,ChapterV.Musicalspace–hereattheimminenceofnowhere

27

externalworld.Theresultisaninterestintheindividualselfwhichleadstoanendlessfascination

withthefeelings,thegifts,theintellectualandemotionalpower,timeandplace(Watson1992,85).

In spite of the introduction of elements of disorder, a disaffection for the bigger forms and

structuresandaspecialtasteforthefragmentinmusicalorpoeticcreation,thereisstillnoreal

lossofcontrol.Itistheachievementoftheorganised,semioticbodyoverthenon-anatomic,non-

semioticandoutof lawwhichmakes,at theend,theperformingbody(throughthisrelationof

organisedandnon-organised‘bodies’)aperfectresonatorforthemusicalexpression.

Thiscultofgloryandachievementcamehandinhandwithanaestheticsof‘blindingspecialeffects’

thatleadtomoreextrememusicalpractices,likethe‘pianowars’:rivalperformersmainlyplayed

their own compositions, whichwere often variations on popular operatic arias of the day, and

sometimes improvised them,but inall cases the focuswason theathletic skill and competitive

displayoftheperformance(Cook2013,21).

Dissectingthevirtuosoinstructuralist/Werktreueapproaches

AlongwiththefactthatthecultofvirtuosityintheRomanticwastakentosuchextravagantmusical

practices,wherethesupremacyofthe‘blindingspecialeffects’seemedtobetakingover,there

were other factors responsible for a big shift in terms of ideals in musical composition and

performance.Thestrictdichotomybetweentherolesofcompositionandperformanceisoneof

these factorsand isa consequenceof, first, the inevitable specializationofperformance,which

becamemoreandmorecomplexanddifficulttomaster;and,second,thegrowingabstractionof

musicalthinkingandcomposition,wheretheprimacyofstructuretookoverthepossibilityofmusic

creationasperformance.

Thesefactsemergedalongwiththefirstrecordingandreproductionpossibilitiesever,andledtoa

Werktreue22 ideal, and to what Cook recently diagnosed as Plato’s curse (Cook 2013).Musical

meaning ismoreandmore identifiedwithnotationas inscription,andperformanceisseenasa

reproductionofmeaning,anideainlinewithPlato’sformulationof‘concept’,whichresonatesin

the Christian logic ofhoc est enim corpusmeum and in the idea of ‘metaphysics of presence’.Notationstands,itfollows,forapresencemediatinganoutside(possiblytranscendental)realm,

and performance for the achievable and inevitably imperfect ‘incarnation’ of themusical idea.

We’ve already approached the resultantmoral and authoritative discourse from composers or

22Theideaoftheperformer’sdutyhastraditionallycomeintotwodistinctversions:ontheonehanddutytothecomposer,ontheothertothework(sometimesreferredtoas‘Werktreue’)(Cook2013,13).

28

musicologists towardsmusical performance, as a result of the conception and imposition of a

performanceidealthatwouldstandforauniversaltruth.Thisconceptionsupressedthepossibility

of a dimension of style that could make room for diversity and the performers’ subjective

expression. The fact that there are different ‘schools’ or filiations of playing does not exactly

representtheexistenceofaninclusivediversity,rather,itstandsforacompetitiononwhois‘more’

right or closer to the ‘truth’. There is therefore an implicit and very strong aural tradition that

‘dictates’howaspecificcomposerorpiece‘should’or‘shouldnot’soundlike.Thispowerfulaural

tradition,asaculturalconstructandasanunconsciousandstrictframeofbehaviourassignsitself

asbeingindutytowardsanidealofobjectivity:performancebecomesacultofthescore.

Virtuositytendstonolongerbeastrategyof‘diabolic’fascination,ofexploringtheperformance

situationandrealtimeexperience,butonthecontrary,itisregulatedbyitsrelationtothescore,

andbyparametersoffaultlessness,accuracyandspeed.Itisalsowiththisnotionofvirtuositythat

theattributesofmusicalityandtechniqueinperformancebegintobeconceivedasseparateand

independentqualities:amusiciancanbesaidtobetechnicallyperfectbutlackingmusicality,ortheopposite,onespeaksofamusicianwhoisindeedmusicallyexpressivebutnottechnicallysuitable

forthetask.Techniqueisassociatedtoliteralnessofreproductionofnotation,whereasmusicality

is regarded as an individual ineffable quality, not quantifiable and not quite explainable. This

individual quality, musicality, shall then (perhaps paradoxically again) be at the service of the

‘musicalwork’,andattheserviceofanideaof‘objectivity’.Theperformer’ssubjectivityistherefore

seenasobstructiontotheexpressionofthe‘authentic’musicalidea,andconsequentlyshouldbe

suppressed,asmuchaspossible.An‘immaculate’techniqueisrequiredinordertoachievegreat

clarity andextremecontrolofexpression,neverovershadowing theobjectivemusical idea.We

couldsaythatthis idealofvirtuosityresonateswiththeconceptionofsacrifice,asdescribedby

JeanLucNancy:

It[“sacrifice”]states(inprinciple)thepassageofabodytothelimitatwhichitbecomesacommonbody,the

spiritofacommunionforwhichitbecomestheeffectivematerialsymbol(hocestenim…),anabsoluteself-

bondingofsenseinbloodandofbloodinsense(Nancy2008,169).

Linked to the rejection of the subjective is the rejection of the dimension of style. Partly as

consequenceof the suppressionof thesedimensions, there is a somehow ‘preached’ objective

ideal,whichisaurallyreproducedadnauseamthroughtherecordindustryandtheworldofmusic

performancecompetitionsandacademies.Funnilyenough,theaestheticsthatroseupagainstthe

Romantic pianowars and competitions end up installing the same logic theywere up against:

competitions became the elected context for the selection ofwho’s going to pursue amusical

carrier. The boom of reproduction through the record industry makes the globalisation of

interpretationmassiveandendless.Therepertoirethatissoughtbymusiciansandlistenersisnot

the latest innovation, thenewpossibilities of sound, aswas the tendencyduring theRomantic

period,buttherepetitionoforsmallvariationsupontheknownandestablished,itisarepetitive

andperpetualmovementtowardstherepertoireofthepast.Thereproductionmachinerunson

29

highvelocityandisfedbythemusicalindustry,theinstitutionsandtheacademy,butnevertheless,

andsomehowcontradictorily,itisalsocriticizedfromtheinside:thesystemthatrunsthemachine

criticizesthe‘empty’virtuosity,asassociatedwiththeliteralnessofinterpretation,asamachinal

functioningthatoperatesindependentlyfrominterpretationitself.Virtuosityis,again,connotedin

anegativeway.

However,withtheawarenessoftoday,wecanfindthatthescopeofreproductionmustbe,after

all,muchwiderthanwesupposedatfirst.Untilveryrecently,therewasnorealacknowledgement

that aural transmission played the most significant role in our musical tradition: WAM was

conceivedessentiallyasawrittentradition,whichwasinturnacknowledgedasbeingthehighest

responsible for the continuityand transmissionofWAMculture.Ourpresentawarenessof the

implications of aural tradition can mean that, in a context where a ‘unique’ musical ideal is

privileged, the reproduction effect has been going much beyond technique, throughout the

expressivecontent,towardstheexpressivebodyitself.Performancemighthavebecome, inthis

context,aclosedsystem.

Regarding the important conception ofmusical time in performance, the structuralist ideal no

longerseekstounfoldtimeandtobethemostexclusiveartofshapingit,asintheRomanticperiod.

Musicaltimeisconceivedas‘objectivestructuraltime’,a lineartimeoutsidethemusic,andthe

goalofperformanceturnsouttobe,inmanysenses,catchingtime,orrunningafterit:bothinits

conceptionofmusicaltimeasanimposedsteadytempowherethemusicmust‘fitin’,andonthe

otherhand,inthewayperformanceisdisconnectedfrompresent/ongoingmusicalcreation,the

wayperformanceis(ingeneral,anddespitethemanyexceptions)NOTcreatingaPresentanda

Future.

3. Dissectionsofthebody(ies)revealed,exposed,‘emancipated’:

Asconsequenceoftheseideals,andrebellingagainstsomeoftheircentralissuesandagainstthe

growing abstraction of musical thought that prevailed from serialism towards electroacoustic

music, the vanguards of the post-war period (1950s and 1960s) are proficient in shaking the

establishedmusicalsystem.Thenotionsofopenwork,indeterminacy,andtheconceptofnotation

asacreativeandgenerativesystememergedandwereexploredfromthegraphicalnotationtothetypicalFluxus’instructionsset,andtheprevailedconcerthabitswerecalledintoquestionbynew

concepts of performance, happening, etc. In this creative context, we will focus on how the

performingbodybeginstoemergeasanelementforcompositioninsomeoftheseapproaches.

Thisisintimatelyconnectedwiththeemancipationofcertaindimensionsthatwereconsideredas

extra-musical,suchastheimportantdimensionofgesture:thebodywillnolongerbetheinvisible

30

mediumforunfoldingthemusicandthemusicalspaceofsomewhere(thestrategyoftheRomantic

andWerktreueideals),butwillbeabletotakepartofandplayaroleinthemusicalideaitself.

Thesenewapproaches,ofwhich instrumental theatre is a keyevent, are inawayaneffortby

composerstobringcompositionandperformancesomehowclosertogether,andwillleadtothe

emergencenotonlyofnewmusicalconcepts,experimentsandoutputs,butalsoofnewideasof

whatvirtuositycanbe.

DissectingthebodyexposedinInstrumentaltheatre

ThephraseinstrumentaltheatrewasusedforthefirsttimebymusicologistHeinz-KlausMetzger

about John Cage in 1958 – the year when Cage presented his Indeterminacy conference in

Darmstadt,andhisworkMusicWalkinDüsseldorf(Thelin2010)(SWR2013).MauricioKagel–the

composer towhomwemostlyassociate instrumental theatre–wasalreadyworking towardsa

musicalexpressionthatassignedadeterminingroletoparameterswhichwereconsidered‘extra-

musical’.Kagelwritesanessayaboutinstrumentaltheatrein1960andcomposesthefirstversion

ofSurScène,presentedasKammermusikalischeTheaterstück/Chambermusicaltheatrepiece(SWR

2013)in1960.

Instrumental theatre is mainly characterized by 1) the fact that all parameters inherent to a

performanceareconsideredasbeingaconstitutivepartofit;2)thenotionthatallactionshavea

musicalpotential (and thereforegesture, speech,etc.areconsideredpossible instrumentalandmusicalextensions);3)thefactthatthereisanintroductionofchanceproceduresincomposition

andperformanceandintroductionofnoise/non-temperedsoundsasmusicmaterial.

Although it is mainly connoted with Kagel’s work, one can say these principles have been

approached by several other composers, such as Dieter Schnebel, Luciano Berio or Karlheinz

Stockhausen,underdifferentdesignationssuchasSichtbareMusik(Schnebel)andSzenischeMusik

(Stockhausen).Thesedifferentdesignationsarearesultofdifferentcharacteristicsandpersonal

approachestothisspecific‘musicalgenre’.Theyhavethecommonperspectiveofhighlightingthe

theatrical dimension of instrumental play, which remains most of the time latent, unclear

unformulated23(ed.Nattiez2003,424)or,inotherwords,instrumentaltheatreisaformofmusic

theatrewhere focus isonthevisualandtheatricalenergythat lies implicitly in theperformance

itself(IgesundinThelin2010).

Intheirdisparateapproaches,theseauthorsexplore1)theperforminggesture(heremeaningthe

gesture of playing the instrument) as an ‘extension’ of music; 2) scene characterization anddramaturgy;non-conventionalbehavioursorbehavioursthatgobeyondthescopeofwhatplaying

aninstrumentisconsideredtobe;3)expansionofthetraditionalconcertsituation.Thesetoolsand

23Translationbytheauthor:lamiseenévidencedeladimensionthéâtralepropreaujeuinstrumental,quirestelaplupartdutempslatenteetinformulée.

31

conceptsareusedbyalltheaforementionedauthors,nottomeanbythisthattheyareallpresent

simultaneouslyinthesamemusicalpiece.

Itisalsorelevantthatininstrumentaltheatre,themétierofcompositionislinkedtothatofscene

directing–inmostcases,compositionisnotjustalonelymétiercreated‘atthecomposer’sdesk’,

but it is also partly created in rehearsals and on stage, in a direct relationwith themusicians

involved. There is often therefore no strict discontinuity between the act of composing and

performance,bothbeingintimatelyrelatedrealms.

Regarding instrumental theatre,andbeforeanalysingBerio’sapproachtovirtuosityclosely, it is

meaningfultobringupabriefinsightonSchnebel’sperspective.Forhim,thecentralaspectofhis

SichtbareMusic lies inthe integrationofphysicalelementsandmovement incomposition–the

gestural effects of a virtuoso performance as a kind of visible music, where the virtuosity of

performance turns it into action (Thelin 2010). The action described can be, at the limit,made

independentof its ‘real’ sound results as inNostalgie (VisibleMusic II), solo for one conductor,

wheremusiccanbedeprivedofsoundandwheremusicalperformancegetsinevitablycloserto

thetheatricalortochoreographicapproach.Inthissense,Scnhebelaffirmsthatevenwhenonly

theinherentpossibilitiesoftheinstrumentsarerealized–thatis,whentheyareusedtotheirfull

capacityratherthanhavingsomethingsuperimposedonthem–theperformanceturnsintoaction.

(...)musiciansbecomeactors(SchnebelinThelin2010).

DissectingthebodyinPost-warvirtuosity&thecaseofBerio’stheatreofvirtuosity

Previous Romantic or structuralist ideals were focused, as Craenen states, on an instant

metamorphosis of the real or physical space into the phantasmal musical space, neutralising

mechanicalandphysicalaspects:inthese‘classic’performancerituals,themetamorphoseoccurs

attheprecisefractionoftimebetweenthemomentwheretheperformerisonstage,concentrated

and prepared to play, and the exact beginning of her/his performance. These new musical

approachesarehowevernotinterestedinthequickshiftofdifferentspaces:theyarefocusedon

the capacityofmovementand friction itself forunfoldingand creating thephantasmalmusical

space.PaulCraenenarguesthat ifwetrytounderstandthenewmusicapproaches, itwouldbe

bettertoaskwheretheyareinsteadofwhattheyare.Heaffirmsthatthespaceweexperiencein

musiconlyunfoldsthroughtheimpulsesitmanagestoevoke;thisspacedoesnotexistbeforethe

movements,doesnotsurroundthem,butemergeswithandinthemovement.(Craenen2014,30)

In this sense, he writes that this phantasmal space could be perceived either as a soundingsomewhereorasoundinghereorevenasoundingthere,dependingontheaestheticstrategies

used.24 The sounding somewhere ismostly associatedwithprevious situationsof classical tonal

music, in a contextwhere themusical codes are pre-established and known. It is a space that

24ThesenotionsofspacewillbefurtherexploredinClusterII,Musicalspace–hereattheimminenceofnowhere.

32

emergesthroughaquickmetamorphosisasanevaporated,etherealspace,asomewherebetween

thenotes,aspacethatisnotlocalizabletoanyextent.

Theurgefornewsoundingpossibilities,alsocharacteristicofthepost-warperiod,pavedtheway

fornewinstrumentaltechniques,whichconvokednotonlytheunheardofbutalsothe‘neverseen’

totheperformancesituation.TheyopenupthepossibilityforwhatCraenencallsamusicalspace

ofhereandthere–that inawayreferstoasituatedexploringofspecificmechanismsofsound

production.This,togetherwiththenewemancipatingperspectiveson‘extra-musical’dimensions,

opens up for a different concept of virtuosity in performance. Berio’s series of Sequenzas is a

milestoneregardingthesedifferentaspects–notonlyforsomeemblematicexplorationof‘extra-

musical’resources,suchasscenecharacterization,dramaturgy,andcertainactionsthatgobeyond

the‘playingoftheinstrument’,butforitscentralmusicalideawhich,asBeriohimselfclaims,isthe

ideaofvirtuosity.ButvirtuosityasconceivedbyBeriodistancesitselffromthenegativelyconnoted

vulgardisplaythatappealed[to]anignorantandeasilypleasedpublicbutdidnotservethemusic

well(Halfyard2007,114)andfromthepictureofanelegantandratherdiaphanousmanwithagile

fingersand[an]emptyhead’(BerioinHalfyard2007,115).

Thisnewvirtuosityintendstobeareflectivepracticeaboutitself:aboutwhatplayinganinstrument

isorcouldbe,whattheconstructedauraofaninstrumentoritsperformerisorcouldbe.Thisidea

ofvirtuosityexposesthebodiesandtheirvulnerabilityforthefirsttime,boththeperformingand

instrumentones.Thebodyisnolongerseenasthestableandinvisiblemediumforrealisationof

themusic,andtheinstrumentisnotseenasa‘natural’extensionofthebodyanymore:theuseof

newandvery complex techniquesputs the conventional and ‘almostnatural’ relationbetween

performerandinstrumentincrisis.Thereis,throughthisprocess,akindofpsychologicalseparation

ofthebodies(performingandinstrument)whichisexposedthroughthe in-betweenelementof

friction.Thiselementcomeswiththeinevitablestrangenessthatariseswiththeawarenessofthe

presenceofadifferentbodyandwiththeconsequentconsciousnessofthe‘getting intouch’of

performingandinstrumentalbody–aprocessHelmutLachenmannwouldexplorelateron.Janet

HalfyardreferstheconceptoftheatreofactionasacentralaspectoftheSequenzas:theuseof

unusualtechniquesbytheperformerandtheconsequentunusualgesturesandactionthatemergetherefromleadtoadoubledeconstructionofthespectator’sexpectations–theexpectationofhow

amusicianbehavesonstageandtheexpectationonhowaninstrumentsounds(inastrategyof

Brecht’salienationeffect[verfremdungsEffect],alsoexploredbyKagel).

Berio’svirtuositystillrelies,however,inthebasicpowerofattractivenessofliveperformanceand

theseductivefactorthatcanlieinthepureadmirationoftheskillsoftheperformerforwhatthey

are.Buthere,again,thisaspectisexploitedemotionallyabitfurther:thecomplexityofthenew

virtuosity proposed by the composer also functions as an overstimulation of the performer as

33

meansforreinstatingspecificemotionalstatesuponher/him–mostlyanxietyandstress25.This

stateoftensionbroughttotheperformanceisthenconceivedaspartofthemusical ideaitself.

One of the consequences of this strategy is the sense of ‘danger’, that some instrumental

techniques imply, and the senseof theperformingbodyasanot completely reliablebody: the

awareness that if the least thinggoeswrong, theuntil now inviolable situationofperformance

couldberevealed,afterall,asa‘crashable’system.

Butinspiteofitbeingpresentedasaperformingbodywithapotentialforfailure,weshouldremark

that,infact,thepossibilityofpresentingthisbodyrequiresabodythatisexactlythereverseofit:

thenewidealperformingbodyisalmostanon-human,beyond-humanbody,wecouldevensay

thatideallyitwouldbea‘superhero’body–abodywhichisrequisitionedforallkindsofimpossible

missions,anddespiteallincidentsofnarrativeandunusualeventsrequestedinthemusic,isable

todominatethesituationthathasbeenpreviouslyestablishedfor it. It isabodythat isableto

alwayshaveeverythingundercontrol.ThisideaisalsofurtherreiteratedbythefactthatBerio’s

idealinterpreterispossessedbya‘virtuosityofknowledge’(Halfyard2007,115):thenewvirtuosois not the previous machinal performer, who ‘only’ masters the physical skills, but must be a

performerabletodominate, ineverysense,everykindof technical,musical,historical,stylistic,

analyticissues.

It is then (again) a complex and controversial ideal of virtuosity: on the one side it demands a

performer who is more than ‘empty headed’ and, on the other, it continues to extend the

authoritative approach of the dialectic concept – musical idea vs. musical materialization.

Moreover: it is a virtuosity that claims to be critical towards the idea of virtuosity, but which

depends on the same structure of domination/submission of composer/performer as in

‘werktreue’ ideals. The friction arising between these dualities is something that had begun to

emerge most significantly with the abolishing of tonality and with the new paths trodden by

serialismandbyseveralcomposerssinceSchönberg,butonlybecomesaconsciousorsomehow

explicitsubjectinthe1960s.Berioisacutelyawareofthepotentialconflictbetweencomposerand

performer,the‘tensionbetweenthemusicalideaandtheinstrument,betweenconceptandmusical

substance’(HalfyardandBerioinHalfyard2007,115).But,mostimportantly:frictionandconflicts

arenotonlyaby-productofthisnewmusicalconception,remainingonitsbackground–theyareintentionallyexplored.

Thegreatinnovationofvirtuosityinthe20thcenturyis,inthissense,thatitisanabilitythatno

longerbelongstotheperformingbody. Inmoderniststyle,virtuosity is fundamentallycomposed

(Craenen2014, 129): neither the egotistical nor themachinal expressions are permitted to the

performer,thenewstrategycomesfromtheoutside,andismostlythatofintensifyingcomplexity,

increasingdetailandparameterisation,narrowing thepossibilitiesof theperformer’s subjective

25e.g.1.‘SequenzasIII’and‘V’haveseveraltheatricalelementsincommonbutalsosomeprofounddifferences.Botharepervadedbyasenseofanxiety.Bothrequiretheperformertoportraysomelevelofemotioninthewaythey‘performthemselves’asopposedtohowtheyperformmusic(...)(Halfyard2007,107);e.g.2.bothworks[SequenzaIIIandRecitalforCathy]arepervadedbyasenseoftheperformers’ownanxiety(…)(idem,103).

34

choice – a strategy of control. Craenenmentions that it is a product of amusical system that

generallyputsmusicintopracticefromthetop-down,somethingwhichwouldnotnecessarilymean

adictatorialrelationship(idem.).AsHalfyardstates:

ForBerioandhispeers,especiallythosecomposersassociatedwiththeDarmstadtSchoolsuchasBoulezand

Maderna,virtuositymusthaveseemedadouble-edgedsword.Ontheoneside,therewasanapparentdesiretoretainnear-completecontrolofacomposition,asseenintheapplicationofserialsystemstopitch,dynamic,

durationandattackinapiecesuchasBoulez’s‘Notations’(1951),ortheintenselevelofdetailinrelationto

thesesameareas innon-serialcompositionssuchasthe ‘Sequenzas.Thiscouldseemtobeanattemptto

createa‘virtuoso-proofmusic,thetextureofwhichwassocloselyknitthatnoadditionsorchangescouldbe

made.Ontheotherside,meanwhile,thecomplexityoftheresultingmusicdemandedamusicianpossessed

ofextremelyhighlevelsoftechnicalskill–inotherwords,avirtuoso–inordertoplayit(Halfyard2007,115,

underlinemyown).

Itturnsintoakindofproblematic,almostkindofdoublebindrelation,whereparadoxicalfeelings

orperspectivesaresettowardstheperformer.RegardingthecaseoftheSequenzas,weshould

however mention that there is one counterpart to the friction between abstract musical

idea/materialization,andcomposition/performance,whichisthewell-knownfactthatmostofthe

Sequenzaswerecomposedforspecificperformers,andsomecouldbesaidtosomehowdrawon

the‘essence’ofitsoriginalperformer(idem.109).ThemostevidentcaseisthatofSequenzaIII,for

voice,whichwaswrittenfortheveryspecificvoiceandpersonalityofCathyBerberian,sothatBerio

himselfclaimsthatitisnotonlywrittenforCathy,butisaboutCathy(BerioinHalfyard2007108).

Thetwootherevidentcasesaretheonesof1)SequenzaXIV,forcello,composedforRohanSaram,

whichbringstechniquesfromSaram’ssecondinstrument,theKandyandrum,andspecificrhythms

fromSriLanka(thecountrySaramdescendsfrom)tothecello,and2)SequenzaV,fortrombone,

composed for Stuart Dempster26 and which draws on Dempster’s habit of goofing around(DempsterinHalfyard2007,100),ahabitthatseemedtohaveremindedBerioofGrock,aclown

fromhischildhood.

ThereisinthissenseakindofeffortintheseparticularthreeSequenzastobringmusicalideaand

‘matter’closertogether, throughastrategyof ‘appropriation’ofcertainpersonalandparticular

traitswhichareincorporatedaspartofthemusicalidea.

DissectingthebodyinComplexityandNewcomplexitymusicapproaches

EchoingBerio’sperspective, thenewapproachesgoalongwith the ideaofnon-commitment to

conventionalrulestoconstantlyreinstatewhatplayinganinstrumentis.Buttheideasdiscussed

abovearetakenfurtherbycomposersof theso-callednewcomplexity, likeBrianFerneyhough,

whoendupproposingaslightshiftofperspective.Tothenewconceptionofthescoreasanover-

26AlthoughsectionBstartedlifeasanunpublishedstudyentitled‘Essay’firstperformedinBuffaloinApril1965byVinkoGlobokar(Halyard2007).

35

complexsystemisinherenttheunfeasibilityofitsrealisationtothefullextent.Frictionandconflicts

between ‘impossible’ and ‘possible’, between musical idea and musical practice are not only

explicitlyexposed(asinpreviousapproaches)buttheirpotentialiseffectivelythematisedinmusic

(Craenenarguesthat, infact, thethematizationofthebody incomposition isstillelusive inthe

music of the 1960s). Here, the musical idea is itself this conflict between abstraction and

materialisation.

WehavementionedBerio’sintentionaluseofemotionalstatesthatimplyanxietyandstressinthe

Sequenzas.InXenakis’andFerneyhough’sapproach,thisideaofexploringtheemotionalityofthe

performer is intensifiedwithaslightRomanticaura. It sharesanaimfor transcendenceandfor

regardingperformanceasaprocessof self-developmentwith theRomantic tradition,a formof

‘Bildung’ (Cook 2013, 285) However, there is a fundamental difference between the ‘personal

development’oftheRomanticandthenewcomplexityapproaches,whichisthefactthatinthe

latter,theproposalforself-developmentismadefromthe‘outside’orbyan‘outsider’:

The almost unperformable score becomes the injection from the outside that is required to force the

performingbodypastthelimitsofitsabilityandbringitintoastateofhypervirtuosity.Thevirtuosityofthe

performerisrevealedfromtheoutside,asitwere,ratherthanmanifestingitselfasanelusiveauthorityofthe

music-makingbody.Instrumentalvirtuositybecomesacompositionalconceptorastrategywithwhichthe

composingbodyforcesaccesstotheperformingbody(Craenen2014,130,underlinemyown).

Thereisnodoubtthatthestrategiesadoptedopenedupawholenewrealmofmusicalpossibilities

withundeniableartistry,withnewpathsbothincompositionandperformance.Ouraimwillbe,

nevertheless,totrytounderstand1)inthiscontext,whatexactlytheinputoftheperformerisormightstandfor,2)whatimplicationsareinherenttothisinjectionfromtheoutsideand3)whatit

meansifthecomposingbodyforcesaccesstotheperformingbody;

MostofFerneyhough’sstatementspointtowardsadirection:theoverwhelmingexcessofdetailed

informationmakesitclearthattheperformerhastomakechoicesonthematerialtobeperformed.

Through thesechoices theyare thenable to leave theirpersonalmark in theperformance.We

couldprobablysummarizetheapproachinafewwords:confrontedwiththeimpossiblescore,the

performerhasnochoicebuttomakechoices.Theexpressionforcingaccesstoabodynecessarily

implies(acertain)violencepromptedfromonebodytowardsanother.Evenifthereisapermission

andaseekingfor,theactofforcingaccesstoabodyalwaysconstitutesaviolentactinitself,atthe

edgeofwhatcouldorcouldnotbeconsideredaviolationofitsintegrity.Thereisnodoubtthatthe

performingbodymakeschoicesinthiscontext.However,wecouldalsoarguethatthechoicesofa

bodyforcedthroughcouldprobablybecomparedtoabasic‘questforsurvival’.

Thereisnospaceforamachinalperformerhere,andthecomposer’sartisticproposalisprobably

a reaction to thismachinal performer in a wider context: although sometimes it is difficult to

acknowledge,onecaneasilyobservethatagreatdealofperformerspreferstayinginacomfort

zone,notriskingtoomanynewexperiences.Thisartisticandcompositionalstatementmighthave

36

abitterflavour,touchinganexposedwound:thecompositionalproposalcanexposethefactthat

agreatdealofperformers,ifnotexplicitlyincitedtomakesubstantialchoices,mostprobablyopt

fornothavingtomakethem–preferringtostayandtoplaywithinawell-knownsafetyzone.Itis

anextremeandcomplexartisticpositionandproposal,thatofthecomposerfeelingtheurgeto

forceaccesstotheperformingbody:first,thisreactionofthecomposerseemstotouchprecisely

ontheaforementionedfactthatthemusicalperformancerealmisstillmostlycharacterisedbyits

resistancetochangeand itsrelianceonthewell-known.Second,thiscan legitimizeatop-down

relation from composer to performer, which can go beyond a paternalistic relation towards a

conceptionofthecomposerasakindofspiritualguide,whocanaffordthepersonaldevelopment

oftheperformer.Third,besideslegitimizingthisrelation,thefirstpointmakesthisartisticapproach

ahighlypertinentandvaluableone.And last,butnot least,makinggeneralassumptionsabout

groups (as we have been doing here, even if implicitly) is always problematic: it leaves the

exceptionsbehind,erasesthepossiblediversityandinstatesthearticulationofgroupsagainsteach

other–inthiscasecomposerstowardsperformersandvice-versa.Butwhatwemeantoanalysehere isnot,atanyrate,a ‘specificbehaviourofthecomposers’anda ‘specificbehaviourofthe

performers’:whatisimportanttobringtotheforeground(forourcentralquestiononthebodyout

oflaw)ishowacertainkindofinvisiblestructuralandsystemicviolencetendstoinstallitselfatthe

heartofeverymusicalapproachandaesthetic.

Althoughitpredatesitanddoesnotbelongexactlytotherangeofcomposersoftheso-callednew

complexity,Xenakis’perspectivehasanimportantrelationandinfluencetoissuesregardingthis

forcing access to the body, where the body must be understood in its physical and mental

dimensions.Xenakis’smusicdrawstowardsakindofliminalsituationinperformance,whichDavid

Schotzkocallsthecharacterof‘drama’inXenakis'music,aimingatthe‘empathy’oftheaudience

towards a ‘kathartic’ moment. (Maierhofer-Lischka, 2015). One of the strategies adopted is

describedbyMaierhofer’sessayonthepieceTherapsasfollows:

Byincreasingstrengthoftherhythmicstructure(combinedwithlessmovementinpitch),Xenakisdrawson

thepsychophysicaleffectsofrhythmstobringlisteners-performersintrance.[JovanovandMaxfield2011,31-

33]The„meditative“mind-stateaperformerexperiencesiscausedmentallybyconcentration,physicallyby

bodilyactivation.Biologically,bothaffecttheoxygensupplytothebrainwhilecausingemissionofdopamines

and adrenaline, amechanism that allows human beings to endure extreme strain. Thus, focusing on the

rhythmindifficultpassageshelpsaperformertoovercomepainandexhaustion(Maierhofer-Lischka2015,4-5).

Thiskindofaccessingthe‘inside’ofthebodyandmindisalsoreinforcedbyFerneyhough:Ferneyhough’s‘TimeandMotionStudy’III(1974)usestheInternationalPhoneticAlphabettobreakdownand

recomposethetextsonwhichitisbased,anditsoundsasifsomethingsimilarishappeningtotheperformers

when Ferneyhough refers to ‘notating the tension of the throatmuscles, position of the tongue and the

shaping of the lips, etc. as separately –rhythmicized parametric strands’. That takes Rebelo’s andBerio’s

approachtothenext level. It isas ifthecomposerisbypassingthesingerasapersonandinsteadscoring

directly for his or her vocal organs. But then Ferneyhough adds that, in thisway, ‘I was implying to the

37

performerthatheorshethinkthemselvesintothedynamicsofthesimultaneityassuch,notreproduceamore

orlesscomplexaction.Iwas,aboveall,lookingtogenerateaformof“mentalpolyphony”intheinterpreters’

minds’(Cook2013,282,underlinemyown).

Cook’sremarksandFerneyhough’sstatementspresentedinboldpointinthisdirection:theforcing

ofthebodyhasfurtherimplicationsthattendtobypassthepersonalityoftheperformer.Craenen

arguesthatinFerneyghough’smusicthemanifestationofvirtuositydoesindeedleavethenecessary

space for theperformer’spersonality (Craenen2014,129).But, ifwemayask,whatmakes the

necessaryspacefortheperformer’spersonality?And istheresuchthingasageneralnecessary

spacethatcanbecommonforeveryperformer?And,inpractise,whatexactlycorrespondstothe

expressionoftheperformer’spersonality?Whatcouldbeunderstoodhereaspersonality?

Thepersonalmarkleftbytheperformingbodytends,infact,tobesomehowdepersonalized.This

characteristicisreinforcedbythewordsofFerneyhough:

‘Performersarenolongerexpectedtofunctionsolelyasoptimallyefficientreproducersofimagined

sounds;theyareinthemselves“resonators”inandthroughwhichtheinitialimpetusprovidedbythe

scoreisamplifiedandmodulatedinthemostvariedwaysimaginable’(FerneyghoughinCook2013,282,underlinemyown).

TheambiguityofFerneyghoughs’perspectiveisakindofbackandforthmovementregardingwhat

thesubjective inputof theperformershouldorcouldstand for:sometimeshisapproachto the

performerseemsquitedepersonalising,sometimesitisatheorisationoftheperformer’sfreedom,

andsometimesitcontrivestobebothatonce(Cook2013,282).

However, the fact that the approach goes towards this idea of depersonalizing the performer,

towards an ideaof bringing thebodybeyond thepersonal or the subjective scope, brings very

importantideastoourdiscussion,evenifparadoxically.Becausethismeansthatthefocusofmusic

isnotdirected to theusual semioticdimensionsand theusualmusicparameters, and that this

compositionalapproachisopeningupthespacefortheenergeticimpulsesthatliebeyondwilland

conscience.Itdoesnotuseastrategyofdomesticationoftheoutoflawlevelofthebody,instead

itdevelopsastrategythatcould,inaway,beconsideredtheopposite:astrategyofstirringupthe

bodythroughthisinjectionorforcingaccess,astrategyofoverwhelmingthebodysothattheout

oflawbecomesinevitablytangible,audible,visible.Thisstrategyofputtingthebodyinanextreme

situation, through the over-complex and over-detailed score, a situationwhere the performing

bodymustseekits‘survival’intermsbeingabletodealwithcomplexityis,wehavetoaccept,a

veryfunctionalcompositionstrategy:itbringstotheforegroundtheperformingbodyasabodywe

didnotknowbefore.

Andthefactisthatperformerscanindeedfindnewwaysthroughmusicandperformanceandgo

beyondtheirusualscope,asmany(myselfincluded)seemtoagree:PlayingTheraps,Ifeelchallengedandenrichedatthesametime.Emptyingmymind,burstingintoaballof

energy, this piece has a value that goes far beyond the Xenakis cliché into a life-changing experience

38

(Maierhofer-Lischka2015,8-9).

But we ought, however, to reflect upon certain features of this relation. In this context, if

depersonalisation happens, it arises most probably in an asymmetric relation: the composer

depersonalisestheperformer.Andmostofthetime,thisdoesnotseemtoworktheotherway

around,evenifwemightsaythat,throughthisstrategy,thecomposerlosescontrolovertheresult.

Thelossofcontrolmightberelativeinacontextwherehe(moreoftenthannotit’sstillhim,rather

thanher)isstilltheonewhodecidesoverwhatparametershehascontrolandtheoneshehasnot.

However,asymmetricdepersonalisationofcomposerandperformercanalsohappeninacontext

wherethecomposeralsoloses(some)controloverwhathecontrolsornot27.Another problematic statement is, again, the already stated presentation of the work by the

composerasaproposalforthepersonaldevelopmentoftheperformer.

One of the fundamental values of this culture, which is a commitment to transcending ‘the

conventional wisdom’ to which Ferneyhough referred, a process of self-development as both

musicianandpersonthatisstructuredaroundtheconstantre-evaluationofwhatitistoplayyour

instrument(Cook2013,280).

On theotherhand, thestatement implies (probablynotonlyata subliminal level) that,as saidbefore,thecomposer’srolecanbelinkedtoanideathatmightbeclosetotheideaofaspiritual

guide;thattheperformermightneedthisnear‘spiritualguide’fromtheoutsideinordertobeable

to transcend theirperspectivesor capacities, that the composer can, if they sodesire, useand

abusetheirdemands,sincetheyareprotectedbyastructuralandsystemicsocialconstructbased

ontheideathattheperformerisconsideredtobegoodorexcellentwhentheyaccepteverynew

assignmentandexperimentproposed.Thisstructuralandsystemicsocialconstructsays:thebest

new-musicperformersaretheoneswhodoeverythingandalwaysgiveYESasananswer.

ThealwaysYESanswerperformershavebeen,however,thesmallexceptiontotheruleandthe

onespraisedbythenewmusicscene.Therule,infact,hasbeenmadebytherealmofperformers

whoalwaysgiveNOasananswer(andwhoworktowardsthemusicofthepast).Thezonebetween

NO and YES has been growing over the last decades, but for a very long time it was almost

inexistent,makingthemusicalandperformancesceneverycompartmentalized(nottomention

the other niches of early music, historically-informed performance, etc). It is striking and very

relevant toobserve that thealwaysYESand thealwaysNOperformers correspond toopposedperspectives in performance, but that they function mostly in the same authoritative model

towardsthemusicalideaasconceivedbythecomposer.

Dissectingthebodies,weconfirmthattheincisionsofthemachineproliferatefromtheRomantic

tothenewcomplexityvirtuosities.Themachinecarves/incisesthebodiesindifferentplaceswith

27Thismightbeafruitfuldiscussiontopursueinadifferentcontext.

39

different procedures, different accuracies, different timings, and through different types of

violence.

Anothermainissuetobeconsideredinallthesevirtuosityidealsisthat,althoughinverydifferent

ways, there is an ontological and stable conception of the performer as a mediator between

realities(insideandoutside)andasakindofresonatorforanotherreality,anoutsiderealm.We

couldprobablysaythatFerneyghough’sviewoftheperformerasresonatormightnotbe,afterall,

astatementthatthatcomesoutoftheblue:infact, it ispossiblethatthiscorrespondsinmany

different ways and aesthetics to the different conceptions of Western performers ever since.

Obviously,theconceptionoftheperformerasmediatorandresonatorforanotherrealityofthe

Romanticandstructuralistapproacheswasverydifferent:asCraenenarguesinanothercontext,

strictdisciplineseemstofunctioninthetonalrealmasaresonatorforthemusicof‘somewhere’

andwhereresistancetotheinstrumentalbodyseemstohavebeenovercome,thebodydisappearsandthe

mediumcomesintoview.Amusic-makingbodyasatransparentmediumbecomesmusicitself.Orperhaps

vice-versa:inamediumwithoutresistance,musicismadeflesh.Inbecomingsimultaneouslyfluidandflesh,

experiences of magical presence can occur: the virtuoso transcends his or her real spatial existence by

embodyinga“not-here”insound.

TheRomanticbodyresonatingthesublime;theWerktreuebodyresonatingtheabstractmusical

ideaand ‘work’;Berioexposingthebodyasasomehowexplicitmediatorandresonator forthe

musicalideaand‘work’;thenewcomplexitytrulyconceivingmediationandtheresonatorbodyas

musicthematization:alltheseconceptions,althoughverydifferent,relyonthesamestableground.

What is truly new in Ferneyhough is the fact that mediation and resonance are explicitly and

intensivelyexposingthatdifferentbodiesnotonlyhavedifferentpersonalities,butalsodifferent

resistances,differentnerves,differentinherentenergies,impulses,etc,thatarenotcontrolledbywill,intentionandemotionalexpression.Inshort:theyareexposedinthiscontextasbeing,infact,

singularresonatorsandmediators.

DissectingthesubjectivebodyinnewPerformanceStudies

ItishoweverimportanttomentionthatnewPerformancetheories–andwewillfocusonNicholas

Cook’s point of view – bring to the foreground this mediation problem and demand another

conception of musical meaning. Not conceivingmeaning as inscribed within the score, and as

something which is supposed to be revealed by the performer, meaning is seen as a process

unfoldedbyperformance.Thescore,inturn,isnolongerregardedasasacred,completeandclosed

text tobereproduced,andstructureandan ideaofobjectivityareno longerconsideredas the

highestparametersthatoutlineanddefinetheperspectiveofperformance.Therefore,thescoreis

approachedmoreinthesenseofascript,orasetofinstructions,andthesubjectiveinputofthe

performerisnotonlywelcome,butsomehowself-evident.Furthermore,theconceptofmusical

workisnolongerregardedasaclosedandfixedidentity,butinlinewithLydiaGoehr’sideaofwork

asa regulative concept subject to historical change rather than a timeless ontological principle

40

(GoehrinCook2013,23)andawayofthinkingaboutmusicandstructuringitspractice,thatfulfils

anormativefunction(idem,22).ThenewwayofapproachingmusicalworkinPerformanceStudies

doesnotrelyontheideaofanexistingfixedsetoffeature(s)orstructure(s)thatidentifythemusical

work and distinguishes it from all others. Instead, it brings to discussion concepts such as

Wittgenstein’sideaoffamilyresemblances:notallmembersofafamilywillshareUncleEdwin’s

nose,butsomewill,andthosewhodon’twillshareotherfeaturessuchasAuntAlice’schin–sothat

lookedatintheround,wecanseeeveryoneisrelated(Cook2013,241).Untilnow,theconceptof

workwascompletelyindependentofperformance,andperformancewasnottakenintoaccount

formattersofitsconceptionanddiscussion.Fromthispointofview,differentperformancesare

notonlytakenintoaccount,buttheyconstituteagreatdealoftheensembleorfamilyofreferents

that will determine themost or least common features of amusical work. Another important

referencetothenewconceptofmusicalwork isthebridgemadetowardstheauraltraditionin

storytelling.RegardingthestoryofCinderella,CookstatesofBarbaraHerrnsteinSmith(1980):For

anyparticularnarrative,thereisnosingle’basically’basicstorysubsistingbeneathitbut,rather,an

unlimitednumberofothernarrativesthatcanbe‘constructed’ inresponse‘toitor’perceivedas

related‘toit’’(SmithinCook2013,241).

Thesenew insightsarevery important in theperspectiveofanemancipationof the roleof the

performingbodytowardsthemusicalideaandcomposer.Cook’spointofviewis,inthiscontext,

an extremely important one and opens many new perspectives for the emancipation of the

performingbody.Buttherestillisamainquestionwhichisdifficulttoovercome,whichrelateswith

anontologyofperformance that is still stuck to thedialecticof subjectivityandobjectivityand

somehowwith the ‘making human’ subject. Aswe have seen, objectivitywas a ‘false step’ for

thinkingmusicalperformance:anunderminedconcept(evenbyscience)whichrevealeditselfasa

socialconstruct.Thissocialconstructseemedthentocorrespondmoretoadimensionofstyle,

erased from themusical speech inorder toestablish the former ideaof ‘one-right-perspective-

possible’. Going back to the subjectivity of the performer seems to be thewaywhich is being

opened again by Performance Studies, but it can easily get stuck to the same logic. Themain

problemseemstobehowtofindawaytogobeyondsubjectivityandobjectivityandthinkbeyond

theusualscopes.Inthissense,LuciaD’Erricodescribesthenewperformancepractices:

aninterpreterallowshim-orherselftoaddanemotionalqualificationtothefactualtext.Heorshe

narrativises,linearises,endowswithmeaning—evenpossiblyincludingmeaningsthatdifferfromthe

onesallegedlyattributedtothepiecebythecomposer.Butheorshealsodisruptsthelinearfactuality

of thescorethroughanemotional levelofmeaning.The interpreterenactsthedialecticdialogue

betweensubjectivityandobjectivity.Heorsheisalerttothebody’sfunctionalautonomicresponses

tothenarrativeexpectationsraisedbythetext.Theinterpreter“breathes”withthemusicalwork;

heorshegivesapounding“heart”tothetext.Atthesametime,thetaskoftheinterpreterfailsto

addressintensity:heorsheisunawareofalevelofthebody—andofthebodyofthetext—thatacts

andreactstoofastforconsciousnesstoreaddressitintocoherence,andforthefunctionalbodyto

bemoved by it. An interpreter must interiorise a text. Being assimilated, the text finds a place

41

alongside the coordinates of anatomy (Euclidean bodily interfaces) and the axis of autonomic

functions(heartbeatandbreathing,expectationandemotion)(D’Errico2018,164).

Thislevelofthebody,thatactsandreactstoofastforconsciousnesstoreaddressitintocoherence,

whichtheperformerseemstofailtoaddressinthisperformanceapproach,seemstobesomehow

implicitly present in the new complexity perspective. The strategies that were used by the

composer to access it seemnevertheless to be just a little part of a great potential ofmusical

possibilities.

Butwhatisthislevelofthebodyandhowcanweaccessit?

Apossibleansweris:onewaytoaccessit istoforceaccessthroughastrategyofoverwhelming

throughtheover-complexscore.

Butcan therebeothercompositionalorperformativestrategies forunleashing this levelof the

body? And how canwe conceive virtuosity as an intense self-reflective practice that does not

necessarilyneedtobethis‘forcingaccesstotheperformingbody’byanoutsiderbodyandover

complexsemioticinput(throughacomposer/performerrelationthatcanbeasymmetric)?

And how can we go beyond these paradigms of outside/inside, idea/incorporation,

composer/performer?

Howcanwethinkinnewterms,beyondtheusualscopeofsubjectivityandobjectivity,andbeyondthedialecticsofcomposer/performer?

Andhowcanweconceivenewparadigmsofcomposer-performerthatgobeyondthepersonalor

subjective expression, characteristic not only of the Romantic period, but also of current pop

culture?(inotherwaysandaesthetics,settingasidevirtuosityandfocusingona‘natural’bodyand

‘authentic’bodyexpression).

Theseweresomeofthemainquestionsthatarosefrommypracticeandresearch.Ouraimwillbe

totrytofindortoforgedirectionsinordertoanswerthesequestions.Thefollowingchapterwill

thentrytotouchorcapturethislevelofthebodythroughdifferentauthorsandperspectives,and

asmuchaspossible,itwillexplorehowit(in)operates.Wewillunderstandthatallauthorsbrought

tothiscontexttendconceiveofthebodybeyonddualitiesandthatallopenupsimilar(although

different)conceptionsofadisruptivelevelofthebody.

42

III. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)

1. Abolishingthebox

Thecentralityandubiquityoftheroleofthe‘body’canberegardedasageneraltendencyinthe

new music scene since the post-war era. The standpoint we arrived at is no longer one that

approachesmusicastheartofineffable28,butonethatstartstoacknowledgethebodyashaving

anextremelyimportantroleinthemusicalprocess,acknowledgingmusicalgestureasthemulti-

modaleventwheremusicalmeaningiscreated.Butitismyclaimthatthescopeofthisrolecango

muchfurtherandopenuptootherconceptionsbothofthebodiesandofmusicalcreation.The

body is not a stable ground on which one can create anew. The body is in each moment,

continuously (re)creating itself,disintegrating,modulating,discovering itself, undermining itself,surprisingitself.Thereisnowaywecanaccuratelypredictthisprocess:wecannot,howeverhard

wetry,overcomeSpinoza’sultimate ‘question’:nooneknowswhatabodycando…(Spinoza in

Assis2018,25).

In the process ofmusic-making,Western ArtMusic (WAM) has put all its effort in giving clear

‘answers’tothisquestion,establishingperformanceandvirtuosityparadigmsandidealsthrough

times.Butestablishingdefinedparadigmsfortheperformingbodymeansgivingclearanswerstoa

questionwhich cannot be clearly answered. It implies simplifying complexity, reducing/erasing

dimensionsor important layersofan issue.WAMhasnotbeenabletoclearlyencompassother

dimensionsofthebodyandconsequently,otherconceptionsofmusicalcreation.

Presumably,theproblemisthatthediscussionhasbeenhadexclusivelyfromthepointofviewof

theexplicitknowledgetowardstheorganised,signifyingbodyanditsintentional,narrativerealm.

Theissuesindiscussionaremostlyrelatedtowhatwecancontrol,andhowwecancontrol,how

wecancontrolbetter,findingbridgesorbuildingnewones,linking,integrating,pullingtogether.

Theseareofcourseessentialtoolsandperspectivesforrenderingpossibleanyactsofcreationand

innovation:withoutthemallthatwouldremainwouldbepureentropy…

Butwhatisprobablystillmissingisanin-depthdiscussiononthedimensionsofthebodyandofthemusicthatwecannotcontrol,inordertounderstandthattheyarebeyondtheusualnotionsand

dichotomiesofcontrol/outofcontrolandbeyondthenotionsofinside/outside.Whatisthenstill

missingisadiscussiononfindingdifferentwaysofdealingwiththebodyandwiththebodyofmusic

thatdonotapproachtheiroutof law levelasatotallyunbridgeablebeyond,onfindingwaysof

understandingthislevelasalevelpertainingtotherealmofthebodyandofthemusic.Finally,this

discussion is urgent because we don’t have the vocabulary for these dimensions that play an

extremelyimportantroleinthemusicalprocess:itiscrucialtofindwaystoforgeavocabularyand

tounderstandthatthisrealmofthebodyandofthemusiccanfunctionthroughdifferentbutquite

specificlogicsofrelation,timeandspace.

28Thisstatementmightbevalidinthecontextofmusicacademia.However,aswehaveseeninpreviouschapters,thephilosophicaldiscourse(andmainstreamopinion)aboutmusicisstillveryoftenentangledwithanontologyofmusicthatisbasedonthisimmaterialandineffableessenceand/ornaturalorder.

43

Thebodyhasbeenthoughtaboutandapproachedmainlythroughtheinstalledparadigmofthe

composer/performer dichotomy since the beginning of 20th century, a paradigm which surely

openedupthemostoutstandingdoorsformusicalcreationandperformance.Nevertheless,the

opening of certain doors led (probably, as always) to the closing of others: it imposed a strict

dichotomybetweenmusicalidea/musicalpractice,outside/inside,wideningthegapbetweenthe

rolesofcomposerandperformer.Theserolesgottheneitherassociatedtotheroleofcreationof

meaning(theformer)orreproductionofmeaning(thelatter).Althoughtheperformingbodybegan

tobeassignedprogressivelyasmusicalmaterialorevenasmusicalsubjectinthemusicvanguards

of thepost-war, thebodyhasstillbeenmostlyapproached through the lensof thisdichotomic

paradigmandtop-downrelation.Acompletelynewsituationemerged,asCraenen(2014,130)puts

it:thevirtuosityoftheperformerisrevealedfromtheoutside,asitwere,ratherthanmanifesting

itself as an elusive authority of the music-making body. Instrumental virtuosity becomes a

compositionalconceptorastrategywithwhichthecomposingbodyforcesaccesstotheperforming

body.This,alongwithotheraestheticmotivations,enabledimportantachievementsregardingtheemancipationoftheroleofthebodyinmusicalcreationinWesternArtMusicsincethepost-war

era.

GivingcontiguitytoAssis’claimregardingtherevolutionarypotentialof thesomathemes– that

probablyotherrevolutionsofthemusic-makingbody(ies)arestilltobemade,Iwouldsaythatthey

willcertainlyaskfornew,moreencompassingandnon-normativeconceptionsbothofthebody

andofmusic,certainlyforgingnewpotentialformusicalcreation.Forthis,wewillprobablyhave

tothinkawayfromdichotomiesandnotionsofinsideandoutside:notthinkingthebodyfromthe

‘inside’anymore,as inthe innerandsubjectivequestoftheRomantic,northinking it fromthe

‘outside’ as in themostly ‘objective and structuralist’ 20th centuryparadigm.NewPerformance

studiesbroughtveryimportantnewinsightsregardingtheconceptsofmusicalworkandcreation

ofmeaning,tryingtogoagainsttheclaimed‘objectivity’ofthewerktreueideals,buttheyoppose

themwithinthesamelogicsofduality,callingforthesubjectivityoftheperformer–theintentional,

theemotional,thepersonalnarrative.Itisprobablyallabouttheoldquizofthebox:inordertogo

furtherisnotenoughtothinkoutsidethebox,itisrequiredtoabolishtheboxitself.

2. Towardsadisruptivelevelofthebody–throughthreeclustersofauthors

Researchledmetowardsthreerecentclustersofauthorsthattrytoforgenewconceptionsforthe

body and also for musical creation. They include perspectives from philosophy (with some

incursions inscience)andmusical/artistic research;havingbeen independentlydeveloped, they

havenoapparentconnectionbetweenthem:eachofthemdoesnotmakeclearreferencetoone

another.Butintheendwefindthemostinterestingandsurprisingintersectionandtangentpoints.

Weshallstartbyacknowledgingthatalthoughverydifferentlyformulated,allthreeclustersopen

for a conceptionof adisruptive levelof thebody, as a leveloutside subjective control and the

44

linearityofspace-time–an‘outside’levelthatishoweverconceivedasbelongingtotherealmof

thebody.Andwecancontinuetakinginconsiderationfeaturesthataresharedbyallthesedifferent

formulations: first, it is approached as a level that calls into question the duality in notions of

outside/insideandalevelwecannotclearlyreachorfocuson:itdoesnotstayinplace,itcannot

beexpectedinaspecificlineartimepointorspaceandwhenithappenstoemerge,itdoessoina

glance,inamicrotimeframe,butopeningnewandnon-linearconceptionsofspace-time.Itseems

therefore to be a level of the body that escapes logic of sense and instead follows a logic of

sensation:anautonomouslevelofthebodythatdoesnotrelatetothenarrative,semioticrealmin

alogicofexpectation,alevelthatisitselfdisruptiontowardsthissamenarrativeorsemioticrealm.

Itseemshoweverthatitcanestablishotherdifferentkindsofrelationstothisrealm,somethingwe

willtrytoinvestigatefurtheron.Lastbutnotleast,itismostimportanttoreferthatthedifferent

disruptivelevelsofthebodyformulatedinthethreeclustersshouldnot,atanyrate,bemistaken

foranykindofmysticconceptionofthebodyorevenforarawdomainofthebodythatcouldstand

forakindof‘naturalised’orpre-evolutionalstate,inalogicofdualismofculturevs.nature.We’reapproachinga levelthatseemstorelatetoeverykindoffunctionofthebrain,higherfunctions

included.

Butbesidesthe importanceof thedifferentconceptionsofadisruptive levelof thebody,other

neighbouringfeaturesbroughtupbytheseclustersarecrucial totake intoconsideration inthis

context: first, an idea that completely opposes sonotropism and which brings the process of

making/performingmusicasaprocessof ‘embodying’– throughan interpretationandeffiction

processthatgeneratesphantomlimbs(Szendy);orthroughatransductionprocessthat in-forms

new individualities (Assis). Second, all three clusters make formulations of a kind of

‘communication’ which does not operate in a logic of transmission/assimilation of a semiotic

content–Szendyrefersto‘aformoftelepathy’;AssisandD’Erricocallfora‘modeofaffection’;

andGil refers toPaxton’s contact improvisationas aprocesswhereosmoseof theunconscious

movementsoccurs.Andlast,butnotleast,itbecomesevidentthatBarthes’writingsonSchumann’s

musicandhisconceptofabeatingbodywillbedeterminingfortheformulationofthisdimension

througheachofthethreeclusters.

The first cluster brings together the authors Jean-LucNancy and Peter Szendy (with important

references toNietzscheandBarthes), andwill formulateadisruptive levelof thebody throughNancy’sconceptofareality.MusicperformanceasaprocessofembodyingisformulatedbySzendy

throughtheconceptofeffiction,aprocessthatgivesrisetotheformationofphantomlimbs,and

whichresonatessomeofNancy’sideas(thebodyseenasabecomingbody,asacontinuousprocess

ofpartesextrapartes)aswellasNietzsche’sformulationofinterpretationasformationoforgana.

The second cluster will be formulated through the ideas of Paulo de Assis and Lucia D’Errico

(bringingupBrianMassumi,GilbertSimondon,GillesDeleuze,withabigemphasisonBarthes),

callingforththedisruptivelevelofthebodythroughMassumi’sconceptofintensityasaffect,and

conceivingmusicalperformanceas in-formationandtopologicalexperiencethroughSimondon’s

conceptoftransduction.

45

Inathirdcluster,andthroughPaulCraenen’sapproach,wewilloutlineadisruptive levelofthe

body through Craenen’s interpretation ofManfred Clynes ‘double stream theory’ and Barthes’

beatingbody.Wewilltrytoenlargethescopeof‘impact’ofthedisruptiveleveltoamorepractical

contextofmusiccreation,andtrytofindcompositionalstrategiesforbringingthisdimensionof

thebodyandofthemusictotheforeground.ThroughCraenen’sconceptofbodyaszeropoint,and

its relationtoStevePaxton’ssmalldancewewillcalluponJoséGil’swritingsonStevePaxton’s

smalldancethroughDeleuze’sconceptofvirtuality.

Ultimately,throughtheinputofartistryormusicalpractisedevelopedthroughoutthetrilogyand

previousresearch,wewillbegintooutlineotherperspectivesbothforthemusicbodiesandforthe

sensesinthecontextofthisresearch.Abodylisteningwillbegintobeshapedthroughtheconcept

oflistening|theopen.

3. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)I.(Nancy/Szendy)

‘AREALITY’–Thebody‘ex-tended’/‘exscribed’(Nancy)

Nancyrefersthebody,throughhis ideaofareality (aréalité),asanextendedandnon-mediated

concept,asabodytowhichalevelofasuspended,‘areal’realitybelongs:thebodyisdescribedas

havingalackofrealitywhichisreal.

ForNancy,thisbodyisnotagivenanditsmeaningisnotexactlytranscendentnorimmanent:there

isnomisterytoberevealed,nothingtodecipher,thebody’scipheristhebodyitself.(Nancy2008,

142).Meaningisnottobefoundoutsidetherealmoftheconceptofbody.Instead,meaningcan

beregardedastheprocessofmaking-bodyitself:thebodyisalwaysapproachedasabecoming-

bodyorabody-becominganditisthisprocessthatproducesmeaning,oreven,itisthisprocess

thatisitselfregardedasmeaning.Thebodyisnotseenasamediatorbetweenanoutsideandan

inside,sinceit isnotregardedastheincarnationofatranscendenceorofaspiritasinthelogic

imprintedinhocestenimcorpusmeum.Butthefactthatitisnotregardedasamediatorbetweenoutsideandinsidedoesnotmeanthatthebody(ies)areconceivedasaclosedentity(ies):these

body(ies) are not localisable matter in linear space. Instead, they are approached as being

themselves the spacing, the opening:body(ies) are theplasticityof expansion itself (idem156).

Rather than conceiving the body(ies) as body(ies) in space, Nancy conceives the bodies as the

space(ing) itself, aspossibilities for spacing. Thoughtas amoreencompassing concept,Nancy’s

body(ies)implythisextension,orbetter,thisex-tensionordisplacement,designatedasareality:

‘Areality’ is an antique word, signifying the nature or specificity of an ‘aire’ (“area”). By chance, this word also serves to suggest a lack of reality, or rather a slight, faint, suspended reality (...). But this faint reality makes the whole ‘areal real’, where the so called archi-tectonics of bodies is played out and articulated (…). The real, as areal, merely reunites the ‘infinity’ of maximal existence (…) with the ‘finite’ absolute of an areal horizon. This “reunion” is not a mediation: and what ‘body’ means, what body means and provides for thought, is only ‘this’, that there’s no mediation ‘here’. The finite and the infinite do not pass into one another, they do not dialecticize each other, or sublimate the place to a point, or concentrate areality into a substractum. ‘Body’ has this sense, but this sense must, in turn, be subtracted from signifying dialectic: ‘body cannot mean body’s real

46

sense beyond body’s reality horizon’. “Body” must therefore make sense ‘right’ at extension (including the extension of the ‘word body’…) (Nancy, 2008, 77).

Thissuspendedrealityofthebodyisregardedasreal,asbelongingbothtorealityandtotherealmofwhatbody(ies)‘are’.Thiscanmean,again,thatthenotionsofinsideandoutsidearecalledinto

question:thissuspendedrealityastheoutsiderealmofthebodyisregardedasbelongingtothe

inside of the realm of the concept body. It is interesting to note that this suspended reality is

formulated through a starting point that acknowledges the impossibility of writing the body.

Nevertheless,thisimpossibilityofencompassingthebodythroughsignificationdoesnotconceive

thebodyasabeyond.Inordertoconsiderarealityasanoutsidethatbelongstoaninsideofthe

body, this intangible character of the body gains a certain subtle, faint, tangibility: although

suspended,areality isagainregardedasreal,asbelongingtoreality. Inwriting,Nancysays, the

bodyisleftoutsidethesemioticrealm:itcanonlybeexcribed,touchedbutleftoutsidethesemiotic

text, as a suspended realityof the text, as itsareality. Theexcriptedbody cannot thereforebe

encompassed through signification, but is conceived as a reality that can possibly be touched,

sensed.

Butthissenseof thebodythatseemstorelatetothedimensionofexscriptionappearstobea

sensewhichfailstomakesense:described(Nancy2008,116)asamute,closed,autisticsense(…)

as an autism without an autos and with no “self” this sense is not only a sense for sensingdiscontinuityof sense/meaning,butasensewhich isdisruptionofmeaning itself,discontinuity.

Thisdisruptivesenseorthissenseasdisruptionisthentheorizedasabreakthrough[effraction],as

a suspension: the “fundamental” suspension of sense (idem, 124). This ‘sense’ that is put in

suspensionandunderminedbythebreakthroughisthelinearlogicofsenseandthedimensionof

signification. Suspending thepossibility of continuity, of narrative linearity, thebreakthrough is

thendescribedbyNancyashavingasomehowseismiccharacter,throughhisformulationofthe

bodyasthearchitectonicsofsense(idem,125).Thismutesense,outofjudgementandoutofthe

‘subjective realm’ is thenpresented ina contextwhere theusual senses, theirboundaries,and

limitsarealwaysbeingcalledintoquestion.

Andwhynotsenses,also,withoutnames,senseswedon’tsense,ornotassenses,likethesenseofduration,

oroftimepassing?Oreventhesenseofthespacingofthesenses?Orthesenseofpureex-tension?Ofex-

istence?(idem,131).Nancyspeaksthenofan‘open’sense(assignificance)ofthebodyas“sensory”senses

are–orrather,opened‘by’theiropening,exposingtheirbeing-extended–asignificance,itselfspacing,of

spacing(idem,172).

It could be very pertinent to link this idea ofexscription of the body to our themeof Barthes’

experienceofabeatingbodythroughSchumann’smusic:abodywhichisnottobefoundinthe

score, nor in any structure or theoretical analysis, but which seems to be ‘sensed’ or touched

beyondtheusualsenses,byBarthes,asplayingamostessentialroleinthemusic.Exscriptionof

thebody,andtheopeningofthesensestootherkindsordimensionsofsenses,asconceivedby

47

Nancy,wouldthenbeapossibilityforexplainingthisbeatingbodyasabodyexscribed.InCorpus

NancydoesnotrefertoBarthes’beatingbodyspecifically,althoughhereferstohiswritingstyle.29

Nancyandthesubject‘as’listening

WewillnowturnourattentiontoNancy’sformulationofmeaning,orhisformulationofasubject

through listening.Asubjectwhichis,accordingtotheauthor,neitheraphenomenologicalnora

philosophicalsubject.Inthisperspectivethereisnosuchthingasadichotomybetweenasubject

wholistensandanobjectoflistening.Listening,asarelation,constitutesthesubjectitself,sothat

this ‘listening’or this ‘subject’areagain foldingnotionsof insideandoutside intooneanother:

meaningandsoundsharethespaceofareferral[renvoi]30,inwhichatthesametimetheyreferto

eachother,and(…)thisspacecanbedefinedasthespaceofaself,asubject.(Nancy2007,8).The

subjectisthisreferral31thatisalsoregardedassharing:communicationisnottransmission,buta

sharingthatbecomessubject:sharingassubjectofall“subjects”(Nancy2007,41).Inthisnotion,

meaningisseenascommunicationorcirculationitself(Nancy2013,20),asthisresonantreferral

ofsoundineverydirectionsimultaneously.ButoneofthemostrelevantideasofNancy’sthought

is the fact thatmeaningor resonanceariseswithself-displacement (connectedwiththe ideaof

aréalité):meaningbeginswherepresenceisnotpurepresencebutwherepresencecomesapart[se

disjoint]inordertobeitselfassuch.This"as"presupposesthedistancing,spacing,anddivisionof

presence.(Nancy2000b,2).Thelisteningsubjectisthereforeaninbetween,adisplacement:there

isnocontinuity,butcontiguity.Thismeansthatasabetween,thelisteningsubjectbringstothe

foreground the friction (as sound attack, etc) thatmakes the distance and difference between

surfacesevident.Itisthedifferenceanddistancebetweenthedifferentsurfacesintouchthatallow

theopeningandspacingofthesoundineverydirection:

(…)butthelawoftouchingisseparation;moreover,itistheheterogeneityofsurfacesthattouch

eachother.Contactisbeyondfullnessandemptiness,beyondconnectionanddisconnection.If"to

comeintocontact"istobegintomakesenseofoneanother,thenthis"coming"penetratesnothing;

thereisnointermediateandmediating"milieu."Meaningisnotamilieuinwhichweareimmersed

(Nancy2000b,5).

29NancydescribesBarthes’swritingstyleasastylewheretheveryproduction(creation)ofliteratureisofferedinpersonand in body (memories, fragments, autobiography, theory), abandoned and bandaged, hyper-signifying as awriter’s“‘throbbingbody’(thattakespleasure)”,writteninthehandofthewriterhimself(here,RolandBarthes),madlysignifyingtotheverylimitofnonsignificance,butsignifying,nonetheless(idem161).

30Notebythetranslator,CharlotteMandell:‘Renvoi’hasanevenwiderrange:return(asinreturntosender,returnagift),sendback(aparcel),repeat(aphraseorpassageinmusic),refrain,refer,alludeback(Nancy2008,xi).

48

Ultimately,Listening,asa subject is brought as thepossibilityofbeing timbre,where timbre is

regardedasbeingasimultaneityofseveraldimensionsandabovealltheunityofadiversitythatits

unitydoesnotreabsorb(Nancy2007,41).32

Interpretation‘as’formationof‘organa’–‘PhantomLimbs.OnMusicBodies’(Szendy)

TouchingtheideasofbothNancy(towhomthebookisdedicated)andNietzsche,PeterSzendy’s

PhantomLimbsOnMusicalBodiesisitselfaCorpus,an‘improbable’collectionorcatalogueofmusic

bodiesandtracesofmusicbodies.Arguingforanewgeneralorganologyinmusic,itproposesan

organologythatisabletoencompassallkindsoftangibleandintangiblemusicbodies(partesextra

partes), and, therefore, all kindsof tangible and intangibleperformingbodies, limbs, actions. It

seemstogivecontiguity(becauseitisrelatedwithoutclearlymentioningthisrelation,proposinga

different formulation) to Barthes’ idea of somathemes, and possibly to their potential

acknowledgedbyAssisasrevolutionary.

Szendyproposes,firstly,anewinsightonthesubjectofmusic‘interpretation’,onethatcompletely

opposessonotropism.Wewillstartfromtheend…thefootnotethataccompaniesthisformulation

on‘interpretation’endswiththefollowingstatement:

thatstateinwhichwe“are…liftedbeyondourselves”we“embody”ratherthannot“having”abody.

[dans l’état qui «nous soulève par-delà nousmêmes», donc, nous «corporons» plutôt que nous

n’«avons»uncorps].

ThisclaimisbroughtupinconnectiontoaNietzschefragmentfrom1885-86on‘interpretation’,

whichstatesthatwhenanorganisconstructed(…)itisaquestionofinterpretationandthatthe

organicprocessconstantlypresupposesacontinualinterpretation(NietzscheinSzendy2016,20).

Thisinterpretationis,inturn,connectedtoNietzsche’sconceptofwilltopower[WillezurMacht],

aconceptthatgatheredmanydifferentformulationsbutwhichinourcontextseemstobelinked

toanexuberant(Szendy)drivingforceof/forlife:

Thewill to power interprets (it is a questionof interpretationwhenanorgan is constructed): it

defineslimits,determinesdegrees,variationsofpower…infactinterpretationisitselfameansof

becoming a master of something. (The organic process constantly presupposes interpretation)

(NietzscheinSzendy2016,169).

For his formulation on musical interpretation, Szendy brings up Heiddeger’s perspective on

Nietzsche’sconceptionofart,togetherwiththerelationbetweentheideasofwilltopowerand

32AsHickmottpointsout,itisimportanttoreferthattimbreandalsoNancy’sconceptofcorpssonoreareapproachedbyNancythroughaverytonalmodel(seeHickmott2015).

49

interpretation:Heideggerhasshown(…)thatartwasforNietzsche“aconfigurationofthewillto

power,indeed,…itsdistinctiveform(idem).

Szendy thus develops a conception of musical interpretation through this Nietzschean idea of

‘embodying’ connected with the concept of will to power and the perspective on art, as the

privilegedrealmfor theemergenceof theseprocesses. InSzendy’sdescription (below),musical

interpretationwouldhenceproduceimprobablebodiesthatarestillwithoutfigureordestination,

somethingthathelaterformulatesasthephantomlimbsoftheperformingbodies.Wecouldargue

that although they are notmentioned, these phantom limbs seem to have some affinity with

Barthes’somathemes:

Musical interpretation, playing, taken in a Nietzschean sense rather than its usualmusical sense, would

perhapsbethisorganicthrustnotonlyremovedfromtheego’scommandbutalsounlinkedfromthedriveof

anidthatwouldremainrelatedtoitinanundergroundway.Thusthemusicalbody-to-bodyexperiencewould

produceinventionsofimprobablebodiesthatarestillwithoutfigureordestination.Bodiesthatareneither

monstrousnorfabulous,neithergloriousnorweaknorempty:simplebutpowerfulthrustsfromevenbefore

thedrives,from“behind”;threadsortracesofstillunorganizedorgans–neitherlivingnordead–thatare

membering,dismembering,hurrying,crowding,growing,ramifying(Szendy2016,20-21).33

Thephantommembersarenotbiologicalintheusualsense,butthey’renot“mystèrique”members

either….theyarethereinanothersenseofwhattherecanmean.Justlikethesomathemes,they

areoutofthesubjectivecontrol (removedfromtheego’scommand), theyareunorganisedandtherefore without destination (here characterised as organs), they arise through friction (the

musicalbody-to-bodyexperience),theyseemto‘act’throughabefore,behindorbeyond(powerful

thrustsfromevenbeforethedrives,from“behind”)34,theyareneitherlivingnordead,but,justas

the somathemes, they seem to induce a real effect on the bodies (they are membering,

dismembering, hurrying, crowding, growing, ramifying).What definitely seems to diverge from

Barthes’somathemesisthefactthatSzendy’sformulationoftheseimprobablebodiesisdonefrom

this Nietzschean ‘embodying’ perspective and that it intentionally distances itself form the

psychoanalytical discourse, as emphasized in the following excerpts: removed from the ego’s

commandbutalsounlinkedfromthedriveofanidthatwouldremainrelatedtoitinanunderground

way;(…)simplebutpowerfulthrustsfromevenbeforethedrives,from“behind”.Theseimprobable

33(…)l’interprétationmusicale,lejeu,prisausensnietzschéenplutôtqu’ausensmusicalusuel,seraientpeut-êtrecettepousséeorganiquenonseulementsoustraiteàlamaîtrisedu«je»,maisaussidéliéedespulsionsd’un«ça»quiluiresteraitsouterrainementapparenté.Ainsiseproduiraient,danslecorpsàcorpsmusicien,desinventionsdecorpsimprobablessifigurenidestination.Descorpsnimonstrueuxnifabuleux,niglorieuxnichétifsnicreux:simplesmaispuissantespousséesd’avantlespulsionsmêmes,«derrière»;tramesoutracésd’organesencoreinorganisés–nimorts,nivivants–quisemembrent,sedémembrent,sepressent,setassent,s’accroissent,seramifient….(Szendy2002,18)

34Assisalsocharacterisedthesomathemesassituatedbothbeforeandbeyondsignification.

50

bodiesarenotconceivedasapulsational levelof thebody, theireffectivepower is formulated

throughtheconceptsofwillofpowerandinterpretation.

But not only that: his formulation on the performing body continues through the notion of

embodying[corporer], indirectconnectiontoNancy’sex-tendedordisplacedconceptionofthe

bodyascorpus:abodyismaking-bodyorbecoming-body,itisacreatingprocessofpartesextra

partes.Szendydevelopsthisprocessofembodyingthroughanewconcept,effiction–acontraction

of threewords, thatbrings together thetermseffictio, fictionandefficacy:1) theoldrhetorical

figureeffictio,asatermreferringtoadescriptionofabodyingeneral,fromheadtotoe(Szendy

2016,25)isusedhere,bringingtogethertheideaof2)fiction–sincethephantomlimbsare,ina

way,fictionallimbsand3)efficacy–fortheprocessofthisfictionseemsbeextremelyefficientand

producerealeffects:fictionbelongstotherealmofthereal.

Sensesbeyondthesenses–towardsa‘formoftelepathy’(Szendy)

MeaningandthesensesofthebodyareintimatelyconnectedinNancyandSzendy.Nancyargues

about the limits of the senses and calls for other possible or impossible newones or relations

betweenthem.Szendy,inturn,proposesthecreation,througheffictionofnewinstruments,new

organsandnewsensesfrompreviousones,throughprocessesofsynaesthesia.Suchorganscould

be an eye-ear [oeil-oreille], a monstrous eyear [oroeil] that would bring together in an

unprecedentedandunheard-ofwaythefibersorstringsoftwosensesthatuntilthenweredistinct.

(Szendy2016,101).Effiction–theprocessforthecreationoftheseorgana–isdescribedashaving

asomewhatintriguingtelepathiccharacter.InanimaginarydialogueinPhantomlimbsonmusical

bodies,animaginarycharacterargueswithSzendy:

“Ok,soyouarguethat‘thereare’bodiesthatcomposethemselvesamongoneanother.Ok,soyou

don’twant to secure them to that center thatman (orGod)was.But in this pure ‘partes extra

partes’,inthissimpleco-presenceorco-resonanceofextendedbodiesfromwhoseperspectiveyou

like to contemplate the emergence of lawless ‘organa’, how do you explain that there are

tendencies,directions,recurrencesandpersistences(…)?”

-“(….)Ibelieveasamatteroffact,inaformoftelepathy.

-So‘that’isyouranswer?

-Itisonepossibleanswer;allowmetoargueitforabit.”

(Szendy2016,108)

Arguing about this ‘form of telepathy’, he goes back to Freud’s descriptions of certain related

psychic phenomena which tend to associate these (in terms of vocabulary) to the world of

transmissionandsoundreproductionmachines.ButitisinWalterBenjamin’sanalysisofthegame

thathefindsaclearerwayforhispossibleideaofa‘formoftelepathy’.WritingaboutBenjamin’s

descriptionofthegame,Szendyarguesthatthetelepathyinquestion,aswesee,isnot‘firstofall’

51

arelationfromsoultosoul,betweenthegamblerandthedealer;itisinitiatedbetweenthegambler

andtheball.And itdoesnotgothroughthe“head” [tête], throughtheeffusionofanobstinate

[entêtée]willorintention(…),butthroughthefingersandhands(Szendy2016,112).Thisideais

developed further in another fragment about the game: rather than just situating the process,

Benjaminmentionsamotorinnervation(BenjamininSzendy2016,112),asadeterminant‘feature’

fortheoutputofthegameandsaysthatthegamblerhastomakehishands“responsivetothe

slightestinnervations”(idem).Thesedescriptionsofthis‘formoftelepathy’havenothingtodowith

neithermysticnotionsof‘telepathy’nortelepathyasaformofcommunicationfortransmissionof

a semiotic content, amessage, etc. Again, they open up a new space for conceiving a kind of

‘communication’ out of the mind, out of will and intention: a communication that does not

communicateanything,exceptforestablishingitselfascommunication.

Wecould relate thesedescriptionswithD’Errico’spreviousstatement,addressinga levelof the

body–andofthebodyofthetext–thatactsandreactstoofastforconsciousnesstoreaddressit

intocoherenceandtoherformulationofan intensivemusicalperformancepractice(thatwillbeaddressedfurtheron),onewhereworkandperformermustremainoutsideeachotherforthebody

to be affected in its outer interface—the skin—by means of a total, unbridgeable exteriority

(D’Errico2018,165).

Predispositionforautophony(Szendy)Whatinstrumentintheserviceofanalltoohumanwouldeverhaveopenedthedoortotheentropyofthebodies?Tothe

chanceoftheiroccasions?(Szendy2016,98)

Thepreviousformulationofa‘communication’withatelepathiccharacter(againacommunication

thatdoesnotcommunicatesemioticcontents)isconnected,ofcourse,totheconceptionofthe

bodiesasex-tendedthrougharealization.Thisconceptionoftheex-tendedbodywillbefurther

developed by Szendy as a general and original instrumentality, as a kind of predisposition for

autophony,whichputshim[thehuman]outsidehimselfinordertomakesound.(Szendy2016,140)

Fornodoubt“my”bodydoesnotbecomesonorous,properlysonorous(inotherwordsresonant)

untilitgoesthroughtheexperienceofakindofdisarticulationofselfthroughwhichamemberor

anarea[uneaire]“detaches”itselftobecomethespaceofresonanceofothers.WhenIproduce

“corporealmusic”bybeatingmychest,mybodyisalreadynotentirely‘my’body.Itisalreadyata

distancefromitself.Ithas‘arealized’itself.Inotherwords,ithasdistributedhimselfintoareasand

disjointedsurfaces.Ithasalreadysplitintoclappersandresonatingcavities(idem).35

35Carsansdoute«mon»corpsnedevient-ilsonore,proprementsonore(c’estàdirerésonant)qu’enfaisantl’expérienced’une sorte de désarticulation de soi par laquelle un membre ou une aire s’en «détache» pour devenir l’espace derésonancedesautres.Lorsquejeproduis«unemusiquecorporelle»enmebattantlapoitrine,moncorpsn’estplustoutàfait‘mon’corps:ils’estdéjàscindéenbattantsetencavitésrésonantes(Szendy2002,128).

52

AsinNancy,thereiscontiguitybutnocontinuity:thereisnosenseofthinkingthephantomlimbs

asnaturalextensionsofthebodyand,inthisway,nosenseofanaturalisedperspective.Friction

andcontactarealsothoughtinlinewithNancy:morethanproximity,theyletusthinkthroughthe

mostdisjunctiveanddistantarticulationsorcouplings,notasaccidentsormisfortunes(…)butas

differencesintheirownright,withoutanostalgicgazeturnedtowardsalost‘originalandcorporeal

essence’.(idem,141)

Thiskindofpredispositionforautophonythatestablishestheself(relation)asvibratorypotentialwillbecrucialinopeningupnewpossibilitiesforthinkingthemusicandthebodyfurtheron.

Buthowcanweaccessorsensethisotherarealizedbody?Towardstheendofthebook,Szendy

mentionsBarthesforthefirsttime,andhissenseofabeatingbodyinSchumann’smusic.Szendy

describesthepossibilityofsensingabeatingbodyasaconcretesensationwhereonehears‘the

fingerings’ [écoutededoigtés] (Szendy2016,160)andbringsupGlennGould’s ideaofa tactile

image(idem)andLigeti’stactileform,asasuccessionofmusculartensions(LigetiinSzendy2016,

160)to‘illustrate’thisidea.Hethenformulatestheideathatonehearsfingeringsasasequenceof

‘articulations of organs’, on the stage of an organicmicrosocietywhere the forces, hierarchies,

normsandexceptionsare infinitelyputback intoplay,startedover,renegotiated. (Szendy2016,

160). There is in this conception a kind of invisible processual body imprint, forged through

muscularcontractionsandforces.

DiscussingSzendy’s“onehears‘thefingerings’”throughtheideaoftactileimageortactileformThis last aspect of Szendy’s ‘organology’ might be brought up to this context for a very brief

discussion:Szendy’sformulation,onehears‘thefingerings’[écoutededoigtés](Szendy2016,160),

throughanideaoftactileform,ortactileimagethatcould‘correspond’toBarthes’ideaofbeating

body, contrarily to Barthes, does not seem to establish a clear distinction between

expressive/narrative/organised and unorganised/unexpressive/out of law levels. As for Barthes’

beatingbody, itbecomesimplicitlyclearthatthereisnowaytofindit inthescore–thebeat–

corporalandmusical–mustneverbe‘thesignofasign’:theaccentisnotexpressive.(Barthes1985,

303)Hisbeatingbody,conceivedoutsidethesemioticrealmandinsideoftherealmofthebody,

cannotbe‘found’intheexpressivecontentofmusic,anditisoutoflaw,unorganised.

Althoughthephantasmalbodiesandlimbsaredescribedasthreadsortracesofstillunorganized

organs–neitherlivingnordead–thataremembering,dismembering,hurrying,crowding,growing,

ramifying(Szendy2016,20-21),theireffective imprintorrepercussiononmusicseemstobethis

tactileimageofmusic.However,wecouldarguethatatactileimageofapiecemightbe,mostof

all,animprintoftheorganised/narrative/expressivelevelofmusic(orofthebodyofmusic):Ican

53

studyapiecewithoutthepianoandwithoutmovingmyfingers,only feelingand imaginingthis

tactile imageof thepiece,andthis imageseemstobe,aboveall,an ‘imprint’of thedisciplined

body, an ‘imprint’ that is a sensation of themusical choreography, a physical sensation of the

musicalnarrative,anenactmentoftheexpressivegesture.Ofcourse,theunorganisedrealmofthis

bodymustbesomehowencompassedinthistactileimagetoo:asaglobal‘image’andsensationof

‘playing’theremightbenowaytohaveonelevel(organised)withouttheother(unorganised).But

thisseemstomeanthat,contrarilytoBarthes’conceptofbeatingbody, inthistactileimagewe

cannotdisentangletheimprintofanorganised/expressivelevelofabodyfromaneffectiveimprint

ofanunorganised/outoflaw.Barthesformulatedhisbeatingbodythroughanunorganisedlevel,

with autonomous functioning and a different logic, but conceived both organised/unorganised

levelsofthemusicasmutuallydependent.Theeffectiveimprintofthisbeatingbodyisdescribed

as an aside, as somethingother than the effective imprint of the expressive content ofmusic.

Although it brings up many fruitful ideas, the fact that Szendy formulates his one hears ‘the

fingerings’[écoutededoigtés](Szendy2016,160)throughanideaoftactileimageortactileformdoesn’tseemtobehelpfultoproceedwithoursubjectoffindingwaystoaccesstoordealwith

thisbodyoutoflaw.

4. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)II.–MusicExperiment21(Assis,D’Errico)

Aspartofmyresearch, I spentamonthat theOrpheus Institute in June/July2017asavisitingresearcher. Hosted by the research clusterMusicExperiment21(ME21) 36, I had the enormous

privilegeofdiscussingmy ideaswithPaulodeAssisandLuciaD’Errico,confrontingmyresearch

with this cluster’s ideasanddirections, andbringing to the foregroundaffinitiesboth inartistic

practice and research. The path being traced out by Assis and D’Errico helpedme not only in

enlargingthescopeofmyresearch,butalsoinunderstandingotherrealmswithintheauthorsIwas

researching on. Finding multiple perspectives and making new connections and intersections,

tangentsanddivergencesaffordedacertaintangibilitytomy‘ungraspable’subject.

36MusicExperiment21 (ME21), isa five-yearartistic researchprogram(2013-2018), fundedby theEuropeanResearchCouncil, based at the Orpheus Institute Ghent, and directed by Paulo de Assis. The program explored notions of“experimentation” in relation to the performance practice ofWestern notated artmusic, proposing amove beyondcommonlyacceptedcodesandconventionsofmusicalinterpretation.Inthisnewapproach–correspondingtoanartisticpracticesupportedbyreflectionsandresearch–theperformanceofpastmusicalworksisnotregardedinitsreiterative,reconstructive,orreproductivefunction.Onthecontrary,itinsistsonperformanceasalocusofexperimentation,where“whatweknow”aboutagivenmusicalworkisproblematised.Theperformativemomentbecomesbothacreativeandacritical act, through which new epistemic and aesthetic properties of the musical work emerge. The project had asubstantialcreativeandpracticalcomponentthat ledtoseveralartisticrealisationsandoutputs. Itgeneratedagreatnumberofperformances,lectures,recordings,essays,andbooks,pioneeringopenaccesspublicationmodes,aswellasinnovative online multimedia expositions of research. Information available in:https://musicexperiment21.wordpress.com/

54

The followingare someofMusicExperiment21’s concepts,whichpoint in the samedirectionof

thinkingbeyonddualities,beyondsubjectivityandagain,towardstheideahereformulatedofthe

bodyasitsoutsider.

Simondon’s‘transduction’conceptinthecontextofmusicalperformance(Assis)

AssisproposesbringingSimondon’scomplexconceptoftransductiontothecontextofmusic, in

order torethinkmusicalperformancebeyondformalisticandsubjectivity-basedapproaches.He

doessomovingawayfromadualisticperspective(inwhichformandmatteropposeoneanother

andenergeticforcesandprocessesareneglected),andfromanalltoohumanperspective,onethat

underestimatespre-individualandpost-individualaspectsandprocesses.Bringingtogethervarious

dimensionsof theconcept,he thenproposes relationswithDeleuze’sconceptofhaecceityand

BrianMassumi’snotionofcorporeality.

Presentedindifferentcontexts,pointsofviewandgradesofcomplexity,transductionisreferred,

firstofall,asadynamicoperationbywhichenergyisactualised,movingfromonestatetothenext,

inaprocessthatindividuatesnewmaterialities(Assis2018,138).Givingtheexampleofapianist

who,justbeforegoingonstage, isabletoreviewandexperiencethemusicsheisabouttoplay,

transduction is brought to this context of music as this field of potentialities that is up to beactualised in performance, moments later. This field of potentialities is felt as a huge field of

virtuality.Avirtualthatisnottobeunderstoodintermsof‘virtualreality’,but,onthecontrary,as

somethingabsolutelyreal,somethingthatexistsandthatisperceivedinthisverymoment—just

beforestartingtheperformance—astension,asan infinitereservoirof ‘topologicalsingularities’

(idem,148).

ContrarilytoNancyandSzendy,inthisnotionoftransductionthereisanideaofmediation,butit

doesn’toperatethroughalogicofdualitybetweenmatterandform,insideandoutside.Atabasic

level,inthecontextofanelectricdischarge,thetransductorisamediator,amodulatingresistance

betweenthepotentialenergyanditsactualisation.AlthoughSimondondoesnotacceptthenotion

ofthevirtual,hecreatesthenotionof‘realpotential’,proposingthatthepotentialisactuallyreal:

thepotential,conceivedaspotentialenergy,is‘real’,becauseitexpressestherealityofametastable

state,and itsenergetic situation (Simondon inAssis2018,145).Assis reinforces this statement,

assuming theabsolute reality of that ‘potential’: all forces that constitute Simondon’s potential

energyarerealanddoexist‘inthisworld’(idem,143).Theideaofdualityisthereforeleftbehind,

aspotentialandactualisationarebothsaidtobedomainsofthesamereality.

Transductionisdescribedasaprocessthatoccursintime,aprocessinwhichthereductionofthe

potential through theprocessof actualisationalso implies the simultaneousarisingofnewand

differentrelations.Actualisationisthereforeneverconfinedtoareductionprocess,asitisalways

55

bringingtothissameeventthecreationofthenewandtheunexpected.Again:mediationisnot

somethinghappeningbetweena‘subject’andtheoutsideworld.Thesubjectisnotseenasastable

and single unity, it is regarded as a metastable system, a system which is a complex relation

betweentwomajorprocesses:degradationofenergy(entropy)andgenerationofstructuralorder

(negentropy)(idem).ForSimondon(asalsoforNancy),theindividual‘is’relationandnotsimply‘in’

relationtosomethingexternal(idem,145).

Transduction(inametastablesystem)isthendescribedasaprocessthatistriggeredbyaninitiator,

calledastructuralgerm.Containingasingularity,thisgermorinitialpointhasthecapacitytobreak

themetastableequilibriumofthesystem,enablingthepropagationofatransformationthatruns

frompointtopointbetweenthealreadytransformedpartsandthoseyettobetransformed(idem,

148).Thesingularityisnotconceivedintermsofanessence,noritisregardedasformormatter,

butasastructuralconstitutivepotential,thatis,itcarriessomesortof‘information’,whichsetsthe

basicconditionsforan‘event’tohappen(idem,147).

AssisputsinperspectiveanotherfeatureofSimondon’sconceptofsingularity,namely,itsinherentcapacityforopeninganewspace-time,andbringsthisfeaturetogetherwithDeleuzeandGuattari’s

notionofhaecceity(presentedasaconceptthattheorisestheemergenceofasingularityatany

givenscaleandfield)(idem,149).Haecceitydoesnot,however,refertoadefinedorconfinednew

space-time,openedbysingularity,butreferstothisprocessofintensivespatio-temporaldynamism

itself (idem, 148). An haecceity is a passage, a singular point in space-time that dramatizes it,

curvingit,foldingit,givingittransientformandtemporalstructure.(idem)).Assisthencreatesa

derivationoftheconceptforthecontextofmusicalperformancethathecallsmicro-haecceity.This

newconceptisthoughtforthecontextofperformance,whereeverythinghappenstoofasttobe

fullyrationalised.Itisthereforethesameconceptbutradicalisedintermsoftime–micro-haecceity

isasingularitythatcanonlyhappeninmicro-temporality–inthefractionsoffractionsofseconds.

Thereisnotimeforcontemplation,thingsmusthappenintheunavoidableurgencyandimperative

sequentiallyofthehere-and-now.Micro-haecceitiesarehigh-energy-loadedandhigh-speed-moving

singularitiesthatcarryaforceofpotentialfromonemetastablestatetothenext(idem,149).

Inthisprocessofmusicaltransductionthroughmicro-haecceity,thepotentialisthenactualisedto

betransformedintoanewpotentialagain.Goingbacktotheexampleofthepianistwhogoeson

stage,Assisreinforces:

sheisnotmerelyreproducingastratified,pre-existingentity,butoperatingacaptureofforces(from

the virtual) that produces a new individuation (actual) as a highly intensive becoming, which

immediately—as soon as it is generated—points forward to other virtual pre- and after-

individualities(idem).

Simondon’stransductionisthenalsobroughtupthroughitstopologicaldimension:theprocess‘in-

forms’atopologicalstructure,generatingamulti-dimensionalshape(idem150).Thistopological

56

dimension is thenwhatmakes the new actualisation and individuation perceivable in different

ways.

Transduction engenders shapes and textures. It is in this sense that one can say that

transductionpointstoanewconceptofspacebaseduponmultiplicities,manifolds,vectors,

andpotentialities. It isnotamatterofcurves inaflatspace,butofthecurvatureofthe

spaceitself(idem).

Finally,Assisbrings to the foregroundBrianMassumi’sproposalofextensionof the conceptof

transduction,namely,thenotionsofsomatictransductionandcorporeality.Massumiarguesthat

thebodycanbedefinedasthe‘transducerofthevirtual’:In sensation the thinking-feeling body is operating as a transducer. If sensation is the analog

processingbybody-matterofongoingtransformativeforces,thenforemostamongthemareforces

ofappearingassuch:ofcomingintobeing,registeringasbecoming.Thebody,sensorofchange,is

atransducerofthevirtual(MassumiinAssis2018,152).

Thisperspectiveofthebodyasatransducer isthenbroughtbyAssistotherealmofmusic:the

performingorcomposingbody(ies)areapproachedas‘operating’transducers.Suchaperspectiveimplies,necessarily,thedeathofthesubject:beingatransducer,theperformingbodyincorporates

othernessinitselfasawiderealmofpotentials,forces,etc.,thatarebeyondsubjectivecontrol,will

andintention:thiswiderangingbodyispre-human,human,non-human,andpost-human,allat

thesametime,throughdifferentprocessesofmodulationandtransduction.Thecrucialpointisthe

death of the subject, which allows the body to embrace energetic processes that enable

unpredictableeventstohappen(Assis2018,152).

But the transductionprocessof themusic-makingbodies is then said tobeoperating foremost

through a logic of sensation rather than through a logic of sense. That the performing body is

regarded through this perspective entails another conception of musical performance: that

performancewillnotberegardedasbeing(again)aprocessofassimilationandofincorporation

but as a (transduction)processwhere theperformerbecomesanexperimenter, anoperatorof

forces.Assisreplacesinthiswaytheconceptofinterpretation(whichencompasseswhatwecall

performance today) with transduction: transduction is not to be regarded as communication

focusedonassimilationofasemioticcontent,butasamodeofaffection.Asignisaforceaslong

asitisnotinterpreted,butitisfeltinalivingrelationthatallowstheartisttobeanexperimenter,

‘an operator of forces’. (Sauvagnargues in Assis 2018, 153). Assis brings up performative

transductionasacentralnotionforwhathelaterformulatesasalogicofexperimentationinmusical

performance,hisnotionofmusicalworkandMusicExperiment21’sconceptoftheperformeras

anoperator.

57

Althoughverydifferentlyformulated,wecandetectsomeaffinitiesbetweensomeaspectsofthis

transductivebodyandformerformulationsofthebodybyNancy:theselfisconceivedasrelation

andasencompassinganareal(Nancy)andpotential(Simondon)realm;conceptsofhaecceitycould

bebroughttogetherwithNancy’sconceptofbreakthrough[effraction](andhisarchi-tectonicsof

sense)asspecificdisruptive‘events’that‘produce’or‘create’asuspensionofthelogicofsense,

signification and linearity of time; these disruptive ‘events’ have spatio-temporal implications;

through these implications, thebodies arenot conceivedasbodies in spacebut asbodies that

‘open’forotherspace-timedimensions–thebodiesseemtobeproducing,stretching,convoluting

space-time.

And,ontheotherhand,performativetransductionseemstohavesimilarities,again,withSzendy’s

formulationofinterpretation,asanorganicprocesswhichencompassesthenon-subjectiveforces

andenergiesofawillofpower.Justastransduction,theorganicprocessistriggeredthroughthe

(relational) ex-tended body. This body operates through a logic of sensation, engendering the

emergence of new phantom limbs (whose conception can have affinities to the concept ofpotential).Anotherimportantfeaturetobringuptodiscussionisthatbothauthorsareeffectively

claimingforotherkindsof‘communication’outofsignificationandassimilation:Szendy’s‘formof

telepathy’andAssis’smodeofaffection,althoughverydifferentlyformulated,seemtohavemany

commonfeaturesthatwecanbetterexplore inthenextchapterthroughMassumi’sconceptof

affect.

‘Theautonomyofaffect’(Massumi)

AssisandD’Erricogofurtherintheirconceptionoftheperformingbodyandbringtotheforeground

theautonomyofaffect,acentralconceptofphilosopherBrianMassumi,whoseformulationisable

toengenderthroughphilosophy,science,socialandpoliticalsciencesaclearerandmoretangible

‘definition’ofwhat‘this’ungraspablelevelofthebodycould‘standfor’.

Inashort,condensedtext,Massumi(2002)introduceshisideasonaffectthroughthedescription

ofanempiricalstudyonimageperceptionwithnine-yearoldchildrenledbyHerthaSturm.The

studyfocusedoncognition,andit failedtoachieveits initialpurposebecauseof itsunexpected

results,whichresearcherswerenotfullyabletodealwithandinterpret.Theempiricalstudywas

quitesimple:first,childrenweregiventhreeversionsofthesameanimatedfilm,withabriefstory

that couldbe summarizedas follows: amanwasbuildinga snowman inhis gardenand, in the

following afternoon, it began to melt with the sun. The man then decided to take it to the

mountains,higherup,leavingittherewithafarewell.Thefirstversionhadonlyimages,nowords.Thesecondversionhadafactualverbaldescriptionofwhatwashappeningontheimages,andin

thethirdversion,alludedtoastheemotionalversion,averbalnarrativehighlightedtheemotional

statesofthecharactersinspecificscenes.

Childrenwerethenaskedtoratethescenesofthefilmintwoscales:“happy–sad”and“pleasant

–unpleasant”.Thefirstunexpectedresultwasthatchildrenratedthesaddestscenesofthefilmas

58

themostpleasantones–thesadderthebetter(Massumi2002,23).Afterthis,childrenwereasked

toratethethreedifferentversionsofthefilm,andtheirresponseswerethenconfrontedwiththe

monitoring of their physical reactions during the viewing of the film. Another sequence of

overwhelmingresultscamefromthesematchings:thefactualversionwasmentionedastheleast

pleasantandleastremembered,butonthephysicallevelitwastheonewhich,ontheonehand,

setthehighestlevelofarousalregardingheartbeatandbreathing,andontheotherhand,setthe

lowestlevelofskinresponse–galvanicskinresponse,whichmeasuresautonomicresponse.The

nonverbalversionofthefilmwasratedasthemostpleasantofallversions–ratedalittleabove

the “emotional” version, and it was the one which had the strongest galvanic skin response.

Massumimaintains that theonlypositive conclusionof the studywas thatof emphasizing ‘the

primacy of the affective’ in image perception (idem, 24), formulating from this perspective a

numberofdeductionsthatseemtoopenupanewpathforthinkingbeyond‘usual’cognition.The

mostoverwhelmingaspectoftheresultspointedoutbyMassumiisthefactthatthereseemstobe

nologicorstraightforwardconnectionbetweentheformorcontentoftheimagesandthestrengthof their impact: there is a gap between ‘content’ and ‘effect’ (idem, 24). Here, Massumi

distinguishes at least two distinct levels of image reception: one directed towards indexing

signification,formandcontent–namedthequalityofimage;andanotherlevelthatpointstowards

effectanddurationofimagereception–namedintensity.Thelevelofintensityischaracterizedby

acrossingofsemanticwires.Onit,sadnessispleasant.Thelevelofintensityisorganizedaccording

to a logic that does not admit the excludedmiddle. This is to say that it is not semantically or

semioticallyordered.Itdoesnotfixdistinctions.Instead,itvaguelybutinsistentlyconnectswhatis

normallyindexedasseparate.Whenaskedtosignifyitself,itcanonlydosoinparadox(idem,24).

Accordingtothephysiologicalmeasurementsandtheirmatchingwiththechildren’sstatements,

Massumipointsoutthewaythesedistinctlevels–intensityandquality–affectdifferentlevelsof

thebody:theformerisembodiedinpurelyautonomicreactionsmostdirectlymanifestedintheskin

–atthesurfaceofthebody,atitsinterfacewiththings(idem,25);thelatter,quality,thelevelof

content,formandsignification,alevelwhichisrelatedtonarrativeandcontinuityisembodiedin

depth reactions suchasheartbeatandbreathing.Although thesearealsoautonomic functions,

theyarenot–likeskingalvanization–purelyunconscious,never-to-be-consciousreactions:theyareaconscious-autonomicmix.Intensity,measuredintheskinisoutsidethelawsofexpectation,

meaning,narrative,itisadisruptiontowardsthelevelofquality.

However,thefactthatthetwolevelsdonotmatchatraditionalcorrespondenceorlogicsofthe

excludedmiddledoesnotmeanforMassumithatthereisnocorrespondencebetweenlevels,but

thatthisrelationisoneofadifferentorder:itenablesadifferentconnectivity.Fromhisanalysisof

the study’s results, he proposes that the relation between the two levels of signification and

intensity is not one of conformity or correspondence but rather of resonation, or interference,

amplificationordampening (idem,25). In thecaseof the factualversionof the film, theadded

verbaldescription(qualitylevel)wasdampeningtheeffectoftheimagereception(intensitylevel)

59

and,inthecaseoftheemotionalversion,theverbaldescriptionwasamplifyingcertainaspectsof

theimagereception.

Intensity would seem to be associated with nonlinear processes: resonation and feedback that

momentarilysuspendthelinearprogressofthenarrativepresentfrompastandfuture.Intensityis

qualifiableasanemotionalstateandthatstateisstatic–temporalandnarrativenoise.Itisastate

ofsuspense,potentiallyofdisruption.Itislikeatemporalsink,aholeintime,asweconceiveofit

andnarrativizeit(idem,26,underlinemyown).

Furtheron,Massumiconcludesthatthissuspensioncanbeinfactbeobservedempiricallyand,to

a certain extent,measuredwithin amicro time frame. Surprisingly enough, it seems to be an

operationwhichdoesnotuseusualcognitiveprocessesthroughthebrain,butmainlythroughthe

bodyandtheskin.Empiricallyobservedasaprocesswhichistooquicktobeperceived,itisthen

theorizedasvirtualandasasuspensionofadimensionofsignificance.

(We could also suspend our narrative at the very moment when we arrive at the concept of

intensity as a state of suspension and let intensity disrupt towards other directions and

connectivities.Intensityasstateofsuspensionforlinearandnarrativeprogressresonateswithour

previousconceptionsofbreakthroughandhaeccities.)

Goingbacktothenotionofintensity,Massumiendsupequatingitwithaffect,astheunassimilable

(affect,asadimensionforwhichourculturehasnotdevelopedaspecificsense,andhencealsono

specific vocabulary). Often used as a synonym for emotion,Massumi emphasizes the distance

betweenthetwoterms,whichfollowdifferentlogicsandpertaintodifferentorders.Anemotion

isasubjectivecontent,thesociolinguisticfixingofthequalityofanexperiencewhichisfromthat

pointonwarddefinedaspersonal.Emotionisqualifiedintensity,theconventional,consensualpoint

ofinsertionofintensityintosemanticallyandsemioticallyformedprogressions,intonarrativizable

action-reaction circuits (idem, 28, underlinemy own). Affect is theorized as unqualified, as not

beingaction,becauseitcannotbedirectedtowardsanintentionorgoal.But,ontheotherhand,it

is not regarded as passivity either, because it is nevertheless vibration: vibratory motion and

resonance.Itisasuspensionofaction-reactioncircuitsandlineartemporalityinasinkofwhatmight

becalled“passion”todistinguishitbothfrompassivityandactivity(idem,28).

Expandingonhistheorisationofsuspension,Massumithenbringsuptwootherempiricalstudies:

the first refers to an experience developed on patientswho had cortical electrodes previously

implantedinthecortexformedicalpurposes.Mildelectricpulsesweresentatthesametimeto

theelectrodesimplantedincortexandtopointsintheskin,andwhatwasobservedturnedoutto

besurprising:whenpulsesoccurredwithinasmallertimeframethanhalfasecond,patientswould

notfeeltheelectricpulseseitherinthecorticalelectrodesorintheskinpoints.Furthermore,when

theelectricpulsewasfiredinthecorticalelectrodeshalfasecondbeforethepulsewasfiredinthe

skin, itwasreportedbypatientsthattheelectricpulse intheskinwasfelt first.This factwould

60

suggest, according to Massumi, that sensation is organized recursively before being linearized

(idem,28),beforeitisdirectedtowardsaction-reactioncircuits.Brainandskinformaresonating

vessel.Stimulationturnsinward,isfoldedintothebody,exceptthatthereisnoinsideforittobein,

because thebody is radicallyopen,absorbing impulsesquicker than they canbeperceived,and

becausetheentirevibratoryeventisunconscious,outofmind(idem,29,underlinemyown).

(Thisidearesonates,again,withNancy’sideaofthebodyastheopeningitselfandalsowiththe

notionofthebodyasatransducer.Inalltheseconcepts,thenotionsofinsideandoutsidearenot

adequateandtheyallpointtowardsabodyasitselfrelationalandnotasubjectorobjectinrelation

with–beyondexpectationsandsubjectiveintentions.)

The body seems to absorb impulses quicker than they can be perceived consciously. Hence,

Massumiwilltakeusastepfurtherinthinkingthisoutofthemindphenomenon:somethingthat

happenstooquicklytohavehappened,actually,is‘virtual’.Thebodyisasimmediatelyvirtualasit

is actual. The virtual, thepressing crowdof incipiencesand tendencies, is a realmof ‘potential’

(idem, 30)Massumi is using Simondon’s notion of potential and actual, through the idea that

consciousactionsandreactionsareinawaysubtractiveoperationsandthattheyalsofunctionas

newopenings forotherpotentialsandotheractualisations.Affector intensityarecompared to

bifurcation points in chaos theories, which again can be compared (in terms of disruptive and

suspension effect) with the notions of singularity (Simondon), breakthrough (Nancy) and

haecceities(Deleuze).Anotherimportantaspectisthefactthatitstemporalsinkischaracterized

asaspace-timewherefuturitycombines,unmediated,withpastness,whereoutsidesareinfolded

andsadnessishappy.(…)Thevirtualisalivedparadoxwherewhatarenormallyoppositescoexist,

coalesce,andconnect;wherewhatcannotbeexperiencedcannotbutbefelt–albeitreducedand

contained. (idem, 30) Affect is described as a highly synesthetic process, which is not to be

consideredasarawdomainofthebody,asa‘natural’dimensionasopposedtoa‘cultural’one.

Affectisnottobeconsidereda‘lower’functionofthebody,butaprocessinwhichhigherfunctions

feedback–aprocesswhichMassumireferstoasautonomyofrelation.Emergenceisdescribedas

a two-sided coin: one side in the virtual (the autonomy of relation), the other in the actual

(functional limitation). Affect is then claimed to be this two-sidedness, the simultaneous

participationofthevirtualintheactualandtheactualinthevirtual(…)(idem35).Theautonomy

ofaffectisthenestablishedthroughthisrelation:‘Itsautonomyisitsopenness’(idem,35).Affect’s

wayofspreadingthroughalldimensionsandfunctionsseemsthentooccurthroughsynesthetic

processes, implying a participation of the senses in each other: themeasure of a living thing’s

potential interactions is its ability to transform the effects of one sensory mode into those of

another.

Buttheautonomyofaffect,asparticipationofthevirtualintheactualandvice-versa,inevitably

implies a feedback relation (that can again either, feed, dampen or interfere) through which

structuredthingsliveinandthroughthatwhichescapesthem(idem).Thismeansthattoacertain

61

extentthisescape‘cannotbutbeperceived’alongtheperceptionsthatareitscapture.Massumi

describes two possible kinds of side-perceptions of affect: first, a punctual and disruptive

perception towardsa functional linear realm thatmightbedescribednegatively;anda second,

continuous,‘background’perceptionthatmightbeatstakeineveryevent,asnon-consciousself-

perceptionthatismorelikelytobedescribedpositively.Itistheperceptionofthis‘self-perception’,

its naming and making conscious, that allows affect to be effectively analysed – as long as a

vocabularycanbefoundforthatwhichisimperceptible,butwhoseescapefromperceptioncannot

butbeperceived,aslongasoneisalive(idem,36).

MassumibringsSimondon’srelationbetweenself-reflectionandaffecttogetherwithSimondon’s

extended conception of self-reflection to all things, living or not. For Massumi, the difference

betweenkindsofthingsandlevelsofrealityisthenaquestionofdegree:ofthewaythemodesof

organization(suchasreflection)aredifferentlypresentoneverylevel(idem,37).Thereseemstobe

no process of mediation between virtual and actual acknowledged: Massumi writes that at afundamentalphysicallevelthereisnosuchmediation.Theplaceofphysicalnonmediationbetween

thevirtualandtheactualisexploredbyquantummechanics(idem).Thesedifferentlevels(physical

macrosystems,biologicallevel,humanlevel,etc)arethensaidtohavespecificoperationalmodes,

differentreflectionsthathavetobetakenintoaccount:eachindividualandcollectivehumanlevel

issaidtohaveitsownpeculiar‘quantum’mode.Massumigoesfurther,claimingthattheuseofthe

conceptofthequantummodeoutsidequantummechanics,evenasappliedtohumanpsychology,

isnotametaphor,itisanexactresultfromfeedbackprocesseswherehigherfunctionscanbefed

backorforward.Butthisformulationofthisvibratoryself-reflectionthroughquantummodegains

anotherveryinterestingperspectiveinMassumi.Heasks:isnotresonationakindofself-reflection?

ThisaspectwillbringusbacktoNancy’sideaoflisteningasaresonantsubject,anideawhichalso

goesbeyondanalltoohumanperspective(dividinghuman/animal,nature/culture)andthat,just

asMassumi’sideaof‘quantummode’,isabletoencompassandconceiveeveryvibratoryeventas

self-reflection.Resonance,understoodinbothcasesnotasanechoofsomethingbutasaresonant

relation and vibration in all possible directions, is self-reflection. This can also bring us back to

Szendy’s idea of Nancy’s arealized, self-reflective body as a bodywith a certain affordance forautophony.

D’Errico’sthirdmodalityofperformance–‘intensiveperformance’

AssisandD’ErricoareresponsibleforbringingtheseconceptsofMassumiandSimondonintothecontext of musical performance. Through these concepts, and specifically through Massumi’s

analysisofthethreeversionsofthefilmusedintheaforementionedexperiment,LuciaD’Errico

formulates three modalities of performance of written music. 1) the executant,which can be

equatedwith theobjective and structuralist approachwedescribedonChapter II. of virtuosity

ideals;2)theinterpreter,whichcorrespondstothemodalityofPerformanceStudiesdescribedon

62

ChapterII.astheoneenablingsubjectivity,andapersonalnarrativeinputfromtheperformer.But

asinD’Errico’sstatementwequotedatthebeginningofthissection,thismodeofpracticefailsto

addressintensity:heorsheisunawareofalevelofthebody–andofthebodyofthetext–that

actsandreactstoofastforconsciousnesstoreaddressitintocoherence,andforthefunctionalbody

tobemovedbyit(D’Errico2018,164).

Throughtheconceptsofaffectasintensity,D’Erricocallsforanotherperformingmodality:3)the

performerisnotoperatingwithinalogicofassimilationofthework,butwherebothbodies(ofthe

performerandofthemusictext)areaffectedthroughtheirintensitylevels.Whatisproposedby

D’Erricoisthenaformulationofthe‘communication’inherenttoAssis’‘modeofaffection’:

Themusicalwork,initsintegrityandself-containment,mustbeleftoutsidethebody.Physically,the

relationshipthebodyoftheperformerandthetextisanexternalone.Theperformerdoesnotwish

toassimilate the text, to fusewith it intoa superiorharmony.Workandperformermust remain

outsideeachotherforthebodytobeaffectedinitsouterinterface–theskin–bymeansofatotal,

unbridgeableexteriority(D’Errico2018,165).

D’Erricocallsfortheimpossibilityofassimilation,goingbacktoMassumi’sideaofintensityastheunassimilable.Performanceisnotdefinedexclusivelybywhatiscontrollableanymore,butalso,andinevitably,bywhatisoutofcontrol,outofdisciplineandbeyondsemioticsystems.Thepricetobepaidfortheunleashingofintensityinmusicperformancegoesasfaraseffacing,mutilating,andsubtractingthesemioticlevel(idem).

WhatD’Errico’sthirdmodalityofperformancecouldmeaninpractice,wedon’treallyknow…we

willhavetoexperiment,experience,sensethroughothersenses,andmaybethenwewillbeable

tocapturesomeglancesoftheexperienceinnewwords.

5. THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)III.-(Craenen,Paxton,Gil)WewillnowfocusonPaulCraenen’sexerciseoftryingto‘reach’thecomposingbodyintheprocess

ofmusiccomposition.Craenenwillproposeamultimodalcompositionconcept,onethatwilltouch

our issuesofbeatingbody,breakthrough,singularity, (micro)haecceities, intensityoraffect,and

alsoissuesrelatedtotheconceptionofspaceinmusic.

Craenenformulatesanexhaustiveanalysisonspecificcase-studies,bringingtotheforegroundthe

strategiesandwaysofapproachingtheperformingbodyas‘material’forcompositioninthepost-

war vanguards, and systematises how the body is brought as straightforward thematization in

musicinmorerecentapproaches.Whatmakesthisattemptmostsurprisingisthefactthatitfinds

itswaynotonlythroughtheapproachesandrelationsestablishedtowardstheperformingbody,

butalsotowardsthelisteningbodyand,helas!,towardsthemostinaccessiblecomposingbody.

BecauseonethingismadeevidentandbroughttotheforegroundinCraenen’sapproach: ifthe

performingbodyisthoughtofandconceivedfromtheoutsideinthe20thcentury,itisnotthought

63

oforconceivedbyanabstractentity,butfromanotherbody,namelythecomposingbody.Craenen

showsthat inorder tounderstandthecompositionalapproachto theperformingbody,wewill

haveto try tograspanotheraspectof thisapproach,namely, that it isdonethroughthisother

composingbody.Thefactthatwecantakecompositionashavingabodyintoaccountopensup

newthinkingperspectivesandisanotherargumentagainstour issueofthestirringapartofthe

machine and its dichotomies of performers and composers into different categories. The non-

suspensionandnon-evaporationofthebodyofthecomposerisessentialinordertogofurthernot

onlyinthinkingaboutthespecificrolesofthebodyinmusic,butforrethinkingmusicingeneral.

Scientificground

Asweobservedinthebeginningofthiscluster,theideaofmusicandcompositionpracticeaspure

abstract thinking is stillverypresent inoursociety.However, thepaths troddenbyscienceand

speciallybyperceptiontheoriesseemtocontradictthissonotropicperspective:throughmimetic,

enactingandsubvocalisationtheorieswehaveasolidscientificgroundtobegintoconceivethe

compositionprocessasanembodiedexperience.Acommonandconsensualfeaturetoallvariants

ofthesetheoriesisthecrucialpresumptionthatperceptionandactionarealreadylinkedtoeach

other at a very (pre-conscious) level of information processing. Perception of action implies a

(motor)mimeticengagementofoneown’sbody.(GodøyinCraenen2014,159).Thetheoriesshow,

oncemore, thatthere isnosuchthingasa ‘passiveperception’andthatperception,nomatterwhat,alwaysseemstoimplyanactiveengagementofthebody.Themimetichypothesisholdsthat

musical experience involves motor imagery including the memory and activation of muscular

activity.Ifthisiscorrect,itmeansthatmusculartensionandrelaxation,ofkindsthatwouldproduce

soundssimilartothoseheard,areintegraltomusicperceptionandcognition,regardlessofwhether

weareconsciousofthismotor imagery’ (Cox inCraenen2014,159).Thesubvocalisationtheory

shows this process in the specific practice of silent reading: evenwhen reading in silence (and

probably in silent singing) the same muscles implied in the action of reading aloud are being

activatedthroughnerve/motorimpulsesofthebrain37).

Alltheseassumptionspointtoadirectioninwhichmusicalcreationseemstoimplyanactiveinner

engagementandmovementofthebodyinthecompositionprocess.Throughthem,wecanoutline

thecomposingbodyasaphysicalengagedandmotionfulbodyandthereforealsoconceivethe

compositionprocessasaphysically‘enacted’one.OneofCraenen’sassumptionsisthatmusical

thinking implies an alreadyembodiedperception(-action) of how the instrument is played. The

instrumentisseenasplayingfieldforthemusicalthinkingwhich,inthatsense,precedesthemusic…

Theinstrumentembodiesdiverseformsofnaturalandculturalresistanceasmaterialobject. (…)

37Relatedtothissubject,butregardingtheplayingof instruments–thereareseveral techniques(suchasAlexanderTechnique,forone)thathelpmemorisemusicandovercomedifficultiesofperformance,whichimplya‘playinginthemind’–intheend,thesameprincipleisimplied:‘innerplaying’alsoprovokesimpulsesthroughthenervesintomuscleswhichusuallyworkwhenplaying.‘Innerplaying’seemstoworkandtobehelpfulinstudyingpreciselybecauseitisnotonlyanabstractkindofthinking,butbecauseitworkswithalldimensionsactuallyinvolvedinplaying.

64

Resistance both conditions and inspires musical creativity (Craenen 2014, 192). Although the

cognitiveprocessesinvolvedinsoundimaginationhaven’tyetbeenclarifiedthroughscience,actual

knowledge indicates thatwethinkand imaginenewsounds in referencetoknownones:sound

imagination seems to be linked to a process that differently composes and shapes already

experiencedsounds.Asfarasweknow,thereseemstobenosuchthingasahumancapacityfor

imaginingcompletelyabstractsounds,withnoconnectiontotherealworld:onthecontrary,sound

imagination seems to relate to a previously embodied sound experience, and to the specific

experienceofsoundresistancethatemergesasagiven instrumental (orspecificsound)playing

field. Experience of sound resistance arises then as a huge and endless potential for being re-

created:re-shaped,re-filtered,re-processed,re-composedinnewsounds.

The fact that sound imagination is conceived as a process connected with the experienced

materialityofsound,togetherwiththeacknowledgementofmusicalthinkingasanembodiedand

enactingexperienceopenanewpossibilityforconceivingmusiccreation:compositionmightthenalsoberegardedasaprocessofimpulsesthroughnerves,movementsofmuscles,viscera,blood

pressure,skingalvanization,agreatdealofbodiesoperatingwithandagainsteachother.Buthow

torelatetosuchadispersebody?Therefore,thekindofinvestigationleadbyCraenen(although

verydifferentinapproach)hasasimilarflavourtotheoneleadbySteinerandwhichweremarked

onatthebeginningofthistext:tryingtofindthetracesofthecomposingbodyinmusicisinaway

comparabletoSteiner’sproposalforlistening.Andtheycanbothleadusbacktothethemeofthe

pulsatingorbeatingbody.

TowardsmicrotimezonethroughClynes’‘doublestreamtheory’

ThroughhisanalysisofBerio’sSequenzaVfortrombone,Craenenconcludesthatminorchangesin

therelationshipbetweenactionandsoundresult (lastingtenthsofasecond)canbesometimes

perceivedasmajorchangesinidentityofaudiovisualgestures(idem,255-56).Hethenarguesthere

is a difference between the articulation produced within a time zone of the organized

action/reactionbody–thetimeframeofrhetoricalfiguresandmeaningfulgesturalprototypes–

andmovementoccurringinamicrotimezone,asmicrovibrations–beyondsubjectivecontroland

outofconsciousness.Thedifferencebetweenthesetimerealmsisthenestablishedinpartthrough

Craenen’s critical analysis of Manfred Clynes’ research (1995) on performance. Through the

microtime analysis of various recordings of pieces by certain ‘classic’ composers performed by

differentprofessionalperformers,Clynesfoundanimplicitlevelofpulsesinamicrotimezonethat

was clearly exceeding the information exposed in the score. Clynes’ researchwas then aimingtowards apossibilityof findinga composer’s pulse. Thepossibilityof finding a signatureof the

composingbody inmusic (andoutof thescore)meant forClynes findinga successionofmicro

pulsesthatcouldresistdifferentinterpretations,differentperformersandevendifferentpiecesby

a composer. If a certainand singularpatternwas recognised, itwas then regardedasaunique

personalimprintofaspecificcomposer.

65

Themainvectorsoftheseexperiments–suchasthevalidityofthepurposeoftryingtoreducea

composer’sapproachtoauniqueformula,themethodologyusedforresearch38,andthefactthat

many importantand intervening factors in theprocess (suchasaural cultureand transmission)

werenottakenintoaccount–havebeencriticizedandconsideredproblematicwithintheacademic

realm,andbyCraenenhimself.Nevertheless,andputtingClyne’sgoalsandinterpretationsofthe

resultsaside,Craenenselectsspecific informationmadeavailablebythesestudiesassignificant

toolsthatcanleadustootherkindsofquestioningandconclusions:wemightchoosetoretaina

more tentative interpretation of his theory, namely, the possibility of finding a collection of

microtemporalmovement characteristics in a compositional oeuvre that are to a certain extent

recognisable,andthereforesubjecttosystematisation(idem,251).

RelatingtothesubjectoftheSchumannianbodydescribedbyBarthes,CraenendrawsonClyne’s

‘double stream theory’ – a theory which claims the existence of two simultaneous streams ofmusicalmeaninginWAM–andwhichcorrespondstothepreviouslymentionedideaofdifferent

time zones of articulation (and therefore movement): the second stream corresponds to the

annotatableandnarrativedevelopmentofmusicattheleveloftheexpressivegesture,andissaid

tooccurwithina time frameof three toeight seconds. The first streamcorresponds toanon-

annotatable,repetitiveandhierarchicalpulsestructurethatlaysasacanvasforthesecondstream

andinwhichpulseunitissaidtolastbetweenhalfasecondandawholesecond.Thepulsestructure

isnottheequivalentofthemetrethatcanbereadfromthescorebutmustbeconsideredaninner

pulsationthatgroupspulsesinamicrotemporallytypicalmanner.Itisthroughtheadditionofthis

microstructuretothescore,tobeunderstoodastinydeviationsinthetimingofnominalnotevalues

(roughlybetween two to twentymilliseconds),aswellasaccentsor theamplitudeenvelopesof

individual notes, vibrato, or variations in timbre within a note, that the musical performance

becomes“lively”andconvincing(idem,250).

‘Sharedphysicality’&‘auraltransmission’

RelatingClyne’sdescriptionofthefirststreamwithBarthes’descriptionofabeatingbody,Craenen

proposes that the Schumannian body could be based on the recognition of this type of

microtemporalpulsestructure(…)thatcannotbefoundassuch inthescorebutthatmakesthe

musical developments meaningful in performance. But the possibility of finding the same

micropulsestructureindifferentrecordingsbydifferentperformersleadsCraenentoacknowledge

twopossible features in this beatingbody: first, thepossibility of transmission (since the same

38 See (ed. Godøy, Leman 2010, 88-93), for example, performances that would match the idea of pulse would beconsidered‘right’andtheonesthatwouldnotcorrespondtotheseexpectationswouldbeconsidered‘wrong’:onthewholethewrongpulsetendstobelessappropriate(moreunpleasant)forthosewhopresumablyunderstandthemusicbest(ClynesinGodøy,Leman2010,91).

66

micropulse structure can be found in several recordings by different performers); second, the

implausibility that thismicropulse structure as a shared physicality could be considered as the

inalienablepropertyofonecomposer.CraenenproposesthereforethatSchumann’sbeatingbody,

as this shared physicality, could be regarded as a “biocultural” correspondence relying on the

effectivepowerofauraltransmissioninWAM:theidentificationoftheSchumanncharacterisbased

onanauraltransmissionofgesturalidentitymediatedbyacommonbodilycarrier(idem,252).

Itisinterestingtosuspendournarrativehereinordertoestablishrelationstopreviousauthorsand

ideas.

WecaneasilyrecallthetwolevelsofthesameeventorrealityformulatedbyMassumiasintensity

andqualityasrealms,whichsharecommonfeatureswithClyne’sfirststreamandsecondstream.

Secondstreamandquality levelcanbeconnectedbytheirmeaningful,narrativeandexpressive

content inabiggertimeframe,whereasfirststreamand intensity levelcanberelatedtooutof

subjectivecontrolmicromovementoccurringwithinthemicrotimezone.Itcouldbeinterestingtoconduct specific experiments in order to understand if there could be any effective

correspondencesintermsofprecisetimecorrespondencesbetweenMassumi’smysteryofthehalf

secondandClyne’smicrotime.Regardingfirststreamandmicrotimeitisalsointerestingtodraw

the same parallels to all previous notions that implied time disruption, such as Nancy’s

breakthrough, Simondon’s singularity, Deleuze’s notion of haecceities and Assis formulation of

microhaecceities.Inallofthesetheoriesthereisanotionofruptureofthedimensionoflinearity

whichisconceivedorobservedinamicrotimezone.

Movingawayfromtheideaofthecomposer’spulse,CraenenstatesthattherelevanceofClyne’s

theorieslieson:1)makingevidentthatlisteningbodiesaresensitivetotheextremesubtletiesof

micro-pulsesandthefactthatthissensitivityisexpressedinexperiencesofmeaningthatarenot

based on hermeneutic interpretation, but rather on a direct activating recognition (mimetic or

otherwise)ofcorporealidentity(idem,252);2)acknowledgingthatmicrotemporalcharacteristics

canembedthemselvesascorporealidentityandthusbetransferred(idem);3)acknowledgingaural

transmissionasresponsibleforthetransmissionofthisincommensurablepartof‘information’or

‘knowledge’ carried within WAM. Craenen further claims that it might be precisely becausemicropulse structure is occurringwithina time frameof reflexes andautomatic responses over

whichwehavenodirectcontrol(idem,255),thatauraltransmissionmightbe,afterallatleastas

binding and disciplining as a culture based onwriting (idem). And Iwould ask if this somehow

ungraspablebutseeminglyeffective‘communication’couldpossiblyberelatedtoAssis’‘modeof

affection’andSzendy’s‘formoftelepathy’as‘outofmind’processeswhereakindcommunication

occursbeyondthesubjectivecontrol.

67

‘Requirements’foran‘effectiveimprint’oftheungraspablebodyinmusic

Regardingthefeaturesofthe‘transmission’inquestion,Craenenpointsoutthatthepossibilityof

leavingamarkorimprintinmusicentailsseveralimportantaspectsthatshouldbeconsidered.The

firstisthefactthatthepossiblemarkleftbythecomposercouldonlycorrespondtoalevelofthe

bodywhich is not the linear or organised one and the one related tomeaningful gesture. The

possiblemarktoleavewouldthenberelatedtoalevelbeyondcompositionalcontrolorintention:

itwouldcorrespondthentoahighlylocalcharacteristic,comparablewithsomeone’swalkortheir

accent(…)(idem,254).

Thesecondaspectthatallowsthispersonalmarktobeleftinthemusicbyacomposerisstatedby

Craenen as a necessarily intimate relationwith the concrete experienceof sound andmusic,a

certainspeedofwritingoratleastaphysicalexperienceofthecomposingbodythatdoesnotlose

touchwithmusic’sinnertime,with‘beinginthemusic’(idem,254).BringingupScelsiandFeldman

asexamplesofsucharelation,Craenenarguesthatthisintimaterelationdoesnotcorrespondtoagreatlevelofdetailofascore.Instead,complexityandextremedetailarereportedasaffordinga

bigpotentialforobstructingthepossibilityofleavingamarkinmusic.Albeitthroughverydifferent

processes,FeldmanandScelsihaveincommonthefactthatbothcomposedatthepianoandthat

thisintimatephysicalrelationwithsoundandthelisteningprocesscanbesaidtobefeltintheir

musicasbeingahigh-resolutionprintofthereflexesofacomposingbody.

Improvisationcouldbesaidtobetheplacewherethishigh-resolutionimprintofmicrotimepulse

canbemostevidentlyexposed:morethanthroughstructuraldevelopment,itshighcomplexitycan

besaidtocomemostlyfromthismicrotimezone.Thiszoneisbroughttotheforegroundinterms

oftimbrediversityandvariation,andintermsofaclearerexposingofthereflexesofabodyacting

andreactinginrealtime.AsinScelsiandFeldman'scompositionprocesses,improvisationisavery

importantpartandtooloftheprocess. InScelsi’scasewecanarguethat it istheprocess itself,

sincehispianocompositionsareessentiallytranscriptionsofrecordingsofhis improvisations. In

Feldman’sworktheprocessisdifferent,intermsofitsdevelopmentthroughlinearityoftime,but

physicalcontactandimmersioninsoundareacentralaspectofit.Hisworkonnon-usualpatterns

alwaysseemstobeaself-reflectiononthisrelation:notaimingtoachievewhatmighthavebeencalleda‘pure’soundrelationinRomantic,buttowardsasoundrelationthattriestofeel,question

and contradict itself, finding new perspectives outside ‘naturalness’. From these compositional

processes(inScelsiandFeldman)itmightbethenpertinenttoformulatethatthepossibilityofan

imprintis‘created’throughtherelationsestablishedbetweenallmusicbodies.

Realpotentialforcomposition

Craenen goes further regarding this importance of microtemporal realm as affording a real

potentialforthecompositionprocesswithacrucialrelevancethatdoesnotactasanadditionalor

colouringbutasamotorformusicalinspiration,akineticpotentialfromwhichmusicalideasand

68

musicalstructurecanemerge.(idem,253)Butthatthismicrotemporalrealmcangainastructural

relevance in compositional process brings several implications to our consideration: that the

compositionprocessisveryphysicalandextremelysensorial;thatthisexperiencemightbecome

sodirectthatthedistanceneededforcognitivereflectionislacking(idem,258);andthatthisgap,

which is lacking incognitive reflection,willnecessarily leadus tocall intoquestionwhatcanor

cannotbeconsidered‘musicalthinking’: if thedirectnessandspontaneitythatmakethemselves

felt inmicrotimemeanthatthe individualbodycan leave itsmarkonthemusicasamovement

identitybutalsoresult in that identity remainingbeyondthereachof thecomposer’s reflection,

whatpossibilitiesexist,whatmightthemeaningofthatcomposingbodybe?Cananexploration

fromacomposer’sperspectivethatleadsustothesmallesttimeframeinmusicstillbeconsidered

musicalthinking?(idem,255)

Whetherornotitmightbeconsidered(musical)thinkingisprobablynotbethemostimportant

questiontoansweratthispoint.Themostrelevantfactforourcontextseemstobethatwecanno

longer ignore the importanceof thisdimensionboth inmusical creationandperformance. Thequestionwould then point in an other direction: how to deal, orwork upon this dimension in

composition,ifthepossibilitytodealorworkuponthisdimensionexistsatall…?

Compositionalstrategiesforbringingpulsestructuretotheforeground–Lachenmann

Craenenreflectsonthepossibilityofbringingthemicropulsestructuretothemusicalforegroundthroughspecificcompositionalstrategies.Sincetheremightbenowaytoaccessthismicrotime

realmdirectlyinaconsciousandrationalself-reflectivemanner,thepossibilitiesforbringingthis

realmtotheforegroundmightimplyadirectphysicalrelationtosound,butmostofall,strategies

forblockingthefirststreamofnarrativeandexpressivegestures.HementionsFeldmanandScelsi’s

musicasexamplesofthisstrategy,sincetheirmusicisnotdominatedbyintrudingformsoflarge

gesturesorconcretesounds(idem,256)andbringstodiscussionthemusicofHelmutLachenmann.

ItmightberelevanttoreferthatLachenmann’smusicisbroughtupasfundamentalfordiscussion

not only by Craenen but in all the three clusters of approaches evoked in this research39

Lachenmann’s ‘return’ to a sensorial musical approach, but through an aesthetic of refusal of

conventions,habitsand installed instrumentalauras,aswellashis longandsingularprocessof

thinkingaboutthe listeningsubject,openedanewpathforthinkingaboutthebody inmusic,a

pathwhichisalreadyhintingatthedimensionofthebodyindiscussion.Listeningisregardedby

Lachenmann as a self-reflective process or, as he puts it: the object of music is listening, the

perceptionthatperceivesitself(ed.Szendy2000,118)orlisteningmeans:todiscoverone-selfanew,

39 In the first cluster of thought, it is brought upby Szendy in his Phantom Limbs (…); in the second, byAssis in hispublication The conditions of creation and the haecceity of music material – Philosophical-aesthetic convergencesbetweenHelmutLachenmannandGillesDeleuze(inAssis2018,225);inthethird,byPaulCraeneninComposingundertheskin–Themusic-makingbodyatthecomposer’sdesk.

69

tochangeone-self40(idem,119).Listeningisthenalsobasedinproprioceptionandoccursthrough

akindofsynaesthesicprocesswhereitisnotonlytheinstrumentasanobjectthatisexploredin

music: it is the exploratory action of the tactile discovery itself that finds its way into our

consciousness (Craenen 2014, 91). In his ‘musique concrète instrumentale’ this listening

perspectivecomesalongwithanideathatthewaysoundisgenerated(gesture,movement)and

itsimplicitenergeticimpulseareconsideredasmostcrucialmusicalparameters.

Goingbacktoapossiblestrategyofblockingthesecondstream,Craenenproposesthat,inthecase

ofLachenmann,cadence-likefiguresdooccur,buthisaestheticof‘refusingconvention’suggestsan

awarenessofreflexesthatmanifestinasmallertimeframe,adding:ifwedonotlimitLachenmann’s

‘refusal of convention’ to thewider time frameof tonalmovement or the rhetorical figure, but

extendittothetimeframeofClyne’smicrotime,thiswillmeanthatweshouldbeabletofinda

resistancetohisownautomatismsorreflexesinhismusic(Craenen2014,256/7).Hence,itseems

acknowledgeable that Lachenmann’s music explores this microtime realm in many differentdirections.Themoredifficulttask,ofcourse,istoclearlyidentifytheseprocessesanddisentangle

amicropulsestructurefromanarrativepulsestructureinamusicalcontextofirregularmetreand

pulse,asinLachenmann’scase.Thisiswhy,fromacertainpointonward,thisdiscussionwillhave

toremaininaspeculativerealm.However,Lachenmann’smusic(andcompositionprocess) is in

this context regarded by Craenen as matching the criteria that would allow music to have a

‘personalmovement identity’: it is developed in an intimate, linear and concrete relationwith

soundandwork.Forthisreason,Craenenthinksofthehypothesisofa“typicallyLachenmannian”

gesturethatcanbetransmittedaurallyasaninterestingtrainofthought(idem,257).

Lachenmann is thena composerwho,whilemaintaining the rolesof composer, performer and

listener untouched,makes an effort to bring them closer together. The composing body is, in

Lachenmann’s case, a body that thinks and recreates the performing and the listening bodies,

makinganefforttostand‘intheirshoes’andtosensetheirdifferentperspectives.Itisanapproach

that begins to move away from the radical composer/performer relation of new complexity,

creatingaspaceforcomplicitybetweenthetworoles.This isapathwhich is followedbymany

composersofnewergenerationswithmanydifferentandveryinterestingmusicaloutputs.

40Translationbytheauthor:l’objetdelamusiqueestl’écoute,laperceptionquiseperçoitelle-mêmeorécoutersignifie:sedécouvrirsoi-mêmedenouveau;sechanger.

70

‘BodyasZeroPoint’(Craenen)&smalldance(Paxton)

Attheendofhisbook,Craenensuggeststhatthematizationofthebodyinmusiccouldbefurther

expandedthroughamusic-makingbodythatcanoperateasazeropointofcompositionalthinking

(Craenen2014, 262): abodyas zero point. Presented as a body that precedes the roles of the

composingbody,performingbodyandlisteningbody,thisbodyaszeropointisthensuggestinga

way of composing that attempts to bridge the gap between composition, performance, and

experiencebytakingphysicalrealityofmusic-makingandexperiencingmusicasastartingpoint

(perhapsnotforthefirsttime),withoutneedingtoharkbacktoaromantic“naturalness”ormystic

intuitionofthebody(Craenen2014,262).Thebodyaszeropointisdescribedwiththeimageofa

bodythat,tryingtocometoastandstill,isconfrontedwiththeimpossibilityofstillness(justasin

Cage’ssilentpiece)andbecomesawareof itsownmicromovements.This isabodythatpushes

perception’sboundariesfurther:abodythatcan,ultimately,perceiveitselfasliminaloscillation.

This imageistakenfromStevePaxton’ssmalldance,acentral ideainhisconceptionofContactImprovisation: small dance is themovement performed in the very act of standing: it is not a

consciouslydirectedmovement,butitcanbeconsciouslyobserved41(Paxtonqt.inGil,2001,133-

4).

AlthoughCraenendoesnotexplicitlyacknowledgeit,JoséGilformulatestheseoutofconscience

andoutofcontrolmicromovementsofPaxton’ssmalldanceasvirtualmovements,asavirtualthat

correspondstoDeleuze’sformulationofit:virtual,inthesensethattheiremissionandabsorption,

theircreationanddestructionareproducedinatimewhichisshorterthantheminimumcontinuous

thinkable time, and since this brevity keeps them under a principle of uncertainty and

indeterminationfromthenon.42(DeleuzeeParnet inGil2001,141).Thevirtualdimensionofthe

bodyisthenconceivedthroughtheconceptofatmosphere,anideathathas,infact,manycommon

traceswiththeconceptofaréalitéformulatedbyNancyandtoMassumi’svirtual:anungraspable

dimensionofthebodythat,althoughnotactual,isconsideredtobereal.Itisthendescribedasan

ensembleofdriving forcesandmagnetismswhichare infrasemioticand interior-exterior to the

bodies43(Gil2001,147)andthat,justasallpreviousconceptionsofanungraspablerealmofthe

body brought up in this research, are formulated through a non-conformity with the semioticsystemandwithdualitiesofinside/outsideofthebody.

Thesmalldance,again,complementsthecompleximageofthebodythatwehavebeentryingto

draw(orun-draw)throughthethreeclustersofauthors:abodythatfailstosubmittosubjectivity,

tosignification,thatisasmuchincontrolasitisoutofcontrol.Itisabodythatcanescapefrom

41 Translation by the author:A pequena dança é omovimento efectuado no próprio acto de estar de pé: não é ummovimentoconscientementedirigido,maspodeserconscientementeobservado.42Translationbytheauthor:virtuaisnamedidaemqueasuaemissãoeabsorção,asuacriaçãoedestruiçãosefazemnumtempomaispequenoqueomínimodetempocontínuopensável,eumavezqueessabrevidadeosmantémdaíemdiantesobumprincípiodeincertezaeindeterminação.43Translationbytheauthor:infra-semióticaeinterior-exterioraoscorpos.

71

itself, that can open itself in the sense that escaping from oneself is opening oneself to an

unstoppablemovementthatwillletunconsciouscontentsgothrough44(Gil2001,139).ForPaxton,

consciousnessisagruyère(anassociationtotheholesingruyèrecheese):asurfacewithgapsthat

represents conscience activity as anon-continuous realm.Conscience is thereforeportrayedas

occasionally disappearing, Paxton argues: I don’t knowwhere it goes. But I think I knowwhy it

disappears:somethingisproduced,thatistooquickforthought45.(PaxtoninGil2001,140).

Paxton’s small dance and Craenen’s body as zero point resonate both with Szendy’s idea of

predispositionforautophony(andNancy’sarealité)andwithMassumi’sideaofquantummodeof

thesingularbodies.Butotherrelationstopreviousideascanbefurtherexplored:returningtothe

smalldance,ContactImprovisationisformulatedbyPaxtonasaprocessthatallowsthespreading

ofmicromovementsfromonebodytoanother.This‘transmission’ofsmalldanceisthensaidto

occurfromthecontactofthebodies:notasanassimilationprocessofinformation,butasakind

of‘contagion’and‘osmosis’process,occurringthroughtheouterinterfaceofthebody,theskin.Aprocess where each body still maintains its singularity. These specific movements and their

spreadingareconsideredbyGilasoccurringatavirtual level:thevirtual level isthe levelofthe

osmosisoftheunconsciousmovements(virtual)46(Gil2001,142).Regardingthisosmose,Gilrefers

that as a dynamic of unconscious forces circulating at skin surface, dance always implies the

contagion of the bodies; that is, a communication of the unconscious47 (idem, 148). Again, this

virtualunconsciouscontagionloudlyresonatestheideasof‘communication’broughtupbySzendy

as‘formoftelepathy’andAssisas‘modeofaffection’,orsimplyaffection.Theimportancegivento

theskinasanouterinterfacealsobringsusbacktotheintimaterelationestablishedbyMassumi

betweenaffectorprocessofaffectionandthephysicalreactionofskingalvanization,arelation

that was then captured by D’Errico, and brought into her third (intensive) mode of musical

performanceasacrucialelement:workandperformermustremainoutsideeachotherforthebody

to be affected in its outer interface – the skin – bymeans of a total, unbridgeable exteriority.

(D’Errico2018,165)

ItmightbeinterestingtobringMassumi’sformulationoftheautonomyofaffectandautonomyof

relationtothiscontext. Ifaffect isautonomousandfeedshigherfunctions,operatingthroughalogicofresonance/interferenceoramplifying/dampening,thisbodyaszeropointcouldbeabody

thatdoesnotonlyprecedetherolesofcomposing/performing/listening:thisbodyaszeropoint

mightbe‘resonating’before,after,behindanytask,anyprocessimpliedintheseroles.

44Translationbytheauthor:Escaparasipróprioéabrir-seaummovimentoimparávelquevaideixarpassarconteúdosinconscientes.45Translationbytheauthor:nãoseiparaondevai.Mascreiosaberporquedesaparece.Produz-sealgumacoisaqueérápidademaisparaopensamento.46Translationbytheauthor:oplanovirtualéoplanodaosmosedosmovimentosinconscientes(virtuais).47Idem:enquantodinâmicadasforçasinconscientescirculando«àflordapele»,adançaimplicasempreocontágiodoscorpos;ouseja,acomunicaçãodeinconscientes.

72

AndalthoughCraenenconceivestherolesofperformer,composerandlistenerasexpandedroles

thatmight‘standoneachother’sfeet’,bytakingphysicalrealityofmusic-makingandexperiencing

musicasastartingpoint(Craenen2014,262),theserolesaremaintainedasdefinedandstable.It

is interesting to note that the separation of roles seems to fulfil a security measure against

subjectivity inWAM throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, as a necessary tool pushing in the

directionofreflection,prudenceandrepositioning.Therestillseemstoexistatabooregardingthe

paradigmofcomposer/performer,asembracinganinevitableriskofsubjectivity,frivolousvanity

andshowoff.Thecomposer-performerparadigmseemstounavoidablymeantheimpossibilityof

self-reflection:regardedasaclosedcircuit,itseemstobecondemnedtocrystalizeinasameold

same.

But Iwouldarguethatwhat itcanbringanewispreciselyanother ideaofself-reflection,anew

space of relation, which can broaden our conception of rational self-reflection towards otherinvisiblebutconcretedimensionsofthebodiesandofthemusic.Newaudacious,self-reflective,

highly sensorial composer/performer approaches can probably afford a different directness of

musicalexperiencethatcouldopenupnewwaysofthinkingandexperiencingmusic,but,mostof

all,newwaysofperceivingandsensingthemultipleanddivergentself,awayfromnormalisedand

rigidstereotypes.Andthatisanextremelyimportantpointfornewmusicinourdays:pertinent

andpowerfulformsofengagementandnewwaysofself-reflectioncanbemostprecioustools.

6.THEBODYASITSOUTSIDER(S)IV:towardsabodyaslistening

A multiple and disparate body(ies) is beginning to be ‘transduced’, ‘interpreted’,

shaped|unshaped48 throughout this researchproject (throughout thecreativeprocessof trilogy

andthisthesis):abodyasitsoutsider(s).

Themultipleanddisparatebody(ies)thatisbeingshaped|unshaped49throughthisresearchproject

isthenabody(ies)thatdoesnotneedtobeforcedfromtheoutside,itdoesnotneedtheinjection

from the outside50 (discussed in the context of complexity and new complexity approaches) to

emergeasavulnerableandunsteadybody.Butthefactthatitdoesn’tneedthisinjectiondoesnot

meanthatitcanavoidorescapeviolence:itdoesnotneedtheinjectionfromtheoutsidebecause

itisitselftheinjectionfromtheoutside,itdoesnotneedviolencetobeprompteduponit,because

48 The designation of shaping/unshaping does not refer to a simple process of giving form to matter, but to aconstructive/deconstructiveprocessthatmayencompassthenotionsoftransductionand‘interpretation’alludedtointhiscontext(inIII.Thebodyasitsoutsider(s)IandII)andalsothenon-dualisticnotionoffallingapart/pullingtogether.Forpracticalreasonswewillalsoalludetothisprocessthroughasshaping.49Seepreviousnote. 50AsdiscussedinChapterII.,3.

73

thisbodyisalreadyviolenceuponitself.Itisabodyasfeedback,withthedisruptivepowerofself-

destruction: self-deconstruction, de-configuration, but simultaneously and paradoxically, of re-

configuration,re-construction.

It is then, again, a body as its outsider(s), a body asmultiple self-reflection, resonant spacing,

listening:notasabodylisteningto,butabodyaslistening.

Itcouldbehere,probably,inabodythatisvibrationandresonanceasbothoutsideandinside,

abodythatiscontrolasmuchasoutofcontrol,

abodythatdoesnotclose/eraseitselfuponitself,

abodythatisnotastableandwholeentity,butacontinuousandvulnerableprocessofmaking

body

a body that through this vulnerability affords plasticity and flexibility as resonant and kinetic

creativepotential: itmightbehere, inthisbody,asdisruptivedisparateresonance(s) that liesarevolutionarypotentialforthemusicbodies.

Throughout this researchprojectwewill shape|unshapeabody(ies)as resistance51,abody(ies)

that proclaims its disruptive singularity, its unsteadiness, non-integrity and non-normalised

featuresasopeningsandpossibilitiesforthenew.Thisprocessofmakingbody(ies)willbethen

approached with a certain autoimmune character, as a complex and paradoxical process of

shaping52–somethingthatwillbeexploredindifferentperspectivesinthefollowingclusterand

that will then take on the paradoxical shape|unshape of virtuosity. This process will be then

regarded as an ‘empowered’ process ofmaking body out of/aside/beyond the quarrels of the

constructoftheculturalagainstthenatural.

Themultipleanddisparatebody(ies)that isbeingcontinuouslyshaped throughmusicalpractise

and research, as [an] empowered space in between, is also a deep reflection upon all the

dimensionsofmusicitcallsintoquestion:itdoesnotcloseitselfawayfromthesedimensions,itis

a body as continuous relation with them – deconstructing/ creating/recreating/

disrupting/enacting/re-enacting,performinganewasengagementwith.Itisthenabody(ies)thaturges,convergingpast,presentandfutureandalthoughcritical,itiseclecticinasensethatcould

51Itis,againandagain,abodyasresistance–an‘empowered’spacinginbetween–tosubmissionandtop-downrelationsofdichotomycomposer/performer,ontheonehandand,ontheother,tothemassiveandglobalcultof‘personality’that spreads from pop/rock-culture towards all Western music domains. With globalisation and social networks,everything seemsmore andmore an overwhelmingmulti-dimensional repetition of a same same. Reproduction of‘personality’seemstohavebecomepossible,eachtime,againandagain,throughamechanismofmicrovariation,whichopensthesedimensionsoutofthebody,which,however,areapproachedagainastherawandthenaturalorauthenticexpression:theyareagainapproachedasstatic, immutable,non-plasticfeaturesofthebodyconnectedtoanideaofessenceofthebodies.Music (and often the idea of choreography, now) seems to be the art that best servesmassification, globalisation,normalisation.52Seepreviousnotes.

74

touchNancy’sideaofunityofadiversitythatitsunitydoesnotreabsorb.(Nancy2007,41).Itcan

provideprecioustools:newaudaciousandsensorialformsofreflectionandself-reflectionandnew

possibilitiesofengagementinnewmusic.

The multiple and disparate body as its outsider(s) will be shaped|unshaped and

‘formulated|unformulated’throughanideaoflisteningasListening|theopen.

Towardsaformulationof‘listening’as‘listening|theopen’

Thisthesisandartisticportfolioconstituteanattemptnotjustatgoing‘outofmyowndepth’,and

then ‘safely’ coming back to ‘my own depth’ again, but the movement of this research

acknowledgesthat‘one’sdepth’,asameasurablerealm,cannotbeapointofdepartureanymore.

Itisnotjustamatterof‘including’thisoutoflawdimensionofthebodyastakingpartinourX–Ymusical coordinates, as disruptive movements that put music and the body in question. It is

probably a matter of having this questioning and unsteadiness already as an unsteady steady

groundandstartingfromthere,conceivingmusicdifferently.

AtthebeginningofthisdissertationIcalledintothiscontextmyexperienceofintensificationofthe

listening sense through Fassina’s teaching method. But another relevant experience occurred

within the last eight years,one that that, surprisingly, I onlyquite recentlybecameconsciously

awareof:overthelasteightyearsIrarelyplayedorstudiedmusicfromascoreandrarelyplayed

repertoirefromothercomposers.Itwasnotandeliberatedecision,justsomethingthathappened

gradually,untilsuddenly,becomingawareofit,Ihadthestrangesensationofbeingsomewhere

else,thesensationofmusicbeingacompleteelsewhere.Alongwiththissensationofstrangeness

cametheawarenessthattherewas,infact,nowayback:Inolongerwasapianistasapianist,and

was suddenly a composerbut not reallyas a composer. The distance to usual roles,methods,

practicesandproceedingsfeltlikeastrange,nobody’sland:

(resonance:thepricetobepaidfortheunleashingofintensityinmusicperformancegoesasfaras

effacing,mutilating,subtractingthesemioticlevel)53

Thiserasing of thewritten is relevant in this context because it unquestionably transforms the

relationonehaswithmusic.Itisnotareturntozero,becauseonecannotanddoesnotwantto

erase precious years ofmusical studying,musical and technical knowledge. Erasing thewritten

obviously doesn’t delete a semiotic and organised dimension of musical thinking that was

painstakinglyconstructedthroughtheyears,butitcanbringastrongtransformativepotentialof

re-organisation of this dimension: as a disruptive movement itself (again), it forced me to

53(D’Errico2018,165).

75

deconstructandre-constructmyrelationshipwithmusicandinstrument,throughahighlysensorial

soundapproach.Thisprocessbroughtmetowardsa‘sensation’oflisteningthatnolongerseemed

possibletoformulatethroughtheusuallisteningsense.

Wearriveagainandagaintothesubjectoflistening,thestartingpointofthisthesis.Throughthe

developmentofthisproject,itbecamemoreandmoreclearthatanideaoflistening,alongwitha

formulationofthebodyasitsoutsider(s)werecrucialelementsanddrivingforcesintheprocesses

ofmusicalcreationofthistrilogy.Itbecameobviousthatthisspecificlistening‘experience’andthis

levelofthebodywerenotmerelyintimatelyconnected:inthiscontext,listeningisnota‘listening

for’andthislevelofthebodyisnota‘something’,aneventonecanlistento.Ultimately,the(non-

)processoflisteningcouldberegardedasthe(non-)processofdisruption.

ListeningwillbeintimatelyconnectedwiththenotionsofNancy’s‘listening’,butmostofall,with

allformulationsofabodyasitsoutsider(s)calleduponthiscontextinChapterIIIandtoitsintrinsicrelationsestablishedtowardsotherness.Itisimportanttoreinforcethat,forthereasonsdiscussed

throughoutChapterIII,the‘idea’oflisteningaslistening|theopencannot,atanyrate,beclearly

formulated. Itcanonlybe ‘formulated’throughfragmentarybutmultidimensionalperspectives,

which will not be able to sketch a whole and stable ‘picture’ of listening. Listening will be

shaped|unshapedindifferentcontextsthroughdifferentformsof(in)expression(differentmusical

approaches,differentwritingapproaches).

Itfirstbegantobeshapedasaspecificmusical/performingapproachdevelopedthroughoutthe

thirdsoloofthetrilogy,throughthedesignationoflistening:theopen,adesignationthatentitled

thelastpieceofthetrilogy(premieredinOctober2016attheMariaMatosTheatre).Butitspread

inmanydirections,andthisdesignation(witha littledifference inpunctuation–Listening|the

open)endedupreferringtodifferentphenomenasimultaneously:thespecificmusical/performing

approachdevelopedthroughoutthethirdsolo;thetrilogyitself;and,simultaneously,theideaof

listeningthatwasbeingdevelopedthroughoutit.Thefactthatasimilarnamewasgiventoallthese

different but related phenomenamay be considered quite confusing and not practical at all...

however, it seemed tomake sense in this particular context, because they convey the idea ofListening | the open not as a clearly defined, bi-dimensional, static or closed concept, but as a

moving multi-dimensional shape spreading in many directions. Complexity was, again, valued

aboveclarityofexpression.

The fact that we’re dealing with complexity andwith the disruptive level will have, therefore,

furtherimplicationsinourmethodology–notbeingabletoencompassthislistening‘experience’

inaclearandexplicitformulation,wewillhavetomakedifferentattempts,trydifferentapproaches

thatcansomehowtouchuponthislisteningfromdifferentperspectives.

Our first attempt will touch our issue of subtracting/mutilating/ the written: it will imply a

movementof disruptionof thewriting itself towards aperspectiveof sensing, of ultra-sensing.

76

Formandmatterareinthiscontextnotseparateoropposedelements,asdisruptiondoesnotfit

in.Thisthesiswillthereforehavetoadoptdifferentstrategiesofwriting,withdifferentopposed

velocities,timesandspacings.

I

(abetween):listeningasListening|theopen

fig.2

II

( ) Listening | the open : the musician magician Is trapped in melody or how to hide melody from - harmony, figuring out phrases, structures connections and more connections and then discipline more discipline taking away the will staying with the realm – phrases, structure discipline more discipline forcing the body doing it perfectly perfect straight normalized as what is beautiful sounding normalized as terrible sounding

as whatever normalized sounding terrible as long as supposed intended: – written at the top of the score terrible sounding and this should be right to do the musician magician says yes, sir the musician magician says yes, sir the musician magician says yes, sir yes, sir yes, sir (never, madam) and then suddenly out of the hat the musician magician wants us to believe it is pure gold

III

Listening | the open

(I.) music is not below your warm pillow below music, trapped above the ceiling comfortable zone for the musician magician I will not be put in question I will not be put in question I will not be put in question I will not be put in question I will not be put in question I will not put in question I will not put in question he unsaid sleeping warm pillow below the ceiling Well, that music might be dead I said.

Dearest philosophers, it is not: are we able to listening - music – beyond the words music is not below your warm pillow above the ceiling it might be further: Are we able to listening – music beyond its semiotic, narrative, stylistic, organized codes? of listening bodies as insurmountable (bodies), of being these insurmountable bodies listening? Or are we just able to neutralise the bodies in order to create a disembodies and/or organised ideal of listening?

IV

ListeningasintensificationforsensingTheIncisionExactly,Precisely.

WheretheknifecutsthefleshandsensesthenervesspreadingthroughThereskintoskinweshouldmeet.

Listening|theopen

V

ListeningtheIncisionIsnotsolitarysensingyourownprivatebodyItisbeingtherewhereyourbodytouchesmillionsandmillionsofdeadincisionsotherbodiesstillpulsatinglivelyinyourownprivateexperiencethisiswheretheauralHistorytakesplace:yourbodyassharedphysicality-corpus

|

VI

sensingthepulsehealinguponlistening

VII

Thisisnot,although-itmightsoundasifandso,Amanifestoagainstdiscipline-organizedbodyNo.Disciplinemakesyoutenacious,voracioustowardsyourgoalitempowersyoursoundingbodieswiththemostefficienttoolsTheproblemisthere,whennotputtinginquestionboththegoal,thetoolsemptiedbodiesasmakingyoursounding-listeningmuteOh,there,again,youmightconsiderforthesakeoflostsoulthatyou’llstayquitealongtimeasoundingvoraciousfool.

VIII

(III.)ListeningasdisruptionListeningasfallingfailingfaintingaway

aseismicsenseoutofsubjectoutofobjectoutofsense(vibratoryresonance:resonatingvibration:vibratoryresonancedampening|orfeedback:

Listeningasapointtriggeringitself:detonation

IX

X

boiling perception until itmelts eyesmouthearnoseskinuntilitspreadsbyitselfwithoutitselfawayatyourinsideout(Boilingwaterwithoutwatergiveatry)Untilitopensanewspacebetweenheatandlemonpie

Awayfromsensesascommonsenseyoucarvewhatisyetand(n)evertocome

Listening|theopen

XI

timefalling|faintingthrough

expanding,moulding

XII

carvingornotcarvingthroughmusicisorisnotlineartimelinelisteningisorisnotlineartimeline

tofalltofailtimeexpandingthroughmoulding

dismantlethecutawaydisruptingthemusicalphraseinbetweenmeatdishandfish

XIV

Listeningasbeingsensitiveforyourcaserevolution-mostofthepeopleare(their)caseinsensitivelistenwithintheestablishedsystemasystemisnotanabstraction:measurablepressuretokeepyoudoing,resonatingalonglisteningtotheothersresonatingdisciplinetogether:choreography.

XV

Listeningaserasingaspuredestructionofnarrativeasbecomingdeafontheforegroundforgingthroughminingcrushing,mutilatingamputatingisneededforlisteningmusicastouchingitslisteningItisnotunderstandinganothermusicintegratingitissensingasfeedingthefusespreadingthrough

XVI

Listeningasfeedingandfeedingthefaultline

feedingbackandbackkcabfingcdlisteningasanenormousoutrageousseismiceventItisagain:drinkmetheprocessoflisteningastheoverwhelmingswallowingoftheselfuntilcompletedisruptionoutoftheceiling,thewarmpillow,andcentralheating.itmightbepreciselythat:ablackholelistening

XVII

Keepcalmanddon’tsmashthesemioticsystem

IwenttoamusicalgestureconferenceandallIgotwasmeasuringmeasuresgraphicalgraphsanalysing,explainingthechoreographytothesystemthesystemtochoreographyInoneofthemmeandadancerleftbeforeExplodingoutside.KeepcalmThesystemtendstokindly‘protectusfromwhatwewant’-compressingyourlisteningwithyourwrittenconsent

XVIII

SemioticdisciplinedsystemasoverratednoiseListeningmostlyasimpossible

XIX

ListeningasthissuddenpoeticeruptionasvolcanicactivityoutofcontrolwithinthisasaneedforpouringoutthebodyasanotherbodyWorkisbodyworkmusicbutdifferentsimilarly.

XX

AsdesireListeningcomes(withoutpriornotification)

XXI

VoraciousappetiteforlisteningSwallowing–Listeningasvoraciousappetite

XXII

Abodythatswallowsitself:auto-immunityisabodylistening:ablackhole|

XXIII

touching,celebrating4’33’'butgoingelsewhereopeninganewtime,spaceasfremdeunsichtbareLänderdistanttodichotomyofcontrol/outofcontrolas(H)uman(H)istorystorytellingtheoutofisfoldedaninsideoffthebody:outofcontrolasbelongingtothisparticularbody

XXIV

(im)material

materialisitselfalsolisteningasvibration,asunknownknownmotiontowards,betweenasanunexpectedexpectedofthebody.ComposingNotforgingwithmaterialinhandsButforgingthroughhandsandthroughmaterialthismeansthatthisforging,carvingisofanotherkind.

XXV

ListeningasEmpowermentofyourdisruptivenon-normalizedbodyasmakingthedisruptivebodyresound-divergenceconverging:nofiltersfortheoutofblue

enormousseismicsounding:afragileanddelicateevent(forHelenaAlmeidaI.)

XXVI

Alert:Listeningispuredanger

Butlisteningalsois:yourempoweredprotectionfromdanger:gettingtoknowyouroutofintimatebluedetonationsfindingyoursecurityandcaressingdistancetowardsfireworks-acelebration

(forHelenaAlmeidaII.

77

fig.3

CLUSTERII

78

SpecificTerminologyMusic-makingbodySincethenotionsof‘performingbody’and‘composingbody’inmusicarestillassignedtoadual

paradigmofperformer/composer,thedesignationof‘music-makingbody’(usedinCraenen2014)

turned out to be more practical and effective in this specific context, a context that explores

performance and composition as entangled processes. The designation of ‘music-making body’

adoptedis,however,adesignationencompassingalldimensionsandrealmsofperformance.This

designationwillbeusedmostlythroughoutClusterIIandClusterIII

79

PRELUDEFORATRILOGYFORDISRUPTIVEBODIES

I. Listening,opening

Theunutterable‘mechanism’ofdisruptionisacentral‘element’formusicalcreationinthistrilogy:

howabodyfallsapart,orhowabody,suddenly,unexpectedlypullsitselftogether,urges,focused,

intoadirection. It isallabout theelectrifyingprocess thatprovokes this fallingapartorpulling

togetherofthebody,anenergeticprocessthatcouldbetriggeredbywhatweconceiveasaseismic

faultlineofthebody,ofthebeingorofthemusic.Itisthescopeofthisseismicfaultline,which

canusuallyonlybefeltinmusicalmicrotime,thatIseektotakeasaneuralgic‘event’inmymusical

approach.Itisnotpossibletopredictwhenitoccurs,nortohavecontrolovertheexperience.But

Iwouldsay it ispossible todevelopanarousalofsenses,adisruptive listeningsensewhichcan

touch this imperceptible, but disruptive, vibration. A listening ‘experience’ beyond perception1,

which can simultaneously be a triggering and a capture of this fault line, and therefore the

possibilityoffeedingbackthisliminalsignalandofenlargingitspoweranditsscopeinthemusical

output.Amusicalapproachthatbringstotheforegroundthisenergeticprocessisonethatdoes

not focus on the stable ‘music material', on the narrative or semiotic realm, but searches for

meaning mainly through the ‘in-between' possibilities of relation, the possibilities of touch or

engagement2ofoutsider(s)thattheseenergeticprocessescreate.

Thiscanallmean,inthiscontext,thatthestrategyforshaping3,orthestrategyformusicalcreation

can,ultimately,bereducedtoourinitialmovementsoffallingapartandpullingoneselftogether,

alongwiththeideaofseismicfaultline:abodymoving,abodybeingabody,abodymeaninga

body.But,inanycase,abody,withinitsinvisibleshapingandtracing,itsvelocitybeyonditself,

andeitheritsareality4(Nancy)oritsvirtuality5(Massumi)aswellasitsunperceivablebutsensing

1 ‘Beyondperception’ refers toprocessesobservedand theorizedbyBrianMassumi (2002) that are tooquick tobeperceived.Theseprocessesaretheorizedasbeingvirtualandasbeingasuspensionofthedimensionofnarrativeandsignificance.2Theterminologyofengagementwithwillbeusedasanideathatcanencompassthenotionsof1)‘communication’referred as touching (Nancy), form of telepathy (Szendy) amode of affection or affection (Assis, D’Errico), capture(Massumi) andosmoseof theunconsciousmovements (Gil) 2) transductionand ‘interpretation’.Engagement is thenregardedinthiscontextasbothakindof‘communication’andastransformativeprocessofthebodies:the‘engagement’(initsenergeticorpoliticalsense,asyoulike)ofsonorousbodiesstarts‘here’,Iamconvincedofthis:‘here’intheformationofthetiniestdeviationsfromorgantoorgan,inthecapacityforinventionthatworksinthemidstofthetiniestbody-to-body-contacts.Herewhereeffectivephantomlimbsgrow(Szendy2016,161).3Again:thedesignationofshapingorshaping/unshapingdoesnotrefertoasimpleprocessofgivingformtomatter,buttoaconstructive/deconstructiveprocessthatmayencompassthenotionsoftransductionand‘interpretation’broughttothiscontext(inIII.Thebodyasitsoutsider(s)IandII)andalsothenon-dualisticnotionoffallingapart/pullingtogether.4SeeClusterIChapterThebodyasitsoutsider(s)I–Nancy/Szendy5 Virtual is used in the senseofMassumi’s notionof it.Massumi (2002) theorises the virtual in relation tohismostimportantconceptofintensityoraffect.SeeClusterI(ChapterThebodyasitsoutsider(s)II–MusicExperiment21(Assis,D’Errico),Massumi,Simondon.

80

triggerpoints.Abodyisnotaninside,oraclosedentity,andIwouldarguethatneitherisitjust

spreadingtootherentities.Itisthespreadingitself,itisapointtriggeringitself,detonation.Itis

thereforebeyondgesture,asitisapproachedbycurrentmusicalgesturestudies,andbeyondthe

subjectivenarrativeofperformancestudies.Itisabeyond,whichissimultaneouslyawithin,having

apotentialforforgingmulti-dimensionalshapesandfurthermulti-dimensionalsenses.Everything

is,inthiscontext,neitheraboutanorganisedbodyagainstanunorganisedbody,northeopposite.

Thismeanswe’renotinalogicofthequestofan‘I’againstthe‘Self’representedbytheinternal

conflictoftheRomantic(anditsparadigmofcomposer-performer).Itisamultidimensionalityof

the body which, through disruption, resonance/feedback and interference/dampening of the

different levels, moves towards the more organised or more unorganised experience, always

creatingeitherthenewortheexpectedinanewperspective…Thewaytheselevelsrelateiswhat

shapestheplasticityoftheexpansion–howabodymoves,howabodyisbeingthisbody,howa

bodymeansthisbody,whichcouldbethesameashowthemusicmoves,howthemusicisbeing

music,howthemusicismeaningmusic.Theseismicfaultlinefeltinmicrotimecantriggertowards

organisation or disorganisation in an unpredictedway. Paradox occurs: in linearmicrotime the

deepestexpansionoftimeandspaceisshaped,plasticityagain.

Thisdoesnotmeanthatmusicandthebodyareoutofcontrol,goingfreelyorrandomlyinwhatever

direction.Itprobablydoesnotmeantheoppositeeither:thatmusicandthebodyare(totally)in

control.Itcanmean,again,thatthepathofthetrilogyishintingatanotionofthebodyandofthe

musicthatputsthedualitybetweenorganisedandunorganisedbodyaside,renderingthenotions

of control/out of control inapplicable. It does not make sense anymore to speak about the

parametersthecomposercontrolsandtheparametersthatareleftopen.Controlandoutofcontrol

arereducingfeaturesforournotionsofpullingoneselftogetherandfallingapart,becauseboth

movementsoffallingapartandpullingoneselftogethercanbetriggeredbyaprocesswhichisout

ofcontroland,simultaneously,withintherealmofthebodyorofthebodyofthework.Again,this

meanswe’renotinalogicofthequestofan‘I’againsttheSelf.Itcouldmean:letabodybeabody,

orabodybemusicormusicbebodyor

musicbe

musicor

whateverbodymusicbodymusicmusicbody

or

…andletthisnotrepresentareducingfactor,butonthecontrary,anexpansionofbothconcepts

withinandthroughoutanother,forplasticityandpossibilitiesfortime-space,sensesandmeaning

areendlessandflavourful.

II. Fallingapart|Pullingtogether-methodasmovementandfrictionbetween

1. FailingapartWhenlinearityoftimeandthought isanoptionputaside,as it isthecase,howtostartwriting

81

about one’s own work, intimate drives, artistic and aesthetic aims, musical way of thinking,

strategies,techniques…?Howtobegin,howtodealwithallofthiscomplexmaterial?Myproposal

willbeagaintofallapart,tobeginwithadeconstructionofeachconstruct,arrivingtotheultimate

conclusionthateachconstructfailedinfittingoraccomplishingmanyusualgeneralmusicalcanons,

standardsor formats.Wewill start bymaking reference to the canonsof thePhD thesis itself,

conceivedasastraightforwardexerciseofresearchaboutaclearlydefinedsubject,atendencythat

is obviously being subverted by this approach for several reasons that are being brought up

throughoutitsunfolding.Wewillthenseehow,inmanyregards,thetrilogyfailedinaccomplishing

theusualstandards:howitfailedtheconceptoftrilogyitself;howitfailedtofittheusualstandards

ofWAMmusicalcreationandtherolesofcomposer/performer,howcompositionasamechanism

forcontrollingornotcontrollingmusicalmaterial failedtomakesense,howitcannolongerbe

meaningfultodescribeamusicalpieceasa‘pieceforinstrumentxory’ inthiscontext,howit

probablynolongermakesanysensetorefertothesepiecesas‘solo’pieces,howtheabolishingof

writingnotationputsincrisistheconceptoftransmissionandusualformsofmusicalengagement

ofWAM,etc.

Thisexerciseoffallingapartasacleardisruptionmovementwillhopefullybedoneinapositive

perspective forcreatingotherpossibilitiesof re-configuration,havingourcentral focus inmind:

that of understanding creation and performing strategies that come along with the notion of

Listening|theopenandthe‘formulation’ofthemusicbody(ies)aslistening.

2. Writingaboutvs.touching(again)Weshallfirstrememberthatthisthesisisbeingwrittenafterasignificantpartoftheprocessof

musicalcreationwasdone,between2009–2016.Investigation,inturn,hasbeenundertakenina

systematicway,inparalleltomusicalcreation,since2012,thebeginningofthisPhDproject.The

factthatIdidnotbeginwritingthethesisbeforewasnotadeliberatedecision,noraconsequence

ofprocrastination:itwasaclearincapacity,animpossibilityatthetime.Tocontradictmyresistance

towardswritingIhave,however,participatedinseveralconferencesandwrittenessayswhereI

have taken stockofdirectionsof investigationandmusical practise. Thesewereof course very

important events in realizing where the investigation stood, and, therefore, crucial in making

decisionsandshapingnewdirections.Butwritinghasbeenadifficultandlong-lastingprocess.

There are different perspectives on methodology regarding artistic research and the intrinsic

relationbetweenartisticpracticeandresearch.Somepointsofviewarguethatthereisnoneedfor

writing,thatartistryitself,alone,canberegardedasresearch.Otherperspectivescallfortheneed

for both, establishing, however, a separation of practice and investigation as two different,

independentandconsecutivetasks:firstartistryandthenreflectionuponit–placingtheprocess

of artistry in an untouchable position.Other perspectives agree that bothwriting and creating

shouldhappensimultaneously,andthattheforgingofbothideaandartistryshouldbeaconstant

shapingofoneanother,headingforsimultaneousoutputs,bothincreationandresearch.Although

82

Ionly startedactuallywritingafter themusical creationprocess, theprocessesof researchand

practicewere intimately intertwined, touchingone another, forging one another, creating new

directionsthemselves,butdesynchronizedintermsofthetimingoftheiroutputsoractualisations.

Inthecaseofthistrilogy,whichisworkingtowardsthisintangibleanddisruptivelevelofthebody,

the unleashing of intensity is a spreading in all directions, towards all levels ofmusical/artistic

practiceandresearch:asafrequentmutilatorofsemioticlevelinmusic(aswewillseefurtheron),

butalsoasan impeding/hampering factor towards theprocessof formulationof ideas through

writingduringthisprocess.Again,writingwasput,therefore,unavoidably,inasuspensionmode

forquitealongtime.

(Resonance again: the price to be paid for the unleashing of intensity inmusic performance goes as far as effacing,

mutilating,subtractingthesemioticlevel)6

Tosaythatwritingoccursaftertheprocessofmusicalcreationisoverisalsonotveryaccurate,but

moreofapracticalreference:ontheonehandthethirdsolo,Listening:theopen,wasconceived

asastageperformanceandpremièred7,but,ontheother,Listening:theopenisbeginningtobe

conceivedasdifferentoutputsandinotherformats(mostprobablylecture-performance(s),video

and audio installations). This implies that it will also be rethought, de-constructed and

reformulated/re-created,throughthiswritingprocess.Ultimately,itisnotexactlyaccurateeither

tosaythatwritingoccursaftertheprocessofmusicalcreationisoverbecause,infact,thepieces

arenevercompletelyclosed,theyhaveaflexibleshapethatallowsthecontinuityofthecreation

process through time and different approaches – research and practice continue to touch one

another.

Weshall thereforeclaim that thisexerciseofwritinga thesis shouldnotbea staticexerciseof

starringfromadistanceattheclosedanduntouchablemusicalwork,but,onthecontrary,thatit

should imply a dynamic process of getting engaged with the works, of touching them, of

destabilizingthemorbringingtheir instability totheforegroundandthereforethepossibilityof

openingforchange:fortheyareneverthesame,theyhaveneverbeenasamesame.Italsocannot

andmustnotbeanexerciseof‘explaining’musicalworks(fortheyareinevitablyunexplainable),

neither one of just describing curiosities… (although we will probably stumble on a few,

involuntarilyornot).Writingcanbeinthiscontextconsideredasaparallelexperiencetomusic,

butasaparallelthatistouchingatadistancetheoutersurfaceofmusicalexperience.

Lastly,writinginthiscontextcannotbeanexerciseofexclusivelydealingwiththeorganisedlevel

ofthebodyofthework.Andthisissobecausethisresearchprojectoptedforanapproachthat

could be considered a quite radical one: its strategy does not consist in starting through the

organisedlevelofthemusicaimingtowardsadisruptivelevel,asanelementthatcallslinearityof

6(D’Errico2018,165)7October13thand14th2016attheMariaMatosMunicipalTheatre,inLisbon.

83

thoughtintoquestionfromtimetotime.Itis,onthecontrary,assumingdisruptionasstartingpoint

butmostly,asthematisationofthismusicandasthematisationofthisthesis.Itisthereforestarting

from thisungraspable listening ‘sense’andbeginning to construct fromhereboth inmusicand

thesis.Thethemeis,accordingly,notthebody(orthebodies)ingeneral,butthedisruptivebody

listeningandthepossibilityofmusicalconstructionthroughtheperspectiveofdisruption.Thiswill

leadustoaquitedifferentmusicalthesisformulationandformat:thefocuswillnotbeexclusively

ormainlycentredinthesemioticlevelofthemusic,butonadisruptionlevelasarealpotentialfor

themusicalcreationandproduction.Thiswillhavefurtherimplications:theprocessofwritingasa

touchingparallelexperiencewilllenditselftodisruptivemovementseverynowandthen(asitwas

alreadymadeevident),andtowardsamoresensorialwritingexperience.

3. Writingasdynamicmovement:bringingintouchpast,presentandfutureIn conferenceswhere I have been presenting through this looking glass, the film, people have

frequentlyremarkedthatthefilmalone,madeincollaborationwithdirectorDanielCostaNeves,

couldbeasubject foraPhDthesis. Iagree,and Ialsoagree thatprobably I coulddothesame

towards each of the other two pieces of the trilogy (and choosing one instead of threewould

probablyhavebeenaneasierexercise toput inpractise).Butmydrivewas fromthebeginning

neitheraspecificmovementtowardsthepast(TTLG),northepresent(IPD),northefuture(LTO).

Neitherwasitjustfocusingononeperspective,oneapproach.Myrealinterestgoestowardsthis

relation,thespaceinbetween,aninterestwhichaimstoconfrontthepresentwiththepast,and

thefuture.Andthiswasthedynamicmovementchosenforthisresearch,amovementwhichmakes

thesubjectmorecomplexandmulti-dimensional:themomentitbegan,IwasworkingonInPraise

ofDisorder(thesecondpiece),confrontingitwiththroughthislookingglass(firstpiece)andaiming

towardsthethirdpieceListening:theopen.Intheend,intheperspectiveofalineartimeline,we’re

talking about three pieces/performances of about 45/50 minutes, each developed within a

timespanofsevenyears,between2009-2016.Theideaofatrilogywasitselfdevelopedmuchmore

in this sense of dynamic movement and relation between pieces than through a previous

conceptual,formalisticorstructuralthought.

4. SubvertedorsubvertingtrilogyIsoonsubvertedtheideaofaclosedtrilogy:ideasbegantospreadtowardsotherdirections,and

towardsotherworks– the twopieces/performances forchildrenDentrodacabeçanemtudoé

claro [Inside the head nothing is clear] (with visual artist Rita Sá) and Pássaro da cabeça; the

collectionsofpoems/fragmentsproducedintherealmofthisthesisListening|theopenandthe

body‘aslistening’:virtuosity;andthemajorprojectPaixãoefoliaparaSãoJoão[Passionandfolia

for St. John] (with Luís JoséMartins). The trilogy,which, as the name refers,was supposed to

encompassthreeworksorprojects,turnedouttoextendtoatleastsevenprojects.

Keepingthenametrilogyhasbeenobviouslyadeliberatedecision:itisapracticalone,becausethe

84

threepiecesstillplayamainroleinthewholeensembleofprojectsandbecausethesethreepieces

constituteourmainresearchsubject.Finally,theideaofasubvertedtrilogy,atrilogywithseven,

eightorwhateverthenumberofprojects,pleasesmeaesthetically:we’redealingwithdisruption

and thespreading– it seems thereforemeaningful topresentadisruptive trilogyasanewand

somewhatunpredictabletopology.

Forpracticalpurposes,again,Ihavetomakedecisionsforthesakeofclarity.Assuch,‘trilogy’will

continuetorefertothesethreespecificpieces.

5. Aimingtowardsabiggerproject–corpus(apoeticcatalogue)

Anotherimportantdecisioninnotclosingthisensembleofworkswasmadeandshouldbebrought

tothiscontext.Thetitleofthelastpiecelistening:theopenwas,amongotherthings,intentionally

hintingatanopeningofthisbodyofworks,insteadofclosingitormakingafinalstatement.Asa

consequence of that, after the première of listening: the open a decision was made towards

thinkingthisensembleofworksasafirstcomplexpartordimensionofanevenbiggerandpossibly

lifelongproject–corpus(apoeticcatalogue).Thisdecisioncamefromtheurgeofcontinuingto

work on the endless themeof the body throughother different andmultiple perspectives and

approaches.

In this sense, a corpus (a poetic catalogue), as a major and possibly lifelong project, aims to

rethink/reformulate, reinstate/recreate in each situation the bodies inmusical performance or

generally, thebodies inartisticcreation. It isbeingconstitutedasacatalogueofmainlymusical

pieces/performances,whicharehowevertransversalandmulti-dimensionalintheirconfiguration

(theitemsinthecataloguecantakemultipleformsorexpressions,frommusicalperformanceto

film, installation, collectionofpoems,etc). Thenamecorpus brings the conceptofbody to the

foregroundand,simultaneously–makingreferencetoJeanLucNancy’sformulationofCorpus–

reinforcestheimpossibilityofencompassingthebodyinasingletheoreticalorartisticformulation,

proposingtheideaofendlesscatalogueofmultiple,diverseandcontradictoryfragmentaryinsights.

Corpusisthereforeapproachedasanorganiccollectionorcatalogueofworks.

Listening|theopen,asanensembleofworks, isthenapartordimensionofacorpus(apoetic

catalogue)thatfocusesonalisteningdisruptiveperspectiveofthebody,oncomposingstrategies

that are established beyond the duality of control/out of control and on a formulation of

‘virtuosity’.Mostlycharacterizedbyitsaforementionedtransversality,multi-dimensionalityandits

drive towards exploring threshold levels of themusic body(ies), Listening | the open has been

developedincollaborationwithcinematographer/filmdirectorDanielCostaNeves.

85

THEBODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDER(S)

I. Musicasspreadingmusicasspreadingmightnotpertaintoadefinedthereorthis

itisaspreadingthroughdifferentdimensions

ofsenses,extra-senses,ultra-senses,non-senses

bringingdistancesintouch-

asingulardisruptivebodymoving

inbetweenexpression

andinexpressible

either

engagingthedivergent

or

disconnectingconvergence

unfolding

Weshallbeginbystatingthat,inthecontextofListening|theopen,musiccanbeformulated,ina

certainwayandthroughvariousperspectives,asthespreading.Musicisnotregardedassomething

that spreads towards other dimensions, expressions, etc., butas a spreading through different

dimensionsitself.Musicisabodyasitsoutsider(s).Thisisanencompassingnotionembracingall

concreteandungraspablemovements,relations,forcesandtouchesbetweenallpossibleconcrete

andungraspablemusicbodies.Thisisthusaconceptionofmusic,thatfindsinthepossibilityfor

disruptionofthemusicbodiesacreativepotentialformusicunfolding,distortinginmultipleways.

Music as spreading is not bridging divergent and irregular elements, enabling or producing

homogeneity. Music as spreading is the possibility of finding in disruption and separation of

elements an opportunity for engaging with: touching implies different and distant surfaces of

contact.

Themusicbodies,regardedthroughtheirorganisedanddisruptive,virtual8levels,canbeanykind

ofbodies,aslongastheyaretakingpartofthismusicalprocess.Theycanbecomposingbodies,

performing bodies, listening bodies, instrumental bodies (musical instruments or props, or any

8VirtualisusedinthesenseofMassumi’snotionofit.SeeClusterI,ThebodyasitsoutsiderIIIandMassumi,2002.

86

objector interfaceusedwith instrumentalpurpose),body(ies)ofmusic9,butalsocollaborators,

workingnetworksandspaces,performingactions/performingdisruptions,etc.

Eachsoloofthetrilogy,asaparticulardisruptivebodyofmusic,hascommonfeatureswiththe

othersolos,butisinfact,averydifferentshapingandspacingfromoneanother.Thethreeofthem

can be brought together, in touch, as fragmentary shapes of a larger andmore complex body.

Furthermore,eachsoloisnotasinglepiece,butagatheringofdifferentshorterpieces,asdifferent

andfragmentaryperspectivesofthismulti-dimensionalbody.

It is curious, though no coincidence, to detect that although music as spreading is always

approachedasthisgatheringofallconcreteandungraspablemusicbodiesinallsolos,eachsolo

mightputdifferentandspecificmusicbodies,spaces,levels,relationsinevidence.Itisthenclear

thatthroughthislookingglassputsingreaterevidencetheconcreteandungraspableinstrumental

body(asapparatus),bringingtheinstrumentasapowerfuldisruptivepotentialtotheforeground

throughvariousperspectives.AstoInPraiseofDisorder,whatbecomesclearismostlytherelation

betweenmusic-makingbodyandinstrumentalbody.InListening|theopenwhatisbroughttothe

foreisthemusic-makingbody,asamusic-makingbodylistening.

Wewilltrytounderstandhowmusicasspreadingandmultidimensionalphenomenoncanbe,toa

greatextent,consequenceofthevirtual,asanempoweredlevel,whichseemstoactinthemusical

processasanenergeticrealmthattendstooverwhelmthemusicalnarrativelevels.Inallsolos,as

inmultidimensionalphenomena,wewillfindapersistenttendencyforthemagneticoverwhelming

ofthesemioticlevel.

Overwhelmingsemioticsisthenaprocesscreatedthroughstrategiesforunleashing/engagingwith

a complex and liminal sensorial experience. Performance is not proposed as an experience for

(passive) immersion,or justasanactive involvementorenactionthroughaconvergenceof the

usualsenses,butitisalsoproposedasacertainaffordanceforunleashing/engagingwiththrough

Listening|theopen.Theperformancestrategiestry,thus,tocreatethisaffordanceofengaging

eachother’ssenses:againanintangibledispersionintouch.

Buthowtomakethisintangibilitytangible?Makingittangiblewillmeandevelopingcomposingand

performing strategies to unleash/capture the intangible, sense and rationalize the impacts it

produces in the concrete or semiotic level. We will then try to analyse, through diverse

perspectives,howboth levels co-existand function togetherasaprocessofmulti-foldedmusic

shaping.

9Again:music(justastext,notionofwork,etc.)canberegardedasabodyinthesenseitisconstitutedbothbyasemiotic/organised/linearrealmandanon-semiotic/unorganised/disruptiverealmandthetension(s)arisingfromthisparadoxicalco-existence.

87

II. Workstrings:conceptof‘work’andgeneralmethodologies

1. Work‘strings’10I.–Amanifestoagainstwriting:‘drinkme’Ineverycaseorcontext,scoresconstituteanincomplete‘grabbing’ofmusic.Buttheygobeyond

that:tryingtofixatesomethingwhichisnotfixable,tryingtomakelinearwhattendstobenon-

linear,tryingtomaketheephemerallast,thescorepromptsacertainviolenceagainstmusic.Of

course,allmusic ‘suffers’ inonewayoranotherwith this crystallisationprocessof themusical

idea(s) inabi-dimensionalandlinearspaceofthescore.Butthismusicwaspreciselymakingan

apologyofthesingularitiesofthedisruptivemusicbodiesandbodiesofmusic,anapologyofthe

unwritable and insurmountablebodies. Thepurposeofwriting lost, in this overall context, any

possiblesense.

fig.4

Itisthensignificanttoreferthatthefirsteventpresentedinthroughthislookingglass(afterthe

openingtitle)canberegardedasagesturethatcalls for theerasingof theelementofscoreas

representativeofthemusicalideaandmediatorbetweenideaandperformance,andasagesture

thatmakesanapologyofan ‘immediateentrance’ inmusic.Fortheperformance,therewasan

initial ideaofmanipulatingafewlittleobjectsinsideawoodenboxbymyside–asstandingfor

‘affective scores’ –beforeplayingeachminiature. This ideawas then transformedbyDaniel C.

Neves:throughaplasticandsomehowoneiricapproach,thechosenobjectswerefilmedinorder

to create intertitleswith an affective character before eachminiature in the film (an idea that

evokestheaestheticofthesilentmovies).Regardingthestageversion,theintertitles(ofthefilm)

10Theterminologyof‘strings’isusedinthesenseofHarryCollin’sterminologyinTacitandExplicitKnowledge(Collins2010):“Strings,”asIdefinethemhere,arebitsofstuffinscribedwithpatterns:theymightbebitsofairwithpatternsofsoundwaves,orbitsofpaperwithwriting,orbitsof theseashorewithmarksmadebywaves,or irregularclouds,orpatternsofmould,oralmostanything(Collins2010,9).

88

withaffectiveobjectswerealsoprojectedinablackscrimbetweeneachminiature,insteadofbeing

manipulatedonstage.

Thefirstthingthatoneseesaftertheopeningtitle(beitinthefilm,oronthestage,projected),is

thentheintertitleprecedingthefirstpiece,whichbringsasaffectiveobjectalittleflasklinedwith

musicstaffpaperwiththeinscriptiondrinkme…,thetitleofthefirstminiature(aclearcitationof

Carroll’smagicpotionlabelinAliceinWonderland).Notbeingabletototallyabolishtheroleofthe

scoreinthisfirstapproachofthetrilogy,thescoreisconceivedasakindofmagicpotionthatcan

give‘immediateentrance’tothemusic.Thereisstillamediation,butanaffectiveone,whichdoes

notrequiresemioticdecodificationandisintimatelyrelatedtothebody–thescoreis,ultimately,

swallowedbythebody,or,ultimately,thescoreisthebodyswallowingitself.Thescoreisnolonger

conceivedasasemioticinputfordiscipline,butasasubstancethatactsdirectlyinthebodywith

anunknownandoutof control result: asanother body thatputs thebody ina ‘newandother

musicalstate’.

Thetrilogycanthereforebesaidtobe,inaway,amanifestoagainstwriting,amanifestoagainst

theestablishedideaofthescoreasmediatorbetweenmusicalideaandmusicalperformance.But

further: either as cause or consequence, the trilogy is then also amanifesto for the neuralgic

centralityofthisothernessofthebodyinthemusicalcreationprocess/performance.

2. Work‘strings’11II.–Nowriting,butrecordingWithveryfewexceptions(thatwewillsee):nowriting.Shaping isdonedirectlywithsoundand

bodies,andmymainallyinthisprocessisanaudioorvideorecorder(recordingandfilming,over

thelastfewyears,withasmartphone,meaningthatthequalityofrecordingorofvideoattheearly

stagesofmusicalcreationisnotarelevantfactor).Theactofrecording,atthisstageoftheprocess,

functionsasaregister,butnotonlythat.

Atanearlystateofcomposing,andthroughaprocessofengagingwithmaterials,poetic ideas,

sensations,etc.Iusuallyimproviseatthepianoandrecordtheseimprovisations.Then,throughthis

improvisationexperience, andby listening to the recordings, I select sound/musical events and

experiences towhich Iwant to stick to.Myprocess formusical creation is verynon-linear and

fragmentary:Isticktosmallfragments,shapingthem,recordingthem,listeningtothem,bringing

themtogetherasbiggerevents,deconstructing,re-constructing.Buttheshapeisnotarigidone,it

ismostofallaboutrelation:howthesefragmentscanrelatetooneanother,howthisbodymade

of different fragments relates to itself, and the possibilities of conflict, feedback, interference,

detonation.

Itisallmuchmoreaboutintensifyingthisotherlisteningsensetowardsdisruptionandworkingon

11Seepreviousnote.

89

thepossibilitiesofrelationinthis‘inbetween’linearity.Recordingallowsthisself-reflectionina

strongestway:alwaysplayingandalwayslistening,alwaysde-constructing,re-constructing.It’sno

longeranissueofbeingintheexperienceandbeingoutoftheexperience;theexperienceisitself

themovementbetweenfragmentaryperspectives–thereisnoactualinandout,nolinearityof

time.Thismeansthattheprocessusuallytakesquitealongtime(andastimegoesbyitseemsto

takeevenlonger)andthatitisquitedifficultforme,butusuallyjustasrewarding.

3. Betweenimprovisation&composition:developing‘oneiricorgans’Myrelationtoimprovisationinmyoverallmusicalactivityisanintimate,complexanddiverseone.

I feel ‘free’ improvisationasadoublesidedness:on theonehand, itunleashes thebody foran

unlimitedpotentialofmusicalcreation throughprocessesof self-reflection(s), interactions,etc.,

whichareparticularlyinterestingforbringingtherealtimedecisionofthebodytotheforeground.

On theotherhand, alwaysplaying in a logic of ‘blinddates’, or new regroupingsof the ‘same’

musicalpersonalitiesofa‘same’musicalscene,oftentendstoformatthebody(ies)andthemusical

approachestoaconstructedidealofwhatplayingfreemightmean.Paradoxically,improvisation

inevitablyalsoseemstobringalongthedangerofaccommodationandcreationofastablecomfort

zone.

Ontheotherhand,freeimprovisationdoesnotonlymeanplayingblindlywithwhoevergoeson

stagewithyou.Improvisation,inthecontextofmyoverallmusicalactivities,canthereforehave

severalmeanings:first,itcanmeantoworktogetherinagroup,intensively,towardscreatingand

shaping musical possibilities of spaces, textures, directions, engagements, structures,magnetic

forcesthatcanbringtogetherortearapart.12Second,itcanmeantoimprovisewithunknown(or

known)peopleeverynowandthen,withabsolutelynoscriptorruleestablishedbeforehand.Last,

butmostimportantly,intheprocessofmusicalcreationforthesesolos,improvisationisnotatool

forcompositionanymore,butmusicalcreationisthoughtwithinandthroughoutthisfringeofboth

improvisationandcomposition.Whenself-reflectioninimprovisationisturnedmoreandmoreinto

anintensiveandobsessivenon-linearprocess,abackandforthmovementinmanyandsometimes

opposite directions, again and again, improvisation and composition are no longer dualities,

musicalcreationisanopeningbeyondtheestablishedclosedconceptsofbothterms.

But not only that, musical creation turns into a process of dreaming with and engaging with

concretematerialsandobjects,aprocesswhereitisnecessarytodreamalotbeforeanobjectso

thatitdeterminesinusakindofoneiricordreamorgan13(BachelardinTavares2013,362).This

12TheseprocessesareusedasworkingprocessesintheprojectsAlmostasong,Powertrio,Turbamulta,duowithSavinaYannatou.13Translationbytheauthor:éprecisosonharmuitodiantedeumobjectoparaqueestedetermineemnósumaespéciedeórgãoonírico.

90

processofdreamingandengagingwith triggersa simultaneousandoverwhelmingmultitasking

processwhereallkindsofimprobableandoftenunforeseentasksemergeandspreadtowardsthe

developmentofsoundpreparations,soundprocessing,conceptionofsoundinstallations,etc.The

multitaskingisthenaspreadingthrough:experimenting,researching,finding,choosingallkindsof

awkward analogue materials and objects and all sort of electronic devices, components;

constructing(withorwithoutthehelpofateam)allkindsofsounddevices,installations–aprocess

thatalwaysrequiresresearchaboutthemostunlikelyelements(e.g.kindsofmetalplates,sirens,

magnets),learninganddevelopingnewskills(e.g.soldering,makingcables,lasercutting,inserting

motorsingadgets,learninghowtousenewsoftware).Andthemultitaskingprocesscontinuesto

divergeinmanyconcreteactions:experimentingsetups,failing,settingdown,settingupagain,

workingwithDanielC.Neveson thevisual concept,meetingwithothermembersof the team,

trying to fixordevelop further situations,makingbudgets, creatingwithin thebudget,working

towards this visual concept, meeting with the theatre/venue team, discussing and matching

technical rider requirements to thepossibilitiesof thevenue, thinkingaboutanddevelopingan

outfit,settinguponstage,experimentingtheworkdevelopedoffstage:lightandsound,adapting,

discovering new possibilities andmostly, practical impossibilities, rehearsals onstage, adapting,

sharpening details, sharpening the accuracy ofmultiple intervenients, dress rehearsal,meeting

again,discussing,première,…andthemusicalcreationprocessdoesnotendwiththepremière,it

isanever-endingprocessthroughtimeandthroughnewexperiences.

Thedreamingandengagingprocessisthennotonlyaprocessthattriggersanothermultitasking

process;thedreamingandengagingprocessisitselftheintangibleprocessofspreadingthrough:

anintangiblespreadingprocessthatisactualisedinconcretedivergentandcreativeactions.

4. Towardsinstabilityofnotation,workandperformanceAlthough notation as writing is not part of the process (except for very general and loose

annotations),wecanarguethatthesedifferentperspectivesoffilms,audiorecordingsinCDs,live

videosorrecordingsofperformancescanworktogetherasnotation.Buttheycanonlyfulfilthis

taskwhen actually brought together, through time: bothmusical idea and notation are then a

gatheringofdifferentkindsofapproachesintime.Musicalideaisthereforenotregardedasastable

andabstract concept towhich therecanbe severalapproaches,butmusical idea is itself, in its

instability, various fragmented possibilities of expression and meaning. It is not a linear and

enclosedidea,notasame‘same’throughtimeanddifferentapproaches:theestablishedisalways

regarded as an established in crisis. An established idea always contains in itself the disruptive

potentialofself-reflection:notjustasastableentitywithapotentialforspreadingtowardsother

directionsorpossibilities throughamovement from,stability towards instabilityandviceversa.

Musicalideacanberegarded‘fromthebeginning’asthespreadingpotentialitselfand,bringingup

Nancy’sformulationofthebodyastheplasticityofexpansionagain,wecouldsaythatmusicalidea

inthiscontextisapproachedorconceivedthroughthisspreadingorplasticcharacter,morethan

through a musical thought that privileges a clear pre-established delineated musical contour,

91

phrase, etc. In practise this means in general that 1) the musical idea is fragmented; 2) the

fragments are ‘more or less’ delineated: their living and particular character can be explicitly

performed or explained, although its exact contours and limits are not totally

clear/acknowledgeable,oraredifficulttodefine;3)fragmentscanbeapproachedaseventsand

microeventsthatestablisharelationwithinthemselves;4)playingacentralroleintheconception

ofmusical idea, and as important as each fragment alone, is the energetic process of bringing

fragments together, in touch,or apart – through the non-dualmovements ofpulling together/

fallingapart;5)thisenergeticprocessisworkedonintensivelyboththroughahighlydisciplined

processofmusicalresearch/throughthedisruptiveprocessof listening.Theenergeticprocess is

usuallyworkedon fromthe relationof smaller fragments towards the largerones;6) fromthis

processareshapednewfragmentsandpossibilitiesofrelations;7)thecomposingprocessisitself

fragmented:playing(andrecording)–listening-thinking-playing….Theplayingandworkingdirectly

towardsthisenergeticprocessseemstobeoratleastfeelsveryenergy-consuming,notallowing

mostofthetimesto‘stay’very,verylonginthesametaskandaskingforacontinuouschangeof

tasksorperspectivesinthemusicalcreationprocess.

Thereisthereforestillanotionofworkimplicittothisconceptionofmusicalcreation14.Thisnotion

ofworkcannot,however,becapturedbyasingleperspective,work ismultiplefragmentaryand

diverseshapingsthroughtime,differentformatexperiencesoroutputs(atleast,stage,filmorCD):

assaidbeforeregardingmusicalidea,musicalworkisitself,initsinstability,acatalogueorcorpus

ofvariousfragmentedpossibilitiesofexpressionandmeaning.

Whatisthentheroleofnotationinthisparticularcase?Forwhatdoesitstandfor,orwhatpractical

purposesdoesitfulfil?FormypractisetheseconceptsareimportantbecausealthoughIestablish

andmemorisemysettingsforeverypieceorperformance,timeerasesthismemorypartiallyand

inevitably.Howtodealwiththisevidence,whenthereisalmostnowritingasresultofthemusical

creationprocess?Recordingsarethereforeofgreatvalue,andthesearethetoolstowhichIhave

toturntoeverynowandthen.Togetherwithmymemory,someloosegeneralreferencesthatare

sometimeswrittendown,andstrictwrittenscriptsdescribingthechangesinset-upsforandduring

performance,recordings(severalofthem)havebeenfulfillingtheroleofthescoreorscriptasa

memoryaid,whenitcomestoperformingmyownpiecesafteraparticularlylonginterval.

III. Musicasengagementwith

1. Strategiesformusicalcreationthroughotherformsofengagementwithanothermusicalwork(instabilityofworkagain)

14Butsurelynotoneenclosingadefinedmeaningtobe‘unveiled’.

92

Again:theterminologyofengagementwithwillbeusedasanideathatcanencompassthenotions

of1)‘communication’referredastouching(Nancy),formoftelepathy(Szendy),modeofaffection

oraffection(Assis,D’Errico),capture(Massumi)andosmoseoftheunconsciousmovements(Gil),

2)transductionand‘interpretation’15andalsoBachelard’snotionofdreamingbeforeanobjectas

thepossibilityfordevelopingspecifickindsdreamoroneiricorgans.Engagementisthenregarded

inthiscontextasbothakindof‘communication’andasatransformativeprocessofthebodies:the

‘engagement’(initsenergeticorpoliticalsense,asyoulike)ofsonorousbodiesstarts‘here’,Iam

convinced of this: ‘here’ in the formation of the tiniest deviations from organ to organ, in the

capacity for invention thatworks in themidst of the tiniest body-to-body-contacts. Herewhere

effectivephantomlimbsgrow(Szendy2016,161).

Engagementwith as related to these notions is then intimately ‘connected’with the notion of

shapingthatisbeingdevelopedinthiscontext.Engagingwithandshapingcouldthenberegarded

as a same process, but one that is inevitably paradoxical: there is no causal logic between

‘communication’ and a transformation of the bodies – there is inevitably an unbridgeable gap

betweenbothperspectivesoftheprocess,thereisnowayofdeterminingwhatoneiricorganscan

bedeveloped,nowayoftellingbeforehandwhatthebodiescando.

Erasingthesemioticrealm–‘engagementwith’Schumann’s‘Kinderszenenop.15’

Still,peoplesometimesaskmeaboutawrittenscore–asatransmissiontoolforotherstoplay.

Andhere,we arrive at a crucial point: it seems that transmission, in termsof how it is usually

understood,mightnotbeapplicableinthiscontext.Transmissionofasemioticcontenthasbeen

regarded as the quintessential act of sharingmusic throughoutWestern classicalmusic. It has

predominantlybeenbasedonawrittenmedium–theprivilegedvehiclefortransferringmusical

semioticcontentwiththe least interference (althoughtodayaural transmission isalreadybeing

acknowledgedasalsoplayinganimportantroleinthistransmissionprocess).Transmission,suchas

itisconceived,worksandsuitsthepurposeforwhatisdesigned.Butwhatifthesemioticrealmis

notexactlyconsidered the central featureofmusic? If theenergeticprocess forunleashing the

movements of pulling together or of falling apart is as important (ormore) than ‘that’what is

concretelyplayedinthesemioticrealm?Ifothernessisenhancedtowardstheconcreteconceptof

material?

Atthispoint,itmakessensetogobacktothebeginningofthetrilogy,tothefirstpartofthrough

this lookingglass,namely to13mini(cre)atures for robert schumann,apivotalevent forall the

worksandpieces,bearinginmindthatthisminiaturecyclewasconceivedinrelationtoSchumann’s

Kinderszenenop.15.Myfirstactofcomposinghadthisambiguityoffeelingbothasacomposition

actofan‘original’pieceandasaperformanceofKinderszenen:myperformanceofKinderszenen.

ThiscouldmeaninpractisethatmyperformanceofKinderszenenenhancedorengagedwithother

parametersofthepiecewhichwerenotthesemioticones:onelistenstoKinderszenenandto13

15SeeChapterThebodyasitsoutsider(s),ClusterI.

93

mini(cre)aturesforrobertschumannandtheyarenotatallthesamepieces,inthewayweconceive

ofwhatapieceisbecausetheyclearlydon’tshareasamesemioticcontent.Butwecouldprobably

saythattheyengagethroughotherparametersthathavebeenenhanced,andthatforthiscontext

ofengagementbeingthesamepieceornotisnotatallwhatisbeingcalledintoquestionhere.

PeterSzendy’sideaofmusicalarrangementisworthbringinguptothiscontext,anideawhichhe

relates toWalter Benjamin’s writings on translation. In this sense, he acknowledges that both

translationandarrangementput inevidence theplasticityand instabilityof theoriginal textor

music.Arrangement is regardedasaspacecreatedbetween ‘thework’and ‘thework’,aspace

whichisacriticspace,whichmakeschoices,findsperspectives,enhancesorcompresseselements.

Yettheideaofarrangementisstillonethatisusuallyestablishedthrougharelationtothesemiotic

realm (even if this semiotic realm isdeconstructed through it).Butwhat ifwe take this ideaof

arrangementasacriticspaceofrelationfurther,beyondthenotionofassimilation?What ifwe

takeD’Errico’s ideathatworkandperformermustremainoutsideeachotherforthebodytobe

affected in itsouter interface–theskin–bymeansofatotal,unbridgeableexteriority (D’Errico

2018,165)tothiscontextandbringthispractiseasapossibilityforthatwhatD’Erricoreferstoas

athirdmodalityofperformance?Amodalitywhichcoulderasethedichotomybetweencomposer

andperformerthroughaprocessthatmakesnotionsofoutsideand inside inoperative,without

attemptingtobridgeoreraseanunbridgeablegap?

(resonance again: the price to be paid for the unleashing of intensity inmusic performance goes as far as effacing,

mutilating,subtractingthesemioticlevel)

Mymusicandmethodsclearlyfailiftheyareregardedinaclassicallogicofmusicaltransmissionof

a semiotic content. But, on the other hand, if we think of engaging with and shaping as an

unbridgeableandparadoxicalprocess,itcanprobablyopenformanyothercreativeexperiences

andformsofmusicalsharing.

Mutilatingthesemioticrealm–‘engagementwith’J.S.Bach’s‘St.JohnPassionBWV245’

In thenon-linear logicof gatheringdifferentpiecesof the trilogy forestablishingengagingand

opening‘points’,itmightbemeaningfultobringtothiscontextanotherpiecethatestablishesa

somehow similar relation of engagement with another work with the one exposed in 13

mini(cre)aturesforrobertschumann.Listening:theopenIII.(thethirdandlastpieceof listening:

theopen)isapiecethatestablishesastraightforwardrelationtoJ.S.Bach'sSt.JohnPassionBWV

245,namelytoitsopeningpiece,Exordium(Herr,unserHerrscher).Onecansaythat,amongother

features,thestudiocompositiondevelopedforListening:theopenIII.worksexclusivelyonmusical

materialsofExordiumandproposesadifferentandsomehowlimitexperienceofBach'spiece.And

IreferalimitexperienceofExordiumbecausethistime,thesemioticornarrativematerialisstill

there,but‘smashed'throughvariouserasingandmutilatingattemptsthatarepartofaparticular

compositional process. This artistic creative process seems to arise in opposition to the most

94

common idea of inspirational subjectivity: here, the compositional process becomes a

deconstruction process of another piece, or musical construction arises as an exercise of

destruction.Thedeconstructivemethodemployedcanbequiteeasilydescribed:fragmentsofthe

Exordium,eachabout50seconds long,werecutfromtheoriginalrecordingsandcollectedtoa

database.Eachexcerptwasthentransformedintermsofitssamplingrateandpitch,givingriseto

othermultiplefragmentsthatwereagaincollectedinanotherfolderofthedatabase.Eachofthem

wasthencut intoseveralotherveryshortexcerptsthatwerethenedited(both juxtaposedand

superposed) through crossfading in sequential order, creating a shorter audio file than the file

initiallycut.Withthismethod,eachcutisadisruptivepoint,throughwhichthepieceis'swallowed'

byitself:thereisnoactualomissionorerasingofmusicalinformationinthecuttingprocessbut

rather the 'swallowing' of musical information through crossfading (juxtaposition and

superposition) of elements. This swallowing process might thus be considered a process of

condensationofmusicalinformation,acondensationthatbeginsto'melt'thesemioticcontoursof

themusicandthatenhancesacertaincircularitythatmightbealreadypresentinBach'spiece.To

eachresultantaudiofile,thesamemethodwasappliedagain,leadingtoanevenshorteraudiofile

(whichwasagaincollectedinthedatabase).Thisprocesswasrepeatedsuccessively(andthefiles

collected)untilwearrivedatthemostcondensedaudiofilepossible,whichweconsideredunfitfor

further cutting (amusical file about3 seconds long,which is supposed to condense in itself all

musicalinformationofthe'original'widefragment).

Someofthefileswerethentransformedthroughfurtheraudioprocessingeffects(suchasdelay,

reverse,etc).Intheend,allthefilescollectedindifferentfoldersofthedatabaseweretakenas

potentialmusicalmaterialforstudiocomposition.Hence,compositionismainlydonethroughthe

superpositionoffilesindifferenttracks(usingLogic,anaudioeditingsoftware)andisforthisreason

somehow‘close’toBach'spolyphonicapproach.Butsinceanyclearphrasinghadalreadylostits

contours in the previous audio processes, the ideaof polyphonybecomesheremost of all the

unfoldingofacomplex,movingandlivingtexture.

Itmightbeinterestingtostressthatthisnewmusicbody,whichisamutilationofanothermusic

body (Exordium), is enhancing specific features of Bach's opening piece. One is the already

mentioned idea of circularity,mostly present in Exordium through the circularmotif with four

sixteenthfigures,whichisusuallyrepeatedasapatternofeightsixteenthnotes(beginningwith

‘dcdedcde’)andwhich isalwaysbeingsequencedthroughoutSt. JohnPassion’sopeningpiece.

Bringingasenseofurgencytothemusic,thecircularityofthemotifseemstofunctionalmostas

anaudiblemotoroftheunfoldingofmusic:timeseemstorunonwheels.Anothermusicalfeature

enhanced inthisnewmusicbody isBach'sbrilliantperformanceofdissonancetowardshisown

ideaofcircularityandoflineartimerunningforward.Createdbytheflutes/oboes,thisdissonant

character is imprinted through continuous ‘stretching’ of melody and harmony through the

abundant use of delayed resolutions, anticipations, and overall time lags of tonal resolutions.

However, this dissonant character should not be regarded in this context just as amelodic or

95

harmonicfeature,but,mostofall,asadivergenceintime:thereisamotorthatisestablishinga

time,butthedifferentvoicesseemtohavetimesoftheirown,aweightandresistanceoftheir

own,establishingasingularrelationtothistimerunningforward.Thebeautyandrichnessofthis

musicseemtocomefromthisco-existenceofdifferentmusicalspace-times,andfromasensation

ofdivergencethatcomesfromBach'scomplexmusicalexerciseofexpandingthepossibilitiesof

dealingwiththisgravitationalforceoftonality.

Anotherimportantfeatureworthemphasizingistheintertwiningofregistersbothofthetexture

forgedbythecircularmotifofthestrings(astherelationbetweenthefirst,secondviolinsandviola,

thatincertaincasesswitchregistersbetweenthem)andofthetwomelodicvoicesplayedbyoboes

and flutes. The two melodic lines play in similar registers most of the time, enhancing both

dissonanceandacertainmelodicconfusion(betweenwhatisonevoiceandwhatistheother).And

itisimportanttomentionthatdissonanceisnotjustestablishedbetweenthemelodicpartandthe

‘motorcircularity'ofthestrings,butalsobetweenthemelodicpartsthemselves.Intheend,we

couldprobablysummarizemyactingonthismusicnotonlyasanenhancing,enlargingandopening

butalsoasanexplodingofacertainambiguitythatisalreadyinherenttoBach'spiece:circularity

asambiguoustexture,dissonanceasthebringingtogetherofdifferentspace-times,etc.arefed

backandtakentootherlimits.

This audio composition was then created with a parallel ‘piano performing’ part to be played

simultaneously,astrategythatgivesthispieceacertainconcertantecharacter.Thisconcertanteis

howeverapproachedasaconcertanteincrisis,andfortheawkwardnessofthepianoplayingpart,

andfortheunusualrelationestablishedbetweenbothelements(performanceandaudiofile),one

mightcallitadesconcertanteinstead.

Whatcouldbeinterestinghereisthiscompositionapproachasadestructivegestureofthesemiotic

realmofanotherpiece–Exordium–notconceivedasanattemptagainst,anattemptat ‘pure'

destruction,butasanattemptatfindingwhatremains,whatresistsdestructionofnarrative.And

theoutputissurprising:thismusicseemstoresistfiercelytoitsdestruction.Youcansmash,melt

andswallowthenarrative,beatandstunthelinearmetricpulse…themoreonedeconstructs,the

moreoneseemstofeedandenhancespecificsingularfeaturesofthismusic:divergenceoftime

spaceasdissonanceisenhancedandexpandedthroughtheuseoffileswithdifferentsamplerates

andpitchesand thereforedifferent space-times superposed.And, contrarily towhatonemight

think,thecuttingandcrossfadeeditingprocessesarenotonlynotdisturbingtheideaofcircularity

butenhancing it: through thisprocessofmusic 'swallowing itself', it seems there isnoend,no

resolution possible for this becoming (and this is also because tonality is melted through this

process).

Again,thiscompositionalgesturethatarisesasthedeconstructionofanotherworkblursthelimits

betweenthenotionofarrangement(asithasbeenbroughttodiscussioninthepreviouschapter)

and composition and might bring new elements for discussing further other kinds of musical

96

engagement.

2. Workasengagementwith–CollaborationwithDanielCostaNevesWorkasengagementwith, asa relationwith, continuesasspreading towardsother territories:

besidesbeingadivergencespreadingthroughmanysensorialorartisticrealms,thepiecesmight

notexactlybe solos, but solosasa spreadingagain, dispersing throughdifferent collaborators.

Fromthispointofview,wecancallthemdisruptivesolos.

Musicisthereforeconceivedinthistrilogyasanexcessofelements,realms,bodies.Thisexcess

unfolds as a disruption of the sensorial/extra sensorial towards and from different realms

(performative,visual,word,etc.)andtowardsandfromdifferentpersonalities:performanceasa

multidimensionalexperiencerequiresdifferentperspectives,approachesandmultipleknow-hows

thatareputinpracticethroughsteadycollaborations.Fromavisualperspective,theperformance

experience in the trilogy has been developed with Daniel Costa Neves – the most important

collaboratorinthewholeprocess–andalsothroughimportantcontributionsfromartistsRitaSá

andPedroDinizReis.

Theproposalfortheperformanceexperienceisthen,notatall,thatofthemusicalrecital,norjust

anincrementedrecitalsituationwithalightdesignoravideoprojectionasdecorativeelements.It

triestoforgeamoretransversalapproach,wheretheexperienceisthoughtthroughdiverserealms

ascomplexandmulti-folded.Asacinematographerandfilmdirector,DanielC.Nevesisthennot

anobviouschoiceforthestageconception,sincehismetierismuchmoreconnectedtotherealm

of cinema and photography. But this non-obviousness gives the process and outcome a very

interesting and singular quality. Daniel C. Neves moves away from the theatrical approach or

theatricalthinking,forgingamorecinematographicperspective,withaverycreative,unusualand

refined approach both to light design and video. This cinematographic perspective is then also

resonatingthatwhichwillturnouttobecomeacentral ideaofthetrilogy:thatofexploringthe

phantasmalandintangiblequalityoftheconcrete.

Inmostofthecases,theperformancespaceisrenderedambiguousinacinematographicplastic

waythroughvariousmeans,suchastheexploringofliminallighting,theemploymentofliquidor

granular elements (lightning or video) that tend to diffuse or dissolve the perception of

performance space, or approaching lighting through an extreme sensorial engagement with

performance.

Thisdissolvinglinearperformancespaceisthenastrategyforbringingspacingtotheforeground

asanon-lineardimensionof themusicbodiesandtheir relationstowardsthemselvesandeach

other(asitwillbefurtherdeveloped).

Intermsofmethodology,performanceisforgedanddevelopedbymeuptothepointwhereboth

musicandimagery/conceptaresomehowdelineated.Atthispoint,Ibeginabackandforthprocess

97

ofexchangingfurtherconceptualorconcretevisualideaswithDanielC.Neves.Thisexchangingof

ideasthenleadstotheconcretedevelopmentofvariouscontentsthatareagaindiscussed.Inorder

tothinkaboutthestageperspective,D.C.NevesalsobeginsadiscussionwithMiguelRamos,the

lightingtechnician,tounderstandhowtheideascan/cannotbeputinpracticeandif/howtheycan

be adapted. At this point, there is always some ‘friendly' friction between Daniel C. Neves

cinematographic and artistic approach and Miguel Ramos’ more pragmatic stage perspective.

Neves’ ideas are always artistically pertinent, and very accurate in terms of finding a visual

perspectivethatputs theexperienceof themusic inevidencethroughnotsoevidentmeansor

relationstowardsit.Puttingthemusicinevidencedoeshowevernotmeanthatthemusicalcontent

is just brought to the foreground by a visual ‘tonal' somewhere that makes music resonate

‘perfectly’, but that the musical experience is reformulated as another overwhelming and

empoweredsensorialexperience.

3. Disruptivemusicalwork&workasengagementwith–networkofcollaboratorsWe could continue in this direction and claim that musical work might be also considered a

disruptivemusicalworkfortwomainreasons:becausetherearemanypossibilitiesofengagement

with andshaping (aswealreadystarted toverify)and, therefore,adivergenceofperspectives.

Musical work as a branch out of shapings and perspectives can be then a collection of: stage

performances;performancesas‘inscription’indifferentmedia,supports,physicalordigitalstrings

(such as audio CDs, films, DVDs); performances with features of both performance as a live

experienceandperformancesasmediainscriptions(suchasinstallations,lecture-performances).

Althoughtheyhavemanythingsincommon,themedia(orintermedia)shapingsorperspective(s)

are,again,notmerelyimprintsorinscriptionsofastageperformance,noristhestageoutputjust

adaptingthemedia/intermediaoutput.Theconceptofworkcouldberegardedhereaseithera

corpusofdifferentfragmentaryperspectives,possibilities,andexperiencesorasourencompassing

notionofbodyasitsoutsider(s):a‘same’musicalworkmightthenbeabodyasitsoutsider(s),a

bodywithaninherentpotential(outofcontrol,outoflinearity)thataffordsfurtherpossibilitiesof

engagementandfurtherdisparatetransductions,shapings.

Eachofthesedifferentshapingsrequiresgreatengagementbyateamofpeoplewithdifferentskills

andapproaches.ThecoreoftheteamforthestagingofallthepiecesiscomposedbyDanielCosta

Neves(visualconcept,videos,andlightdesign),HélderNelsonorÂngeloLourenço(sounddesign

and operation), Tela Negra (light design and operation usually undertaken byMiguel Ramos),

EduardoRaon(previousmixingofaudiofiles)andLuísJoséMartins(musicalassistance).Ineach

piece,thereareothercollaboratorsforspecifictasks,aswewillremarkfurtheron.Theoriginalidea

wastomakefilmsonthethreepieceswithDanielCostaNevesasdirector.Wemadethefilmon

throughthislookingglass(2010),releasedinDVD+CDbyBlinker–MarkefürRezentesbutcould

not followuponourplanofmakingall three films (mostlydue to financial issues). InPraiseof

Disorder (2013) was released by Shhpuma as an audio CD with an exquisite booklet edition

98

(producedwithmechanical typography, different types of paper and handsewn by Homem do

Saco).Listening:theopendoesn’thaveanyperformanceasmediainscriptionyet,butthisthesis,

amongmanyotherthings,alsoconstitutesanexerciseforthinkingfurthershapingsandoutputs

(suchasinstallation,lecture-performance).

Regardingtheaudiorecordings, theteamiscomposedbyHélderNelsonorÂngeloLourençoas

soundengineers,meas aproducer, and Luís JoséMartins asmusical andproductionassistant.

MixingandmasteringhasbeenalwaysdonebyEduardoRaon,inanintensiveandcreativeprocess

ofexchangingideas,opinionsandremarkstowardsthecreationofcomplexsoundimageries.Over

morethantenyearsofworkingtogetherwithEduardoRaonandLuísJ.Martinsindifferentprojects

and in mixing (Eduardo R. has mixed all the records I have produced since 2008), we have

establishedaverygoodmusicalcommunicationandunderstanding.Intermsofmediaoutputs,and

audio specifically, processes are also long and very intense, mostly because the instrumental

apparatusofthepieceisunfoldedthroughmanyapproaches:soundfilesthatarerecorded,edited,

composed,mixed,sounddevicesthataredeveloped,soundideasthataredifficulttoputinpractise

inrecording,etc.Thepreparationfortherecordingsisveryintensiveandrecordingsareconcise,

lastingbetween3and5days.Themixingisthenalongandintermittentprocessthatcanlastfor

months.

IV. Fragmentationasacrucialstrategyfortheshapingofdisruptivebodyof

music.

-FragmentnullusRegardingthebodyofmusic,wewillstartbydrawingaverygeneralidea:musicis,inthiscontext,

approachedorconceivedthroughthisspreadingorplasticcharacter,morethanthroughamusical

thoughtthatprivilegesaclearpre-establisheddelineatedmusicalcontour,phrase,structure,etc.

Fragmentationisthenthemostcrucialstrategyforshaping.Fragmentationasastrategyinitselfis

already hinting for non-continuity, nonlinearity or irregularity: it is the basic principle of the

disruptive.Asabasicprinciple,ithasbeenpresentinmostcontemporarymusicapproachesofthe

20th/21stcenturies,throughvariousmeans.Butwhat isspecialabouttheaestheticoffragment?

And how is it approached in this context? And how does it put the relations of organised and

unorganisedbodiesinevidence?

Throughafragmentedwritingstrategy,wewillapproachthefragmentfromvariousperspectives,

inanattempttoanswersomeofthesequestions.

99

-FragmentI–Intrinsicorextrinsicstrength

AsmentionedbyCraenen(2014),astrategyforhavingmoredirectaccesstothelevelofthebody

outoflawisthatofnotestablishingaclearnarrative,thatofitssuspending:theuseofthefragment

or the aesthetic of fragmentation is, therefore, a very obvious and useful tool. It was highly

fomentedintheRomantic,withtheaestheticauraoftheunachieved,andbroughttomodernity,

callingintoquestionthecentreandtheequilibriumofthework.Nowadays,thefragmented,the

disruptionandsuperpositionofinformation,levels,space,timeareliterallyeverywhereasthemost

usualwayofaccessinginformationinmoderndevelopedsocieties.Inhisformulationofaffectas

intensity,Massumi(2002)bringsfragmentationtotheforegroundasamostimportantstrategyfor

itsunleashing.

Butwhatisspecialorrelevantaboutthefragmentthathelpsunleashintensity?GonçaloM.Tavares

(Tavares2013)referstothefragmentasadistributorofbeginnings(idem,41),asapointthatbegins

something, a something which inevitably will have no end. And he refers to the beginning of

something as having a special and condensed power: as if the beginning of a process could

concentratethehighestamountofacertainsubstance,whichthedevelopmentofthesameprocess

will only dilute or disperse through an extended area (idem).16 But not only that: M. Tavares

connectsthefragmenttomovementandvelocity,specificallytotheaccelerationbothoflanguage

andofthought.Thefragmentissaidtobringacertainurgencythatiscomparedtotheurgencyof

theverse.Theuseofthefragmentseems,therefore,tobedescribedagainasinterferingwiththe

realmoftime-space–throughacceleration(time)andconcentrationofacertainsubstance(space).

ThesuggestionofaccelerationcaneasilyleadustoRasch(theGermanwordforpresto,quick)and

thetitleofoneofRolandBarthes’essaysonSchumann.HereBarthesextrapolatesonthefactthat

Schumannhadafondnessforshortpiecesandminiatures.Tryingtogoagainstcriticalopinionsthat

concludefromthebeginningthatifSchumanndidnotcomposeverymuchforbiggerforms,then

this must have been because he did not know how to develop them, Barthes comes up with

somethingelse.Forhim,theSchumannianbodydoesnot’stayinplace’(Barthes1985,300):itdoes

not assume a narrative direction, it is a disruptive body that breaks down, falls apart, keeps

dispersing,unabletopullitselftogether.Wecouldarguethatthebodyconcentratesanexcessof

a certain substance that does not fit within the semiotic realm or the linear direction of the

narrative.Itdisrupts,discharges,changesposition,direction,accelerates,breaks,itisanunquiet

body.AndBarthescallsuponthe intermezzoasaspecialcharacterofmusical fragment for this

context:

Theintermezzo,consubstantialwiththeentireSchumannianoeuvre,evenwhentheepisodedoes

notbearitsname,hasafunctionnottodistractbuttodisplace:likeavigilantsaucechef,itkeeps

16Translationbytheauthor:Masoiníciotemumaforçasuplementar:émuitasvezesnoiníciodeumprocessoqueseconcentraamaiorquantidadedeumacertasubstância,queodesenvolvimentodessemesmoprocessosóvaidiluirouespalharporumaextensaárea.

100

thediscoursefromreturningobedientlyintothecultureofdevelopment;itisthisrenewedact(…)

by which the body stirs and disturbs the hum of artistic speech. At the limit, there are only

intermezzi: what interrupts is in its turn interrupted, and this begins all over again. (…) by its

interruptions(…)thebodybeginsto‘criticize’(toputincrisis)thediscoursewhich,undercoverof

art,othershavetriedtoputoveronit,withoutit.(Barthes1985,300)

Thefragmentisthereforeinevitablyanddirectlyconnectedtothethemeofthebodies:wehave

assumedthe impossibilityofencompassing themulti-dimensionalbody throughsignificance. Its

uncertain substance, could yet possibly be captured (Massumi) through a strategy of

fragmentation…Ultimately,captureisonlypossibleasfragment.

-FragmentII–VertigoButwhat ismost significant about the experienceof the fragment is the chasm that inevitably

occursthroughthebodyandthemusicforitsabrupt,suddendisappearingbeforean‘ending'.This

chasmisaspaceinbetweenthatcreatestheexperienceofvertigo:thebodyisrushedorrushes

(becausetheexperienceisoutofsubjectandoutofobject)towardsfreefall,obligedorobligingto

act or react. But oddly enough, in my approach, this space, although not rationally or clearly

defined,seemstobeorfeelsquiteprecise.Itisthestrictlynecessaryspaceforkeepingthislevelof

thebodyunleashed,spreadingthrough,thestrictlynecessaryforkeepingthemultiple,complex

levelsofbodiesandmusicaroused.Thefactthatthisspacefeelsquiteprecisedoesnot,however,

meanthatitis(previously)strictlyconceived,orthatitisalwaysaregularspace:itmeansthatin

eachsituationthisspaceunfoldsasa‘precise’space.Itisacontradiction:theunpredictedandthe

unmeasurableisapproachedandsensedasaprecisionofthebodiesandofthemusic.

Thismeansofcoursethatthebodydoesnotsimplydisruptandfallapartthroughanendlessand

non-reversingprocessofentropy.Thebody’sfallingapartissensed,exploredandeventriggered

throughthebodypullingtogether.Thebody’spullingtogetherisforgedthroughanewsensation

ofthebodyfallingapart.Andthespaceofthisrelationisthen,intheend,thespacingofabody

sensingitself,failingitself,gettingtoacknowledgeitself,(re)creatingitself.

Gettingtoknowitselfisthenarelativeideathatmightmeansensingthelimits,callingtheselimits

intoquestion,exploringandexpandingthem,surprisingitself,findingnewwaysofbeingabody.

Asstatedbefore,thebodyisnotregardedasanintegralunit:itcanbedispersion,multiplicity,and

divergence.However,inexploringtheselimits,althoughtherearesomemoredaringapproaches,

the ‘integrity’ of thebody is called intoquestiononly up to a ‘certain uncertain’ point – never

exceedingthelimitsthatwouldputbodies(music-makingorinstrumentalones)inextremephysical

dangerthroughtheperformanceexperience.

101

-FragmentIII–()Regardingmyapproach,thereis,againandagain,norealexplicitgestureforexposingthebody(ies)

astheyare.

Itisapoeticperspective(evenifmultiple,obsessive)

towardsthebodies

–asinbetween

-FragmentIV–Beyonddualityofcontrol/outofcontrol:

composingasworkingwiththespecificoutoflawmechanismsoftheparticularbody

Althoughthedisruptive,non-semioticrealmisdifficulttodefineandimpossibletoaccessdirectly,

I can acknowledge, by allmeans, that themusic being developed in this context is taking into

consciousaccounttwoverydifferentkindsofmusicallevels:asemioticmusicalrealmandanon-

semioticordisruptiveone.ThisdoesnotmeanthatIcandefinethenon-semioticoneclearly,or

thatIcanclearlydefineacompositionalmethodofworkingwithit.Neitherdoesthismeanthat

thisfactisreducibletotheusualformof‘workingwithparametersthatonecontrolsandwithother

parametersthatonedoesnotcontrol’.Because‘outofcontrol’inthiscontextisnotanykindof

‘purerandom’.‘Outofcontrol’pertainstotherealmof(a)specificbody(ies):itisanunpredictability

thatishoweverrestrainedtotherealmofthis/thesebody(ies).Andbelongingtotherealmofthe

body implies the existence of a specific body, not an abstract entity of body (everythingwe’re

arguingagainsthere).Theoutofcontrolwe’retalkingaboutissomethingwhichisproducedwithin

thebody,withthespecificoutoflawmechanismsofthisparticularbody.

Itisaboutcreatinganotherkindofself-reflection

(throughthislookingglass

andnotjustany

lookingglass)

–onethat

-FragmentV–ARoleisaroleisarole…

Whatisspecificabouttheroleplayedherebythislevelofthemusicandofthebody?

Theroleasalsobeingin.Notjustout:

notjustanout,puttingininquestion.

Theoverwhelmingoftheopenregardedasaninnermechanism

Itisamatterofconceivingthe(music)world

(wholier

notholier)

102

-FragmentVI–Anexactandprecisespaceas

Thistakesusbacktotheissueoffragmentation,ascarryingwithinitselftheabruptendingbefore

anending, thepowerofvertigoand therefore the sensing/exploringof fearasanopeningofa

necessaryspace inbetween: fragmentationascarryingwith itself thepossibility forspacing the

realmofthebodyoutoflaw.ThisbringsustofragmentIIandtothestatementthatthisspacingis

shapedasastrictandprecisespacewithinthemusic:whatisorhowdoesonedefinethestrictly

necessaryspaceforkeepingthislevelofthebodyunleashed,spreadingthrough,playingitscreative

andperformativeroleinthemusicalprocess?

Thefirstansweris:Idon’tknowexactly.

Butthereisasecondanswerthatpointstoanotherkindof‘knowing’withintherealmofabody,

outoftheusualsenses,outofthenameablerealm–thisrealmknowsinanothersenseofwhat

knowingis.AndthisisalsowhereIwouldliketoarrive:expandingtheconceptsofknowingtothe

unnameable, tootherkindsofknowingwithintherealmofbodies.Emancipatingthesekindsof

knowingbeyondthenegativeconnotationsofidiotism,sincetheyareanythingbutidiot,dumbor

stupid:theyareinmanysituationsourmostpreciseandtrustworthytools17.

Whetherwecanconceivethisoutofcontroldimensionascompositionalthinkingmightcontinue

to be a question beyond our reach. But if the question is formulated as whether there is a

compositional strategy for working towards this realm, my answer is then a resounding yes.

Because,althoughoutofmydirectcontrol,itisthere,itisexpectedtoemergethroughthere.Even

ifinakindofoutside,itispartofthemusicalprocessasinside,playinganimportantroleinsidethe

musicalprocess.Mymusic-makingstrategyiscountingonsomethingproducedbythisrealm,on

somethingwhichisdeterminantfortheunfoldingofmusic.

And,althoughitmightsoundvague,thiscanbeconsideredapreciseandexactanswer.

Itisamatterofbecomingcomfortablewithparadox

-listening.

(abolishingnotionsofinsideandoutside

incompositionalstrategy).

17AsproposedbyCraenen,theexperienceofthecomposingbodyconstitutesthemostdirect,andthusalsothemostcritical,touchstone,foraestheticevaluation.Acorporealexcesscansignalawrongguess(Craenen2014,269).

103

-FragmentVII–(im)material

materialisitselfalsolistening

asvibration,asunknown

knownmotiontowards,between

asanunexpectedexpected

ofthebody.

Composing

Notforgingwithmaterialinhands

Butforgingthroughhandsandthroughmaterial

thismeansthatthisforging,carvingisofanotherkind.

-FragmentVIII–Basicdisruptiveeventandshape

Music ‘material’ – which is both material and immaterial as ‘uncertain substance’ or certain

intensity18 – is a multimodal19 event or a shape with a high potential for disruption. It is not

independentofshapesince it isnotacontent that fitsa form,nora formthatshapescontent.

Shapeisamultimodalprocesswhichhasalreadyandsomehowacertainmateriality(asasemiotic,

organized realm) and immateriality (as a non-semiotic, disruptive realm). One does not exist

withouttheother.Andthismeansthatitdoesnotmakesensetotalkabout‘musicmaterial’,nor

ofthebasicunitsofamusicalstructure,butpossiblyaboutfragmentasbasicdisruptiveevent.

Themusicalshapeisthereforenotdefinedasafixedstructurebutregardedasanimponderable

experience that defines however concrete and structuring elements, events, relations,

directionalities.Consequently,itisnotarigiddelimitatedform:themusicalshape isthebodyof

musiccomposedbymanydivergentbodies,partitions,incongruences,paradoxes–behavinglikea

body,withitspredictedunpredictability,withitstangibleandintangiblefeatures.Justasclaimed,

shapeanditsbasicdisruptiveeventsarebroughttothiscontextashavinganunutterablequality

withinitsscope.

18 It might be interesting to bringM. Tavares’ notion of ‘uncertain substance’ together withMassumi’s concept ofintensity/affect.SeeFragmentI.19Multimodalinthesenseofactualconceptsofmusicalgesturethatassignmanydimensionstomusic,besidesthe‘purelysonicabstract’information:kinetic,visual,effort,dynamics,etc.

104

-FragmentIX–Processesforoverwhelming

Thisbasiceventtendstohaveanopeningcharacter:openingforthedisruptiverelationinbetween,

whichmeansinpointoffact,betweenitself(materialityandimmateriality)andbetweenitselfand

other fragments.A fragmentopens, resonates, thebodyand themusic act and reactopposing

anotherrelatedorunrelatedfragment,openingagain.Disruption,feltinmicrotime,eitherrushes

towardsthemovementofpullingoneselftogether(related),ortothemovementoffallingapart

(unrelated). This opensmusical possibilities for spreading through divergent and simultaneous

directions, for imploding divergence into a point, for falling into a trap of autistic circular or

repetitivemovements,etc.Assuch,disruptiontriggerstowardsexperiencesofcomplexitythatput

inevidencethemultidimensionalityofthemusic-makingbody(ies)andofthebodyofmusic.The

waythedifferentlevelsofthebodies(organizedorunorganized)relateisstrictlyconnectedtothe

way fragments relate– theyare the sameevent.Disruptioncan trigger resonance,dampening,

interference,unlimitedfeedbacktowardsthesemioticrealmoffragments:thewayorganizedand

unorganizedlevelsrelateforgesnotonlytheplasticityofexpansionofthemusicbodies,butthe

musicbodiesasplasticityofexpansion.

Feedback as a relation between levels of the body (through different processes) is used as a

commoncompositionalstrategythroughoutmymusic.Itleadsfrequentlytowardsexplodingthe

musicalspace:feedingbackthemusicalsemioticrealmisanoverwhelmingprocessthatcanmake

itgetswallowedbytheforceofitsowngravity.Musicisthenregardedasakindofblackhole:itis

itscollapseuponitself.Themusicalsemioticrealmisthencrushed,shapedasnothingbutahole–

immaterial,unshaped–butagainopeninganewpossibilityforrenewalofthemusicbodiesoutof

liminaloscillation,arisingfromthisprocess.

-FragmentX–(im)possibilitytocapture–photographicalqualityofthefragmentasflexibility

Butsemioticallyspeaking,howistheideaoffragmentationputinpracticeinmusic?

Iwouldbeginbyacknowledgingthatthesemioticmusicrealm,despitebeingcomplex,tendstobe

relativelyshort,condensed.Complex,first,becausetherelationsitestablishesareoftennotquite

conventional ones, bringing sounds from most distant proveniences, families, and categories

(temperedandnon-temperedsounds,etc.)togetherasintimaterelations,andforsimultaneously

abortingtheunityandintegrityofclosedsoundcategoriesthroughtheopeningofnewdivergent

andspreadingthroughsoundpossibilities.

Itfollowsthatthesemioticrealmofmusiceventshasashort,condensedandintensecharacter:it

tendstohavearatherreducedmusicalinformationanditsfeaturesareseldomintroducedinmusic

105

througha gradual process, but tend to appear suddenly, as crystallizations, often as glances. It

seemsparadoxical:ontheonehandfragmentsasmusiceventsseemquiteinflexibleandsomehow

obsoletetowardsnotionsofnarrativedevelopment.Ontheotherhand,theircrystallizedglance

character seems to have a photographic quality that opens up other kinds of plasticity and

flexibility:thematerialisanopeningtowardsintensification,orthematerialisalready,throughits

opening character, and relations established, its own intensification. This immateriality is,

therefore,acertainintensityinherenttothefragment.Thisintensitycanbecapturedandpossibly

unleashed through an obsessive arousal of the bodies, as (im)possibility for both forging and

freezing this photographic quality. The semiotic realm of music events cannot, therefore, be

regardedwithoutthisinherentdisruptiveprocess,whichIcalllistening(orlistening|theopen).A

basicdisruptiveeventisthereforenota‘straightforwardmaterial’thatcanbeclearly‘presented’:

itisarelationbetweenwhatisstipulatedasshortandcondensedinthemusicalnarrativeplanand

itsresonance(s).Inthiscontext,itisneveraboutwhatispresentedorplayedbutabouttherelations

establishedinbetweenasresonantspace.

-FragmentXI–(dis)useofharmony

The complexity of semiotic music material is also made evident through the constant use of

atonality,asastrategyforcreatinganirregularmusicalspace.Harmonyisthenexploredasspecific

andoftenobsessivescrutinizingofacertain(mostlyasymmetric)relation,acertainintensity:asan

agreementofintimatedisagreements.Itisseldomusedinalogicofsequentialnarrative,orasa

driving force that directs or heads for, but often approached through the aforementioned

photographic perspective: as a crystallization of this relation. The harmonic relation as

crystallizationoftenappearsasaglance:itcanbetransposedadinfinitum,variedinendlesstypes

offiguration,fragmentation,buttheintrinsicorextrinsicrelationismostlymaintained.Thisrelation

is mostly explored in itself and in confrontation towards other harmonic relations through

processesofsuperposition/juxtaposition/interference,etc.

Dissonancemightthenbeoftenapproachedinasomehowconsonantway:asifacertaincomfort

ofthemusicandmusic-makingbodiescouldbefeltinnothavingadisciplinedcentreofgravity,in

beingdissonantbodies,inbeingthisagreementofintimatedisagreements.Beingcomfortablecan

mean,inthiscontext,thattheuseofdissonanceisnotaboutarejectionofconsonanceandtonality

justforaestheticreasons,butaboutfindinganewsensorialspacewheremost‘usual’notionsof

dissonanceandconsonancedonotfeelmeaningfulanymore.Aspacewhere,asMassumireferred,

‘sad’canfeel ‘happy’andmanyothermorecomplexpossibilitiesofrelation,butmostlyaspace

forging new sensations and possibilities for meaning. Enchantment as an obsession towards a

certainintensityofrelationcanworkasastrategyinthisdirection:itgivestheatonalacertaintonal

quality.

106

-FragmentXII–Melodicboycott

Melodicgesturecanberegardedascomplextoo,becauseitisusuallyanideaboycottedfromthe

beginning:thereisanappetiteformelodicgesturesthatfunctionasopeningsmostofthetime,as

élans,accelerationmovementsthatheadforresonance.Butthepossibilityofnarrativecontinuity

isconstantlybeingboycottedthroughvariousprocessesofdisruption–listening.Disruptioncanbe

then regarded above all as a triggering of feedback processes, interferences, dampenings. The

disruption processes can be of different kinds: as a freezing of the resonance of the disrupted

gesturetowardsitself,allowinganinflationof‘initialsubstance’;asanobsessiveirregularcircularity

of melodic gesture towards itself through neurotic oscillation; as ‘out of control’ circularity of

melodicgesturetowardsitselfthroughunlimitedfeedback–explosionofthegesture;asanabrupt

entanglement with other gestures, through different possibilities of engagement, connection,

superposition;asdispersion,texturizing,etc.

-FragmentXIII–abeatingbodyastime-space

Therealmofmetrics,rhythm,andpulsealsotendtoberathercomplexfortheextremepresence

ofthisotherdisruptive,beatingbody.Abeatingbody–abodythatcannotstay(Barthes1985)–

andwhichisinthiscontextnotdampenedbyastrategyofdomestication,butonthecontrary,is

incited and amplified through overwhelming listening strategies – is a constant producer of

irregular,organic,andendlesslyshiftingnon-linearspace-times.

ItisimportanttoestablisharelationtotimeconceptionsofRomanticandstructuralistapproaches

inordertounderstandtheconceptoftimeinthiscontextofthetrilogy.Itisthereforerelevantto

acknowledgethatwithintheRomanticanditsrhetoricalperformanceapproach,itcanbesaidthat

there is a ‘qualitative’ notion of time, whereas in structuralist approaches there is a more

‘quantitative’notionofit.Theontologicaldifference(Cook)pointsattwodifferentnotionsofmusic

conception:musicismadeoftimeinthecaseofrhetoricalperformancestyleandmusicismadein

timeinthelattercase.Thiscanmeanthattimeiseitheraninherentdimensionofmusicmaterial

intherhetoricalperspectiveoritisanobjectiveandlineardimensionoutsidethemusic,wherethe

musicasanabstractidealmustfitinthroughtheprocessofperformance.Wehavealreadymade

apointhereagainsttheconceptoftimeaslinearandobjective:thebeatingbodyactsasplasticity

ofspace-time,itdoesnotstayinlineartime,itisaforgerofshiftingtimeperspectives.Regarding

the concept of time as a dimension of music in rhetorical approaches, it is important to

acknowledgethattimeisregardedasadimensionofexpressivityofsemioticcontent.Timeisthen

thisbreathingandresonatingdimensionofmusicasinherentexpressivecontent.

It is not at all my intention to give an exhaustive overview of time conceptions in music

performance,but it is fruitful tobringtheseperspectives inrelationtoaconceptof time inthe

trilogy, as they forge different conceptions of musical performance and can help us forge an

adequateconceptionforthiscontext.

107

WemayanalyseNicholasCook’sclaimonbothperformancepractices:

Myaimhasbeentomaketwogeneralpoints:rhetoricalperformanceturnsonreference

andisinthatsenseasemioticpractice,andthatanapproachthatseesperformanceasa

process of real-time semiosis is fundamentally different from one that sees it as

reproductionofanideal,essentiallyatemporalobject.(Cook2013,119)

Inthisshortandcondensedstatement,wecaneasilyacknowledgethatourcontextcorresponds

neither tooneconceptionnor theother:performance is clearlynot reproduction in timeofan

atemporalobject(asstructuralistapproaches)norisperformancejustareal-timesemiosis,turning

on reference (as rhetorical performance). Time is regarded not just as a dimension of music

material,asacontrolled,intentionalorexpressiveparameter.Itcannotbereducedtoadimension

(ormultipledimensions)oftheexpressivemusicalcontent:timeisadimensionofthemusicbodies,

it is a complex dimension that encompasses expressivity/intentionality and simultaneously the

unintentional,whichisfeltasaccelerationthroughmicrotime.Itisthecomplexco-existenceand

relation between the possibility of linear time(s), non-linear time(s) and its specific case of

microtime,whichcan,however,beexperiencedasanorganicandvividdimensionofmusic.Time

isspace-time.Itiscreatedandreformulatedthrougheachprocessofdisruptivefragmentation.It

is then also worked as friction and conflict between linearity and non-linearity, narrative and

disruptionofthemusicbodies.

V. Musicalspace–hereattheimminenceofnowhere

Wewillstartbyreflectingonmusicalspace,adoptingthestrategyofPaulCraenen,ofclaimingthat

itmightbemoremeaningfultostartaskingwherethismusicis,insteadofwhatitis(Craenen2014,

44).Craenen’swherereferstoaspacethatdoesnotcorrespondtolinearspace,buttoanemerging

space that unfolds as themusic progresses (idem, 23). This unfolding is said to occur in a very

specific moment, after the musician’s procedures of arriving on stage, taking the position for

playing, and concentrating: at the precise moment where the body decides to act, or more

precisely,themomentwhenthisdecisionturnsintotheactionofplaying.Thisgesture,loadedwith

the shared tension, concentration and silence of all music-making, instrumental and listening

bodies,isthenresponsibleforproducingashiftfrom‘real’spacetothephantasmalspaceofmusic.

Craenenproposesthattherearedifferentkindsofphantasmalmusicalspaces,whosedifference

derives from different kinds of music conception, and compositional strategies/approaches.

Differentmusicalapproachesarethensaidtoafforddifferentkindsofmusicalspaceexperiences.

Hethenmakesadistinctionbetweenthreedifferentkindsofmusicalspaces,threedistinctarrays

of where: music from somewhere,music from here and music from there. In tonal music, a

phantasmalspaceofmusicisreferredtoasasomewhere,asanunfoldingofamusicalspacethat

108

establishes itselfasasomewherebetweenthenotes (Craenen2014,30).Asomewhere isanon-

situated,etherealandsublimespace,asaresultofaneutralizationofthebodies:whenfrictionis

‘erased’ through discipline and an aesthetic purpose, as in this case, the music bodies are

experiencedasaperfectresonatorformusicalnarrativeandexpressivecontent.

Thesecondkindofmusicalspaceisthephantasmalspacehere,describedastheunfoldingofmusic

that, insteadofneutralizingthebodies,asanaestheticpurpose,tendstobringfrictionbetween

bodiestotheforeground,callingintoquestiontheestablishedmusicalrelationsthroughtheuseof

non-conventionalperformancetechniques(ofwhichthemusicofLachenmannisgivenasexample).

This space is then described as the intimate space of the relation of performing body and

instrumentalbody,aspacewithinthereachofthebodies.Ittendstobeexperiencedasfascination

towardstheunexpectedofthisintimatesphere.Here,asamusicalspace,isnottakenforgranted

andishintingforacontinuouslyrediscoveringofthisrelation:aimingalreadysomehowtowards

the disruptive and the surprising capture of the bodies. This phantasmal space acts, then, as

fascinationtowardstheconcretemusicbodiesbutalsotowardscallingthisconcretedimensioninto

question.

Asalastpossibilityofaphantasmalspace,thereisreferredtoasamusicalspacethatactsinrelation

tohere:therebecomesfascinationwhentheattentionisfocusedonhere.Thereisastrategymostly

connected to the spatialization possibilities enabled by electroacoustic music. There arises as

fascinationandisthentheshiftofperspectivethatrendershereaspotentiallysurprisingagain.

Circlingbacktothetrilogy,onecansaythatallthesekindsofmusicalspacearepresent,inoneway

or another. However, it ismy claim that the space ofmusic could be discussed further in this

context.Here is,ontheonehand,averyexploredspace inthecontextofthetrilogy,sincethis

intimate and concrete space of relation between the bodies is always put in perspective, and

rethought as a potential for themusical unfolding. Thus, theway it is approached often has a

paradoxical flavour:herecan,throughthevariousspreadingprocessesbefeltsimultaneouslyas

hereandthereorashereandsomewhereorasanoverwhelmedherewhichcanbefelteverywhere.

On the other hand, everywhere as an overwhelming process of here can be an imminence of

nowhere.Thisisdonethroughunexpectedandsometimesinvisibleinterconnections,interactions,

disruptions that tend to defy the linear space of performance situation in all the musical,

instrumental,multidimensionalrealms.

Inalltheserealmsthemagnitudeorplasticityofthisspace,createdthroughvariousmeans,gives

theconcreteexperienceof thebodies inperformanceacertain illusionaryquality.Andthis isa

crucialpointtoarriveat:thereseemstobeamusicalspaceasexperienceoftheconcretebodies

as both tangible (as somehow situated) and intangible (as accelerating, spreading all over

dimension).Itisaparadoxicalmusicalspace:anexperienceoftheconcretehere,butheremightbe

atthesametimefeltassomewhere,orputdifferently,theconcreteheremightbefeltbothashere

and as dispersion throughout the bodies. But there might be a big difference between the

109

somewhereoftonalmusicandsomewhereinthiscontext.Somewhereinthetrilogymightnotbea

controlledphantasmal, resonant space,where the semioticmusical content resoundsperfectly.

Somewhere,here,relatestothe‘formulation’ofListening|theopen:adisruptiveresonanceor

interferencespace,withhighpotentialeitherforuncontrolledfeedbackorforuncontrollednoise.

This somewhere is then amusical space as an overwhelming of the semioticmusicmaterial: it

interferes,crushes,mutilates,butmostimportantly,disruptioncomeswiththishighpotentialfor

feedbackandnoise.Thespacefromhereisthenalsoaneverywhereattheimminenceofitsown

explosion(again):thiseverywhere,asoverwhelmingof‘here’isanimminenceof‘nowhere’,or,in

otherwords,anoverwhelmed‘here’canbefeltas‘somewhere’,andpossiblyas‘everywhere’atthe

imminenceof‘nowhere’.Everywhereandnowhereseemthereforetobeimportantnewnotionsof

spaceforourcontext.

Butthereisnolinearityorsequenceofspacialevents.Themusicalspacecanbesensedbothas

hereandsomewhere/everywhere/nowheresimultaneously:thereisarelationshipatthedistance,

which is not that of a continuity.Here does not fade into somewhere/everywhere. There is a

simultaneityandanambiguityofmusicalspacesthatcanbefelt.

Itisthereforeimportanttodefinethismusicalspacethroughanextremeandliminalsensitivityand

itsextremeaffordanceforfeedbackandnoise.Spreadingissensing‘as’feedingthefusespreading

through, it isapoint triggering itself,detonation. It isagainaprocess that isoutofcontrolbut

withintherealmofthemusicandofthebodies.

Again,thisimpliesastrategyforoverwhelmingthesenses:itimpliesasensorialexcessthattends

toprovokedisruptionofsensestowardsothersensorialpossibilities.Musicisthenconceivedinthis

trilogyasthisexcessofelements,realms,bodies.Thisexcessisanunleashingofliminalsensorial

experiencestowardsandfromdifferentrealms–performative,visual,verbal,etc.–andtowards

andfromdifferentpersonalities:performanceasamultidimensionalexperiencerequiresdifferent

perspectives,approaches,andknow-howthatareputinpracticethroughsteadycollaborators.

VI. Musicas‘unmediated’relationbetweenbodies–towardsanothernotionofvirtuosity

Butmusicinvolvesotherbodies,namelytheinstrumentalbodiesandrelationswiththem.Andhere

we’ll arrive at another important point that brings the discussion aboutmediation further: the

instrumentalorperformingbodiesarenotapproachedasmediatorsforsomethingelse,butthe

relation of the bodies towards themselves and between themselves is the something else, this

relationisitselfaproducerofmeaning.Wecouldprobablysaythatthecyphersofthebodiesare

thebodiesintheirrelationtowardsthemselvesandtowardseachother.

110

Thiswillleadustoaparticularconceptionofmusicasspreadingbutitwillalsoforceusintothinking

anotionofvirtuosityfurther(againasaprocessforovercomingthebody’sandtheself’slimitsor

restrictionswithinthisscope).Inthiscontext,virtuositywillnotberelatedtotheviolenceoferasing

thebody,discipliningtheundisciplinedasintheRomanticandwerktreueideals;norwillitbeabout

forcingthedisciplined,obedientandsubmissiveperformingbodytowardsindiscipline(througha

violenceofexcessivemediation)asinthecomplexityandnewcomplexityapproaches;noreven

aboutaviolenceofcompleterejectionofthesubjective,intentionalanddisciplined(andtherefore

a complete rejection of virtuosity) as in Cage’s andmany American experimental andminimal

approaches.

It can mean again: becoming comfortable with paradox, becoming comfortable with the co-

existenceofbothorganisedandunorganisedlevelsofthebody,acceptingboththebody’sinherent

disruptiveviolenceanditssimultaneousdrivefordiscipliningthisviolence(asviolence).Intermsof

howtogroundthisconceptofvirtuosity,wecouldclaimagain:letabodybeabody,letmusicbea

body,letthebodybemusic…letthebodyexplore,sense,feeditsbeingbodythroughliminality,

throughtheshapingofotherbodies.

Itdoesn’thoweverputasideanextremelyorganisedbodyanditsstrictdisciplineandisagaina

relation between organised and unorganised levels of themusic-making body, as a process of

overcoming the body(ies)’s and themultiple self’s limits or restrictions – calling into question,

rethinkingandpushingtheselimitsfurtheroraway.Itdoesn’t,therefore,demandamechanismof

non-violence.

WhatIwillstarttooutlineasvirtuosityisthenthisrelationoftheorganisedandunorganisedlevels

ofthebodythroughtheconceptofListening|theopen.Thiscanmeanthatvirtuosityisnotonly

accepting,butcreativelyexploringthedifferentlevelsofthebodythroughtheirrelations.Itcan

furthermoremeannotonlyacceptingviolence,butexploringviolenceasaninherentmechanism

oftheserelationsandthereforeacceptingandexploringviolenceasinherenttothemusic-making

bodyitself.Atlast,itcanmeanbroachingthisrelationofviolenceofthebodytowardsitselfthrough

the relations of/between all kinds ofmusic bodies. Virtuosity is a paradox: an organised body

listening.

Asaspacewhereorganisedbodyandunorganisedbodymeetorwheretheorganisedcancapture

theunorganised,Listening|theopenisthennotonlya‘pureentropy’spacebutalso,evidently,a

kineticspace,aspaceaffordingacreativitypotential.Thiscanmeanthattheorganisedbodycan,

toacertainextent,‘tune’towardsthisliminal-sensorialspaceofListening|theopenascreative

space.‘Tuning’inthiscontextwouldmeancreatinganarousalofsensestowardstheliminalityof

thedisruptivemicrovibrationofthebodies.Wecanthenregardthecreativeandoverwhelming

waythebodybroachesthisspecificsensorialandliminal-sensorialspaceasabeginningofthisidea

ofvirtuosity.Broachingthedisruptivemechanismthatleadstothemovementsoffallingapartand

111

pullingtogetherandtheoverwhelmingrelationoforganisedandunorganisedbodiesarethenmost

importantfeaturesofthisnotionofvirtuosity.

Buthowisthisrelationbetweenmusic-makingbodyandbodyofmusicforged?Wewillstartby

approaching the instrumental bodies as a fundamental element to add to this relation. Having

establishedtheinstrumentalrealm,wewillthenreturntocontinueshapinganideaofvirtuosity.

VII. Instrumentalapparatus

1. (abetween):Listening|theopenintangibleinstrumentalbody(ies)

Listeningisalso

sensingthedisruptivepowerthroughinstrumentalbodies,

sensinghistoricalincisionsascleanandwelltempereddomesticationofsound,

aframingoftheaudible

aspossiblesounding–

-ininstruments,thewoundisclosed

tosoundunison.

Butlisteningisalso

thisimpossibilitytogetlost

throughtheinstrument

aspossibilityforallmusicbodies:

asintangiblebodies

escaping

theinevitable–

andinevitablyescaping

-listening

112

Listeningisthen

not(justageekactivityof)findingcuriousandoddsounds

concealedwithinatouchingspaceofinstruments

(foragesandages)

aspossibleimpossible

becomingofanewinstrument

-toproudlyshowtheworld

Itisbothfindingandbeingfoundanewby

itseruptivepotential

asamagnificentforceconcealed

-retained

asanignitedthere

oftheinstrumentalbody

readytoexplode

tothesubtlesttouch

asprecise

light,suspended

sensing,

feeding

Itisthen

finding,beingfound,

loosing,gettinglost

altogether

asoverwhelmingimponderable

113

Listeningisthenengagingwith

asaninstrumentalsubtlevibration,

abeatingthere

asfeedingback,

detonatinganew

soundingpotential:

theoutofblue

inalldirections

unfocused

theinstrumentisnolongerthisinstrument-

theinstrumentisanew

disruptive,intangibility

spreadingthrough

2. (Im)possibilitytoescapeofthemusicbodies

Morethanthinkingthepianoasan instrumentwiththepossibility forexpandingthroughother

soundtools,instruments,orinstallations,theinstrumentisthoughtagainasthespreadingitself.

Thoughtasanunleasheddivergence throughamultiplicityanddiversityof soundelements, the

instrumentisnotthere,itisnotclosedinanykindofpreconception,theinstrumentisdisruptionof

sound.Theinstrumentasspreadingisthenaperformanceofanexcess,overwhelmingthesemiotic

and normalised organisation of the piano that both leads towards disruption and is led by

disruption.

Theinstrumentalapparatusisthereforenotaninstrumentpiano(in)extendedtootherresources

(out), because extension is a reductive term: it implies approaching the piano as a closed

instrumentalentitytowhichonecanadjoinunidirectionaladd-ons.Thinkingextensionasthisadd-

onwouldmeanthattakingofftheextensions,thepianowouldremainuntouched,pure,stable,the

same.Butthecontextswheretheterm‘extension’isusedoftenimplysomekindofmutilation,a

destructionofcertainqualitiesoftheinstrumentinfavourofotherqualities.Takingtheinstrument

asthespreadingorasadisruptiveinstrumentalbodymeans,first,thatonecannolongerthinkthe

pianoasaclosedandstableentity,asapreviouslymadeconception.And,infact,therehasnever

beenjustoneconceptionofthepiano,eveniftheeffortforstandardisationandnormalisationis

huge: the instruments have always been other instruments in different times, contexts, and

approaches. Instrumentsmay thus contain, through this perspective, a sounding potential that

resistsnormalisation.Workingtheinstrumentasanexcessandasanoverwhelmingprocessofitself

can then be a strategy for bringing this sounding potential as an idea of resistance to the

114

foreground.

It is important to remember that theexperimentalapproachesof thepost-warvanguardswere

mostimportantandfruitfulfortheemancipationofsoundpotentialofbothmusicalinstruments

andnon-instruments(thatwereoftenelevatedasmusicalinstruments).Thisemancipationcame

alongwiththeideaofopeningtheperformancesituationtoeverypossibleaction,everypossible

sound. In the last two decades, the instrumentsweremostly explored as hybrid constructions

through various possibilities opened up by exponential improvements in electronics, mostly

throughtheextremedevelopmentofsoftwareprogramsforliveprocessing.Theinstrumentshave

beenapproachedashyperinstruments,metainstruments,etc.,andthemusicalcreationprocess

has been very focused on discussing and developing the complexity of design and technical

constructionofidiosyncraticinstruments(systemsorenvironmentsthatareoftenonlyusedonce

inaparticularcontextofaspecificpieceofmusic).Foralongtime,theinstrumenthasbeeninthe

spotlightofmusicaldiscussioninacademia,andprobablymuchofthecompositiondiscussionsand

thesespresentedinthepast20yearsdealmostexclusivelywiththeconceptionoftheinstrument

assubject.

Preparationtechniques,electronicsandotherprocessesofworkingtowardsnewpossibilitiesof

soundengagementbringalongthepotentialforrethinkingandreformulatingtheinstrumentand

relationsbetweenthemusicbodies.Butitisalsoimportanttostressthat,ontheirown,theybarely

affordnewwaysofthinkingmusic.Aspowerfulandeccentrictools, theycaneasily fall intothe

categoryofmusical fireworks,circusor freakshow,whenusedasamusicalgoal inthemselves.

Besides,theyalsosusceptibletobeingacculturated,integratedandsomehowaccommodatedasa

new normalisation, something which in certain musical niches is already happening: the

experimentalisthenewnormal.Theexperimentalastheexplorationofnewsoundingpotentialof

instrumentsbegins,infact,tobeadéjàvuandevenacliché.

In the context of the trilogy, one can say that the relation towards the instrument is then a

conflictingorparadoxicalone.Ontheonehand,itsscaleasan‘enormous’instrumentalapparatus

anditsimportanceintheperformingsituationrevealsafascinationtowardsit.Ontheother,this

musicdoesnotreallyfocusontheconceptionoftheinstrumentintermsoftherelevancegivento

itsdesigndevelopmentorprocesses.Infact,throughthevariousmusicalcreativeprocessesofeach

pieceofthetrilogythroughtimeonecouldalmostsaythattheapproachesmoveinadirectionthat

couldbeconsideredquitetheopposite:itisalmostaseekingforanopiano,towardstheimpossible

liberationofthemusicalperformingbodyfromitsinstrument.Followingthistrainofthought,the

apparatus as an overwhelming excess can, in a way, be considered a potential detonation

mechanismfortheinstrument.Itis,again,anon-semioticexplodingorimplodingdispositivethat

triestoraze,demolish,notonlytheorganisationoftheinstrumentpianoasnormalisation,butthe

relationofdependencyinwhichtheperformingbodyisfoundastrappedandlocked.Thismusicis

thereforenotjustageekyexplorationofsoundcuriositiesbutaprofounddestabilisingengagement

withsound,withthemultiplicityoftheselfandthemultiplicityofmusicbodies.Anengagement

115

thatseeksnottheinstrument,butthroughtheinstrument,animpossibleliberationfromitandto

it–anescapingofallmusicbodies.

Wecanthereforesaythattheinstrumentalbodycan,alongwiththemusic-makingbodyasabody

listening,alsobeconsideredadisruptivebody–itisnotabodyasaninstrumentplacedinspace:

it is an energetic capture of forces, vibrations through different sounding bodies, different

directions‘converging’asnewtangibleandintangiblesoundingbody.

–instrumentalapparatus,asexcessisthenthiscaptureofforces

asaspreadingthroughdifferentbodiesintouch

inalldirectionsunfocused,

overwhelming:

theinstrumentalbodiesasorganised;

therelationofinterdependencybetweeninstrumentalandperformingbodies;

unfolding

asnewdisruptivetangibilityandintangibilitysounding

-the(im)possibilitytoescapeofthemusicbodies

Butwhatdoesthismean,inpractice,throughthetrilogy?Whatcouldmeanan‘almostseekingfor

anopiano,towardsthe(im)possibleliberationofthemusicalperformingbodyfromitsinstrument’?

Or that the instrumental apparatus can, in a way, be considered as a potential detonation

mechanismofitselfasawayforthemusicbodiestoescape?

Wewillgatherthethreepiecesofthetrilogytounderstandhowthisisapproachedandmadeeither

evident or implicit in the different solos. We should acknowledge that each solo unfolds an

idiosyncraticdisruptiveinstrumentalapparatusandthattheyallshareanapproachwhichplaces

the instrument at the centre of musical discussion, the singularity that is given to this same

instrumentalenvironment.Whatisuniqueaboutthetrilogy’sapproachis,again,thefactthatthe

complexinstrumentalapparatusandtherelationbetweenallmusicbodiestendtooperateasan

empowered non-semiotic mechanism that, through feedback, interference, etc., defies and

overwhelms the organised concept of instrument and the relations towards it to the ultimate

consequences.Itseeks,therefore,theescapingofthebodiesfromthemselvesandtowardseach

otherindifferentways,throughdisruptivedetonationmechanisms,butalwaysapproachingthese

mechanismsasopeningsofanewspaceinbetween.Thedisruptivebodyisthen,throughthisspace

inbetween,anempoweredbodythatresiststhenormalisationofallmusicbodiesandforgesnew

shapingpossibilities.

However,thethreepiecessharecommonfeaturesregardingtheconceptionoftheirinstrumental

apparatus.Thepiano,asapparatus, isaspreadingofelementsthroughtheuseofamplification,

props, different kinds of piano preparations, electronics, pre-recorded audio files, sound

installations,alltogether,inconnectionanddisconnection.Itisrelevanttodetectthatthetendency

116

forusingmultipleprocessesdecreasesthroughoutthethreepieces.Onereasonthishappens is

that,throughouttheunfoldingofthethreepiecesofthetrilogy,differentbodiesarebroughtto

the foreground (as previously referred), in a clear movement that goes from focusing on the

instrumentalbody(TTLG),thenshiftingthefocustotherelationbetweeninstrumentalandmusic-

makingbodies(IPD)and,attheend,bringingtothespotlightthemusic-makingbodyaslistening

body(LTO).Therelevanceoftheinstrumentissuccessivelydecreasingineachpiecetowardsthe

referredurgeofanopiano.Inthelastpiece,listening:theopen,andsincetheinstrumentalbodies

arenotintheforeground,theuseofprops,preparationsinsidethepianoandextendedtechniques

insidethepianoaremostlysuppressed,andtheoverwhelmingcharacterofthedisruptivebodyof

music is transferred, above all, towards the listeningmusic-making body and the possibility of

becoming otherness, artifice, instrument. This non-semiotic saturation is thenmostly explored

throughthemusic-makingbody,aprocessthatattheendrequiredworkingwithadancer(LuizL.

Antunes)toassistwithmovement.

Mostly, thesound-relateddecisionsare intendedtosharpen,overwhelmthesenses,as it is the

caseoftheuseofamplificationofthepianoinordertoputinhighresolutionwhatinanacoustic

environmentwouldhappen ina small scale.Amplifying thepiano is thereforea tool for scaling

detailsand tooverwhelmperceptionexpectations. It isalsoauseful toolwhen it comes to the

successful employment of the piano with electronics or pre-recorded audio files, as is, in this

context, the case.But, in theend,alongwithallother sound resolutions,onecancome to the

ultimate conclusion that they are, above all, consequences of a same aesthetic decision. The

proposalfortheperformanceexperienceisnotaproposalforexperiencingtheconcretebodiesas

localised,but forexperiencingadimensionof theconcretethatspreadsallover,aphantasmal,

spreadingdimensionoftheconcrete.Allperformances,althoughveryconnectedtotheconcrete

experienceofthebodies,haveacertainungraspableorintangiblequalitythatisdevelopedthrough

sound,performanceand,crucially,throughDanielC.N.’scinematographicvisualconception.

3. Resonance:intangibleinstrumentalbodyThisinstrumentalapparatusgathersdistances,bringsdivergentsoundsintouchandbranchesout

its supposed concrete integrity as an inevitable spreading through. In this logic, all devices,

preparations, etc. are potential outsider(s) belonging to the realm of the instrumental body,

overwhelmingready-madeconceptionsoftheinstrumentandopeningfornewsoundimageries.

Thedifferentdevicesandprocessesofinstrumentalapparatuscanthusproducedifferentkindsand

levelsofspacings,differentkindsandlevelsofplasticity,differentbodiesinsidetheinstrumental

bodies. Through this perspective, the audio compositions could probably be considered the

farthest,themostdistended,distortedorconvolutedspacingsofthepianotowardsitself,because

theyarealreadyanopiano(andinfactinallofthetrilogythevariousaudiocompositionsnever

featureapiano).Theyareanopiano,beingapianobecausetheyhavelostallsemioticcontent

117

sharedwithapiano,butstillbelongtotherealmofthisparticularpiano. In thecasesofsound

processing,preparations,useofpropsandsoon,somecharacteristicsofthespecificpiano(which

areofcoursevariable)arealwaysstillthere:ambiguityisestablishedboththroughdifferenceand

resemblance (keeping some semiotic categories of piano sound untouched while others are

subverted).Audiocompositionsarethenprobably,assoundimageriesintherelationsestablished

throughthisparticularpiano,thefarthestlevelsofabstraction,asuspendedreality.

This abstraction, as inherent distance, is then one of the elements that gives the concrete

experienceofthebodiesinperformanceacertainintangible,ungraspableandillusionaryquality.

Inthissense,audiorecordingsalsofulfilavery importantroleregardingtheunfoldingofmusic.

Theysubvertthelogicofmostmusicalperformances,whichestablishthatmusicalspaceisunfolded

in a specific moment, after themusician arrives on stage, taking the position for playing, and

concentrating.Thislogicoftensionandexpectationtowardsaspecificandconcreteshiftofspaces

isunderminedinallpiecesbecausethemusicalspaceunfoldsthroughthetriggeringofanaudio

compositionbeforethemusic-makingbodyarrivesonstage:theexperiencedoesnotstartfroma

concretesituationtowardsprogressiveabstractionofphantasmalspace,buttheotherwayaround.

It begins through the farthest spacing of music towards the concrete bodies (instrumental,

performingandlisteningbodies),proposingthatthedirectionofspreadingisnotunidirectionaland

that it can, in fact, be multiple and diverse. This procedure of undermining reality as merely

‘concrete’isrepeatedthroughthewayallpiecesofthetrilogyendwithoutthe‘presence’ofthe

music-makingbody.Stoppingandendingisanon-synchronisedactionofthebodytowardsitself,

asifdifferentlevelsofthebodiescanhavedifferenttimes,resistances,arrivals.Thereseemstobe

always‘something’thatcontinuesafter,beyondandevenbeforetheconcreteactionsofthemusic-

makingbody.

4. Concreteinstrumentalbodies

Adoptedstrategytodealwiththeinstrumentasdispersion

Wewillshiftourperspectivebyfocusingontheconcrete instrumentalbodiesoftheapparatus.

Althoughtheimportanceofitstechnicalconceptionisrelativizedinthiscontext,itslargescaleand

complexitymakeitavitalelementofthedisruptivebodyofmusic.

Fornow,wewillapproachthegeneralfeaturesoftheinstrumentalapparatusthroughoutthethree

pieces,andfurtherahead,inClusterIII.,theapparatusofeachpiecewillbeanalysedinmoredetail.

Inbothsituations,wewilldividethemultiplelayersoftheinstrumentinspecificelements.Isolating

thedifferentelementsmightsoundlikeanartificialapproach,butitwillbeausefuloneregarding

thefeasibilityofthetaskofdealingwiththemultiplelevelsofinstrumentalapparatus.Inorderto

understandtowhatextentthespecificunfoldingofeachpieceisachangeofperspectiveregarding

118

previous and consequent approach(es), we will therefore focus on each different and isolated

elementoftheapparatusthroughoutthethreepieces.

Thedispersionofthedifferentinstrumentalapparatusofthethreepiecescanbeassembledand

describedasfollows:

1. through this looking glass (2010/11) prepared piano, toy piano, electronics,recordedtape,mobile&props;

2. In Praise of Disorder (2011- 13) semi-prepared piano, installation of bells and

sirens,toypiano,noiseboxes&recordedtape;3. listening:theopen(2016–?)piano,resonantmetalplatesinstallation&recorded

tape;

Division of elements will be done through the following instrumental categories: 1) Piano

preparations; 2) Props and small instruments; 3) Electronics (live processing, recorded tape,

electronicindependentgadgets;4)Soundinstallationsorinstallations.

Wewillstartbygivingageneraloverviewofeachconcreteinstrumentallayerinthetrilogyandin

Cluster III. we will proceed with an exhaustive inventory, bringing up every element of each

instrumentallayer.

Pianopreparations(TTLG,IPD,LTO)

fig.5

Thepreparations of thepiano canbe approached as intruders 20, as objects that are not really

20IntrudersinasensethatcouldbeclosetoNancy’sconceptoftheintruder(Nancy2002)inthiscontext.Theintruderisformulatedthroughtheideaoforgantransplant.Nancy’sexperienceofahearttransplantbringstotheforegroundthatthegraftedorganandintruder,morethandestabilizingaoncesecureandstableself,putsinevidenceitsalreadyinherent

119

externaltothepiano,butoutsider(s)belongingtotherealmofthispianobody.Theseoutsider(s)

as insiders might bring a certain foreignness to the foreground: not the foreignness of being

‘outsider’elementsassuch,butaninherentforeignnessthatex-posestheexistentvulnerability,

non-integrity or non-stability of a normative piano. This foreignnessmight be enhancedby the

ambiguity that is created through strategies of preparation: throughout the three pieces the

preparation isalwaysapartialor fragmentary,meaningthatspecific registersarepreparedand

othersareleftunprepared.Theidentityofthepianosoundisthereforenot‘completely’concealed,

asinCage’ssonatasandinterludes,forexample.Onecansaythathere,theidentityofthesound

ofthispianosoundismoreambiguousthroughthemixingofrecognisableandnon-recognisable,

well-temperedandnon-temperedsounds.Thereisalsothistendencyfortheambiguousincreating

thepreparationsthemselves:manyofthepreparationsproduceaneffectonlyontwoofthethree

strings21, leaving one string unprepared sounding along with the prepared ones as a way of

producingacomplexandrichtimbrecomposedoftemperedandnon-temperedsounds.Regarding

preparation, there is thenaclear tendency forusing thisambiguityofsounds throughdifferent

strategies.

ItisthensignificanttoobservethatintheinstrumentaldescriptionTTLGusesthedesignationof

preparedpiano,IPDthedesignationofsemi-preparedpianoandLTOexclusivelyindicatestheuse

ofpiano.Ontheonehand,thisisasignofthedecreasingpreponderanceoftheinstrumentalbody

asadisruptioninducerineachpiece(aswe’veseenabove).Ontheother,andconnectedtothe

previousidea,ithastodowiththetypeofpreparationsusedineachofthepieces:TTLGusesa

fixedpreparation,basedonscrews,rivets,littlewoodenclamps,andbluetack,placedbeforethe

performanceandremaining ‘untouched’until theend; IPDusesamobilepreparation,basedon

magnetswithdifferentsizesandshapesandpapersheetsthatareplaced,displacedandreplaced

in different ways before and during the performance. LTO, in turn, does not use any inside

preparationsof thepiano.However, themetal plates installationused as resonant and friction

spacesofthepiano(aswewillseefurtheron)canbeeventuallyregardedasaremotepreparation,

orapreparationfromadistance.

instabilityandnon-integrity.WhatthegraftedorganputsinevidenceforNancyisthattheintruderisfinallyintheself:Inmethereistheintrus,andIbecomeforeigntomyself(Nancy2002,9).21Inthemiddleandhighregisterofthepiano,eachkeypercutesthreecorrespondentand‘unison’strings(thetimbreofeachnoteiscomposedbythethreestringsvibratingtogether).Ifonlytwoofthesethreestringsareprepared,thismeansthatonestringisleftopentovibrateinitsentirelength,etc.Thisstring(ifthepianoistunedas‘usual’)isthenatemperedsoundthatwillresonatetogetherwiththenon-temperedsoundsproducedbythepreparedstrings.

120

fig.6

Propsandsmallinstruments(TTLG,IPD,LTO)

Props and small instruments canbealso approachedas intruders 22; notobjects that are really

externaltothepiano,butoutsider(s)belongingtotherealmofthispianobody.Theuseofthese

elements also decreases throughout the unfolding of the trilogy. The list of props in TTLG is

overwhelminglylonganddiverse,inIPDitisstillquitelargebutsmallerthaninTTLG,andinLTO

therearenopropsorinstrumentsinsidethepianoatall. InClusterIII.astrategyoflistingsmall

instrumentsandpropsreferringtotheirplacinginside/outsidethepianowillbeadoptedsothat

theplacingcanalreadyhintatinteractionsthatwilltakeplacebetweenmusicbodies(instrumental,

music-making/performing,listeningbodies).

Electronics

Electronics areused in the threepieces through fourdifferentmeans: amplification, live sound

processingofthepiano,triggeringofaudiocompositionsmadeinthestudio,andinteractionswith

electronicsoundgadgets.Theyareallmanipulatedbymeintheperformancesituation(exceptfor

amplificationandafewaudiofilesthataretriggeredbythesoundtechnician).

Myrelationshipwithelectronicsisambiguousandparadoxical.Ontheonehand,Iaminterestedin

thepossibilitiesthatitopensup,andontheother,adigitalrelationshipwithsoundissomethingI

offergreatresistanceto,something Ihavetostrugglewith.Afterdifferentattemptsatworking

withMax/MSP(Cycling’74),Iunderstoodthatitdidnotfitmywayofthinkingandapproaching

22Seenote20.

121

music:itdidnotsuitmysoundandperformancepurposesofcreatingamoredirect,materialand

sensorialrelationtosound.Forthisreason,andalsoforthedirectnessoftheaestheticoftherock

andsonicexperimentalsoundapproaches,Istartedexploringthepossibilityofelectronicdevices

suchaseffectpedals(fore-guitarandbass)onthepiano.Istartedtheseexperimentationswith

Powertrioin2007/08,andlaterIproceededwithamoreexhaustiveapproachforTTLGin2009/10.

Backthenthiswassomethingrarelyseenorheardandhadaparticularsubversiveness,makingthe

sacredauraofthepianosoundtremble.EduardoRaon,theharpistinPowertrio,wasalreadyusing

thiskindofdevicesintheharpandhe,alongwithÂngeloLourenço(Powertrio’sandTTLG’ssound

technician),helpedmemakedecisionssuchasthechoiceofpedalsandequipment.Withthetwo

ofthemIalsobegantolearnhowtodealwiththepracticalissuesraisedbythese‘new’musical

tools.

As to studioassemblagesor compositions, theyplayvery importantanddiverse roles (someof

themmentionedinthepreviouschaptersandothersmentionedfurtheron)andareusuallydone

inthelastphaseofthecompositionprocessofthesolos.Mostofthemarearesultofexhaustive

soundexperimentationandresearchwithdifferentmaterials,resistances,resonances,etc.,which

are recordedandgathered indifferent soundcollections (a collectionof related soundevents).

These sound collections brought together will then constitute the sound corpus of these

compositionsorassemblages.

Inthisprocesseachchosen/performedsoundissubmittedtomultiplerecordings,somethingthat

impliesseveralvariations in instrument/objectmanipulationsordifferentrecordingapproaches.

Theyarethencollectedandcataloguedasconcretesoundmaterial tobeused intheupcoming

composition process. The aesthetics of these audio compositions patently aims for a plastic

characterofsound:itdoesnotaimforarawnorforarealsoundideal,althoughitworkswiththe

realandtheraw. Itusuallyrequiresacreativeworkofshapingandproductionontherecorded

sounds.Thecompositionprocessisatime-consuminganddetail-orientedprocessofeditingand

assemblingtheseelementsthroughanaudioeditingsoftware(LogicProorProTools).Whenthe

process of assemblage/composition is over, Eduardo Raon’s mixing process begins, something

whichwillrequirearigorousandintenseback-and-forthexchangeofideas.Itisimportanttorefer

thataudiocompositionsofasamesolooftensharetracesofsoundeventsamongthem.Itisalso

significanttomentionthepresenceofarecordedvoiceasacorpusthatwillbetransversaltoall

piecesofthetrilogy.Also,therewillbetwospecificsituationsinTTLGandIPDwherethetriggered

audiofilesare,contrarilytowhathasbeenreferred,roughandunproducedfieldrecordings.

Lastbutnotleast,theseaudiocompositionsareconceivedfordifferentkindsofinteractions:either

playedtogetherwiththepianoorinstrumentsonstage,playedalone,orboth.Andheretheycan

haveotherfunctionsbesidesthemusical,suchasintroducingthepiecesandhelpingmakechanges

in the instrumental set or apparatus (moving props, changing electronics parameters, moving

performanceplacingorposition,etc.),withoutmakingtheseactionsevidenttotheaudience.

122

Regardingelectronicsprocedures,thethirdpossibilityusedbesidessoundprocessingandtheusing

ofaudiocompositionsistheinteractionwithspecificsmallelectronicsounddevices,suchase-bows

ornoiseboxes.

SoundInstallations

The ideaof installationbrought to the stage is, again, transversal to all the threepiecesof the

trilogy. Installations are what puts in crisis notions of inside and outside of the instrumental

apparatusthemost,theyarewhatestablishestheoutsideasaninsideofthepiano.Eachofthe

three installations establishes different engagements, connections and disconnections,

performance interactions, etc., to all othermusicbodies.Moving against thedecreasinguseof

electronicspedalsandgadgetsandthedecreasinguseofprops,theinstallations’magnitudeand

sophisticationincreasethroughoutthethreesolos.

VIRTUOSITY

Astepfurthertowardsanothernotionofvirtuosity:virtuosity(throughtheconceptsofautoimmunityandtransduction)

1. Bringingthenarrativesofautoimmunityandimmunitytotheconceptofvirtuosity

Withtime,Ihavebeenacknowledgingmybodyashavingahighpotentialfordisruption:asBarthes’

beatingbody, it is abody thatdoesnot stay inplace, unsteady, unquiet, constantlydefying its

physical stability or integrity through disruptive events. A disruptive body does not let you go

quietly and passively through life; rather, it demands a continuous active engagement and

alertness.Livingasadisruptivebodyleavesyoufewoptions:youcanquitandletyourselffallapart

through life, overwhelmed by this otherness, feeling victimised; you can fight against it, doing

whateveryoucantobringittogetherasawhole,integerandstablebody,butstillgettingfrustrated

everytimeitdoesnotcorrespondtoyournormalisedexpectations;oryoucantakeamorecreative

anddemandingroute:youdeconstructyourselfthroughdisruption, listeningand,paradoxically,

withinthesamemotion,youpullyourbodytogetherasanothermeaningfulbody,eachtime,again

andagain.Thatis:youacknowledgeyourselffromthestartasaconstantbutunpredictableprocess

ofmaking-body.

Thatvirtuosityisapproachedthroughthisparadoxisthenaformulationthatresonateswithmy

experienceandreflectionasadisruptivebody, living,creating,performing,researchingand,my

123

ultimateexperienceofthisparadox:theexperienceofachronicautoimmunedisease23.Bringing

autoimmunitytoourcontextwillnotimplybringinganotherthemeintoourdiscussion,butbringing

ourdiscussionandsubjectofdisruptivebodytoitsultimateconsequences:wewilltrytoformulate

andunderstandhowthe relationbetween theorganised realmand thedisruptive realmof the

bodycanberegarded,inaway,asaprocessofautoimmunityandhowautoimmunityitself,asa

realmandaconcept,canhelpus findingother interestingconceptionsandrelationsas tools to

thinkaconceptofvirtuosityfurther.Thatvirtuosityisthoughtthroughthisperspectiveofillnessis

notjustamadormorbiddecision,butadecisionwhichdoesnotputthevulnerabilityofthebody

andmusicaside,orasabypassoftheconcept,butwhichputsvulnerabilityattheheartofanidea

of music as body expression instead. We will then also understand how the conceptions of

autoimmunityasungraspableillnessmightopennotjustforthenegativeandterrifying,butalso

forthinkingtherelationsbetweenorganisedandunorganisedlevels,whichmightbeatstakein

everyrealmandsituation.

Autoimmunity–Deconstructingthefictionsofillnessandaterriblefuturetocome(Andrews2011)

is a veryatypical thesisbyAlice S.Andrews that I foundextremely fruitful and relevant formy

researchandwhichconstitutesaverydaring,creative,challengingandmultidisciplinaryexercise

aroundtheconceptandexperienceofautoimmunity.Fromtheperspectiveofhersickbed,Andrews

bringstotheultimateconsequencesathoroughandobstinatereflectiononthismultidimensional

subject.Theproblematictheauthorbringstotheforegroundcanbeformulatedasfollows:howto

dealwithandseekcomfortfromthepainandtraumaticexperienceofanautoimmunedisease?

Andhowtodoitinawaywhichisnotthatofa‘dishonestfiction’,afictionthaterasesothernessin

aselfbyerasingthecomplexityoftheproblematicofautoimmunityitself?

2. ‘Classic’paradigmsofautoimmunityandimmunity

Autoimmunityis(..)generallydescribedasanillnessthataffectsthe‘self,’theselfasan‘autos’thatisatonce

biological, psychological, political and philosophical. (…) Autoimmune disease refers to a seemingly ‘self-

inflicted’physiologicalillnesswhereabody’simmunedefences–thatsupposedlyprotectanorganismfrom

harm– turnsonandagainst itsownconstitutiveelements toparadoxically,andsuicidallydestroy its self

throughtheveryactofdefendingitsself(Andrews2011,6).

Inacomplexanalysisofbiological,philosophical,psychological,systemtheory,sciencefictionand

bio-political contexts, Andrews guides us through a thorough deconstruction of our Western

modern narratives of autoimmunity. Deriving from multiple contexts, these main modern

narrativesarepresentedasbasedontwospecificassumptionsorontologies:one,thestabilityand

23TriggeredforthefirsttimebeforethecreativeprocessofListening|theopen.

124

wholenessoftheselfasasovereignSelf(inthesamelogicpresentedinourcontextasthelogicof

erasingtheotherortheothernessoftheself);andtwo,animmunityparadigmbasedinalogicof

warandofattack-defence,whereimmunityrepresentsself-defencefromtheattackoftheother.

immunity offers a peculiar hybrid of military, political, and biological thinking that ‘naturally’

negates thedistinctionsbetween these realms.Renderingbiological immunity as anorganism’s

active process of defense, scientific medicine deftly fuses bellicose ideology (which sees

environmental challenge as a hostile attack) with a political notion of legal exemption (which

neverthelessaffirmsthelaw’suniversalapplicability)(CoheninAndrews2011,8).

Autoimmunityisthen,throughtheseassumptions,approachedinthislogicofcombatandattack:

through amechanism that remains unknown, the immune system (which is supposed to fight

diseaseasaforeignelement),identifiesconstitutiveelementsofabodyasintrudersandtriggersa

defence response against them. The activateddefencemechanism towards itself represents an

attackonitselfandthereforeadisruptionofaonceassumedwholenessandstability.

Fromourpreviousanalysisofvirtuosityideals,weconcludedthatallofthemwerebasedinthis

logicofdualityandcombatwheretheselfisalwaysinoppositiontootherness.Wecanundoubtedly

traceaparalleltothismainnarrativeofimmunity,whereimmunitymarkstheexclusionoftheself

fromtheother,theseparationofthecitizenfromtheobligationsofsociety,theconservationofthe

safeandsound(Andrews2011,31).Wecanprobablyclaimthateachvirtuosityidealconstructsa

certainimmunisationparadigm.

3. Virtuosityidealsas‘classical’immunisationparadigmsFollowingtheconclusionsofchapterII(Dissectionsof)inClusterI.–whoseaimwastofindouthow

virtuosityindifferenttimesandstyleapproachesdealtwiththedisruptiverealmofthebody–we

willperformashortexercisetofindouthowthesevariouswaysofdealingwiththedisruptivebody

(pointedinchapterII)canberegardedasdifferentimmunisationparadigms.Thisexercisewillthen

seektoidentifywhatwasconsideredotherness,andwastherefore‘attacked’,domesticatedand

erasedfromwhatwasacknowledgedasanidealexpressivityofthemusic-makingbody(evenwhen

theidealisofnon-expressivity).

WecouldarguethattheorganisedbodyoftheRomantic,identifyingtheunorganisedlevelofthe

bodyasanintrudertotheself,developsanimmunitydefenceagainstit,‘attacking’andsuppressing

it through discipline. In turn, this Romantic organisation of the body is compatible with the

acknowledgementofsubjectivityasexpressivityofthebodies:organisationfeedssubjectivityand

actsasa resonator for it. In thestructuralistand ‘werktreue’paradigms, thebodycontinues to

developimmunedefencesagainsttheunorganisedlevelofthebody(whichisagainregardedas

theintruderorthestranger),buthereitdevelopsafurtherreactivitytosubjectivity:itimmunises

itselfagainstit,developingandcreatinganotherdefencestrategy–anidealofobjectivity.

125

Thecomplexityandnewcomplexityparadigmsdisruptthelogicofacompleteimmunisationagainst

theothernessortheunorganisedbody.ButthelogicofdichotomyofSelfandothernessandthe

strategyofattackorcombatremains:theinjectionoftheovercomplexscore(overcomplexsemiotic

input)fromtheoutside24functionsasaninjectionofanexcessiveamountofareactiveelementin

theorganisedbody–asattack.Itpursues(fromtheperspectiveofthecomposer,withtheconsent

oftheperformer)thenon-defensibilityoftheoncesecureandintegerself,sinceitisconceivedas

anattackfromwhichtheperformercannotbefullydefended,fromwhichtheperformercannot

leave as a whole, stable self. Through this excessive attack, otherness will be then inevitably

exposed,andrevealedinalogicwhereasubjectcanbeobjectified.

On the other extreme, we have John Cage’s indeterminacy, and many North American

experimentalapproacheswhichacknowledgeanaestheticofrefusalofvirtuosity.Thisrefusal is

then an immunisationagainst the self or the organised body, against intentionality, subjective

expressionandcontrol.Inthisaesthetictheself/othernessdualityisinverted,anditistheselfwho

is taken as an intruder and ‘attacked’, suppressed: every attempt at self-expression should be

erased.

Theseimmunisationparadigmsseemthentofitintoalogicofdualityself/other,attack/defence,

control/outofcontrolandintoalogicofthemainstreamnarrativesofautoimmunitywhereself

andothernesstendtoexcludethemselvesmutually.

4. DeconstructingautoimmunenarrativesI–Networktheory

However,AndrewsshowsusthatthenarrativesbasedonawholenessoftheSelf,ondualityand

onalinearlogicofattackanddefencefromtheselftowardstheotherarebeingdeconstructedand

madeobsoletethroughvarioustheoriesfromdiverserealms.Inthisperspective,Andrewsbrings

upNielsJerne’snetworktheory(1974),atheorythatputsthevulnerabilityoftheselfatitscore:

For Jerne the immune system responds not to an invading ‘other’ but to an indefinite series of internal

differences,sothata‘self’doesnotpassivelyawaitatransgressionofitsboundaries,butisalwaysalready

actively responding to ‘its own’ network connections which now incorporate the ‘other’ within its ‘self’

(Andrews2011,11).

ForNielsJerne,theimmunesystemisthen,fromtheverybeginning,self-reacting,incorporating

theotherwithin its selfand reacting to this selfasan incorporationof theother. In this sense,

immunity is also autoimmunity: there is no real strict distinction or border between these

processes.InJerne’stheorythereseemstobe noforeignnessassuch,forifasubstanceweretrulyforeignitwouldnotberecognizedatallbytheimmunesystem(idem,70).Thatimmunitycanalso,

inaway,beregardedasautoimmunityasaresultofasystemwhichrespondsnottoaninvading

‘other’buttoanindefiniteseriesofinternaldifferencescreatesanecessaryshiftofperspectivefrom24SeeChapterDissectingthebodyinComplexityandNewcomplexitymusicapproachesand(Craenen2014,130).

126

asimplisticnarrativeofastableselfagainsttheothertowardsaconceptionofanunstableselfand

aprocesswhereitseemsdifficulttodisentangleandmakeclearwhatisselfandother:thesystem

reactstoitsownincorporationoftheother.Orperhaps,inotherwords,thereactionofasystem

canhavemoretodowiththewayitsinternaldifferencesdealwiththeotherthanwiththeother

itself.Acertainautoimmunityseemstobepresentinimmunityandacertainothernessseemsto

bealreadypresentintheself.

5. DeconstructingautoimmunenarrativesII–Derrida’sconceptofautoimmunityAndrews’ deconstruction of narratives is heterogeneous and complex, but it seems to have an

elementwhoseinstabilityappearstogainmorestabilitythanothernarratives,namelyitsstrong

relationtoDerrida’s‘formulations’ofautoimmunityandhisconceptofdeconstruction.Derrida’s

formulationofautoimmunityisthenoverwhelmingindifferentsenses:forhimtheselfdoesnot

exactlyattack‘itself’,inaninternalprocessofclosingitselfuponitself,butratherdestroysits‘own’

defences,andthereforeopensitselftotheother:

ForDerrida,autoimmunityis“thatstrangebehaviourwherealivingbeing,inaquasi-suicidalfashion,‘itself’

works to destroy its own protection, to immunize itself against its ‘own’ immunity” (2003, 94 emph.

Derrida's).Inthisdefinitionanautoimmuneactdoesnotclosetheimmunebodywithinaprocessofexcessive

defense,ratheritdestroysalivingbeing’sabilitytoprotectitselfandopensittoinfectionandcontamination

(Andrews2011,14).

Autoimmunity is then regarded in a logic of immunity to immunity, a double immunity that

neutralises itself, exposing the self as open and vulnerable. As in network theory, Derrida’s

conceptionofautoimmunityincorporatestheotherintheselfandestablishesthisincorporationas

bothavulnerabilityandanecessityforsurvivalandmaintenanceoflife:theselfbothneedsandis

threatenedbytheother.Autoimmunityis,inthisperspective,notaclosingprocess,butonewhich

radicallyopens:forbetterorforworse.Derrida’snarrativeofautoimmunity isthen,aboveall,a

narrativeofrisk.Inthisperspective,AndrewsbringsupElizabethRottenberg’swords(2006)stating

that autoimmunity becomes for deconstruction “a protection of another order [...a] super-

protection–aprotectionbeyondself-protection”,concludingthatwhatautoimmunityprotectsis

risk,inordertoconserve,maintainandsustainthe‘promise’ofthefuture,forbetterorworse(idem,

85).

ForDerrida,thedisruptive,excessiveimmunityoftheautoimmunityeventnecessarilybringsalong

a trauma and a terror that are not related to a present or to an anticipated future, but to an

undecidabilityofwhathecallsafuturetocome.Andthisisbecauseautoimmunityissaidtobring

withinitthepotentialorthepromiseof‘theworst’,aworstthatstaysbeyondthethinkable,beyond

127

allknowledge:

Thefuture“tocome”isthereforenot, accordingtoDerrida,thefutureanterior,afuture(futur)thatcanbeanticipatedandnamedandimmunizedagainstinadvance,itisafuturetocome(àvenir)

thatdisruptsandpresentsitselfasathreattotheboundariesofeachandeveryone:

‘Thefuture[àvenir]canonlybeanticipatedintheformofanabsolutedanger.Itisthatwhichbreaks

absolutely with constituted normality and can only be proclaimed, presented, as a sort of

monstrosity.Forthatfutureworld[...]forthatwhichguidesourfutureanterior,thereisasyetno

exergue’(1976,5emph.Derrida's)(idem,35).

Thistraumaandfearofafuturetocomebringalonganextremeriskofparalysis,theriskofatotal,

andabsoluteeradication.Thistraumaandfearneeds,therefore,aresponsefromthesystembut

brings with itself the paradox of an undecidable decision – it necessitates ‘the event of the

interruptivedecision’(DerridainAndrews2011,14).Itisanundecidabledecisionbecause,affected

bytheother,itremainsunknown,unpredictableforbetterorforworst:italwaysrisksonbothsides,

deathandlifeonbothsides,cureandvulnerabilityonbothsides.Terrorisinevitablyubiquitous:

bothintheinsecurityandtheassumedsecurityoftheautos:anautoimmuneclosurenamesaterror

oftotalisingself-destructiveparalysis,andanautoimmuneopeningthatadmitstheotherthat is

apprehendedtothreatenworse(Andrews2011,30).Itisaparadoxwhereitisimpossibletomakea

decisionthatisnotitselfanotherparadox.

The autoimmunity event implies, therefore, a necessity to negotiate, as Andrews says: I must

negotiatewiththesituationwhereanilliswithin‘me,’thisisnonnegotiable(idem,20).

ButDerridawarns: the absolute sovereigndecision that iswilling to ignore theparadoxof this

undecidabilityandtheinsecurityofthetermscanbeconsideredadishonestfictionthatcarriesin

itselfanon-responsibilityandpossiblythegreatestviolence. Ignoring,suppressingorrepressing

theotherdoesnoterasetheparadox,doesnottaketheriskaway,alreadyconstitutingadecision

withconsequences,asitwere.Response,asresponsibility,canonlymeanforDerridathenecessity

ofpassivelyreceivingthetraceoftheotherinthe‘unity’oftheself,thatis,beingopentosuffering

theeffectsoftheother(idem,122),somethingwhichmightbeimpossibleinanabsolutelyimmune,

absolutelyorganisedandabsolutelysovereignSelf.

ForDerridaitisthennotamatterofrejectingsovereignty,becausedecisionsneverthelessneedto

be made, but it is about exposing absolute sovereignty as a ‘dishonest fiction’ (for loosing

connection with the alterity of the paradox and for erasing the other, not acknowledging this

erasingasadecision).Butagain,rejectingabsolutesovereigntydoesnotmeanforDerridarejecting

anykindofsovereignty:

128

ThisiswhyacertainsovereigntyisirreducibleforDerrida:asovereignty(whichisnotanabsoluteindivisible

sovereignty)presentsitselfasthegreatestofforcesamongstotherforces.Tochallengethissovereigntyone

must harness a force that exceeds and combats an other: “The choice is not between sovereignty and

nonsovereigntybutamongseveralformsofpartings,partitions,divisions”(Derrida2009,76).Thecomingof

anaffirmationthatisneversecure,producesdivisionsasmuchasitdisturbsthem,andthedecisionbetween

themisalwaysundecidable–forbetterorworse(idem,214).

6. Notignoringtheundecidabilityoftheparadoxaslistening

Wehavemadeanapologyof thedisruptive throughoutthisdissertation, for it is thisdisruptive

realmthathasbeenconstantlyerased,asotherness,suppressedfromourmusicalnarratives,from

ourmusicbodies,performancesandbehaviours.Wehave thereforebeen focusingon trying to

capture this disruptive experience. But the question of how this disruptiveness relates the

organisedself,ofhowthebodycreatesamusicaldecision,ofhowitcanpulltogetherinanon-

absolute-sovereignway, inaway thatdoesnotpreliminarilyerase theother fromparadox,has

remained only superficially explored. Because it is clear that disruption cannot, by anymeans,

createanythingonitsown:disruptionbyitselfcanonly‘create’entropy.Anditmightalsobeclear

thattakingtheundecidabilityoftheautoimmuneeventanditsinherentstruggleforsovereigntyas

adrivetopower,whichtransfers,translates,displacesanddividesthesovereignforce,asacrucial

featureforthinkingvirtuosity,mightbringusbacktothefactthatonecanneverknowwhatabody

candoandtotheacknowledgmentthatthemovementofpullingtogethermightbethenmore

than an absolute sovereign gesture, as a reproduction of a stereotyped gesture based on an

assumed social, temporal and aesthetic morality imposed on the body (a gesture which loses

connectiontoparadox).Inthissense,theremightbedifferentconceptionsonwhatthemovement

ofpullingtogethercanbe:andinourcase,itwouldthenmeangoingbeyondtheirreversibilityof

the absolute sovereign gesture and beyondmimesis based onmoral or social imposition, and

shapinganother idea ofpulling together, one that can create an array ofmultiple and diverse

possibilitiesofmaking-body.

Notignoringtheparadoxandacknowledgingtheterrorinherenttoundecidabilitymightbethen

nomorethanwhatwehavebeentryingtoformulateaslistening.

But how does the body relate to the kinetic potential of the disruptive autoimmune and

undecidablemomentoflistening?Howdoesitcreateoutofthisliminalityandinsecurityofminimal

oscillation? How does it keep the ‘connection’ to the paradox? But, because the disruptive

undecidablemomentrequiresneverthelessadecisionandexpressionthatareinevitablyrisking,

howdoesthebodydecide?

129

(and,again,itwillneverbepossibletoanswertheundecidableparadoxbutitmightbepossibleto

gofurtherthroughtheparadox).

7. undecidabilityasa‘quantummode’thatcantakevariousforms/modes/levels

Inordertogofurther,itmightbemeaningfultobringupMassumi’sformulationofautonomyof

affectoncemore.Massumi relates Derrida’s deconstructivemoment of undecidabilitywith his

statement that each individual or collective human level can be regarded as having a peculiar

‘quantummode’(Massumi2002,37).Again,thishastodowithoursubjectofthedisruptivelevel

of the body that has been brought through different but, for our context, complementary

perspectives: resonanceas self-reflectionbyNancy, leading toan ideaof autophony in Szendy,

Paxton’ssmalldance,Craenen’sbodyaszeropoint,andMassumi’s‘quantummode’andouridea

inprocessofabody listeningorabodyaslistening.Massumi,warningthatusingtheconceptof

quantumoutsidethecontextofquantummechanicsshouldnotberegardedasametaphor,argues

thatthisquantumindeterminacycanbefoundinalllevelsofreality,takingdifferentandsingular

modesandformsofundecidabilityineachofthem.AccordingtoMassumithisispossibleexactly

becauseaffectisautonomousandcanfeedbackandforwardallrealms,levelsofreality,including

higherfunctionsinthebrain:thesemodesarefedbackandfedforwardintooneanother,echoes

ofeachotheroneandall(Massumi2002,37).

Bringingthisideaofautoimmunityandthedeconstructionofaselfasdivisionsinpartitionsand

forces together with Massumi’s idea of a ‘quantum mode’ which can take various singular

undecidablemodesorforms25atdifferentlevelsmightbringusalittlestepfurtherinimaginingor

conceivingpossibilitiesforothermusicbodiesandmusic.

Wecancometoanimageofmusicasabodyasitsoutsider(s)withacomplexarrayoflevels,drives,

semioticorganisationsthatthrough intensityareengagingwithoneanother,contaminatingone

another,spreading,feedingoneanother,subvertingoneanother,conflictingoneanother,fusing,

transformingoneanother,intensifyingordampeningoneanother,andendlessotherpossibilities…

25Itrisesthroughthefractalbifurcationsleadingtoandbetweeneachofthesuperposedlevelsofreality.Oneachlevel,itappearsinauniquemodetothatlevel.(…)Onthebiologicallevel,itisthemarginofundecidabilityaccompanyingeveryperception,whichisonewithaperception’stransmissibilityfromonesensetoanother.Onthehumanlevelitisthatsameundecidabilityfedforwardintothought,asevidencedinthedeconstructabilityofeverystructureofideas(asexpressed,forexample,inGödel’sincompletenesstheoremandDerrida’s‘différance’).(…)variousformsofundecidabilityinlogicalandsignifyingsystemsarejoinedbyemotiononthepsychologicallevel,resistanceonthepoliticallevel,thespecterofcrisishauntingcapitalisteconomies,andsoforth.Thesemodesarefedbackandfedforwardintooneanother,echoesofeachotheroneandall.(Massumi2002,37)

130

8. Reconstructivemovementinscribedrightatthedeconstructivemovement

Butagain,towardsourissueofpullingtogetherwecouldperhapsgoabitfurtherinbringingthe

ideaofSimondon’stransductiontogetherwithDerrida’sideathatthecomingofanaffirmationthat

is never secure produces divisions as much as it disturbs them. Bringing the concepts of

autoimmunityandtransductiontogethermighthelpuscontinuetofindoutwhatwewanttobring

upasacertainsovereigntyoracertainpullingtogetherinthecaseofthismusic.

Inheranalysisofnarratives,AndrewsmakesastrictconnectionbetweenDerrida’sdeconstructive

perspectiveonautoimmunityandthereconstructiveperspectiveofsystemtheories,namelyVarela

and Maturana’s conception of autopoiesis and autopoietic systems26 Without incurring on a

detailedanalysis,Iwouldlikeneverthelesstobringupanimportantelement:Andrewsarguesthat

ratherthancomplementingthemselves,reconstructivemovementofautopoieticsystemscanbe

saidtobealreadyinscribedinthedeconstructivemovementofDerrida’sautoimmunityandvice-

versa:

ButIwouldarguethatitispreciselypossibletoinscribethereconstructionofdeconstruction,orsystemstheory‘itself’

rightwithin thedeconstructivemovement.Thispossibilitycanbeseenmostclearlywhenweemploy the languageof

autoimmunity.Itisthis“reconstruction”thatcancomforttheinsecuritythatcanbecomeendemictodeconstructionas

wellas increasingly terrifying for the sick subjectwhosuffersbiologically,psychicallyandsuicidally throughacertain

‘autoimmunity(Andrews2011,127).

Theauthorarguesfurtherthatthisreconstructivecomfortisnotforeigntothedeconstructiveact,

itis,rather,inscribedrightwithinit(idem,128).

9. Transduction(reconstruction)vs.deconstruction–thebodysuspendedinvaccillation–fluctuatioanimi

ThebriefexerciseIwouldliketomakeisthentakingasareconstructiveprocess,nottheautopoietic

processesinparticular,butthealreadyapproachedconceptoftransduction.‘Transduction’refers

to a dynamic operation bywhich energy is actualised,moving fromone state to the next, in a

process that individuates new materialities (Assis, 2018, 138). As a process, its formulation is

focusedmoreonthemechanismofconstructionorreconstructionofnewindividuationsthanon

deconstruction,althoughthevery‘act’ofdeconstructionmightbeinscribedrightintheprocessof

construction:astructuralgermcarryingasingularityprovokesdisruption(asdeconstruction)on

themetastablesystem(withanactualandpotentiallevels)whichthenleadstotheactualisation

into a new individuation as a new metastable system (with actual and potential levels).

26Anautopoieticsystemisasystemthatcanbothmaintain,produceandcreativelyre-produceitself.Itisabletodosobecausesuchasystempermitsitselftobebothopenandclosedatthesametime–remainingoperationallyclosed,butstructurallyopentoitsenvironment,andthusre-presentingtheparadoxofalterity.(Andrews2011,103).

131

Actualisationisthereforeneverconfinedtothisreductionprocess,butalwaysbringingtothissame

event the creation of the new and the unexpected: a paradoxical relation between virtual and

actual, through the deconstructivemovement imposed by a singularity of a structural germ is

transducedoractualisedinanother,new,paradoxicalrelationbetweenactualandvirtual.27

Ontheotherhand, inDerrida’sdeconstructiveautoimmunity, thesystem, indestroying itsown

protection,toimmuniseitselfagainstits‘own’immunity,opensitselffortheotherandrisks.This

inherent terror and risk are then regarded as the only possibility which allows reconstruction.

Withoutanydegreeofdeconstructionorautoimmunityandits inherentrisk,whichpermitsthis

opening,reconstructionisrenderedimpossibleandtheparalysisandsuccumbingofthesystemin

questionistakenforgranted.

Transductioncouldbethenseenasareconstructionprocessthatisinherenttothedeconstruction

process of autoimmunity, and deconstruction can be regarded as the deconstructive process

inherenttothetransductionprocess.

Continuing to bring together the concepts of autoimmunity and transduction, we will try to

understand how transduction can relate to Derrida’s undecidability (an undecidability that,

according toMassumi, can take different forms at different levels) and proceed further in our

questioningofhowwecanproduceadecisionandabody-musicexpressionofanotherorderand

thinkvirtuositybeyondthedualparadigm.

Regarding transduction, Assis brings to the foreground the fact that living organisms as

individuationsarenotonlyaresultofactualisation(asasolutionorresolution)ofthetransductive

process,buttheyalsoevolvewithandwithinprocessesofdecision-making-processeswherebythe

resolution‘isnotasolution,butadecision’(StieglerinAssis2018,154).Decisionorpro-activeaction

takeninarealmofuncertainty,paradoxanddoubtisthensaidtounleashaspecialtypeofstructural

germ (Assis) that Simondon refers towith a term of Spinozean lineage, fluctuatio animi. “This

conditionofthemindarisingfromtwoconflictingemotions iscalled ‘vacillation,’ [Lat. fluctuatio

animi]which is therefore related toemotionasdoubt is related to imagination,and there isno

differencebetweenvacillationanddoubtexceptinrespectofintensity”(SpinozainAssis2018,154).

Fluctuatio animi as vacillation can then be regarded as being in resonance with Derrida’s

undecidability and our subject of quantummode and liminal self-perception. That this level of

undecidability,inherenttotheactofdecisionmaking,canberelatedtothissubjectofquantum

modeandliminal‘self-perception’,isthen,forMassumi,aconsequenceofautonomyasfeatureof

affect.Thisautonomy(ofaffect)isagaintheconditioninwhichhigherfunctionsaresaidtofeed

backandforth.

Simondonbringsupdecision-makingasavitalneedforsurvival,andasinDerrida,decisionmaking

isnotmerelyhappeningonabi-dimensionallevelbetweenelementsofasameinstance,buton

manyscalesandlevelssimultaneouslyandparadoxically.Thefluctuatioanimithatprecedesany

resoluteactionisnotahesitationbetweendifferentobjectsordifferentpaths,butratherbetween

27Ontransduction,seeClusterI.,ChapterIII.,4.

132

achangingcollectionof incompatible sets,nearly identicalbut stilldisparate.Beforeacting, the

subjectissuspendedbetweendiverseworlds,diverseorders;hisactionisadiscoveryofthemeaning

ofthisfundamentaldisparity,ofthereasonwhytheparticlesofeverysetjointogetherinaricher,

morefar-reachingset,gaininganewdimension(SimondoninAssis2018,154).

Thatthesubject(asmetastablesubject)issuspendedinvacillationbetweendiverseincompatible

divisionsishoweveremphasisedmainlyasapositiveandcreativeperspective,wheretheaction

thatwill follow this suspendedmodewill stay in connectionwith this fundamental disparity or

paradoxastoproduceafarricher,widerorencompassingnewdimension.Thispositiveperspective

doesnotbringtotheforegroundtheviolencethatmightbeinherenttothedisruptiveeventofa

structuralgermcarryingasingularity.Attheheartoftheconceptofmetastabilityliesnevertheless

acertainviolence,sincevulnerability,unquietnessanddisruptionare,inevitably,featuresofany

metastablesystem.Ontheotherhand,Derridafocusesonnegativity,terrorandtheoverwhelming

riskofundecidability,buthealsoemphasizesthatthisriskmustneverthelessberegardedasan

absolutelynecessaryconditionforrenderinglifepossible.

Intheend,whattheseprocessesalsotellusisthatattheheartofeachconceptofundecidability,

fluctuatioanimi,vacillation,quantummode,alevelofindeterminacyremains,alevelwhichisboth

interiorandexteriortothebody.Thissimultaneouslyparadoxicalandnon-paradoxicalcombination

ofperspectivescanberegardedashighlymeaningfulinourcontextofvirtuosity.28

Besides acknowledging thatbothprocesses couldbe regardedas inscribedwithin another, it is

important to bring to the foreground that both contribute to a perspective that puts this

undecidabilityattheheartofbodyexpressionandconceptofvirtuosity.Theybothopentoawider

rangeofpossibilitiesthatarenotconstrainedinthedualityofSelfandotherandforawiderange

ofpotentialities,divisions,forcesamongmanyforces,drives,realms….Whatisalsoimportantis

thattheyalsoforgealogicthatisclosertoconceivingdisruptionanditsinherentviolenceassystem

perturbationandasnon-intentionaleventinherenttothissystem,thantoalinearideaofdisruption

asattack,inalogicofwar,dualityandattackversusdefence,somethingthatmightbepresentin

eachvirtuosityidealwediscussedearlier,inchapterIIofClusterI.

28Insteadof‘transduction’,itmightbeinterestingtotakeasareconstructiveprocessSzendy’sideaof‘interpretation’basedonNietzsche’sideaof‘interpretation’andwilltopower.Derrida’sideaofautoimmunitythatwhatmightbeatstakeisnotamatterofoppositionofsovereigntyandnon-sovereigntybutthestruggleforsovereigntyasadrivetopower,whichtransfers,translates,displacesanddividesthesovereignforce28(Andrews2011,213)isinresonancewithbothreferredNietzscheanconcepts:Thewilltopowerinterprets(itisaquestionofinterpretationwhenanorganisconstructed):itdefineslimits,determinesdegrees,variationsofpower…infactinterpretationisitselfameansofbecomingamasterofsomething.(Theorganicprocessconstantlypresupposesinterpretation)(NietzscheinSzendy2016,169).

133

fig.7

10. Towardsanautoimmunenotionofvirtuosity:virtuosity

Allthesefeaturesarehighlyimportantforournotionofvirtuosityanditsideathatthebodydoes

notneedCraenen’smentionedinjectionfromtheoutside29inordertobe,itself,theinjectionfrom

outside.Inthisnewnotionofvirtuosity,weshouldthereforestatethat:1)thebodyisnotaninteger

stableentitythatmightbetransformedintoanon-integerandunstableentitythroughanattack:

asametastablesystemitself,thebodyisacontinuousproducerofintermittentperturbations,itis

already, from the beginning, unstable and non-integer. For this reason, it does not need to be

‘attacked’fromanoutsideinordertomakeitsdisruptivelevelandnon-linearity‘resound’because

‘this outside’ is already intrinsic to it. Being an outsider(s), it can then seek for other kinds of

engagements and ‘communication’withotheroutsider(s)2)differentconceptsofvirtuosityare

mechanismsproducingdifferenttypesimmunisationsanddisparatekindsofbodyviolence;3)the

violencethatwearewillingtoexplorehastodowiththeterrorofthislevelofundecidability:itis

an intangible violencewhich has no name, no face and no contours and which is beyond the

simplistic concept of violence as attack/defence and closer to an idea of system perturbation.

Nevertheless,itisaviolencethatcanbeextremeandthatcannotbeerasedfromtheinevitable

paradox of what is a body listening; 4) this violence, as inherent risk, is what makes possible

conceivingthemusicbodiesintheirrelationtowardsthemselvesandasopeningsfornewmusical

expressions;

Butbringing this inherent violenceasundecidability toournotionof virtuosity is itself another

insurmountable paradox. It brings to the foreground the overall impossibility of choosing non-

violence: the overall impossibility of finding a non-violent ideal of virtuosity and the overall

impossibility of refusing virtuosity as a non-violent decision. Virtuosity becomes its own

impossibility,itsownimplosion,anautoimmuneconceptitself:virtuosity.

29(Craenen2014,130)again:seeChapterII.3

134

Listeningasnotignoringtheparadoxandacknowledgingtheterrorinherenttoundecidability,‘is’

theopen.Butbetweenlisteningandtheopentherestillisanunbridgeablegap.

Listening|theopen

Virtuosityaslistening|theopenisvacillation,oscillation,deathandlife.

Thisvacillation,asresonantparadoxicalself-reflection,isthenanunbridgeablegapresoundingthe

impossibilityofacknowledgingwhatabodycando.

virtuosityisthenengagingwith

asunbridgeablegap

or

virtuosityisthenanunbridgeablegap

resounding

11. AutoimmuneCoda

The‘palpable’effectsofautoimmunityrefermeagainandagaintotheeffectsofthisuncertainty,

confirmingthatthemoreIlearn,thelessIknow–butconfirmingtoothatthelessIknowthemore

Iamopentothepossibilityofrespondingdifferentlytothearchivesofillness(Andrews2011,87).

Theseautoimmunitynarrativesbringvulnerabilitytotheheartofourquestionofvirtuosityinaway

that there is no real dichotomy between illness and stability but a gradual process where

vulnerability as imponderable oscillation belongs to the bodies. And in order to embrace this

perspectivebothforthebodyandforthemusic,amostcreativeandmulti-dimensionalperspective

isneeded.Anewideaofvirtuositygroundedonthisvulnerabilityascreativepotentialmightbean

ideatoretain.Thesedifferentnarrativescouldthenhelpusfinddifferentwaystothink,create,

dealanddecidethroughdifferentsituations.Thereseemstobenowayforfindingonealternative,

onetheorythatcanenlightenourwaywithananswer.AndthisisalsowhyI’vechosentomakean

approach through different authors to similar or touching subjects. The unbridgeable gap in

betweenthemwillthen,attheend,possiblyresonatelouder.

135

Thatvirtuositycanonlybethoughtthroughthisparadoxandfromthisundecidableandvacillation

perspectivecouldbehighlightedthroughAndrewsagain:nearlyattheendofherdeconstruction

process of narratives around autoimmunity, Andrews who, among these narratives chose to

analyseGeoffRyman’sutopianordystopianbookTheChildGarden,bringsupthelastwordsofthe

maincharacter,Milena,asanoverwhelmingoutcome:

Ifwemakeanewframework,weimprisonourchildreninit.Wehavealwaysfoughttoescapethe

Consensusandhavealwaysdoneitswill.Wefightandobeywithonemotion(RymaninAndrews

2011,217).

Andthismightbeacrucialidea:

Virtuosity as motion in opposite directions simultaneously: obeying and destroying Romantic

subjectivity,obeyinganddestroyingcomplexityperspectives,obeyinganddestroyingobjectivity,

etc,etc…fallingapartandpullingtogetherinmanyways,deconstructingandtransducing:listening,

opening.Butalwayskeepingconnectiontothebodyasaterrifyingresoundingparadox:thatwhich

permitsthetransductionofnewpossibilitiesofwhatabodycando:

Youdeconstructyourselfthroughdisruption,listeningandparadoxicallywithinthesamemotion

youpullyourbodytogetherasanothermeaningfulbody(awayfromnormalizedstereotypes),each

timeagain,or:youassumeyourselffromthestartasaconstantbutnon-linearandunpredictable

processofmaking-body.

136

fig.8

CLUSTERIII

137

fig.9

throughthislookingglass

138

throughthislookingglass(preparedpiano,toypiano,electronics,mobile&props)

I.13.mini(cre)aturesforrobertschumann

(ENG)

1. …drinkme.

2. it’sthesoundofthembeatinglikestars

onthedoors

3. delightandterror

4. glocken…spiel

5. yourmajesty,thequeenOFF(yourhead)

6. astopoetry,youknow…

7. …andlisteningonlytotherisingsounds

8. andilisten:

neartothewildheart

9. itmeansjustwhatichooseittomean–neithermorenorless.

10. eatme?

11. …terrorisdelight12. kindL.imeinschlummern(childL.fallingasleep)

13. however,saysapoet

II.freedommeanslittle.whatIdesirestillhasnoname(ENG)

1. turnoutyourtoesasyouwalk–andrememberwhoyouare!

2. whichdreamedit?

3. lookingglasscreatures

4. andilisten:itsthesoundofthem

5. ibringapowderthatcouldgildeternityitself

6. neartothewildheart

139

BODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDERSAttachments

TTLG(folder),containing:

1)thefilmthroughthislookingglass(2010);

2)thebookletoftheDVD/CDthroughthislookingglass(releasedbyBlinker,MarkefürRezentes,

2010);

fig.10

I. Workasengagementwithotherworks/ideas:outliningaconstellationofaffects

1. EngagementwithSchumann’sKinderszenenop.15,Carroll’sAliceimagery,Lispector’sNeartothewildheart,etc…

Wehavealreadycalledtherelationbetween13mini(cre)aturesforRobertSchumann(thefirstpart

ofTTLG)andSchumann’sKinderszenenop.15intothiscontext,numeroustimes.But,infact,thisis

onlyoneofmultipleengagementsthatspreadthroughouttheprocess:theengagementbetween

13 mini(cre)atures and Kinderszenen is not just explored in itself, but in relation with diverse

imageries.Theobviousone,whichgivesthetitletothis‘solo’, isCarroll’s imageryofAlice(both

Through the looking-glass and Alice in Wonderland). Carroll’s imagery was, at first, just one

engagement amongmanyothers,brought to thework space.But through theunfoldingof the

processofcomposition,itseemedthatitsimportancesuddenlyinflated,spacingandembracingall

otherreferenceswithit:itwassomehowasifthemagicpotion–evokedbythetitleofthefirst

piece,drinkme–reallyhadaneffectivepower,inflatingtheintensityofthisimageryonthemusic.

Brought together with Kinderszenen, both these imageries (Schumann’s and Carroll’s) had

particular common features and spaces of reflection that I wanted to explore. But it is also

importanttoemphasize,again,thattheseengagementswereaffectiverelationsthatcouldnotbe

explainedrationallyatthetime.Acausalrelationwasnotestablishedfromthebeginning,although

theseaffectiveandunconsciousrelationswerecrucialintheshapingprocessoftheconcretepiece.

Through ‘being in the creative process’ and also through the distance towards this process,

concrete rational relations began to be established, relations that would then open for new

concretespacesofreflection.

140

Thefirsttomentionistherelationbetweenadulthoodandchildhood,asbothacriticandacreative

space.Bothimageries(KinderszenenandAlice)explorethisspaceasacomplexarrayofrelations,

sensationsandtypesoflogic.Andthisspaceofrelationsisnotthatofpuredetachment,thatof

establishingastrictdichotomybetweenchildhoodandadulthood,maintainingasafetydistance

betweenoneand theother.Much theopposite, it isa spaceof relationwhichdoesnotconfer

stabilitytoadulthood:itis,inbothcases,adestabilizingengagingspace,thatcallsintoquestion

the certainties andwhat has been established as norm through adulthood. Another important

characteristicofthewaythisspaceisapproachedbyCarroll istheabsenceofamoraljudgment

andtheextremechallengeitpresentstowardsthelogicofsense.Thesewereimportantideasto

bringtoTTLG,sincethepieceestablished,inaway,afirst‘grown-up’independentstepforme(in

aprofessionalsenseasacomposerandasoloperformer),andsincethisstepwaswillingtocallinto

questionandchallengeamoralspeech,ahierarchicalstructureandthestrictlogicofdichotomies

of roles, procedures thatwere still solidified in themusical (and instrumental) environments in

whichIwasimmersed.

Thesecondimportantaspecttomentionisarelationestablishedbetween‘thecreatures’inAlice,

as imaginary or intangible creatures with strange behaviours and unpredictable logic with an

idea/sensationthatishighlyassignedtoSchumann’smusic,theideaoffremd.InGerman,fremd

means‘more’thanforeignorunfamiliar,andhintsatakindofstrangenesswhichcanhaveaquite

intangiblequality.ThisqualityiscommonlyattributedtoSchumann’smusicingeneralandismade

explicitthroughthetitleofKinderszenen’sopeningpieceVonfremdenLändernundMenschen(Of

Foreign Lands and People). This strangeness can be said to have resonances in amultitude of

elementsthroughoutSchumann’smusic,but itseemstogainacertainconcretequalitythrough

specificimaginarymusicalfigures(suchasFlorestanandEusebius)1.Thesemusicalfiguresareput

forward by Schumann as representing different characters and differentmusical intensities (in

other musical contexts than Kinderszenen), as well as multiple and different possibilities of a

Schumanniancharacter.TherelationbetweenAlice’screaturesandSchumann’simaginaryfremden

figures is thus brought to this context in different senses: first, they both hint at the self as

divergencethroughamultitudeofpossibilitiesandanarrayofrelationsandconstellations;second,

this relation opened a space not for thinking divergence through a realm of imaginary figures

outsidethemusicinrelationwithit,butforthinkingmusicasadivergenceofintangibleimaginary

‘fremden’creatures(andhencethereasonforthename13mini(cre)atures).

Anotherimportantaspecttomention,andwhichrelatestothislastissue,isthatbothKinderszenen

and Carroll’s Through the Looking-glass produce, as narrative, a sequential presentation of

miniatureepisodes,fragmentarycapturesofaspecificrelationandaspecificlogicofperformance,

which,althoughoftenoverwhelmingfor itsunpredictableorsubversivecharacter(mostly inthe

1FlorestanandEusebiuswereSchumann’s‘imaginary’musicalfigures,withoppositecharacters,andalsopseudonymsunderwhichSchumannsigned.Eusebiuswasconceivedasalyrical,sensitiveandcontemplativemusicalcharacter,andFlorestanasanimpetuousandfieryone.

141

case of Alice’s episodes), can be regarded as a well-defined topology. 13 mini(cre)atures also

unfoldsthroughsequentialminiatureepisodeswithdifferentlogicsofperformance.

Probablythelastimportant(andalreadymentioned)featuretobringintothiscontextisthatmusic

seemstobeapproachedinSchumann’scycleasaspecificspace‘inbetween’:a‘betweenmusic

andpoetry’.ThisconnectiontopoetrycanalsobefoundinAlice’simageryasanoddspace:oneof

the important featuresof ‘thecreatures’ is that theyoftenappear recitingstrangeornonsense

poems,asanimportantmeansofexpression.Thisideaofaspacebetweenmusicandpoetryas

fremdspaceandthepreviousideaoftheselfasdivergencearethentriggerpointsforthespreading

towardsotherpoemsandauthors,forgingaconstellationofpoeticaffects.Alloftheminiatures’

titles are taken frompoemsandauthorswithwhom I had/have special affinity for, andwhose

intensitywasforsomereasonengagingthiscontext(aprocedurewhichwasdevelopedduringand

afterthecomposingprocess).Again,compositionwasregardedasaprocessofengagementwith.

Inthissense,acomplexmatrixofauthorswasbroughtintothisworkspace:besidesSchumannand

Carroll, fragments by Herberto Hélder, Clarice Lispector, Alberto Caeiro, John Cage and Raúl

Brandãowerebroughtintotheworkspaceandthenusedassuggestivetitles.However,allofthese

relations are never brought into the context of 13 mini(cre)atures for robert schumann as

referencesfor literalmusicalrepresentation(theyarealwayspoetic(affective)engagements).A

differentcaseisthatoftheofthe13thminiature,However,saysthepoet,inwhichafragmentof

Cage’spoem45’ForaSpeaker(Cage1978,2009,171)isexplicitlyperformed.

ThecomplexarrayofrelationsandengagementsinTTLGwascontinuedandcompletedafterthe

composingprocess.ThesecondpartofTTLGwasthenentitledfreedommeanslittle.whatidesire

still has no name, a famous quote from Clarice Lispector’sNear to the wild heart. Lispector’s

characteristicoverwhelmingintensitythereforeplays,inthissecondpart,asimilarroletothatof

Schumann’s Kinderszenen in the first: that of achieving unity by separation, that of assuming

divergenceoffragmentarydiversityasaparadoxicalconvergence.

II. Musicasareflection(inalldirections)

We alreadyhinted atmany important aspects of this cycle ofminiatures either throughpoetic

constellationsorthroughtheautobiographicalconnections itestablishes (asrelationsthatwere

establishedthroughspecificlifeepisodes)andasplayingaparticularimportantroleintheimpetus

forthewholeprocessofmusicalcreationofthistrilogy.Fornow,wewillfocusonapproachingit

asaspecificarrayofrelationsbetweenmusicbodies.Morethanaconventionalmusicalanalysis

centredonmusicalsemiotics,wewillundertakeamultidimensionalanalysisofthebodyofmusic

broughtthroughtheperspectiveoftherelationsbetweenallmusicbodies.

As a body ofmusic, TTLG is, first of all, a relation between two separate parts/events/musical

142

experiences:afirstcomplexpart/event,acycleof13miniatures(fragmentaryunfoldingsofafremd

imagery with an intimate character and a ‘photographical’ quality); and a second complex

part/event as a detonation, unleashing or spreadingof an intensity thatwas already somehow

presentinthefirstpart(withaneruptivebutstillself-containedimplicitquality).Thispartwillbe

shapedinsixdifferentevents.

Inthefirstpart,themusicbodiesdiscoverthemselvesconstantlyaspossibilitiesforcreatinganew

musical relation through each fragment or miniature, also creating an abyss in between each

possibility.Thesecondpart, inturn,exploresnotonlythenewestablishedpossibilitiesofbeing

musicbodies,butalsothisabyssasadimensionofthesepossibilities.Thispartimposesanurgency

(thatwasagainalreadypresentinpartI.butself-containedthroughitsshort,condensedglance-

likecharacter)thatisunleashedlikeafusespreadingthroughdiversecomposingandperforming

strategiesforoverwhelming.Thereisanobviousdifferencebetweenthemusic-makingbodyinthe

firstandinthesecondparts:firstasaneruptivebutself-containedgestureandthenasaneruptive,

unleashed, voracious and tenacious assured gesture, feeding a singularity or trigger point and

drainingituntilitsultimateconsequences.

TTLGisthereforeafoldingintwo:thelookingglassisnotjustoperatingbetweenwhatonecould

conceiveas‘normativeworldofmusic’outsidethisparticularmusicandthemusicalspaceofthis

pieceasapotential‘non-normativespaceofmusic’,butitoperatesinsidethepiecebringingmusic

asreflectionitselftotheforeground.Thereseemstobeamusicalimageasreflection,animageas

acomplexreflexiveandresonatingrelationbetween.AswrittenintheforewordtoTTLG’sDVDin

2010,thereseemstobenosymmetrytobefoundthroughthereflectionofthislookingglass,this

lookingglassisexposingthedeepestchasmonthisandontheothercorner.

III. Performancedevelopedthroughtwolevelsofsemioticactions

It is important to acknowledge two levels ofwell-defined performing actions: the first level of

performingactionscorrespondstoactionswhichareusuallyregardedorvisualizedas‘beingthe

performance’itself;thesecondlevelofdefinedactionsisalevelthatisimplicittotheperformance,

butwhichissomehowhiddenfromormadeambiguoustotheaudience.Itmostlycorrespondsto

changesintheinstrumentalenvironmentproducedduringtheperformance.Forthefactthatitis

oftenconcealedandnotexplicitinTTLG,thisactionlevelcouldbeacknowledged,fromthepoint

ofviewoftheaudience,asbeinganon-semioticlevelthatcreates,through‘magical’orunforeseen

means,disruption,surpriseandtheunexpected.Butfromthepointofviewoftheperformingbody

itconsistsonastrictdisciplinedactionplanthatcannot,atanyrate,bemissed.Forthisreason,and

becausewewanttodistinguishthisleveloforganisedactionsfromanoutofcontrol,unorganised

anddisruptivelevelofthebody,wewillcallitasecondlevelofsemioticactionsorsecondlevelof

143

actions/performance.

Forthroughthislookingglassitisimportanttoacknowledgethatin13mini(cre)aturesforrobert

schumann, the second levelof actions ismostlyput inpracticebetweeneachminiature.These

actionsarethenveiledinthestageversion(throughlightandvideo,aswewillseefurtheron)and

almostsupressedinthefilmversion.Astofreedommeanslittle.whatidesirestillhasnoname,

these actions are more owned up to as belonging to the performance: they are produced

simultaneouslywiththefirst levelofsemioticactions inperformance(butstill,becauseof their

relativelysmallamplitude,thesegesturesarerenderedambiguousonstage).Bothstageandfilm

versionshaveasignificantlydifferentapproachinthissecondpart,explicitlyexposingthevisual

noiseandthemessyenvironmentofcables,pedals,props,headphones,etc…incontrasttothefirst

part/event.

ThissecondlevelofactionsconstitutesinitselfawrittenscriptthatInecessarilymemoriseforthe

performance.Thisscriptwillbereferredtothroughoutthetextontherightsideofthepagewith

anarrow(à),withshortindicationsofactionsandchangesinset-ups,pedals,props,positions,etc.

The written script of the second level of semiotic actions, together with the schemes and

descriptionsofthesettingoftheinstrumentalapparatusandsomelooseannotationsofchords,

arethentheonlywrittendocumentsproducedforTTLG.

Itisalsoimportanttoreferthatthislevelofsecondsemioticactionsattains(inthewholetrilogy)

its highest complexity in through this looking glass, gradually decreasing in importance and

complexitythroughoutthethreepieces.

IV. Engagementwithothercollaborators:DanielCostaNeves

Sincethroughthislookingglasswasconceivedbothasafilmandasastageperformance,wewill

bring up for a brief discussionDaniel C.Neves’ approach both to the filmdirection and to the

staging.Itisimportanttoacknowledgethatthefilmwasfinishedafterthepiece/performancewas

globally conceived, and that the staging of performancewas rethought and re-conceived by C.

DanielNevesafterthefilmproduction.

144

1. Film

fig.11

DanielC.Neves’decisiontodothefilminblackandwhiteacknowledgesthatthevisualinformation

producedbytheperformanceandmusicbodieshassuchacomplexandpowerfulpotentialthat

colourcanactasanunproductiveexcess,distracting,interferinganddampeningtheunfoldingof

themusicalspace.Thedecisiontocompresscolour(blackandwhite)thusseemstohavebeenbe

taken inorder to achieve anoppositeoutcome: to act as aperfect, boosting resonator for the

unfoldingofmusicalspace.

In this black and white approach, the two events in TTLG are then brought through opposite

perspectives:thefirst ischaracterizedasablackeventwith liminal lightingandthesecondasa

whiteoneexploringwhitelightasexcess.Butthedifferenceinvisualapproachbetweenthefirst

andthesecondeventitisnotjustaboutcolourorlight:thefilmdirectionandeditingalsotakes

oppositestrategiesineachofthem.Inthefirst,DanielC.Nevesexploresverydifferenttypesof

closeups thatmostoften tend toescape theglobalperceptionof themusicbodiesandof the

performancesituation,puttinginperspectivethemicroscaleofevents.Bringingtotheforeground

micromovementsofthemusicbodies,oftenastextures,shades,reflections,eachpointofviewis

anambiguousfragmentofaglobalsituation.Theeditingprocessisthencreativelyassemblingthis

complexarrayofdifferentmicroperspectives.Infact,itadoptsthesamestrategyasthemusicin

thiscycleofminiatures:thefragmentaryshots,justliketheminiatures,areacontinuousshiftof

perspectiveofthemusicandtheperformance.Beforetheclaimedimpossibilityofencompassing

the body(ies), the sudden capture of themicro, as visual fragment, is a powerful strategy that

affordsanintensesensorialexperience.

Butthisstrategydoesnotonlyescapetheglobalperceptionofthebodies:itescapeslinearspace

too.Thereisnowaytodefinewhereexactlythesituationtakesplace:filmedinablackbox,the

145

spaceisrenderedambiguous,everysituationisatakingshape inthedarkoremergingfromthe

dark – one cannot evenperceive the floor or linear spatial relations ‘outside’ the performance

situation:thespaceisthespaceofmusicor,inotherwords,thespacingofthemusicbodiesthrough

theirrelations.Another featurethataddstotheambiguity is thefactthattheset-upsofprops,

electronics,performancetechniquesandperformancesitechangewitheachminiature.Insteadof

alwayskeepingeveryelementinitsposition,foreachsceneorminiaturethefilmonlyshowsthe

specificelementsusedinit:theelectrifying‘chaos’ofnecessarycablesandgreatarrayofelements

for renderingpossible theperformance isnot acknowledged,but concealed.Consequently, the

elements thatcouldactas referencepoints,and thatcouldperceptuallyhelpusdefining linear

space,arealwayschanging,alwaysemerginganew.Thisambiguityandsuspensionoflinearspace

is then reinforced by the continuous use of water reflections (lighting) throughout this part,

renderingthisnotionofspaceaparticularlyplastic, illusionaryandoneiriccharacter.Thisplastic

characteristhenreinforcedbytheintertitlespresentedbetweeneachminiatureinthefilm.

In an early idea for the unfolding of performance, I wouldmanipulate a few little objects in a

woodenboxbymyside–asstandingfor‘affectivescores’–beforeplayingeachminiature.This

idea was then transformed by Daniel C. Neves into a more interesting and plastic approach:

manipulated interactions between chosen objects andmaterialswere filmed in order tomake

intertitles before eachminiature in the film (an ideawhich touches the aesthetic of the silent

movies).Neves’ approach to these intertitles is in resonancewith themusical approach of the

miniaturesasan‘experimental’,analogueandsensorialapproach,usingvarioustypesofconcrete

materialsandobjectsin‘experimental’interactions(theobjectsasaffectivescores;manydifferent

typesofmirrors,reflectingandcurvedsurfaces,deformedglasses,ametalballwhich isusedas

propinsidethepiano;waterelementsasreflections,soapbubbles,watersplashes;animalfigures;

myreflected/deformedfigureorshadow;etc.).Theintertitlesseemtobeminiatures,asprepared

visualcompositions.Theyreinforcetheideaofaconvolutedspacinganderaseanypossibilityfor

linearorconcretespace.

Itisimportanttoacknowledgeonecrucialaspect,namelythefactthattherewasonlyonecamera

for the whole shooting process. For the first miniatures’ event, this implied a great array of

shootingsfromdifferentperspectivesandthereforeaverycomplexeditingprocess.Theprocess

wentasfollows:DanielC.NeveswouldchoosedifferentperspectivestoshootfromandIwould

playtheminiatureinquestionineachperspective(usuallyvarioustakesfromasameperspective).

Meanwhile, themusicwasalsobeing recordedbysound technicianÂngeloLourenço.After the

shootingandrecordingprocessIkeptalltheaudiorecordings,listenedtoallthetakesand,foreach

piece,IchosetheonesIwantedtokeep.DanielC.Neveswouldthenworkoneditingthefilmwith

theseaudiotakes.Themixingoftheaudiowasaparallelprocess,carriedoutbyEduardoRaon.

Thestrategyforshootingthesecondeventwasquitedifferent.Eachpieceofthissecondpartwas

not filmed through a multitude of fragmentary perspectives, but through a small number of

146

extended shots that bring up the performing situation in amore global perspective, insteadof

renderingitambiguousorconcealed(again,thistime,thewholesetupofperformingobjectsis

acknowledgedandputinevidence).Thisisalsodonethroughadifferentkindofeditingprocess

that displays the performance situation as a more continuous experience, in contrast to the

previousconstantshiftofperspectives.Thisapproachis,amongotherthings,aconsequenceofthe

increasingamplitude/magnitudeof theoverallperformancegestureandof the impetuousand

spreadingcharacterofthemusicperformanceinthissecondpart.

Althoughthestrategyofclose-upswasabandonedinthissecondpartinfavourofamoreglobal

perspectiveontheperformanceand itsmagnifyinggesture, linearspace isrenderedambiguous

again.Throughtheuseofacyclorama,lightingandcameraperspectives,thereare,again,verylittle

spatialreferencepoints:theperformancesituationseems,oncemore,tobesuspendedinawhite

space,outoflinearity,nowhere.Throughoutthewholefilmthespaceseemstounfold,albeitvery

differently,asthisspaceofmusic,conceivedagainasthespacingofthemusicbodiesandtheir

relations.

Thefilmasanartisticproposal isthenhardtodefine: it isnotadocumentary,nor is itasimple

registerofaperformance, it isnotafiction,nor is itaparallelvisualnarrativeofthemusic.But

mostlyitisnotafilmabout.Itisatransversalproposal,wherefilmandperformanceengagewith,

becomingsomethingelse.

2. Staging

fig.12

147

Ifthefilmwasareflectiononaperformancethatwasgloballyconceived,theperformanceafter

thefilmwasagain‘anotherreflectiononthereflectionofthefilm’.DanielC.Neves’visualapproach

hadsuchan impactingeffectonthemusicalpiece, that it inevitablyhadtospreadto thestage

direction.Thevisualconceptofthestagethereforecarriedmanyfeaturesofthefilmapproach:the

blackandconcealedambienceofthefirstpartisassuredbyminimum,liminallightingandwater

reflexeffects(donemanually,byastagetechnician,onthesideofthestagewithcustomlighting

reflectors).Theengagementwiththefilmisalsoassuredbytheprojectionoftheopeningtitleand

theintertitles(betweeneachminiature)onablackscriminthebackofthestage.Besidesfulfilling

anaestheticpurpose,theprojectionofintertitles,togetherwiththenearabsenceoflightingonthe

musicbodies,alsohelpsconcealthesecondlevelofsemioticactions(themanychangesinsetup

thatIhavetodobetweeneachpiece).Further,theblackscrim(orblackclothincasethetheatre

hasnoscrim)lendsaspecificqualitytotheprojection:absorbingmorelightthanawhitesurface,

theprojectionisnotreally‘exposed’,nordoesitilluminatethestagethroughunwantedreflection

–itisasomehowcontainedandtexturalprojectionthathelpsestablishtheblackordarkcharacter

oftheminiaturesepisode.Throughthisdarkambience,therearehowevermanychangesinlighting

perspectives that lend the performance an always unpredictable and somewhat enchanting

character.Oneoftheseenchantingelementscomesfromlightinginsideofthepiano:inaverydark

atmosphere,therearemomentswhentheinsidealoneislitanditappearsalmostwiththechildlike

characterofa‘magicglowingpottreasure’.Whentheinsideislit,theopenlidautomaticallyacts

asamirror:itgivestheaudiencethepossibilityofhavingaccesstotheinside.Thelightingisthen

donethroughaLEDstripplacedaroundthecontoursinsidethepianoinawaywhichisnotmade

visiblefortheaudience.Thefactthatonedoesnotseethelightsourceresonateswiththenotion

ofspacebroughtbythepieceasaspacingofthemusicbodies:itisnotapianothatisilluminated,

butapianothatseemstoilluminatebyitself.

The13thand lastminiature,However, saysapoet, isanexception in theapproach towards the

intertitles: the13thand last intertitle is itself theminiature.Thevisualminiatureconsistsof the

shootingofmyreflectioninmovingwater,readinganexcerptofCage’spoem,withunderwater

sounds.Theminiatureisprojectedinblackoutand,attheend,whentheimagefadesaway,the

underwater sounds continue through a complete blackout for about 40 seconds. In a blackout

situationinthemiddleoftheperformance,theexperienceoftimemightbefeltasoverwhelming.

Creatingadisruptionoftheperformancesituation,thisstrategyoverwhelmsthesensesandoverall

globalperception,carryingapotentialforanxietyorexpectation.Duringthistime,theblackscrim

is (invisibly and silently) taken away through machinery. The blackout is then disruptively

boycotted: themoment I start to play, a cyclorama,whichwas placed just behind the scrim is

suddenly illuminated white, something which causes a disturbance to the eyes, both of the

audience’sandmine.Thesecondpartbeginsinthiswayabruptly,asashock.

148

Thesilhouettesofallmusicbodies, includingtheperformingbody,areexposed inthebacklight

createdbycycloramabehind:thereisnolightingbesidesthecyclorama.Thissecondpartbeginsto

explore and expose technicalmechanisms both of the instrumental apparatus and the theatre

venue:atacertainpointintheperformance,thecycloramaandthelegs(ontheoffrightandoff

leftwings)aretakenawaybymachineryandthe‘rough’characterofthetheatrespacebeginsto

beexposed.Butspaceisnotjustexposedorrevealed,itisoverwhelmedagainbyextremewhite

lighting,sothatbytheendoftheperformanceisalmost impossibletostareatthestage: linear

spaceisagainrenderedinoperativethroughanextreme(audioand)visualexperience.

fig.13

V. Engagementwithothercollaborators:RitaSáOneofthepieceswasimaginedandconceived,fromtheverybeginning,asaninteractionbetween

astudiocomposition,aperformanceonatoypiano(andprops)andthemanipulationofagiant

mobilewithdifferentcreatures.Withthisinmind,amobilewasthenconceivedanddesignedby

RitaSá,avisualartistwhoexploresawideandoverwhelmingimageryofcreaturesand‘realities’

in her work. Because of the interactions produced and the link it establishes with the sound

installations of other solos of the trilogy, it will be presented further ahead, in Instrumental

Apparatus.ThecollaborationwithRitaisthenaveryimportantengagementofthispiece.

149

fig.14

VI. CharacterconstructionandcostumeItisimportanttoacknowledgea‘certain’characterconstructionthatisproducedmostlybytheuse

ofaspecificcostume:IamdressedinanAlice-likecostume,abluedress,withasheathunderneath

(designedandmanufacturedbycostumedesignerTâniaFranco)andateapotearing(onlyvisible

onthefilm).Throughtheperformanceitwillbecomeclearthatthisisnot,atanyrate,anarrative

ofAlicenorthecharacterofAlicebeingreproduced,butagainaperformanceasengagementwith

Alice’simagery.

VII. InstrumentalApparatus

The instrumental apparatus unfolded in TTLG is a result of a productive engagement ofmany

disparateelements,aprocessthatinvolvedmanywanderingsthroughthecityofColognelooking

formaterials,dreamingwithmaterials2.Althoughithasmanydisparatefeaturesandelements,one

thingthatcanstandoutisthattheapparatusassemblesmanypercussionfeaturesandtechniques.

2Again,Bachelard’sideaofdreamingbeforeanobjectasthepossibilityfordevelopingspecifickindsdreamoroneiricorgans.Andagain:engagement isregardedasbothakindof‘communication’andasatransformativeprocessofthebodies:the‘engagement’(initsenergeticorpoliticalsense,asyoulike)ofsonorousbodiesstarts‘here’,Iamconvincedofthis:‘here’intheformationofthetiniestdeviationsfromorgantoorgan,inthecapacityforinventionthatworksinthemidstofthetiniestbody-to-body-contacts.Herewhereeffectivephantomlimbsgrow(Szendy2016,161).

150

Ourstrategyfordealingwiththecomplexityanddispersionoftheinstrumentalapparatuswillbe

inaperspectiveof‘linearspace’:inordertobeabletoencompassallelements,wewillapproach

them through their placing in linear space in the performance situation, a perspective that

correspondspreciselytothepointofviewofthemusic-makingbodywhoisabouttointeractwith

alltheseothermusicbodies:theirplacing inside,below,outsidethepianocouldalreadyhintat

possibilitiesofrelationorinteraction.

Anotebookwithdetailedindicationsofelementsandinstructionsfortheset-upoftheinstrumental

apparatus was produced during the creative process (2009/10). Along with photos of the

performances, the processes, etc., parts of this notebook will be displayed in the following

description.

1. PreparationsThepreparationsaremadewithscrews,rivets,littlewoodenpegs,verysmallplasticpegs,andblu-

tackasdescribedinthefollowingpicturesandschemes.3

fig.15

3ThedescriptionandschemesarewritteninPortuguese.Basictranslation:parafusos/screws;rebites/rivets;molinhasdemadeira/woodenpegs;molinhasdeplástico/plasticpegs;

151

fig.16

2. PropsandsmallinstrumentsWe will start by referring that besides their quantity and complexity, they are also dispersed

throughvariousplacesinside/outsidethepianoandthroughthestage,butnotexposed:theyonly

emergeasvisibleandaudiblethroughperformanceinteraction.

152

fig.17

-Insidethepiano

Wecouldstartbyacknowledgingavisiblekittingofthepianofromtheoutside:alittle(andbuilt

fortheoccasion)chimesstructure(with5chimes)hangingonthepianolid(abovethepegs,infront

ofthekeyboard).Thischimesstructureisthenoneofvariousdifferentidiophonesorchime-like

smallinstrumentsthatengagewiththepianothroughoutthepiece.Inthepegs’zoneandinthe

metalstructure,bothinsidethepianoandinfrontofthekeyboard,thefollowingitemsareplaced:

asmall/mediumsizedTibetanbowl(chime-like),aglockenspielwiththreemetalbarswithveryhigh

and sinusoid sound (nano-chimes), 5 differentmallets (bass drum (soft)mallet, rubber headed

mallet,feltheadedmallet,andtwoglockenspielrubberheadedmallets).

fig.18

153

A‘giant’wind-upcritter4isplacedbetweenthemediumregisterstringswithitsfourfeetonthe

soundboard;twosetsofhorsehairarealsoplacedbetweenspecificstrings,readytobehandled;in

electronicdevices(whichwewillexpandonlateron),twoe-bows,twosoundprocessingpedals

andonemidicontroller(aKORGNANOpad)areplacedinthiszoneofthepegsandmetalstructure

onthefront.Differentstrategiesareusedtoplacetheobjectssothatunintendednoisesarenot

createdthroughmanipulation(usingblackcloth,blu-tack,etc).

Insidethepiano,inthebackortailofthegrandpiano,areplaced:aboxwithtwoChinesemetal

balls,anotherfeltmallet,abrushandtwomusicboxes.

-Belowthepiano

Onthefloor,closetothepedals,areplacedotherelectronicsoundprocessingpedals(thatwillbe

describednext)andonemallet,whosepurpose is to fixate thesustainpedal (without the feet)

whenevernecessary.Belowthebackortailofthepianotwoothermalletsareplacedonthefloor

(abassdrummalletanda feltmallet),anotherbrush,andachapchasofchacani seeds.Onthe

woodstructureofthesoundboard,againbelowthebackortailofthepiano,asmallwind-chime

(withmetaltubes)ishungwithtwotwines.

fig.19

-Throughthestage

Downstage,on the floor,a setofwind-upcrittersareplaced–one ‘giant’, identical to theone

placedontheinsideofthepianoandfive/sixsmallerones5.Somearewinded-upandtightened

withtapebeforetheperformance,andothersareleft‘untouched’andwithouttape.

Thetoypianoisplacedonstageontherightandontheoppositesideofthepiano(sincethepiano

4Allwind-upcritters/creatures/automatsareKikkerlandcritters/creatures/automats.Iusethedesignationcrittersorcreaturesforthesetoys.5Seepreviousnote.

154

isnotreallyplacedatthecentre,butmoreontheleftandwiththekeyboardrotatingtoitsright,

enabling visibility to the audience). The toypiano (like all thepropsoutside thepiano), is kept

invisibleforthewholeperformanceexceptforaspecificmoment,whereallactioniscentredonit.

Itiskittedwithmusicboxesstucktoitand,onthefloor,byitsside,alargeTibetanbowlwitha

vibrantbasssoundandacorrespondentmalletareplaced.

3. ElectronicsSoundprocessing

TTLGis,amongallthepiecesofthetrilogy,theonewhichmakesthemostintenseuseofelectronics

throughlivesoundprocessing,althoughtheset,perse,isnotextremelycomplex.Theelectronics

setiscomposedofdifferentpedalsconnectedtoapick-upplacedonthepianosoundboard.They

openupdifferentsoundpossibilities:theWhammypedalopensthepossibilityofshiftingthestable

pitchofthepiano;adistortionpedalforbass(MXR)withtwochannelsbringsthepossibilityfor

soundsaturationindifferentregisters;adelaypedal(DD7)opensboththepossibilityforhaving

somethingplayed indifferentspace-timesandthepossibility forplayingwiththisspace-time in

differentways.Ontheotherhand,theDD7hasaloopingfunctionand,besidesthepossibilityof

producingloops,itcomeswiththepossibilityofapproachingtheloopasfeedback.Allpedalsare

controlledby foot,except for theDD7which isplaced insidethepianoandcontrolledbyhand.

Lastly,Ialsouseavolumepedalinordertohavethepossibilitytocontrolthevolumeofsomeof

the pedals by foot. This sound processing set is not used systematically throughout the

performance,butoccasionallyandalwaysshiftingsoundprocessingpossibilities.

fig.20

155

Soundcorpusesofstudiocompositions

TTLGhassixdifferentstudiocompositions:1)theopeningtitle(ofthefilmandperformance);2)a

studiocompositionplayedtogetherwithliveperformanceinminiature2.(it’sthesoundofthem

beating like starson thedoors);3)a studiocompositionplayed togetherwith liveperformance

(hereafterSCPTLP)inminiature7.(…andlisteningonlytotherisingsounds);4)however,saysapoet

(miniature13,independentstudiocomposition);5)SCPTLPinfreedommeanslittle3.;6)SCPTLPin

freedommeanslittle4.

At this point, we will not focus on the pieces themselves, but on the concrete sound corpus

(collectionsofsounds)thatwereproducedforthesecompositions,asmusicbodiesthatbelongto

theinstrumentalapparatus.

The widest sound corpus throughout the six pieces is composed of chime-like sounds, mostly

recordings of the little chime-like instruments also used in performance (and listed in the item

‘Props and small instruments’ above). This corpus of sounds therefore produces a disruptive

extension of the intruding chime-like instruments used in performance. The sounds are often

gathered through juxtaposition as a big and multi-faceted instrument; they are also often

manipulatedthroughsoundprocessing inordertoachievecontinuoussounds,distortedclouds,

etc.

The same kind of disruptive extension unfolds through another sound corpus, a collection of

recordingsofmechanicaldevices(usedinthepieceit’sthesoundofthembeatinglikestarsonthe

doors).Itiscomposedofrecordingsofvariousmechanicalclockmechanisms–pendulums,clock

bellsandamultiplicityofmechanicalmetronomeswithdifferentsuperposedtimes–anditappears

asamultiplicationandcomplexificationofthewind-upmechanisms’soundandoftheautomate

critters manipulated on stage6.This complexification of sound intensifies a sense of urgency

imposed by the performing action. The clock is a clear reference to one of the most famous

elementsofAlice’simagery.7

Theideaoftheselfasdivergence‘throughdifferentcreatures’ isexploredthroughtheprevious

collectionofrecordingsofmechanicaldevicesbutalsothroughacorpusofvoicerecordings,used

in the piece freedommeans little III. For this corpus, an obstinate exercise of collecting every

sentencereferringthewordcreature(s) inCarroll’sAlice inWonderlandwasmade.Thephrases

werethenreadaloudbymeandrecordedassoundcorpus for thissamepiece.Thevoice,asa

concrete tangibilityof thebody, canbring the ideaofdispersion through thisarrayof concrete

6 Besides the studio composition with these sounds, the action of these automat creatures in performance is alsoamplifiedthroughmicrophonesonthedownstage.

7Itmightsuggest,bothinAlice’scontextandinTTLG(aswewillseefurtheron),anurgeandfalltowardsanunknown.

156

referencestodifferentcreatures.ThefirsttimethatthecorpusofvoicerecordingsisusedinTTLG

is,however,inanothercontext(onthe13thorlastminiature)andinadifferentway:throughthe

recordingofthealreadymentionedreadingofafragmentofCage’s45’foraspeaker(something

thatwillbeapproachedlateron).

Anothercorpusisthatofwatersounds,recordedandproducedbyEduardoRaonandmyself,and

ofunderwatersounds,whichweregatheredthroughsound librariesonthe internet.Thewater

soundsresonatewithDanielC.N.’suseofwaterreflectionsandhaveasubtlepresencethroughout

theperformance.Asfortheunderwatersounds,theyareusedintheopeningtitle(ofthefilmand

oftheperformance)andinthelastminiature,However,saysthepoet.

Acorpusofsoundwhichcanbedescribedasexceptional(ashavingauniquesoundrecording)isa

fieldrecordingofanunlikelyduo:anightingale‘singingwith’the‘playing’ofawaterwheel.Because

itisafieldrecording(unproduced,andunmodified),itisanexceptiontotheotherplasticstudio

approaches.

Electronicdevices

Aselectronicdevices, ane-bow8 isused in thepiano strings,opening, togetherwith theuseof

horsehair,thepossibilityformakingbowedandcontinuoussounds.

Apart from the six audio compositions referred, other almost imperceptible audio files were

produced for the intertitles of the film TTLG. Although very subtle, they seem to resonate or

foreshadowtheunfoldingofmusic.

4. SoundInstallation

AlthoughthereisnoactualsoundinstallationinTTLG,theinteractionswiththemobileofdifferent

creaturescan,inaway,hintatanideaofsoundinstallation:itdescendsbystagemachineryorby

handmanipulation (depending on the venue) exactly above the placing of the toy piano, and

synchronizedwiththetriggeringofthecorrespondentstudiocompositionfreedommeanslittleV.

Themobileismanipulatedbymeandthesimultaneoustriggeringoftheaudiofilecancreatethe

illusionthatthetriggeredaudiosoundis‘produced’bythemobileinmovement.Becauseofthe

amplitude and significance of the mobile in performance, the kind of interactions produced

(explainedfurtherinfreedommeanslittle6.),andtherelationestablishedwithotherinstallations

inotherthreepieces,onecanpossiblyalsoacknowledgeitasaninstallation,andasaprotosound

8Thee-bow,EBoworelectronicbow isabattery-poweredelectronicdeviceforplayingtheelectricguitar,butitalsoworksonthepianomiddleregisterstrings(setsofthreestrings).Thee-bowusesapick-up–inductivestringdriver–feedbackcircuit,includingasensorcoil,drivercoil,andamplifier,toinduceforcedstringvibrations.Thee-bowisplacedonasetofthreepianostringsbelongingtothesamepitch/noteandputsthemincontinuousvibration,producingasoundreminiscentofusingabowonthestrings.Thee-bowhasalittleknobthatcanactivateeitherthefundamentalpitchofthestringorahigherharmonic.

157

installation.

fig.21

throughthislookingglass

I. 13mini(cre)aturesforrobertschumann

TTLG’sfirstpart,theminiatures’cycle13mini(cre)aturesforrobertschumanncanberegardedboth

as a cycle of poetic sound studies and as a cycle of studies on performance relations and

possibilities.Thepianoisapproachedthroughtheoverwhelminginstrumentalapparatusdescribed

inthepreviouschapterbutitspotentialemergeslittlebylittle,throughshort,surprisingandintense

musicalfragments.

Among several tendencies and driving forces of the music, one can acknowledge general

tendencies:itsintimateandintensecharacter,whichisexploredthroughliminalityofsound(from

thesubtlestdynamictothemostpowerfulenergeticdischarge),opposedregistersandcomplexity

oftimbrepossibilitiesoftheinstrument.Thepiecesareveryshortandcondensedandeachofthem

contains in itselfaparticular intensity,asdisruptivepotential,that isexploredthroughdifferent

mechanisms. As we already mentioned, TTLG (as a complex relation between tangible and

intangible music bodies), is mostly bringing the realm of the instrumental apparatus to the

foreground in this complex web of interactions. TTLG is therefore bringing up the process of

listeningmostlythroughtheperspectiveoftheinstrumentalapparatus–listeningasanextreme

sensorial engaging and exploring of the instrumental disruptive potential, that can act as a

detonationmechanismof the instrument,andthatcanopennew instrumentalpossibilitiesand

relationsbetweenthemusicbodies.

Thisdisruptivepotentialisproducedthroughaconfrontationofdifferentplasticitiesofthemusical

bodies,differentarraysofmusicalspaceandtime(aswillbefurtherexplained).Butprobablythe

158

mostimportantfeatureofthiscycleofminiaturesisthecharacterthatitimprints,orbetter,thatit

isunabletoimprinttothemusicbodiesandtheirrelations:theyareevershifting,unpredictable

and ungraspable. The miniatures, as bodies of music, are characterised through their abrupt,

sudden ‘disappearing’ before an ‘ending'. Virtuosity thus begins to be an exploring of this

ungraspableandglimpsingqualityofmusicbodiesthroughthecomposing/performingapproachof

theminiature ‘form’asauniqueand idiosyncraticrelation.Thisglimpsingqualityofvirtuosity is

thenalsoemphasizedbylightingstrategies(stageandfilm)andfilmediting(film).

àbeforeperformance:placeallpreparations,

instrumentsprops,electronics,set-upsasdescribedaboveinTTLG’s

instrumentalapparatus.

Theminiaturescycleisprecededbytheopeningtitleasreferredbefore:

0. (openingtitle)(…….)(timecodevideo:00’00’’)

Musical performance begins with the opening title of the film with the first studio

composition. This studio composition makes use of extremely low-pitched underwater

soundsandhighpenetratingprocessedchime-likesounds(transformedintocontinuous,

although intermittentsounds)andhasasomehowhypnotisingcharacter.Togetherwith

the projection of the film opening title, that presents a dark moving water texture, it

introducesthemusicalperformanceasanothersensorialspatiality.

Myentrancetakesplaceduringthispiece:itisneitheranevidententrance,becausethere

isonlytheprojectionoftheopeningtitleandnolighting,norisitaconcealedone,sinceit

isnotactuallyhiddenfromtheaudience.Thefactthatmusicbegins‘alone’or ‘byitself’

seemstocreateasenseofexpectationfortheaudiencebutalsoforme,waitingonthe

side before entering onstage. Neither concealed nor exposed, it is a rather ambiguous

entrancethatdoesnotaffordaclearexpectationoracleardirectionofperformance.When

thispieceisfadingaway,Ibegintoplaythefollowingpieceatthepiano.

àEntranceduringthefirst‘intertitle’

1. …drinkme.(timecodevideo:01’02’’)

Inrelationtotheopeningtitlethatfunctionsasfartherabstractionandasablurringofthe

performanceandmusical space, the firstpiece situates themusicalperformanceat the

piano’s keyboard.…drink me undoubtedly has a ‘prelude’ function: it opens from the

159

intimacy of here, a little, delicate, but intriguing field of musical possibilities. The

performance of the music-making body is confined towards a limited prepared treble

registerofthekeyboard(withnoprops,electronics,etc.).Thepieceopenswithamelodic

élanwhichcanresonateSchumann’sfirstminiatureVonfremdenLändernundMenschen

(OfForeignLandsandPeople)atthedistance:ontheonehand,asacharacterresonance,

butontheother,alsoasasemioticresonance.Thesemioticresonancecomesfromthe

importancegiventotheélan’sascending6th(whichheresoundsasablurredmajorsixth

becauseofthepreparation,insteadofSchumann’sminorsixth)andfromthefactthatthis

qualityor‘flavour’oftheminorsixthisbroughtascentralforthecontextbycentripetal

movements of a chord(s)with two fifths at the distance of half a tone (simultaneously

producingtwominorsixthintervals).

Melodyhasaplasticityoftimespace:thereisakindofmagnetismwhichoperatesasplastic

oscillation between gravity centres (‘b’ – ‘f’) andwhich is itself a time ‘producer’. This

miniatureishoweverandundoubtedlythemost‘classic’one,havingaveryclearABA’form

andamelodywithacertain‘onceuponatime’flavour.Bisrenderedambiguous:itappears

asadisruptiontowardsAbutalsoasthebeginningofA’.However,asadisruptiveelement,

Barisesnotjustasacompletechangeofmusicalmaterial,butasanabruptchangeintime

andmusicalspace.IfAexploresmelodyasplasticityofexpansioninafluidandpedalised

musicalspace,Bdisruptswithlinearstricttimeandclocklikesounds(producedthroughthe

preparation) in a drier (occasionally pedalised) musical space. The return to A is then

gradualintimeandspacethrougharallentandoandanincreasingpedalisation.Bimprints

atimeurgencyanddirectionthatisopposedtotheflexibleA.Butthisurgencyiscreated

throughthechasminbetweenAandB.Thistimeurgencywillthendefinitelyspreadtothe

followingpiece.

END

àputthemalletonthesustainpedal,holdingitdown.àpressthenanoPADkeyassignedtoaudiofile1clocks

(whilewindingupgiantcritteronthepianosoundboard)

2. it’sthesoundofthembeatinglikestarsonthedoors(timecodevideo:02’09’’)

After…drinkme,whichactsasprelude,situatingthemusicalspaceinanintimatehere9this

secondpiecetakesaradicallyoppositedirection.Thepieceisanurgencyanddivergence

inalldirectionsatonce.Itstartsabruptlywithtwodifferentsimultaneoussoundactions

that suggest a paradoxical musical space – a simultaneous here and a spreading

9SeenotionsonmusicalspaceinClusterII.,V.Musicalspace–hereattheimminenceofnowhere.

160

everywhere.Thismusicalspaceisproducedthroughaconcreteactionofmewindingup

thegiantcritterplacedinsidethepiano(onstage)andasimultaneoustriggeringofanaudio

composition,whichfunctionsasanabstractionanddistancetowardsmywindingupaction.

It functionsasadistance in relationto itbecausethesoundsof theaudiocomposition,

althoughcomingfromdisparatesources,arerelatedsounds:pendulumsandclockbellsof

mechanicalclocksandamultiplicityofmechanicalmetronomeswithdifferentsuperposed

times,that,togetherwiththesoundofwind-upmechanisms,establishasoundcorpusof

mechanicaldevices.Thatthemusicalspaceoftheaudiocompositionmightbeperceived

moreasaneverywherethanatonaloranappeasedsomewhereisthenaconsequenceof

the simultaneous superposed ‘noisy’ actions with divergent directionalities and times:

audibly,thissimultaneityofdisparateelements(mechanicalnoises)tendstobeperceived

asaspreadingeverywhere.

The paradoxicalmusical space of the piece can thus be sensed as both a here and an

everywhere, as a consequence of the relation established between both sound events

(performance and audio file). There is a relation at the distance, which is not one of

extensionorcontinuity.Heredoesnotfadeintoeverywhere.Thereisasimultaneityand

ambiguityofmusicalspacesthatcanbefelt.Itisthenimportanttoreferthattheactionof

windingupisnotjustanyactionofwindingup,asitconveystwoimportantfeatures:first,

it isanactionasurgency–theexactmomentItriggerthefileandbegintowindupthe

mechanismofthecritterinsidethepiano,thesenseoftimeisthatofextremeacceleration

regarding the previous miniature, imposing a time and space disruption towards it.

However, itmightbe important toacknowledgethat thisurgencywasprobablyalready

subtlyimplicitintheBof…drinkme,bothastimeapproachandasconcretesoundmaterial

(preparedclock-likesounds)inaveryself-containedway.Thesecondimportantfeatureof

thiswind-upperformingactionisthatitlooksandsoundsasifthemechanismbelongsto

thepiano:anambiguityiscreatedtowardstheinstrument,becauseofwaythecrittermight

beperceivedvisuallywhenplacedinsidethepiano,andbecausethemechanismislistened

throughthepiano,thatfunctionsasitsresonantbody.Onecannotperceivea‘creature’or

‘critter:’onecanseeandhearabigmechanismthatseemstopertainvisuallyandaudibly

tothepiano.

ThemomentIstopthewinding-upaction,thecritterisunleashedanditstartstrembling

alone (because themovementof this specific automat is not thatof going in a specific

direction,butthatofanunpredictabletremblinginplace).Sinceitisplaceddirectlyonthe

soundboard, between strings, with the sustain pedal in a down position (previously

activatedwithamallet througha second levelof semiotic actions referredabove), and

sincethepianoisamplified,itstremblingproducesanoverwhelmingsound.Butnotonly

that: thepianoseems tobesounding ‘alone’, ‘by itself’and this ‘soundingalone’ is the

soundofitsmostintimate,inaccessibleandorganicpart,namelythesoundboard(along

withthesoundofthecritter’simpactonthestrings).Thisdirectsensingofthesoundboard

161

through the vibratory impact of a ‘sounding alone’ piano can hint at Szendy’s idea of

autophony and the idea of a self as liminal and complexmicrovibration. However, this

microvibrationisfedthroughthepianopedalandthroughamplificationinsuchawaythat

microvibration turns into an overwhelming sound in its intensity and complex noise

features.Thissensationofthepianoplayingaloneisemphasizedbythefactthattheexact

momentIletthecritteror‘thepiano’‘goalone’(afterwindingitup)–andcoincidingwith

thebeginningofitsoverwhelmingsoundonthesoundboard–Irunawayfrommyposition

atthepiano,throughthedownstage,andtowardstheotherwind-upcritters.Iruntowards

theminordertoproducethesameaction(Iremovethetapefromthewinded-upcritters

andwinduptheoneswhicharenotwindedup),multiplyingthecritters’soundandaction

possibilities.Theseactionshavethetimeurgencyof‘tryingtodoeverythingatthesame

timeeverywhere’.

fig.22

Winding up the mechanism and letting it go by itself, together with the simultaneous

multiplicationoftheseactionsindivergingdirections(bothonstageandintheactivated

audio file) functions as a first detonationmechanismof the instrument, as its effective

explosion ineverydirection: the instrument loses its sound identityandsituatedness –

fallingapartandspreadingallover.

theinstrumentisnolongerthisinstrument-

theinstrumentisanew

disruptive,intangibility

spreadingthrough

Thisproducesaspecificrelationofthemusicbodies:thatthemusic-makingbodyhasto

run(notasametaphor)afterthebodyofmusicandtheinstrumentalbody,tryingtobring

piecestogether,tryingtoencompassthemorpullthemtogether.Andthissenseofurgency

requiresanambiguityofthelisteningprocessasaprocesstowhichanextremedisciplined

162

actionofthemusic-makingbodyplanbelongs.Astrictmanipulationplan(towardswinded-

upcrittersandnon-winded-upcreatures)isestablishedinadvanceinordernottoletthe

sense of urgency of the action faint, assuring a non-stop continuity of the singular

discontinuous movements of each critter. Divergence is both an extremely directed

divergenceandanuncontrolledfusespreading:theactionisvoracious-itdoesnotallow

any possible hesitation, deviation. Everything is rendered ambiguous: it is the music-

makingbodywhoconceivesandactivatesthemechanismwhichithastogoafter.

Theactionisintense,butatacertainpointofthemusic(whichisstipulatedbytheaudio

composition with which I am playing on stage) the action fades away: themechanical

soundsoftheaudiofilerarefyandthecreatures’actionsonstagedecreasewithit.Atthis

momentIstopthewind-upactionsthatarebeingproduceddownstageandreachinside

thebackofthepiano,bringingoutspecificwind-upcreatures.Here,attheinsidepiano,a

new impetus seems to come out of the audio composition (complexification through

superpositionofacceleratedactionsofmechanisms)triggeringanewsenseofurgencyin

performance onstage that impels the unleashing of smaller wind-up creatures and the

biggeroneinsidethepiano,forminganenormouscrescendo.

Theenormousmassofsoundishowever,abruptlydisruptedbytheffffimpactofametal

ball on thepegs (backof thepiano, lower string’spegs). This impacthasan impressive

power:atthisprecisemomenteveryactionisover(theaudiocompositioniscutandall

creatures stop). But its impressivepower ismostly remarkable for suddenly converging

energeticdivergenceatthisprecisepoint:thisgestureseemstobringeverymusicbody–

tangibleandintangible–together,andseemstoshiftmusicalspacetoavertigoofherein

afractionoftime.Listening isherean implosion. It isthecontraryofthefirstexploding

gesture of the piece,which spreads and disperses the instrumental apparatus all over.

However,thisimpactdoesn’tseemtoabsorballthistheenergyalone:itcreatesachasm

throughitsabruptendingandresonance.Althoughitstopstheactioninthischasmperiod

oftime,notbeingabletoabsorballenergy,itactsasakindofappoggiaturafortheensuing

movementoftheball,whichisleftfallingonlywiththeforceofgravityatthelowerendof

thelowerstrings,beyondthefirstpegs(thepartofthestringbetweenthefirstandsecond

pegsofthestrings).Thesoundisapowerful,profoundlowsound(thepedalisdownduring

thewholepiece)anditestablishesaconnectiontothesoundofthecreatures’vibrationon

thesoundboard–itbeingofasamekindbutinaslowmotionandlowerpitch.

What happens next seems to explore the exhaustion of energy through the coming

together of different levels of more or less disciplined/undisciplined gestures: more

‘undisciplined’sounds(theuseofcreatures,vibratorysounds,andthedoublescratching

ofstringswiththehandorabrush)ormorepullingtogethergestures’(eithertheimpacts

oftheballsonthepegs,ortheffffpercussionofharmonicswithmalletsinlowerstrings).

The tension and friction between simultaneous, divergent and convergent movements

provokessuddendischargesandpeaksbut,overall,ittendstoloseenergylittlebylittle,

163

comingdown toan imperceptible vibration followedby rest. Themusic-makingbody is

againrenderedambiguousinthisquarrel:itbothproducesitandisproducedbyit.

2ndMINIATURE–ENDàtakegiantcritterandanacleto(small

critter)outofthepianoàtakeoutthemalletfromsustainpedal

àgobacktokeyboard

3. delightandterror(timecodevideo:05’58’’)

Inthispiece,theperformanceisagaincentredatthepianokeyboard,bringingacertain

normalisationtotheperformancecontext.Itseemstoexploreaplasticitythatwassubtly

presentbutnotexploredinsectionAof…drinkme.Itisagaincentredonahighregisterof

thepiano, but thepiecehas a somehowhistrionic, playful or humoristic character that

hadn’tappeared in this contextbefore. It isavery fastandshortpieceand the ideaof

plasticity and exact flexible spacing seems to be explored both through a high-speed

context and through aminimum of time (about 30 seconds). Plasticity turns into pure

accelerationtowardsasensationofvertigo,again.Mostly,‘b’and‘f’andtheirrelationas

diminishedfifthfunctionasmagneticcentresofflexibilityofthebodyofmusicandmusic-

makingbody.But this centre is then reduced to textural accelerationwhich isexplored

through a Scarlatti-like random articulation technique10 that brings acceleration to the

highestregisterindifferentsuccessivedischargesofenergy.Arrivingatthehigherregister,

itmaintainstheacceleratedtextureinthehighestspeedpossibleforquitesometimeand

asyncopatedrhythmofthelefthandisaddedonthesameregister,emphasizingthe‘end

ofregister’andtheimpossibilitytogoanyfurther11.Thepieceendsabruptlyinvertigo.

Thetitle,takenfromBernardoSoares’BookofDisquiet(Pessoa,2006)hintsatthisideaof

vertigobothasdelightandterror.Themusicalspaceofthispieceisthenaspaceherethat

mightputinevidencehereitselfasvertigo.

3rdMINIATURE–ENDàputmalletonsustainpedal

againàgotothebackofthepiano

4. glocken…spiel(timecodevideo:06’42’’)

Againatthebackofthepiano,bringingtheunsteadinessandunquietnessofthemusic-

making, instrumental and body ofmusic to the foreground, the piano is recreated and

furtherexploredasanotherGlockenspiel.Atfirst,andinrelationtothepreviousminiature,

the unfolded musical space has a character of an intriguing there which will soon, by

accommodationtothenewmusicalspaceandtechnique,bemetamorphosedintoahere.

11AslightresonancetoLigeti’sl’escalierdudiable.

164

Thisnewperspectiveoftheinstrumentiscomposedthroughthefollowingelementsthat

functionasdifferentregisters:pianopreparations,chimes(fromthestructurehangingon

thelid),nano-chimes,thelowestAstringofthepianoandmusicboxesplacedonthesound

boardandmetalframe(insidethepiano).

The inside preparations and little instruments are then explored through percussion

techniques with different mallets (little Glockenspiel rubber mallets and a big rubber

mallet). The piano pedal is again fixed in a down position (with anothermallet, placed

beforehand)allowingallstringstoresonatealongsympathetically.Thepieceopenswitha

melodicgesturethatestablishesanobviousconnectionwithmelodicgestureAofthefirst

miniature. For its twisted instrumentation, it appears as a distant resonance to it. A

resonanceasarelationthatwillbeexploredinallitsdepththroughasimplesequenceof

events,ABCABA’CD.

fig.23

ThedelicatemelodyA istimbricallycomposedofpianopreparations(rivetsandscrews)

andchimes,(all)playedwithglockenspielmallets.Itisthendisruptedbylittleplayfuland

delicatetrembles(littlereboundgesturesoftheGlockenspielmalletonthepreparations

oflittlespringsplacedinthemiddlehighregisterstrings.Thesereboundgesturesaremade

with the right hand, while the left hand plays single tones in the register of previous

preparations of rivets and screws). Both A and B melodies have a plasticity of time.

However,theplayfulandsubtlegesturesofBaredisruptedbyasuddenffffffbeatingon

thelowestAstringwithabigrubbermalletwithasyncopatedrhythmonasteadytempo,

imprinting anurgencyandanall depthof register, dynamics and resonance space. The

pianoasGlockenspielisthenanabysscreatedbythisoverwhelming‘inbetween’ABand

C.Themusicalspaceofhereisanopeningofthisspace,anopeningandintensificationof

thevertigoassensationpertainingtoahere.Therhythmseemstohaveasententialand

concisecharacter:themalletbothbeatsonthestring,puttingitinresonance,anddampens

itwithsomepressure.Ofcourse,thedampeningisfarfromcompletebecausethepedalis

down,allstringsareresonatingalongandtheimpactofthebeatishuge.Butthismakes

resonancemoreinteresting:havingalessdefinedpitchfeatureemphasizesthecomplex

textureof resonanceandalso theoverly compressedenergyof themusicalevent. InA

again,thesamemelodicelementandsubtletremblesreturnasanABbutwiththepresence

165

ofthedistantresonanceofCasanimmaterialdepththatpertainstothismusicmateriality.

Instead of immediately disrupting B with C, as before, and cutting the possibility of

predictability through repetition, there is a little expansion of A after B which is then

disruptedbyC.ThebrutalbeatingofCthenseemstoopenforakindofrelatedorresonant

gestureinD:arivetisplayedwithaGlockenspielmalletwithaquitesteadytempo,ca.60

BPM,butwithapdynamic.Foritssoundquality,resonance,andpulse,therepetitionof

thissoundhasagainaclockbellsoundquality.Aftersomebeatsofthisclocklikesound,

whichareplayedwith therighthand, twomusicboxesaresimultaneouslymanipulated

directly on the mechanism with the left hand, making little clusters with syncopated

rhythmsinthesteadytempo‘imposed’bytherivetsound.Themusicboxesmanipulated

thiswayexposeadoublecharacter,whichisbothdreamlikeandetherealandwhichbrings

frictiontotheforegroundthroughthedirectmanipulationthatputstheresistanceofthe

mechanismaudiblyinevidence.

Thisfourthminiatureenlargesthechasmpotentialbetweentwoopposedpossibilitiesof

here inhere. Itexposesanalldepthabyssinbetweenpossibilitiesasitsmostimportant

feature.

4thMINIATURE–ENDàgobacktothekeyboard

àremovethemalletfromthesustainpedal

(reminderfor5:sustainednoteswith3rdpedal–

f,g,g#,c+sustainthemostcsandfspossible)

5. yourmajesty,thequeenOFF(yourhead)(timecodevideo:09’12’’)

Performanceiscentredagainatthekeyboard,sothatthisfifthminiatureis,inrelationto

thepreviousone,againashiftingofmusicalspace–atheretowardsapreviousherethat

willbetransformedinanewhere.Thekeyboardisthistimeapproachedthroughbrutal,

conciseandstaccattoplayingofasamechordinpunctuatedrhythmandfffdynamics.The

abrupt ending of each chord brings with itself a fremd/strange resonance, which is

produced by the previous activation of the third pedal with specific keys12 in order to

produceamorecomplexand ‘unrelatedbut related’harmonic resonance.Eachgesture

(eithertheplayingofasinglechordorasequenceofrepetitionofchords)forgesanabyss,

bringingtheintangibilityofresonanceastangibleimpact–aslistening,spacingexperience.

12Theactionofthesostenuto(third)pedalofthepianoisthefollowing:thedampersofthekeysthatarepresseddown(evenifnosoundisproduced)intheprecisemomentwhenthepedalissteppedon,theyremaininanuppositionaslongas the pedal is pressed down, letting only the strings that correspond to the previously pressed keys vibratesympathetically.Thispedalmakesitpossibletocomposeresonances(enhancingharmonics,etc).

166

Immateriality is feltashuge impact: it isnotabout theattackof chords,but its sudden

absence,whichcreatesamosttangibleoverwhelmingenergy.Thechordsarecomposedof

twominorsixthsatthedistanceofaminorthird,whichcanberegardedatthesametime

astwoWebernianchordsofminorthirdandmajorseventhatthedistanceofhalfatone,

aharmonicrelationthatwillspreadthroughoutthewholepieceindifferentways.

Again, there is brutality and its impacting resonance, something which was already

introducedinminiatures2.and4.Brutalityisintroducedherewithnootherpurposethan

exposingbrutalityinitself:aspureviolenceofallmusicbodies,brutalityisexposedasifin

akindof‘pure’energeticstate.ThetitlemakesanobviousreferencetotheOffwiththeir

heads!deathsentencesofCarroll’sQueenofHearts,utteredwithnoapparentpurpose

other than to chop a few heads every now and then. But the unpredictable and

inconsequentwaybrutalitycomesaboutinthesepiecesisoftenthesameunpredictable

andinconsequentwayitdisappears.

AftertheinsistencyofthechordsoftheeventA,averyfastfiguration(throughchordswith

thesamerelation)eruptsinanascendinggesturethatendsinamagneticoscillation,again

between‘f’and‘b’.‘f’isthearrivalpointbuttheenergyofthisactionisnotabsorbedby‘f’

alone,it‘rebounds’to‘b’,repeatingtherhythmoftheinitialchordsinadecrescendoof

energyandwitha reboundcharacter.ThisBevent is thenagainopposedby thebrutal

chordbroughtbyanewA’. This time, the chord isnot repeated in itself, butdescends

chromaticallywithapunctuatedrhythmsimilartotheoneinA.Thisdescendingmovement

endswithanascendancetothepointofdeparturewithanabruptending,notabsorbing

alltheenergyofthemovement(asbefore).Thesamehappensasinthepreviousfiguration

movement: theenergy isnot totallyabsorbed, it ‘rebounds’again to ‘b’ (with thesame

rhythmaspreviously).Thereboundsbringaspaceof resonancewith thems,a listening

experience. The same chromatic descendingmovement of chords disrupts again and is

emphasizedthistimebyitsstrikingrepetition(ofthesamechord).Thistimeitdoesnot

reboundinbimmediately:averyfastfigurationspreadsnowintheoppositedirectionas

before,descendingwithanaccelerationandcrescendotothelowest‘b’,nowimprinting

thesamereboundrhythmtoit.Itisimportanttoemphasizethetangibilityofthespaceof

resonance‘imprinted’ inbetweenthestrikingandconcisegestures.Theyseemtocome

fromanowhere anddisappear inanowhere.Anowhere that it ishowever feltashuge

impact.

Afterthisdescentthereisacentripetalandrestlessshortmovementthroughthenotesof

thischord,whichisrepeatedtwice:thefirsttimewithanabruptendingtowardsresonance

andthesecondarrivingagainat‘b’.Thechords’chromaticdescentisbroughtanoctave

lowerwiththesamerhythm,andrepeatedtwice,emphasisingthesecondone.Thistimeit

doesn’tarrivenotat‘b’,butatadampened(withtherighthand)clusterofthekeyboard’s

lowest notes. Arriving at the cluster with this brutal energy, the ‘rebound rhythm’ is

167

produced in ffwithnoarrivalpointatastrongtime:again (justas in3.) itproducesan

endingbeforeanendingandtheexperienceofchasmasresonance.

Perhaps more than everything, the piece might hint at an experience of listening as

violence,brutality.Theplayingattacksactasdisruptiveevents:theyopenandfeedanew

spaceoftangibleandimpactingresonance.Theintensityoftherelationestablishedwith

theresonant‘inbetween’establishestheflexibilityofthemusic-makingbodyandthebody

ofmusic.Brutalityhereisnotjustanabysscreatedbetweenopposedpossibilitiesofasame

hereasinminiature4.,norjusttheparadoxofdivergenceandconvergenceasinminiature

2.Inthiscontext,violenceandbrutalityarealsoanexactspreadingbetweenwell-defined

andprecisetargets.

5thMINIATURE–ENDàplacetheboxesinsidethe

piano

6. astopoetry,youknow…(timecodevideo:10’24’’)

Thisminiaturewasthelastofthecycletobecomposedandhasacharacterthatconnects

both to thesixthpieceWichtigeBegebenheit/An ImportantEventand thesecondpiece

KurioseGeschichte/AcuriousstoryofSchumann’scycleandtotheirmarchcharacter.InA

curious story a rhythmicelement is introduced rightat the sectionAof the samepiece

whichsuggeststheplayingofthesnaredrumandamarchcharacter:

fig.24

ThissamecharacterisexploredbySchumanninAnImportantEventasexaggeration.Just

asthetitlealsohintsat,thisSchumannpieceseemstoassignmoresignificancetothe‘aura’

orimportancegiventoaneventthroughitsffdynamicsthantotheeventorthemusical

content itself: the content is very simple and repetitive, but its octave registers and

dynamicssuggestaverypompousandgrandiloquentplaying.

as to poetry, you know… suggests a similar rhythmicalmovement of snare drum as in

KurioseGeschichte.Itdoessobyexploringaharmonyofjuxtaposedfifthsagain(A,A’)at

thedistanceofhalfatone(asinminiature1.),somethingwhichalsocarriestheminorsixth

asanimportantrelation.ThissnaredrumimageryopenedbySchumannisthenexplored

differently in eventsB andC,mostly through theuseofdifferentprepared registers as

percussionsounds.Itisaplayfulpieceandthemarch-likecharacterisapproachedwitha

certain humour through threedifferentways: (A) amore suggestive, poetic andplastic

approach,onahighregisterandpdynamics;(B)amoredeconstructiveandthereforealso

168

plastic approach, still on a high register and p dynamics, but using other sounds and

preparationoptionsthanA; (C)a ‘serious’approach(connectingtoAnImportantEvent)

withrigid,march,clock-liketempoinalowregisterandmfdynamics.Onthestringsofthe

lowregisteraplastictambourineisplaced(beforehand)tocreateasnaredrumeffect.The

sequenceofeventsrepeats,withapotentialforplayfullyandsubtlyexploringacceleration

anddeconstructionthrougheventsAandB.EventCthenbringsanunexpectedguest:a

mechanicalautomat(amonkeydressedlikeamusicianinamarchingband)playscymbals

alongtothepianoperformance(somethingwhichIcouldonlyputinpractiseinthefilm

version).Thiseventisrepeated(withtheautomat)andreturnstoA’sfastgesture,ending

abruptly.

6thMINIATURE–ENDàtakeboxesoutofpiano

àpressthenanoPADkeyassignedtoaudiofile2(bird)

7. …andlisteningonlytotherisingsounds(timecodevideo:11’24’’)

f

fig.25

It was impossible to escape from Träumerei, themost famous piece of the cycle, and

perhaps Schumann’s most famous piano piece. It was impossible to escape making a

relation toTräumerei, but away to dealwith itwas, paradoxically, that of escaping it.

Escapingitwouldmean,inthiscontext,establishingaquitedifferentstrategy:optingfora

Romanticgesturethatopens‘fromreality’towardsa‘dream-likeworld’andthenreturns,

insuccessiveinflating,shrinkinggestures,thatopposerealitytothedreamlikewasnota

plausible option.My strategywould then subvert the idea ofdreamlike as opposed to

reality and bring to the foreground a possibility of paradoxical and simultaneous

coexistence.Itwouldimplyusinganaudiorecording–thebirdfieldrecordingreferredin

sound corpus of studio compositions (in Instrumental apparatus) – as farthest and

dreamlikeabstractionbothtoinstrument,musicandmusic-makingbody.Butthisisalready

169

aparadox:firstbecause‘recordedactualreality’standsfordreamlikeinacontextwhere

theoneiricandthefremdaretherule.Second,becausethisisnotjustanyaudiorecording:

itisarecordingofaspecificepisodeofreallifewithsurrealorunlikelyfeaturesbroughtto

stageorfilmasbelongingtotherealmofthismusicimagery.

Thepersonalandunlikelyfeaturesoftheepisodeshouldbebroughttothiscontextforthe

relevancethatitentailsinthecomplexrelationsestablishedinthepiece.Theepisodecan

besummarizedasfollows:in2007,Iwasworkingathomelateatnightandanightingale

waspersistentlysingingintheverylargeolivegrovewherethehousewassituated(Iwas

living inthecountryside). Itssingingwasso intense,thatatacertainpoint, Idecidedto

followthesound,bringingarecorderwithme.Thebirdwassomewhereonatreebyalittle

streamclosetoawaterwheel.Istoodtherequietlylisteningandrecordingthebirdand,

afterawhile,decidedtosoftlymanipulatethewaterwheelwhilethebirdwassinging.The

waterwheelproducedabeautiful,profoundandoddsoundwithacadentialandrepetitive

movement.Tomysurprisethebirddidnotgoaway:instead,itcontinuedsingingandan

unpredictedandsurprisingrelationwasestablished.Mysensationofthisexperiencewas

thatofplayingtogetherinaduo(asifIwasdoingakindofbassoostinatoandthebirdwas

doing themelodic part). It was therefore a surreal and very intense experience: I was

playingawaterwheelalongwithamostbeautifulsingingofanightingaleataboutthree

orfouro’clockinthemorning,byalittlestreaminthecountrysidewithnoonetoshare

thisexperience,exceptofcourseforthebirdandforalltheothernightcreaturesaround.

Therecordingofthis‘duo’isthenan‘actual’sound(unproducedandunmodified),afield

recording of something which really happened, but it carries the extremely intangible

qualityoftheepisodeitself.

Butthespecialcharacterimprintedtothispieceisnotjustabouttherecordingalonebut

about the relation established between the recording and the stage action. The piece

beginswith the triggeringof the recording, thatbeginswith thebird singingalone.The

waterwheelmakes its entrance after a few seconds, andwhen it begins to produce a

specificslowoscillatoryrepetitivemovement,Istartplayingthepianoalongwithit.We(as

acomplexpluralentityconstitutedbymeplayingonstagewiththebirdsingingwithme

playingthewaterwheel)are‘playing’almostasifperformingaLied(frommypointofview,

ofcourse,andhereagainaconnectiontoSchumannandalsotothenightingale,assymbol

oftheRomantic).Iplayasifthewaterwheelweremylefthandandbassandthepiano

weremy right hand and the harmonic accompanying (againwithWebernian chords of

minorthirdandmajorseventh, incombinationwithotherminorseventhchords)ofthe

complexmelodyofthebird.Inthissense,thepieceestablishesthisspace-timerelationof

theselftowardstheself(Iamnotplayingwithanabstractbirdorwheel:Iamplayingwith

thisepisodethatIwentthroughwithabirdinanotherspecifictimeandspace)asthemost

relevant, intriguing and dream-like character. Forme it doesn’t really have a nostalgic

character. Insteaditbringsanambiguityofsharinganunsharableandthepossibilityfor

170

bringingtogetherpastandpresent:again,anengagementwithasunbridgeablegap.Italso

establishesacomplexrelationbetweenintimacyandexposition13.

Theparadoxproducedbetweendifferentsoundspaces,space-time,betweensharableand

unsharable,intimacyandexposure,culturalandnaturalseemstomaketheminoperative.

In this sense, the titleof thepiece comes fromPessoa’sheteronymAlbertoCaeiroand

bringsanironicevocationofpoemXIofTheKeeperofFlocks:

Thatladyhasapiano.

It’snice,butit’snottherunningofrivers

Orthemurmuringtreesmake...

Whoneedsapiano?

It’sbettertohaveears

AndloveNature.14

Thepoemopposesnaturesoundsandthepianosound, inCaeiro’susual logicofnature

versusculture,questions the importanceandutilityof thepiano (and thereforealso its

stabilizedroleasaWesternHumanconstruct).Thiscrisisspaceofrelationisthenexplored

in thispiecenot ina logicofopposition,ofhaving tooptbetweenoneoranother,but

probablyinalogicofbecomingcomfortablewithparadox.

7thMINIATURE–ENDàVerifypedals’position

àOpenvolumepedal

13itismeaningfultoreturntoNancy’s‘formulation’ofexposition:Bodiesarealwaysabouttoleave,onthevergeofamovement,afall,agap,adislocation.(…)Thisspacing,thisdeparture,isitsveryintimacy,theextremityofitsseparation(or, ifweprefer, of its distinction, its singularity, even its subjectivity. (…)“Exposition”doesn’tmean that intimacy isextractedfromitswithdrawal,andcarriedoutside,putondisplay.Becausethenthebodywouldbeanexpositionofthe“self”,inthesenseofatranslation,aninterpretation,orastaging.“Exposition”onthecontrary,meansthatexpressionitselfisanintimacyandawithdrawal.The‘a-part-selfisnottranslatedorincarnatedintoexposition,itiswhatitisthere:thisvertiginouswithdrawal‘of’theself‘from’theselfthatisneededtoopentheinfinityofthatwithdrawal‘allthewayup’ toself.Thebody is thisdepartureofself toself (Nancy2008,61-62). ‘Exposed’ therefore:butthisdoesnotmeanputtingsomethingonviewthatwouldhavepreviouslybeenhiddenorshutin.Exposition,here,istheverybeing(idem,63-64).14Thistranslationwasfoundinhttps://alberto-caeiro.blogspot.com/Therearedifferentversionsofthepoem.TheversionIusehasadifferentlastversethatgivesthenametothepiece:Whoneedsapiano?/It’sbettertohaveears/andlistenonlytotherisingsounds(thetranslationofthelastverseismyown).ThecompletePortugueseversionisasfollows:Aquelasenhoratemumpiano/Queébomdeouvirmasnãoéocorrerdosrios/Nemomurmúrioqueasárvoresfazem//Paraqueéprecisoterumpiano?/Omelhoréterouvidos/Eouvirbemsóossonsquenascem.

171

8. andilisten:neartothewildheart(timecodevideo:12’51’’)

8thMINIATUREbeginning:whenstarting:pressdelaypedalforloop

Afterloop,change:-MXRpedal–1stchannel

-whammy6UP-turndownthevolumeoftheloop

-inchordsfffturnofftheloop-adjustthevolumeofthedelaypedalfor

thenextpiece

Thiseighthminiatureis incompleteoppositiontothepreviousone.Not intermsofthe

performancespace,which isagainsituatedatthekeyboard,butascompleteruptureof

soundspace.Thisruptureisproduced,atfirst,throughtheinstrumentalapparatus,whose

extremeelectronicprocessingappearshereasashock:aclusterinthelowestregisteris

played(lefthand)usingthelowregisterdistortionchanneloftheMXRpedal,synchronized

withthebeginningofarhythmicsyncopatedmovementproducedbytherightfootonthe

whammypedal.Thisfootactionproducesakindofpropulsionmovement(betweentwo

pitches) thatemergesasan inflationanddeflationmovementof a lowdistorted cloud.

Thereisonlytheattackoftheinitialclusterproducedbythelefthand,everythingelseis

propulsive energy deriving from this attack, emerging with no obvious contours. This

movement, in turn, is looped with the delay pedal (loop set up – triggered in

synchronization with the playing of the cluster and the foot action). The loop is then

maintainedthroughouttheshortpiece.Thepropulsive,oscillatorybeatisleftplayingalone

forawhile,untilasetofveryslowchordsinthemiddleregisterareplayedinsuperposition

toit,tryingtofitinthetempoofthisbeatinanon-obviousorasymmetricway.Thechords,

playedinpp,areagainjuxtaposedfifthsatadistanceofhalfatone,buttheyareprocessed

bythewhammypedalwhichismakingasimultaneoustranspositionataminorsixth(one

canlistentothechordplayedandtoitsprocessedtranspositionatthesametime).Butnot

onlythat:besidesbeingtransposedbythewhammypedal,theyareagainprocessedbythe

MXR distortion pedal, this time through another high register distortion channel (a

differentchannelfromtheoneusedintheloop,withadifferentequalization).But,most

interestingly,theppattackofchords(playedtogetherwiththeloop)hasnoprocessingor

almostnoprocessing:theprocessingisgraduallyinflatedaftertheattack,arisingasamost

improbable resonance (controlled with the right foot by the volume pedal, and

independentlyfromtheloop).Itisthereforenotachordplayedwithdistortion,butapp

chordwhichbrings thesurpriseofa complexdistortedcloud.Thechordswith inherent

inflatingcloudsmakeaveryslowandshortchromaticmelodicdescent,returningtothe

172

point of departure. They make, however, a sudden shift: they turn into inconsequent

brutality again, as if liberating an energy that was contained in the initial propulsive

movement and in the subtle rising distorted clouds. Condensed, powerful low chords

(mostlycarryingthepitches‘f’,‘b’and‘c’)areplayed,thistimeexploringtheattackthrough

differentopeningsofthedistortionvolume.Whathappensissoundaspurebrutality:the

distortedchords/clustersasextremespacingarisewiththehighpotentialforfeedbackand

uncontrollednoise.Thematerialisbeingsmashedliterallyattheendwithfistclusters,but

mostly it is swallowed by its own resonance and feedback. One cannot hear the loop

anymore,therearenochords,justanoisycomplexresonanceas‘pure’intensity–amusical

space ofeverywhere | nowhere. The piano is detonated through the engagementwith

electronicprocessingasanewoverwhelmingandoverwhelmedsoundspace.

END-checkvolumeofthedelaypedalforthenext

piece-pedals:samesettingsotherwise

-putonthelittlechimes(2)aroundbothwrists

9. itmeansjustwhatichooseittomean–neithermorenorless.(timecodevideo:15’04’’)

9thMINIATUREbeginning:àopenvolumepedal

àpresslooponthedelaypedal

The piece maintains the performance space at the keyboard. It begins with a set of

rhythmical chords (two minor sixths at the distance of a minor third again) that are

processedbywhammy(minorsixupagain)anddistortionpedals.AroundmytwowristsI

haveputbeforehandasetoflittlechimesinatwinesothattheactionofplayingthechords

makesthechimeshitthekeyboard.Allthehistrionicsoundsandcomplexplasticrhythm

giveitacompletelynewcharacter.Thiseventisrecordedwithaloopstationandtriggered

inapdynamicsimmediatelyafterIhavestoppedplayingit.Togetherandsuperposedto

thisreferencefromtherecentpast(theloop)Imakemelodicopeninggesturesthatarenot

veryprecise,butwhichsomehowrelatetominiature1.As‘free’gestures,theyactmoreas

aplasticity andélanandgoagain towards thehighest register, alwayswith the chimes

accompanyingthemovementandhittingthefrontofthekeyboard.Afterinsistingonthe

highestregister,Igraduallyrarefymygestureswhilefadingawaythevolumeofthelooped

eventtowardssilenceandrest.Atthispoint,reachingsilence,thelefthandcontrolsappp

reminiscenceoftheloop,emergingfromsilence,almostimperceptible.

Morethaninthepiecebefore,wherealoopwasalsoused,therelationofpastandpresent

173

is also brought to the foreground (as in miniature 7, but in a completely different

perspective).Herethemechanismthatbringspastandpresenttogetherismadeexplicit:

one listens to amusical present that is triggered immediately after being played as an

‘instantaneous past in the present’. Brought again to the present, this event is a

desynchronizationofitself–bothpastandpresent,neitherpastorpresent,itmeansjust

whatichooseittomean–neithermorenorless.

ENDàsetdelaypedalinthe‘reverse’position-off

àturnwhammypedaltoposition8UP(forthe11thminiature)

àturnDistortionOFFandchangeittothe2ndchannel

10. eatme?(timecodevideo:16’27’’)

Inthispiecethereisnoelectronicsoundprocessing,somethingwhichinawaybringsthe

‘past’tothepresentagain:asthetitlesuggests,thereisadirectreferencetominiature1.

(as in Schumann’s miniature 10. in relation to miniature 1.). Eat me? is however the

shortestofallshortpieces:morethanamusicalpiece,itmightbeclosertoalittlesound

poem, touching the initial gesture of miniature 1. But this time, the gesture affords a

plasticityandachangingmagnetismofminiature3.withareboundmovementthatmight

comefromminiature5.Althoughveryshort,itusesmultipletechniques:keyboardplaying,

Glockenspiel (inside piano), techniques from miniature 4. The piece finishes with two

resonating beats with smooth mallets on two different areas of the metal structure,

somethingwhichhasacadencequality(becauseofthetwo(high-low)pitchesproducedby

thedifferentbeatenpartsofthestructure).Thesebeatshaveacertainresonantswallowing

effectthatisemphasizedthroughthefilmeditingandtheuseofblackout.

10thMINIATUREàcheck:whammy8UP,

DistortionOFFàopenVolumepedal

11. terrorisdelight(timecodevideo:17’14’’)

Thisminiature employs electronic processing, namely thewhammy pedal,which is not

usedinasteadypositionthistime(maintainingastablepitchintervaltranspositionasin

miniature 9.) but for doing pitch glissandoswithin the range of an octave instead – an

impossiblefeaturefora‘normalised’piano,andafeaturethatisperformedwiththeright

footoscillatingonthewhammypedal.Thiselectronicset-uphasasomewhathumorous

174

andironicflavour,byproducinginsect-likesounds(inanon-literalorevidentway).

Thepiecebeginswithtwosuccessivestaccatoclustersoftherighthandinthehighmiddle

registerprocessedwiththiselectronicset-up.Fromtheirabruptending,thesubtlepitch

shiftingemergesasavirtualitythatbelongstotherealityoftheattack.Thesegestures(the

attackofchords)haveastrangevisualandaudiblecharacterakintoa‘killingamosquito’

hand gesture (again in a non-literal or evidentway). After these opening gestures, the

mosquito-likesoundisexploredfurtherthroughthreesimultaneoustremolos:oftheright

hand(simplewithtwonotesandthencomplex:fourormorenotesplayedwithpronation

andsupinationmovementsof thewristsandarms);of the lefthand (thesamekindsof

movementsastherighthand)inthecontiguousmiddleregisterofthepiano;ofthefoot

on the whammy pedal (the fast oscillation up and downmakes a tremolo effect). The

multiplecomplextremolosgrowinrangeanddynamicsuntilapointwherethelefthand

and right footmaintain the tremolo and the right hand brings the first gesture of the

clustersinhighregisterinanobsessiverhythm.Thisobsessiveintensityofclustersendsup

ina largerclusterandsuccessivearmandwave-likeclusters spread towards the lowest

register. The resonanceof thewave-like and lowmovements is partially filteredby the

pianosustainpedalandbythevolumepedalcontrollingtheresonanceoftheprocessed

sound.

Thereis,again,anexploringofaccelerationtowardsthesensationofvertigoasinminiature

3.and,therefore,bothtitlesestablisharelationbetweenthepieces.Butinthiscontextthe

gestureischaracterizedbyanurgencyof ‘desperatelytryingtograborcatchsomething

whichappearsungraspable’.As inminiature2., there is a runningafter something that

dispersesalloverand,again,thereistheambiguityofthemusic-makingbodywhichisboth

aproductofthesituationanditsproducer.Terroranddelight(thetitleofminiature3.)is

broughtfurtherinthispieceasterrorisdelight.

11thMINIATUREàpreparee-bows

àverifyplacing:softmallet,feltmallet,bowlmallet

àverifybowlstability

12. kindL.imeinschlummern(timecodevideo:18’12’’)

Thefollowingpieceis intouchwithSchumann’s12thminiature.Notonlybecauseofthe

title(whichinthiscontexthintsataspecificchildL.)butbecauseitwasthoughtasalullaby

withafremdcharacter(somethingwhichinawayalreadyhappensinSchumann’sKindim

Einschlummern/ChildFallingAsleep).Thepieceisallplayedinsidethepianoandproposes

acompletelydifferentperspectiveofthemusicalandinstrumentalapparatus.Itisavery

particularpiece,thatestablishesakindofsuspensioninspaceandtime,andahypnotising

musicalspace,mostlyforitsintenseuseofcontinuoussounds.Thepiecebeginswithane-

175

bow, putting a set of three piano strings of note ‘b’ in continuous vibration with the

simultaneous bowing of note ‘a’ with horse hair (everything in pp). When a certain

homogeneousandhypnotisingmusicalspaceisinstalledthroughtheseelements,thehorse

hairisputaside(thee-bowcontinues)andtherighthandbeatsverysoftlyonthepiano

strings(pp)withasoftmallet.Itisaspecificrhythmicgesturewithanimplicitmelody,which

alternates with the mallet’s very soft and almost imperceptible (pppp) rubbing of the

stringsinthepegszone(somethingwhichdoesnotproduceanypitch,justasensationof

asubtlesttouch).Therepetitivemelodicmotifandthissubtlesttouchinghaveacertain

qualityof‘autistic15andrepetitivesubtlegestures’ofchildrenfallingasleep(likegrabbing

acloth,suckingonapacifier,etc.)inaspecificcadence:thethematizationofthelullabyis

thenexploredmorethroughthisspecific‘autistic’intensitythananythingelse.

EventAcontinuestobesupportedbycontinuoussounds:thee-bowthatiscontinuously

presentfromthebeginninguntiltheendofthepieceandanewelement,aTibetanbowl

placedinsidethepiano,whichisrubbedwithanothermalletwiththelefthand(andplayed

simultaneouslywith theother referredelements). The ideaof autisticoroutof control

movementsisreinforcedbythehypnotisingpowerofthesuperposedsoundsofe-bowand

bowl.Atacertainpointthereisachangeinelements:therubbingofthebowlstops(but

the e-bow continues) and a non-linear sequence of harmonics in the low register

(produced/touchedbythelefthandandpercutedwiththerighthand)isplayedwithathird

mallet in a familiar rhythm and character with that of event A. However, these new

elementshaveamoreluminouscharacter,bothforthestar-likequalityoftheharmonics

andforthedepthofregister(justasBinSchumann’sKindimEinschlummern,whichbesides

enlargingdeepnessofregistergoestothemajorkeyinsectionB).Thesegesturesarethen

repeatedandanoddelementisintroducedinresonancebetweenharmonics:thatofsubtly

beating the metal structure with the same mallet. After this still fremd but possibly

luminousexperienceproposed inB, there isa return toAanda longcontinuous fading

away.Atthebeginningofthisfadethemalletintroducesanewkindofmovementonthe

strings: a subtlest rubbing as a back and forth movement which, in performance, is a

‘movement intune’withmybreathing–gradually turning intomovementasbreathing.

While thismovementasbreathing lasts, a fadeout isproducedby thepedal, gradually

filteringallresonanceuntilallstringsaredampened.Here,thee-bowstopsworkingbut

the movement as breathing continues beyond the breathing sensation: resonance is

absorbed in the subtle and almost imperceptible rubbing back and forth. This subtle

movementisthenaveryintenseandliminalperformanceexperience,whichintheendis

nothingbutthemusic-makingbodybroughttoitsminimaloscillation,thebodymakingits

minimaloscillationresound–listening.

15 Nancy’s a breakthrough [effraction] is theorized as a disruptive sense or a sense as disruption, suspension: the“fundamental”suspensionofsense(Nancy2008,124).Itisdescribed(idem,116)asamute,closed,autisticsense(…)asanautismwithoutanautosandwithno“self”thissenseisnotonlyasenseforsensingdiscontinuityofsense/meaning,butasensewhichisdisruptionofmeaningitself,discontinuity.

176

12thMINIATURE–ENDPrepareforsecondpart:àsetwhammy6thup

àcheckdelayreverseOFFàcheckDistOFF,2ndchannel

13. however,saysapoet(timecodevideo:22’33’’)

Thispieceraisesaseriesofmajorproblems:canitbeconsideredapiece?And,incaseit

canbeconsideredapiece,canitbeacknowledgedasmypiece?Whatisitinfact?What

contents or relations does it produce? We might come to the conclusion that these

questionsarequitedifficulttoanswer…

Firstofall,wewilltrytoformulatewhatthispiece‘consistsof’.Inthissense,wewillbegin

byacknowledgingthatthestrongestsemioticelementofthepiececonsistsofmyreading

ofthefollowingexcerptofJohnCage’spoem45’minforaSpeaker:

However

itoccurstome

tosaymoreabout

structure

Specificallythis:

Wearenowatthebeginning

(Cage2009,171)

TheexcerptisreadwiththeunderwatersoundsofTTLG’sopeningtitleinthebackground.

The reading of this specific fragment with underwater sounds can then be said to be

everythingwhatthe‘piece’isorhas,butperhapsitisnotso:thepieceisnotperformed

(read)onstage.Instead,avideoisprojected:avideo,which,again,isanexcerptofthefilm

TTLG,andthereforeDanielC.Neves’visualconceptionandre-constructionofthis‘piece’.

Thepiece,asanexperienceisthen,ultimately,thefragmentofthefilmitself,becauseit

changedtheperceptionofthepoeminsuchawaythatisimpossibletodisentangleone

thingfromtheother.Bringingeverythingtogetherthereforeerasesthepossibilityofsaying

whatthepieceisandwhereitsauthorshiplies.Thisisanoverwhelmingfeatureofthefilm

TTLG,whichcanbeputingreaterevidenceatthisspecificpoint.Pieceandauthorshipare,

again,adivergencebringingtheartisticproposalasatransversalperspectivethatishard

todefine.And therearemany intrinsicelements related to this idea: first, the title isa

177

subversionofSchumann’stitleDerDichterspricht(Thepoetspeaks).Inhistitle,Schumann

ishintingathimself(thepoet)andthepiececouldbeacknowledgedasamostbeautiful

sound poem, bringing music as an experience of what Barthes calls a state of quasi

parlando16.Mytitle,However,saysthepoet,eitherdisruptsthepossibilityofdiscourseof

thepoetoritbringsthediscourseofthepoetasdisruption.Ontheotherhand,However,

thedisruptiveelementinthetitlecomesfromCage’spoemthatisabouttoberead.The

poetshouldthen,inthiscase,notbeme,butCageandperhapsSchumannsimultaneously.

Butcuriouslyenough,Iamtheone‘speaking’,readingthepoemonthefilmandmaybe,

afterall,thepoetcouldalsobeme.Butagain,notme:myreflectioninwatersayingthe

poem,myvoicedistorted.IsitmesayingCage’swordsinSchumann’sideathroughDaniel

C.Neves’perspective?Hardtodisentangleitanddecidewhoiswho.Buttheentanglement

continues:inmyopinion,Cage’sfragmenthasaflavourofaCarrollquote:itimposesan

inversionofthelogicofsenseandstructureanditiswritteninawaythat,(forme),isasif

Carrolwroteit.Thefragmentisdisconcertingandcorrespondstothefirsttimethatvoice

is used in the whole solo:However appears as a disruption that seems to come from

nowhere in the middle of TTLG, subverting the logic of sense and imposing a logic of

structure.ArrivingtothemiddleofTTLGweare‘informed’thatweareatthebeginning.

Infact,ifweestablishedthatthelookingglasscouldbeplaced(amongotherpossibilities)

inbetweenthetwomajorepisodesofTTLG,thenwemighthaveeffectivelyarrivedtothe

beginning,toourpointofdeparture,and,whoknows,wemightthenhavebegunfromthe

farthestdistanceagain.

16See(Barthes1985,306)

178

II.freedommeanslittle.whatidesirestillhasnoname

fig.26

Thesecondparterasesthepreviouslogic‘ofglimpse’,thelogicimposedbytheprevioussequential

presentationofminiaturepieces.Intermsofperformancesituation,thissecondpartappearsasa

shock(bothbecauseoftheperformancestrategyandbecauseofDanielC.Neves’visualapproach):

theintimatecharacterofthefirstminiaturesepisodeisapproachedthistimeasaspreadingand

explosiveperformancesituation.Intimacy,asplasticityofexpansionofthebodiesorasenergetic

exploringoftherelationsbetweenthemusicbodiesandoftherelationsofthesebodiestowards

themselves(somethingwhichuntilnowhadbeenexploredthroughthisglimpsingandungraspable

perspective)isexposedinthissecondpartmoreobviouslyasvirtuosity.

Inthissecondpart,musicandvirtuosity, throughthisperspectiveof intimacy,areaparadoxical

exerciseofgoingafterwhatonedesiresandstillhasnoname.Thisrelationofthebodiestowards

themselvesandtowardsoneanother is thenexploredboththroughtheirurgefor freedomand

their confinement. Freedom means little: as a concept, freedom is simultaneously not

encompassingenoughandencompassingtoomuch,becausethebodyisthisparadox,whichcan

onlygetoutofitselfthroughitself.The‘unlimited’potentialofthebodiesisexhaustivelyexplored,

draineduntilthelimitsofexhaustionofthebodiesthemselves.Thebodiesareexploredasparadox:

anunlimitedpotentialforexhaustion.

In TTLG this is put in practise in a specific way: the relations between themusical bodies put

disruptioninevidence,mostlythroughtheinstrumentalapparatuspointofview.Thedetonation

mechanism that disrupts and re-creates ismostly regarded through this perspective of a non-

integer instrumental set up, whose disruptive features can be regarded as a failure of the

179

instrumentwhenitcomestocorrespondingtotheinstrumentalstandardsofexpectationandat

thesametimeasanempowermentoftheinstrumentascreativepotential.Thispianoisnotany

piano but amultiple and complex array of ideas, relations, consciously or unconsciously built,

developed,imaginedthroughyearsofrelationswithothermusicbodies,yearsofdevelopingmy

bodyasamusicbodyinrelationtoothermusicbodies.Butapiano,asaninstrument,isnotonly

therelationsandconnections,butalsothegapsinbetweeneachrelationandconnection:thepiano

isasetofconnectionsbutmostlydisconnections:amirrortremblinguponitself.

freedommeanslittle.whatidesirestillhasnonameunfoldsthroughsixdifferentpartsthatexplore

differentdetonationmechanismsoftheinstrumentthroughdifferentperformanceapproaches.

àturnONdelay!

1. turnoutyourtoesasyouwalk–andrememberwhoyouare!(timecodevideo:23’28’’)

Thesecondepisodeisbroughtbyafirstmusicalevent(whichIoftenrefertoasScherzo,because

ofitscharacter),thatexploresmostlymaterialsbroughtbyminiatures9and11(superposedminor

sixth chords in endless transpositions, figurations; the use of different tremolo, the use the

whammypedalinanoscillatingpositionwiththesamesettingsasin11,etc).Butthisexploringof

materials is mostly an exercise of forging fragments with endless contrasting characters and

intensities,anexerciseofbringing them inconfrontation.More than ina logicofdevelopment,

thereisagainalogicofexploringconflictinbetweenfragments:fragmentsarebroughttogether,

apart,throughlistening.Itisthedynamismofthis‘inbetween’,ofthisengagementoffragments

as music bodies that shapes|unshapes the shape. This exercise did however, with time and

performancepractice,evolveintoanintensifyingofitscomplexity,throughtheprogressiveopening

toallotherkeyboardmaterialsused inthe13miniatures:broughttogether,exploringtensions,

intensities,exploringthebodyofmusicasthis‘inbetween’thatisnottotallyincontrol.Butthis

confrontationisthenadetonationmechanism,actingthroughafeedingofintensity.

àPutDelayonreverseposition(ON)Attheendofcresc.assimultaneouslyaspossible:

àDELAY:turnoffbutton;andàfeedbackknobimmediatelydownasfastaspossible;and

àalmostsimultaneously:pressNANOpad’sONbutton–audiofileCreatures;

2. whichdreamedit?(timecodevideo:28’01’’)

Thesecondeventexploresinsidepianopossibilitiesalreadybroughtin13mini(cre)atures,butwith

a new electronic set up: the delay in reverse position used with gradual increasing feedback

180

(controlledwiththefeedbackknobofthedelaypedal).Someofthetechniquesofinsidepiano–

bowingpiano,Glockenspiel,playingwithmalletsinstructure,bowls,strings,etc.–arethenbrought

together as coexisting fragments. But the reverse delay effect that affects all performance is a

twistedone:itisslowlyshapingthemusicalspaceofhereintoaparadoxicalhereandeverywhere|

nowhere.Music and instrumental apparatus, as shapingprocesses, are gradually taken to their

extremes, unshaped. This happens through intensification of feedback effect and performance

techniques(mostlythroughthegradualtransformationof‘horsehair’bowinginto‘hardbowing’,

atechniquewhichonlyproducesthesoundofintensefrictionandnopitchfeatureofthestrings).

All materiality is then, through feedback and ‘hard bowing’, increasingly distorting and

metamorphosingintoacomplexandunbearableloudnoise.Feedbackisthenbroughtnotasan

abstractidea,butasamostconcreteandunbearablesoundfeaturethatcanbemeasurableand

(un)controlledintoacertainspecificpointwithaknob.Theprocesswhere‘furthershaping’begins

to swallow its shape can be clearly perceived here. This unlimited feedback iswhat brings the

elements in an unbearable relation: the processwe’re trying to explain is here renderedmore

graspable, for the enormous sound proportions of noise and loudness it reaches. The piano is

overwhelmedtowardsthelimitsuntilthereisnoidentitytraceofanormalisedpiano,thepianois

there,butnowheretobefound.

Thisunbearablestateofthemusicasnoisebringsthelimitsofthebearable/unbearableasextreme

sensorialexperiencetotheforeground.Thenoiseismaintainedforsomeunmeasurableseconds.

Anditisinfactanexperiencethatdefiestimeasmeasurable,becausetheunbearablebringstime

asintensityandnotasameasurethatcanbereplicated:fewextremesecondscanseemtolastfor

hours,ages.Atthispoint inthisextremeperformanceexperience, Isuddenlyturnoff thedelay

effectandfeedback,andtheexperiencefallsintosuddensilence,anactionthattendstoproduce

thesensationsofextremefall,vertigo,andloadedemptinessagain.Iturnallthesesettingsoffand,

asfastasIcan,ItriggertheaudiofileV.,whichwillconstitutethefollowingmusicalevent.

3. lookingglasscreatures(timecodevideo:33’06’’)

Wehave already analysed freedommeans little.what i desire still has noname III through the

perspectiveoftheinstrumentalapparatusinthechapteraboutTTLG’sElectronicsSound,corpuses

ofstudiocompositions17.That thenormalisedpiano identityandmusicsemioticsareswallowed

and destroyed in the previous section through a process of unlimited feedback turns on the

possibility for further spacing: the instrumental apparatus emerges from this violence and

eradicationasafartherabstraction,asaspecificaudioassemblage.Thestudiocompositioncreates

a time and spatial suspension regarding the previous and the following music events. Using

continuous, but also intermittent sounds and interferences, and using Carroll’s citations and

descriptions of creatures, the instrumental apparatus18, like a phoenix, emerges suspended,

17SeeClusterIII,chapterVII,3.(InstrumentalApparatus,Electronics)18Seepreviousnote.

181

arealised,asanoneiricdystopicsoundspaceofasomewherenowheretobefound.Thepieceis

triggered byme, right after having stopped performing the crescendo of the previous section.

Havingstoppedplaying, Icontinuehowever ‘performing’ thesurpriseof thispianotransduction

intoanungraspablearrayofcreatures:lookinginsidethepiano,outsidethepiano,Ipreparethe

varioussettingsforwhatfollows.Thispreparationisextremelyimportantfor,inthenextevent,I

willbeinapositionwhereIcannotreachanycontrollerorpedalatall: itmeansthat,here,the

successoftheelectronicsandpianopreparationisnon-reversible.Thismusic,assuspension,and

thecuriosityaboutawhereorawhatcreaturesisreinforcedbythefactthatmyfigure,aftersome

time,disappears(inthefilmmyfiguredisappearsandemergessometimesasaglimpse,andon

stageitdisappearsunderthepiano).Thisgoingunderthepiano,besidesbeinganecessaryfeature

forwhatisabouttobeperformedasnewmusicalspace,isadeterminingperformingstatement.

Goingunderthepiano,dressedinasimilarwayasAlice,establishesaclearrelationwithchildren’s

gestures of getting under tables, beds, etc., finding secret cornerswhere they can create new

imageries,newworldsandpossibilities. It isthenaperformancestatementthathasaparticular

subversive taste of completely undermining and sabotaging the serious and untouchable ritual

associatedwithpianoperformance.Morethanclaimingforanabstractfreedom,itisastatement

thaturgesforthepossibilityoffindingandcreatingnewmovement,newsensations,newspacings:

iturgesfortheplasticityandcreativityofthebodies,whichheremeans,ofcourse(thatwhichis

hardertoforge)theplasticityandcreativityofminds.

DURINGtheaudiofile:

Beforegoingunderneaththepiano:DELAY

àturnONàsettings800

àallknobsat12o’clock

àGOUNDERNEATHTHEPIANOàALONGTHEWAY:PUTMALLETONTHESUSTAINPEDAL

àCHECKpositionofeverymalletandpropàsettleinpositionforthenextpiece

182

4. andIlisten:it’sthesoundofthem(timecodevideo:34’37’’)

fig.27

Whathappensnext,underneaththepiano, isaproposalforaquiteoverwhelmingperformance

experience, with a certain ritualistic character. Before analysing the performance itself, it is

meaningfultoreviewthesecondlevelofsemioticactionsthatprecedethismoment:beforegoing

underthepiano,thedelaypedalisactivatedand,whilegoingunder,thepianosustainpedalisfixed

downwithamallet.Belowthepiano,afterhavingfixeddownthepedalandreachedtheprops

(malletsandchapchasofchacaniseeds)myfigureliesdown,faceup.Allactionofgoingunderand

grabbing the props unfoldswhile the previous audio file is running: as soon as it ends, a new

performance experience is initiated. This freedom means little fourth event is presented as a

percussion piece that establishes the instrumental apparatus with the following different

percussionsoundpossibilities:thepowerfullowbassofthesoundboardofthepianoplayedwitha

soft/smoothmallet; the sound of striking thewooden bars supporting the soundboard,with a

woodenmallet;themetalbarsofthepedalsalsoplayedwithwoodenmallets.Woodenbarsoffer

arangeofdifferentpitchesaccordingtotheirlength,somethingwhichincreasesthepossibilities

ofsoundinpitchandalsoinimpact:smallerandhigherpitchedwoodenbarsareusuallymoreacute

whentheyarebeaten.Asforthetwometalbarsofthepedals,theyproduceamedium,slightly

183

distortedsound(for itsstrangevibration)andtheyusuallyhave(dependingonthepiano)slight

differences in sound features that canbeexplored.Because the sustainpedal is downand the

stringsresonatealongwiththebeats,andbecausethepianoisamplifiedandfurtherprocessed

with delay, the piano is not just another percussion instrument, but a massive percussion

instrumentwithanenormoussoundpotential.Andmostofall,itappearsasavisualandaudible

shock,forthe‘brutal’,unexpectedandunforeseenpercussiveperformanceapproach19andforthe

massivescaleofsoundthatmightseemtothreatentheintegrityofthepiano.

ThispercussionpiececonsistsofasequenceoftwosimilareventswhereIexplorethepotentialof

thesepercussiontools,againuntilacertainlimitofexhaustionofthemusicbodies–music-making

body,instrumentbody,listeningbodyandbodyofmusic.Asteadypulseisimposedbythedelay

thatisactivatedbyeachbeat,apulsewhichItrytocontradict.Afterafirstapproachorevent,the

music-making body stops and rests, playing with the wind chimes that are hanging from the

woodenstructure,again inachild-likeapproach.This isasomewhatdisruptiveelement:aftera

‘brutal’andinconsequentapproach,thebodyarisesthroughachildishanddream-likeperspective.

Afterresting,whileplayingwiththewindchimes,asecondapproachisinitiated,andthelimitsof

thebodiesarepushedfurther.Thesecondbeatingapproach,amplifyingthefirst,endswiththe

actionofplayingthelittlewindchimesagain.Thistimethisactionseemstoproducea‘magical’

situation:behindme(behindmyhead,andatacertaindistanceonthestage),agiantmobilewith

creaturescomesslowlydownaboveatoypiano,whichwasalsohiddenfromtheaudienceuntil

thismoment.Lyingdown,alwaysplayingthewindchimeswithastringonmywrist,Istayinthis

positionforsometimeandslowlyheadtowardsthetoypianoandthemobile(alwaysplayingthe

chimesthroughthestringonmywrist).

Thepiecehasadistinctlyritualisticcharacter,andinitsreducedmusicmaterialmusicbodiesare

clearlypresentedasbeatingbodies,orbodiesthatare,ontheonehand,reducedtotheirbeating

features, and on the other enlarged, amplified and empowered by exploring, intensifying this

beatingfeature.

àPickthestringattachedtothelittlechimesmobilewhichishangingunderthepianoandgotowardsthetoypiano(puttingthestringaroundtheleftwrist).

àatthetoypiano,checkpositionofpropsandbigmobile

5. ibringapowderthatcouldgildeternityitself.(timecodevideo:37’56’’)

Whenkneelingatthetoypiano(thepossiblepositionforplaying),thesixthaudiofile20istriggered

by the sound technician. As a studio composition that explores mostly chime-like and non-

temperedsounds,itrendersfromthebeginningasomehowoneiric,fremdandsuspendedmusical

space.Themusic forgesastrangespace-time,becauseof thecombinationof theoneiricstudio

19Idon’tknowanysimilarapproachthathasbeendonepriortothisone.20SeechapterTTTLG,ChapterVIIInstrumentalapparatus,Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions.

184

compositionwiththespecifickindofinteractionproducedwiththemobileandtoypianoonstage:

1)thepianoseemsto‘haveshrunk’intoatoypiano(apossibleconnectiontoAlice’smagicpotion)

oritappearsasanotherpiano;2)Iamplayingthistoypiano,musicboxesandTibetanbowls(placed

ontopandonthesideofthetoypiano)andthewindchimes(hangingfromthebigpiano)witha

stringaroundmyleftwrist3)thisperformanceisplayedtogetherwiththestudiocomposition;4)

at the same time I am interacting with, engaging with the ‘creatures’of the mobile: my

manipulationmakesthemmoveallaround(myselfandthetoypiano),andthereforeIalsohaveto

slightlydodgefromtheminordernottohurtmyself(theyarethinmetalfiguresandtheybounce

allaround).WhentheaudiopieceendsandIstopplayingthetoypiano,Islowlyleavethisstage

positionand,alwaysplayingthewindchimeswiththestringaroundmywrist,Igotowardsthe‘big

piano’(alsoperformingthesecondlevelofsemioticactionsdescribedbelow).Thereisnoactual

silence between each event, freedom means little is a continuous but ever shifting spreading

through.

TOYPIANO–ENDGOTOWARDSTHEPIANOwiththestringattachedtolittlewindchimesmobile

ALONGTHEWAY:putbigcritterinsidethepianoTaketheMALLETTOFFthesustainPEDAL

MXR:-DistortionON

-setforChannel2WHAMMYsetting:

-Divebomb!DELAY-Hold

Afterloop:setwhammyfor6thUP

6. neartothewildheart(timecodevideo:40’43’’)

Afterallthesetupshavebeenfinished(theyaredoneasfastaspossiblewhilestillplayingthewind

chimes),thelowdistortedbeatingloopthatwasalreadyusedinminiature8isproducedagainina

fastertempo(thewind-chimesstop).Allofthissixthevent,asakindofcoda,consistsinthesimple

superposition of fragments as loops, each of them with all kinds of different techniques and

elements that are used through thewhole piece. Superposition ismade again in a strategy of

exhaustionofthebodies,inalogicwhere‘furthershaping’againmeansthemusicandinstrumental

apparatus swallowing themselves as semiotic contents (the autoimmune event). This intensity

crescendo, which is produced not only by loudness but by the distortion and feedback that

superpositionbeginstocreateafteracertainpoint,istakentoitslimitsagain.Whenthelimitis

being reached, the giant critter (whichwas placed back on the sound board beforehand, with

rubberitsfeetbetweenthestrings)iswinded-upbyme(anactionwhichgoessomewhatunnoticed,

185

becauseoftheloudnessanddistortionofthemusic).Whentheprocessofwindingupiscomplete,

Iplaytwo‘brutal’beatswiththepianolidagainstthepianobody:thefirstonewiththesustain

pedalopenandthesecondwithnopedal.Inthesecondone,Iunleashthecritterandstoptheloop

atthesametime.Avertigosensationmightbeproducedthroughstoppingtheloopandunleashing

themechanism.ThecritterislefttremblingaloneasIleavethestage,untilitthemechanismloses

wind and stops. This time, although amplified, no sustain pedal is used and the strings do not

resonatealong–itproducesalow,concreteandpreciseimpactingsound.Onelistensandperceives

itsclearbeatinganditsslowingdownuntilitcomestoacompleterest.

186

fig.28

INPRAISEOFDISORDER

187

Attachments

fig.29

IPD(folder),containing:

1)theaudiooftheCDInPraiseofDisorder(2013);

2)thebookletoftheCDInPraiseofDisorder(releasedbyShhpuma2013);

3)a(live)videowithfragmentsofallthesevenpiecesofInPraiseofDisorder(shotinthe

premièreofits‘final’versionatMariaMatosTheatre,in2013);

4)a(live)videoofthecompletepieceInPraiseofDisorderV.(shotinthepremièreofits‘final’

versionatMariaMatosTheatre,in2013);

188

BODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDERS

I. Workasengagementwithotherworks/ideas:outliningaconstellationofaffects

1. EngagementwithBookofAA,Mr.Swedenborg&animalescos

IhavealreadymentionedPedroDinizReis’sBookofAA1andmypiece6489AAforpreparedpiano,

whosescorewasdevelopedafterthegraphicimageofcertainpageschosenfromtheBookofAA2.

fig.30

1SeeClusterI.,ChapterI.4.TowardsthebeginningofthisresearchProject–InPraiseofDisorder.TheworkinquestionisOLivrodosAA=TheBookofA’s(DinizReis2011),abookthatlistsallthewordsofaPortuguesedictionary,moreprecisely96,715words.Thewordswereorderedalphabetically(A-Z) infourcolumnsbypage.Alltheletters from the list were deleted except the A’s. Description available at Pedro Diniz Reis’s website –http://www.pedrodinizreis.net/Work.aspx?ID=112).

2ThePerformancesof6489AAforpreparedpianotookplaceinCulturgestPorto(2011)andCulturgestLisbon(2011).Theinitialintentofreleasingthescorewasnotfulfilled.

189

6489AAforpreparedpianowasdeveloped inthreeparts,exploringmagnetsaspossibilities for

preparingthepiano3andworkingmostlyontheideasofsimultaneityandcomplexity(something

whichismoreexhaustivelyexploredinthethirdpieceof6489AAforpreparedpiano,Obstinado).

Theideaofmanycontradictorythingshappeningatvariouslevelsatthesametimewastakento

itsultimateconsequencesasincomplexity/newcomplexitymusicalapproaches:thescore(inthis

case,myinstructionsonthegraphicsofBookofAA)waspresentingitselfasanimpossibletaskfor

the performer, proposing an excess of simultaneous events to be performed. This idea of

simultaneityofcontradictoryeventsand(im)possibilitywasthenexploredfurtherthroughInPraise

ofDisorder.4

However, the strategy for In Praise of Disorderwould not be one of using the score as a pre-

conceived semiotic structure to force the body into disruption, as in Obstinado of6489AA for

preparedpiano.Instead,thestrategywouldnowflowfromthecomplex,paradoxicalanddisruptive

bodiestowardstheir(im)possibilitiesforfinding‘other’singularflexiblestructures,‘other’waysof

pullingtogether.

TheconnectiontoPedroDinizReis’BookofAAwasthen,asitwillbefurtherexplained,broughtto

thecontextofInPraiseofDisorderlateron:workingtogetherwithDanielC.Neves,PedroD.Reis

wasresponsibleforexploring,invideo,specificwaysofmanipulatingtextfragments,usingsimilar

procedurestotheonesusedinhisBookofAA.

Thissecondpieceofthetrilogywasdevelopedthroughdifferentphasesandprocessesduring2011-

2013andpresented indifferentways through thesevariousphases.Anotherengagementwith

otherworksestablishedthroughtheseprocesseswasGonçaloM.Tavares’bookMr.Swedenborg

andthegeometricalinvestigations5(Tavares2009),fromwhichthetitleInPraiseofDisorderwas

taken. Belonging to M. Tavares’ The neighbourhood collection, the book is inspired by the

personality of Emanuel Swedenborg, and is a collection of illustrated fragments that establish

themselvesaspoeticexercisesforthinkinganotherkindofgeometry:ageometryofaffectsand

forces, a geometry that puts the duality of matter and form in question. All titles (except for

Overture,thefirstpieceof IPD)andTheelegantfall (thelastpieceof IPD)weretakenfromthis

book.

3 This preparation techniquewas invented and developed by Brazilian composer/pianistMichelle Agnès,who kindlyofferedmesomemagnetsonce,whenpassingthroughLisbon.4However,assaidbefore,usingthefixedgraphicsoftheBookofAAasapre-conceivedformorstructurethatprecedesmusic went againstmymusical intents of working from and towards themusic bodies. Putting away the graphicalstructure,anewstrategywasestablishedinordertoworkonsomeofthematerialsandpoeticdirectionsof6489AAforpreparedpiano.5Translationbytheauthor:OSr.Swedenborgeasinvestigaçõesgeométricas.

190

InPraiseofDisorder

I. Overture

II. HierarchyofInsanity

III. Weaknessofsolids

IV. Allthatislighthasadarkpart(Lullaby)

V. Praiseofdisorder

VI. Reality,imagination(amethodnottogoinsane)

VII. Theelegantfall

Afirstversionofthissecondsolowaspresentedin2011atFestivalMúsicaViva2011atCCB6:it

wasashortversionincludingpiecesII.,III.,IV.,V.,stillatanearlystageofdevelopment.Aftermy

PhDresearchwasinitiated7(October2012)IPDwasfurtherexpandedandelaborated.InNovember

2012,asanartistinresidenceinORT–PeterKowaldGesellschaftinWuppertal,afirstversionof

pieceVI.Reality/imagination(amethodnottogoinsane)wascreatedandpreviouspieceswere

refined.Attheendoftheresidence,asecondversionofthesolowasperformedbothinWuppertal

andBerlin.Thisversion8wasagainthenfurtherdevelopedandrecordedintheEasterofthatsame

year9.

Throughoutthistime,anotherlevelwascreatedforthemusic,associatedwithtextandvoice,and

suggested by the engagement with M. Tavares’ quote/fragment unleashing lines from things10

(fromMr.Swedenborg’stextReality/Imagination(amethodnottogoinsane).Hence,themulti-

dimensionalbodyofmusicopenedforthisotherlevel,developedthroughstudiocomposition.The

resultingaudioassemblageswerethenconceivedtobeplayedtogetherwithperformanceonstage

–againaspaceasliminalityofsignification,betweensoundandword.

ThefirstideawastoworktogetherwithGonçaloM.Tavares,inordertocreatepoeticspacesof

suspensiontogether,feedingorinterferingwiththemusic.Aspacewherethewordcouldbestill

6CentroCulturaldeBelém,PequenoAuditório.7 Firstly focusing on chaos theory, dynamic systems and the contradictions between chance/determinism andorder/disorder,andtheapplicationoftheseideasinmusicalcomposition.Butonlytoreachthesameconclusion:inmypractiseIdidnotwanttoimposeanexternal(scientific)structureonthebodyofmusicinalogicoffittingoneintheother(acommonpractisein20thCenturymusiccomposition).Thepoeticideasofsimultaneity,complexity,paradoxicalco-existenceofdisorderandorderwerekeptforthisproject,buttherigidityofapre-conceivedformalstructurewasagainputaside.Thelogicwouldthenremainthatofthinkingfromtheperspectiveofthebodies,orfromthisrelationofthebodiestowardsthemselves.8Thisversionwasperformed inGermany (MainzandKoblenz)atClassicClasheventsand recorded forSWR2. ItwasfurtherperformedinAveiroUniversityinthecontextofthisPhDresearch(January2013).9Recordings tookplaceatDECAauditory,AveiroUniversitywithHélderNelson (soundengineer)andLuís J.Martins(musicassistance).10Translationbytheauthor:deixarsairlinhasdascoisas.

191

inastatebetweendisorderandorder,astateofemergencethatisnotyetexterioritybutalsonot

completeinteriority:aspaceasinbetween.ThisfirstideawasthatGonçaloM.Tavareswouldwrite

specificallyforthiscontext.However,becausetherewasnotenoughtime(thepremiereandthe

CD release were scheduled for an upcoming Maria Matos Theatre/Gulbenkian Foundation

Theatre/Musiccycle,andGonçaloM.Tavareswasoverwhelmedwithwork),thisideawasaborted

andanotherfruitfuloutcomewasfound.Duringthisprocess,M.Tavareswasfinishingthebook

animalescos,abookthat,by‘chance’,Ifoundidealforthiscontext,andwhichturnedouttobea

determinantengagement.animalescosappearsasaverydifferentorunusualwritingexercisein

the contextofM. Tavares’manywriting approaches. It canbe regardedas ahallucinatory and

almostpredatoryexerciseofwriting,bringingthisexercisetowardsastatebetweenpossibilityand

impossibilityofnarrative,betweenhumanandanimal(andthereforealsothetitle),order/disorder,

freedom/domestication,sanity/insanity,etc.Thetexthasthecharacterofanoverwhelmingand

unstoppable fuse spreading through, bifurcating in every direction at hallucinating speed.

Proposingacomplexandmulti-directionalaccelerationmovement,Iconsideredthisapproachthe

perfectfitformycontext.

AsinTTLG,atextassemblagewasmadewithvariousfragmentschosenfromanimalescosandMr.

Swedenborgandthegeometricalinvestigations11.Thereadingofthisassemblageoffragmentswas

thenworkedonalongwithactressRosindaCostaandrecordedthroughvariousapproaches.The

CDreleaseandthepremièreofthe‘final’versionofthepiecetookplaceatMariaMatosTheatre

onOctober4th2013.

2. Engagementwithothercollaborators:DanielCostaNeves&PedroDinizReis.

IPDwasconceivedasastageperformanceandasanaudioCD,butnotasafilm.Thecollaboration

withDanielC.Neveswouldthennecessarilyassumeaquitedifferentprocessandapproachfrom

thatofTTLG:thestagingofthispiecewasnotare-constructionofpreviouslyelaboratedideas,but

aconstructionconceivedfromtheverybeginning.

Ourfirstconversationsledustotheconceptsofchaostheory,non-linearsystems,andtheideaof

non-dualityoforder/disorder.ThroughtheseconceptsDanielC.Nevescametoanother ideaof

exploringvariousformsofvideonoise,suchaspixelizationpatterns,grainnoise,televisionstatic

noise.Forthis,he‘manipulated’previouslyexistingvideosthroughvariousprocesses,exploringthe

microcosm of these videos and exposing an almost ‘organic behaviour or life’ of their pixels.

Through these processes new imperceptible videos were then produced, with very abstract

11AndaveryshortfragmentfromUmaviagemàÍndia(Tavares2010).

192

texturesandshapes.Althoughveryabstract,thesevideoswereworkingonthethemeofrepetition

ofpatterns/shapes,randomlyalteringthemselveswithinthesepatterns.

fig.31

DanielC.Neves’mainideaforthestagingofthepiecewasthenoneofproducingparticularvideos

withthesetexturesandpatterns,thatwouldactbothasscenographyandaslighting.Thisapproach

was then conceived through two video projections: one frontal, on a black scrim or black

background,withananglethatalsoprojectson(andilluminates)themusic-makingbodyandpiano;

andonevertical,hangingfromthegrid,onthepianoandcentrestage,projectedonthefloor.Each

projection would be approximately 6m x 6m, together making a 12m x 6m rectangle. The

projectionsshouldbeindependent,sothatitisalsopossibletouseonlyone.

fig.32

The collaboration processwent as follows: through the composing/performing process Iwould

sendDanielC.Nevesrecordingsofeach IPDpiece.Hewouldthenworkonvariousapproaches,

exploring(in)determinatetexture(s),pattern(s))andwouldbegintoproduceaspecificvideofor

eachparticularpiece.Exceptforthevideoofthelastpiece,whichusesawidepaletteofcolours,

allvideoswereexploredandconceivedasrelativelymonochromatic,intherealmsofblack-white

andpaleblue-greencolours.Forthespecificmomentswherethelevelofthevoiceappears,Pedro

193

Diniz Reis produced text animations (that appear alone or as superpositions to these textures)

wherethetextissystematicallybeingboycottedthroughprocessesoferasingspecificletters(just

as inhisBookofA’sand inotherofhisvideopieceswhichrelate to thiswork).Thisprocessof

boycottingsignificationisalsoinducedbythefactthattheseanimationswerefurthersubmittedto

analoguetransformationsofvideowhichpromptfurthervisualnoise.

fig.33

Sincethevideosareprojectedonthemusicbodies(music-makingbodyincluded)theprojection

actsnotmerely as lighting, ororganic lighting, but as adifferent experienceof thebodies: the

bodiesarenotrevealedbutrenderedambiguous,dispersed,exposedasbodiesbelongingtothese

textures.Forthisreason,onlyveryminimalandliminalstagelightingisusedonthesebodies.The

exceptionistheinstallationofbellsandsirens,whichalsoactsaspartofthescenographyandwhich

isusuallyplacedanddispersedthroughoutthestage,outsidetheprojectionarea.Hangingfrom

differentspotsofthegridabovethestage(alternatively,theycanalsohangonmicrophonestands

dispersed through thestage)eachbell/buzz/siren is then illuminatedseparately.The lightingof

thesebells/buzzes/sirensonlyoccursinthepieces/momentswhere/whentheyarebeingused:it

isthenagaintheactionthatexposestheobjects.

Sincethevideosareproducedbeforehandandarenotmanipulatedintheperformancesituation

(throughliveprocessing,oranykindoflivereactivity)andsincethepiecesareneverperformed‘as

asamesame’theinteractionbetweenmusicandvideoalwaysaffordsnewrelationsandapotential

forrandomlyalteringourperception,eithersonorousorvisual.

II. INSTRUMENTALAPPARATUS

1. Preparationsandprops

InthesoloInPraiseofDisorderthedistinctionbetweenpreparationsandpropsisnotasstrictasin

194

TTLG,sinceIPDusesmobilepreparationsthataremanipulatedaspropsduringtheperformance.

Themobilepreparationsaremostlyconstitutedbymagnetswhichareplacedonthestrings,an

ideafirstdevelopedbyBraziliancomposerandpianistMichelleAgnès1.Theyproduceverybeautiful

nontemperedbells-likesounds,withendlessdifferenttimbrepossibilities.Withdifferentsizesand

shapes,theycanbeusedinastaticpositionorputinmovementbyhandmanipulation.

Themovementofthemagnetsonthestringscanbeinanoscillatorymode,withcylindricalmagnets

staying in the sameplace (and verydifferent kindsof oscillationsdependingon the sizeof the

magnets and their placing on the strings or other pianometal parts) or a slidingmovement of

spheremagnetsonthestrings.Inthestaticpositiontherewillbetwodifferenttypesofmagnets

employed:theonesusedasmobilepreparation(placedand/ordisplacedduringtheperformance)

andasetofverylittlemagnetsplacedontwoofthethreestrings(thatbelongtoasamenote)ofa

selectedmiddle-highregister(anextensionofanoctave),whichisusedasanimmobilepreparation

(placedbeforehandand left ‘untouched’ fromthebeginninguntil theendof theperformance).

Alongwith this setof littlemagnets, there is another elementwhich is apart of this immobile

preparation,namely,twolittlepiecesofblu-tackstucktothethreestringscorrespondingtocentral

‘e’and‘f’keys(placedatthebeginningofstrings,nearthepegszoneinfrontofkeyboard)and

producingapartiallydampenedsound.

fig.34

InIPDonecanstartacknowledgingthatthesetofpropsisrelativelylighterthaninTTLG,andthat

1Wegotintouchthrough(now-extinctInternetplatform)MyspaceandmetforthefirsttimeinLisbonin2010/11.

195

almost all props are concentrated inside thepiano, in thepegs zone, in front of the keyboard.

Besides the immobilepreparation, differentprops are thenplaced inside thepiano in strategic

places for manipulation before the performance begins: a large collection of magnets for

preparationasshowedinthepreviousphoto2;aChinesemetalball;abassdrummallet;aregular

sheetofA4paperabovethelowestregisterofstrings;ane-bow;twonoiseboxes.

Therearehowevertwoexceptionsthatpouroutthepianospaceasperformingspace3.Theyare

twoinstruments,thatontheonehandexpandtheinstrumentalandperformingspaceand,onthe

other,restrictthissamespace,enclosingthemusic-makingbodywithinit.Thefirstisatoypiano

thatisplacedbytherightsideofthepiano,nearthehighestregister,sothatthekeyboardsforma

rightangle: thekeyboardof the toypiano is setby the sideof thekeyboardof thepiano,as if

continuingitsextensionbutexposingadisruptionofcontinuitythroughitsrelationofrightangle

andbecauseitinevitablyexposesthedisruptionoftimbricalcontinuitytowardsthepianosound.

Theotherexceptionthatisalsopartofthis‘outside’or‘pouredout’realmisasetofvariousIndian

cowbellshanginginatwineontheleftsideofthepiano–usuallyoneendattachedtothefrontleft

leg of piano and the other end of the twine attached to a medium sized, not quite visible

microphone stand, placed on my left side. Both the toy piano and the cowbell set expand

instrumentalandperformancepossibilities,but theyalsodelimitandenclose themusic-making

body’s spaceon the left andon the right. The interactionof thebodieswill be thereforemore

concentrated on this specific piano space and will explore the apparatus as a device that

simultaneouslyandparadoxicallyopensandcloses.

Althoughtheactionoftheperformingbodyiscentredonthespaceofthepiano,theinstrumental

apparatus is still a dispersion through the bells and sirens installation, all over the stage. Its

manipulationdevice(apedalboardwhichwewilldescribefurtherwhenreferringtoinstallations)

ishoweverplacedonthispianospace–onthefloor,totheleftofthepianopedals.

2. ElectronicsIn IPD there isno live soundprocessingasa resultof thepreviousTTLGexperience,where the

instrumentalapparatuswasextremelycomplextomanipulate,imposinganincessantsecondlevel

ofsemioticactions(non-musicalactionsthatrefertochangesofsettings/objects/placingsinthe

instrumentalenvironmentbetweenandduringthepieces).Thepiecedemandedaconstantastate

ofawarenessthatdidnotallowthefaintestpossibilityofconcentratingexclusively,foraminute,

on a first level of performing actions. This fact was a result of TTLG’s strategy of bringing the

instrumentalbodiestothe foreground: theperformingbody,whichcouldbe inawayregarded

fromtheoutsideasbeingincontrolofeverysituationwas,infact,initsperformanceexperience,

overwhelmedwith theshaping of amusical instrumentandcontinuously ‘runningafter it’. The

2Sincepreparationsaremobilepreparations,theirspecificplacingwillbereferredinthecontextofthesecondlevelofperformanceactionsofeachpiece(indicatedwithanarrowà).3Besidesthebellsandsirensinstallation,aswewillobservefurtherahead.

196

instrumentalimaginationofthemusic-makingbodybothfreesthissamemusic-makingbodytoa

newworldofsoundandperformancepossibilitiesandimprisonsittoitspracticalrequirements.

Forme,thisimprisonmentwasmostlyfeltthroughactionsconnectedtosoundprocessingcontrol.

Therefore,anewandmoreflexibleinteractionexperiencewasaimedanddesignedforthissecond

solo,onewithoutlivesoundprocessing.

Electronicdevices/gadgets

Astoindependentelectronicdevices/gadgets,IPDisthepiecewhichmakesthemostuseofthem.

Aswithpreparations,someoftheseelectronicdevicescouldbeconsideredprops4,againblurring

thedistinctionbetweenpropsandelectronics.Thegadgetsthatmightbelongtobothcategories

are the previouslymentionedmini amps (usingmostly Smokey Amp amplifiers),usedwith the

purposeofproducingfeedbackwhenpointedtowardsthesoundboardofthepiano,5andthee-

bow(whichplacedonthestringsputsthemincontinuousvibrationmode,producingacontinuous

sound).However,themostinterestinggadgetsemployedaretwonoiseboxescreatedthroughthe

processofcircuitbending(asakindofreverseengineering)bysoundartistAndréCastro6.Unique

intheirsoundquality,theyhaveanindependentfunctioningandproducedifferentkindsofnoise.

Theyaremanipulatedthroughdifferentknobsand,inthecaseoftheboxusedinIV.,alsothrough

sensorsthatreacttolight.Buttheyare,toagreatextent,uncontrollable,whichmakesforalways

surprisingoutcomes,withinanexpectablerealm.

fig.35

4Becausetheyareusedinaninterdependentrelationwiththepianoandnotashavinganindependentfunctionoractivity.

5Inthelastperformances,recordingofthesefeedbackswereusedinsteadoftheminiamps.

197

Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions

RegardingtherealmofstudiocompositionsusedthroughoutIPD,itismeaningfultoacknowledge

that, except forVI., they all share the same sound imagery.Thepresenceof the voice ismore

recurringandthis timetherecordedvoice is,asalreadymentioned,thatof theactressRosinda

Costa.Thevoiceandthetextareoften(andintentionally)notquiteperceptibleinthemusic.They

aretherebutnotquitethere:thevoicewasrecordedthroughvariousprocesses(suchasreading

into largecookingpots),sothatthevoice’squality isclosertoanideaof interioritythanoneof

exteriority(anideawhichagainwasreinforcedbyPedroDinizReis’boycottingproceduresonthe

textanimations).

An element of the text assemblage (taken fromanimalescos) gains special relevance as both a

semiotic input for sound imagery andadestabilizingordisruptingelementof this new level of

music.ItistheBorawind,whichispresentedinthetextfragmentfromI.Overtureasbeingawind

asstrongandcoldasall that isdreadful,awindwhoseterribleeffectsonecannotescape,and

whichisdescribedasanunleashingofmadness.I.Overturethereforeunleashesthisideaofamad

windthroughoutIPDandestablishesthecorpusofwindsoundsorBorawindcorpusasthemost

important sound of all studio compositions. The sounds belonging to this corpus are, first,

recordingsofalargeassortmentofplasticflexibletubes,whichmanipulatedincirclesatdifferent

velocitiesproducebothdifferentharmonicsforeachtube,andwindysounds.Second,thereare

differentropesmanipulatedsimilarly,whichproducewindysoundswithdifferentintensitiesand

nopitch.Furtherinthiscategory,anIndianharmoniumiseitherplayedwithdifferentclustersand

‘breathing’rhythmsorplayedonlywiththesoundoftheairbellow(againwithnopitch).Onecan

saythatanotherelementoftheBorawindcorpus isbroughtbyoneofthetwofieldrecordings

used inVI.Reality, Imagination,amethodnot togo insane: recordedataport (Cascais), it is a

recordingofthesoundofboat’ssailsmovingwiththewind,producinganoddmelodiceffect.

Connectedtothesestrange,veryhigh-pitched(almostmelodic)gesturesofthesailsisthesound

oftheveryhighfrequencyfeedbacksoftheminiampsinterferingatthedistance(manipulatedby

me)withtheopenstringsandsoundboardofthepiano.Neitherthepianonortheminiampsare

independent in this soundevent: theyonly function as a feedback relationof one towards the

other,creatingtheseveryhighsoundsatthethresholdofmelody,gettingengagedatthedistance.

Anothersoundcorpusistheboatsoundimagery,thatisalsocomposedofthepreviouslyreferred

fieldrecording(thesoundofthesailsinthewind)andbyanotherfieldrecordingwhichisedited

togetherandcrossfadedwiththesailsrecording(thishappensinthepieceVI.Reality,Imagination,

amethodnottogoinsane).Itisafieldrecordingofagatheringofhugeshipssoundingtheirhorns

198

intheriverTejo,crossingittowardsLisbon.1Thehornssoundalmostlikeapolyphoniccomposition

where one can listen to the different entrances of the ships’ horns forming a complex sound

structure. It almost seems to have an intentional musical direction and brings the nostalgic

characteroftheshipstraversingthecityto/fromdistant lands. inturn,thehornsfromtheboat

establish a straightforward connection with theHorn, please!2 imagery of the bells and sirens

installation(thatisabouttobedescribedininstallation).

Alastelementofrecordedsoundsisacollectionofverylowfrictionsoundsproducedintheskinof

anorchestralbassdrumwiththehand.Ithasasuddeneruptivecharacterthatdespitedifferences

insoundproductionortype,establishesaconnectiontotheimageryorcorpusoftheBorawind.

3. BellsandsirensinstallationThebellsandsirensinstallationisdividedinthreedifferentdevices.Thelargerandmorecomplex

one is composed of a set of five very different bells/buzzes and one small siren, dispersed

throughoutthestageandcontrolledbyapedalboardplacedontheflooronthe leftsideofthe

pianopedals.Thereisoneelectromechanicalbellproducinganintermittentcontinuoussound;an

electromechanical horse drawn cart’s bell producing one unique articulated sound; twobuzzes

(withalowandmediumpitchregister);anelectronicbellwithaveryhigh-pitchedandcontinuous

sound;andasmallelectromechanicalsiren.Eachofthebells/buzzes/sirensisfixedtoawooden

box(withdifferentsizesandshapes),andconnectstothepedalboardthroughaverylongelectrical

cable. The pedalboard has six ‘pedals’, then, so that each pedal can control a specific

bell/buzz/siren, and six electric entranceswith different voltages, eachof them customized for

plugging a particular bell/buzz/siren. Therefore, the ‘pedals’ that control each bell/buzz/siren

independentlyarenothingbutlightswitches,displayedonthispedalboard.Inbigtheatrevenues

an additional independent switch is placed on the top of the pedalboard for controlling an

additional bigger and very loud (electromechanical) siren (in smaller venues, the small siren is

enough). The conception of the installation is mine and Luís José Martins’, and the technical

conceptionandconstructionoftheinstallationwasmadebyLuísJ.Martinsalone.

1IwaswalkingfromGraçatoAlfamaandheardthissoundbychance–Isupposetheoccasionwasacelebrationofanevent(Idon’tknowwhat).

2AfrequentinscriptioninIndianvansandaninspiringmotifforInPraiseofDisorder.

199

fig.36&37

Thewoodenboxestowhichthebells/buzzes/sirensarefixedhaveasmallholewiththespecific

sizethatcorrespondstothesizeofmicrophonestands’screwthreads.Thisallowsforthemtobe

hungintwodifferentways:eitherhangingthemfromthegridabovethestageorinmicrophone

stands (somethingwhich is easily found in theatres, when it isn’t possible to hang them from

above).Throughonesystemoranother,theyaredispersedthroughthewholestage.Thewooden

boxesfunctionbothasresonanceboxesofthebells/buzzandasanaestheticelement:theyimprint

onthebells/buzz/sirensthecuriousandintriguingvisualcharacterofstrangecreatures,again.On

thewhole,theinstallation,althougheccentric,isaverybasicelectricconstructionwithits‘basic’

200

sounds, switches and connections rendered visible through the black cables coming from

underneath the piano towards the specific bells/buzzes/sirens placed through the stage. The

instrumentalapparatus,throughitsconnectionsanddisconnections,isrenderedvisibleandaudible

asthespreading.

Theseconddeviceofthebellsandsirensinstallationisasetofthreemechanicalhotel/reception

bellsfixedtoawoodenboxplacedonthefloorbytheleftsideofthepedalboard.Themechanism

ofthebells(whichisusuallyplayedwiththehand)isplayeddirectlywiththeleftfoot.

Thethirddevicethatcanbeacknowledgedasbelongingtothisinstallation,althoughverydifferent

insoundcharacter,isthealreadymentionedsetofIndiancowbellswithverydifferentsizesand

pitches,hangingontheleftsideofthepianowithatwine.

InPraiseofdisorderInPraiseofDisorderisthen,again,amultidimensionalbodyofmusicunfoldingthroughdifferent

kindsofrelationsestablishedbetweenthemusicbodiesthroughoutitssevenpieces.Onecouldsay

that each piece puts in evidence different kinds of disruption processes, different kinds of

instabilitiesorvulnerabilitiesofthebodies,butalsodisparatestrategiesfordealingwithinstability

andcomplexity.

Probably the most striking ‘feature/event’ to analyse in this context will be how disruptive

processes(fallingapart)andstrategiesfordealingwithdisruption(pullingtogether)areproduced

withinasamemotion,asconcretemulti-dimensionalevents.

Virtuosity is thenalsobrought forththroughthe ideathatthemusic-makingbody’sactionsand

spacingpossibilitiesarebothexpandedandconfinedthroughtheenlargementoftheinstrumental

apparatus. This idea of paradox is further expanded through the title In Praise ofDisorderand

throughthefactthatthefocusofthesespecificpieces,asautoimmuneexercises,mightbemore

directed towards perspectives of the reconstructive processes and strategies (and therefore a

perspectivetowardsacertainorganisation)thantothedeconstructiveeventproducingdisorder

(although,aswehaveseen,onedoesnotexistwithout theother,andtheymightbe thesame

event).

Secondlevelofsemioticactions

Asmentioned before, the second level of semiotic actions is complex in IPD, but slightlymore

flexiblethanintheprevioussolo.Thefactthatthereisnosoundprocessingerasesformeractions

connectedtomanipulationofelectronicset-ups.Forme,thisissomethingthatchangestherigid

characterthatpreviouslyoutlinedthislevelofactions,whichwasmostlyduetoacertaindegreeof

stresstowardsthealwaysimminentpossibilityofelectroniccrash.

201

On the other hand, the mobile preparation requires permanent changes, the bells and sirens

installation demands a complex performance techniquewith the feet, the noise boxes require

manipulation,etc…Whatisbroughtanewisthatactionsoftencorrespondbothtoasecondandto

afirstlevelofsemioticactions.Or,inotherwords,changesinsetuparemoreoftenentangledas

(firstlevelof)performanceactionsthaninTTLG.Thisshiftstheperspectivefromtheinstrumental

body(TTLG)towardstherelationbetweenthebodies(IPD)and,togetherwithothercomposition

andperformancestrategies,willbringthisrelationanew.

Beforethebeginning,placingofsemi-preparationsandobjects:

-a)cylindermagnet(1cmlarge)oncentralc#string

-b)2cylindermagnets(1cmlarge)onfabovecentralcandg#belowcentralc

-c)2towersmadeof2smallercylindermagnetsonbandbbabovecentralc

-d)2towersmadeof2verythinandsmallcylindermagnetson:f,b,centrald,g#

-e)2ormoretowersofmagnetssimilartothoseinc)butonmutedstrings(inthepartofthestringbetweenthepegandthemusicrack

f)2towerssimilartowerstoc)ande)butonthemetalstructure

g)arubberbouncingballonthesoundboardplacedinoneoftheholesofthemetalstructure(theballandtheholemusthavecompatiblesizessothattheballdoesnotdisappearintothemetal

structure)

h)sheetofA4paperonthelowestregisterofstrings

i)turnonnoisebox1(butwithnovolume)

I. Overture

f

fig.38

202

itistheBorawind,awindasstrongandcoldasallthatisdreadful,itistheBorawindthatstirsthefoodinsidethepan,and

sothosewhocometothisfeastwillgomad,forthiswindisknowntoactlikeasabretothemiddleofthehead:itcuts

pieces,separatesoldelements,nocutleryneeded:thewindcomesanddoeswhatonehundredthousandutensilscouldn’t:

itturnsrationalfoodintomadfood,theBorawind,fearit,thosewhogotoTriestecomebackwiththeBorawindintheir

headsandtheyneverforgetit,youcan’tforgettheBorawind,andwhileyoucookthefoodforthefeastyourememberthe

curseandbecauseyou’reembarrassedyoudon’tsendyourguestsaway(TavaresinSá2013)3

InPraiseofDisorderisintroducedbythisveryshortpiece(55secondslong),pompouslyentitled

Overture.Itisanindependentstudiocompositionthatistriggeredonstagebeforemyarrivalon

scene,andwhichhasanopeningfunction.OpeningheremeansunleashingtheBorawindideaof

awindasstrongandcoldasallthatisdreadful,awindthatturnstherationalintomadness,an

infectiouswindthat,spreadingthrough,separates,diverges,disconnectsallwhatittouches.This

windisunleashed,asamusicalandperformanceviruswiththepossibilityforspreadingtoanyone

involved.Itisthenclearlyconnectedtoourthemeofspreadingnotregardedasconnection,butas

separation: the wind acts like a sabre to the middle of the head: it cuts pieces, separates old

elements, no cutlery needed: the wind comes and does what one hundred thousand utensils

couldn’t.Itisabitterwelcome:whileyoucookthefoodforthefeastyourememberthecurseand

because you’re embarrassed you don’t send your guests away. The piece, as described in the

previouschapterabouttheinstrumentalapparatus,isacompositionassemblagethatmakesuse

ofthepreviouslydescribedBorawindcorpusofsounds4andofRosindaCosta’svoicereadingthe

fragmentpresentedabove.

Myentranceisproducedduringthispiece:itisneitheranevidententrance,becausethereisonly

theprojectionofthefirstvideotextureandno lighting,nor is itaconcealedone,since it isnot

actuallyhiddenfromtheaudience.Whenthispieceisfadingaway, Ibegintoplaythefollowing

pieceatthepiano.

Regardingwardrobe,thisisthesolothathastheleastuncommoncostume:Iamdressedinblack–

black trousersandablack jacketwithacutawaydesign–somethingthathintsat the ‘classical’

costumeofthemalepianistinthe20thcentury.

3TranslationofalltextfragmentsinthebookletoftheCDInPraiseofDisorderbyFranciscaCortesão.4SeeIPD.Instrumentalapparatus.

203

II. HierarchyofInsanity

fig.39

Wecanbeginbyacknowledgingthatthestrategyfordisruptionofthemusicbodiesisunleashed

throughasubtleoscillationproducedbyverylittleandthinmagnetsonthepianostrings(when

subtlymanipulatedbythehand).Thisliminaloscillatoryandnon-linearmovementisthen,through

variousprocesses,fedbackandforwardtowardsalllevelsofthemusicalprocessandalllevelsof

themusicbodiesandbodyofmusic.Thisdisruptivespreading is thenunleashingandshapinga

hierarchyofamplitudesofoscillatoryandvibrationmodes,ahierarchyofamplitudesofinstability,

andthereforeofacertaininsanity.Thishierarchyofamplitudesofoscillationisproducedthrough:

individualmovementsofeachmagnetorelement(bouncingball,etc.)putinvibration;oscillatory

movementsproducedbetweenasetofindividualmovements(asanon-linearcircularinteraction

betweenindividualelementsofaset),oscillatorymovementsbetweendifferentsetsofelements

(movementsbetweenlargersetsofsetsandsoon)…sothateachoscillatorymovementcanbecome

anelementofanotheroscillatorymovementwithalargeramplitudeandmagnitude.

Thestrategiesbothfordisruptionandfordealingwithdisruptioncanthereforebesummarizedas

follows:first,themusicbodiesaredisruptinginoscillation–thefragments–throughalllevelsand

inaseemingly fractalmode.Second,engagingwith them,andtrying todealwithall levelsand

fragmentaryoscillatoryeventsatthesametime,themusic-makingbody’sbehaviourdiverges,in

oscillationtowardsalldirections:ultimately,themusic-makingbodybecomesoneofthemultiple

levelsofthisoscillatoryevent.Hence,themusic-makingbodyisbeingshapedbythebodyofmusic

thatitisshaping,ortheotherwayaround:thebodyofmusicisbeingshapedthroughthemusic-

makingbody’sdreamingandshapingvibrationmodes.

Butallmovements(includingthemusic-makingbody’smovementsdealingwithelements)havea

non-linearcircularcharacter:themusic-makingbodyisstanding,withtherightfootcontinuously

pressingthesustainpedal,oscillatinginacircular,asymmetrical,unstableand‘octopus-like’way

betweenfragments.Itisadifficulttask,sinceputtingamultitudeofsetsofverystrongmagnetsin

204

oscillationcanbetricky:theycancollapsetowardsthestringsbymagneticforce,theycanattract

eachotherandcollapseintooneanother(makingnoiseandgettingoutofplace),theycanhurtif

notmanipulatedproperly,etc.Anditisanevenmoredifficulttaskwhenthesemanipulationsare

producedsimultaneouslywithmanyothertypesofaction,suchasplayingthekeyboard,playing

insidethepianowithharmonics,magnets,ballsinverydifficultpositions.

Order/disorder,control/outofcontrol,fallingapart/pullingtogetherareclearlynotdualitiesinthis

contextandseemtobe ‘produced’ throughthesameevent: themusicbodiesdisrupting intoa

somehowoutofcontroloscillatorymovementare‘produced’throughadeconstructiveeventand,

atthesametime,‘producing’itsoscillatorymovementasare-constructive,re-organisedcreative

movement.Allmusicbodiesarecomplexnon-linearoscillatingprocesses:theyareacontinuous,

unstableandundecidableinbetween.

Music and music-making is here then a complex oscillating event in all directions, somehow

thematisingtheeventoftheundecidableparadox.

****

Withthe fadeoutof I.Overture,thepreviously triggeredstudiocomposition, themusic-making

body begins playing amelodic opening gesture (with a harmony of juxtaposed perfect 4ths at

distanceof½atoneor,inotherwords,superposedaugmented4thsatadistanceof½atoneinan

overallenvelopeofmajor7th)inasittingpositionatthekeyboard.Throughtheresonanceopened

bythemelodicgesture,differentverylittlemagnetsareputinvibration(withthehand).Butthe

comingtogetherofvariousindividualoscillationsoflittlemagnetscreatesotheroscillationlevels

between these individual oscillations. A complex relation of different levels of oscillations is

initiatedbythefollowingmusicbodiesputinvibration:mediumtowerofmagnetsinmutedstrings,

mediumtowerofmagnetsonmetalstructure,littletowerofmagnetsplacedatthebeginningof

thestrings(nearthekeyboard),biggestmagneton‘c#’,bigmagnetson‘g’and‘f’strings,medium

towerson‘b’flatand‘b’strings,arubberbouncingball,ametalballplayedbytheforceofgravity

onthesheetofpaperplacedontheloweststrings,theoscillationofthepapersheetonthestrings

and,lastly,theoscillationasanon-linearcircularityofmovementproducedbythemusic-making

bodydealingwithallof theseelements. Inastandingpositionandhaving theright footonthe

sustainpedal,themusic-makingbodyisagaininanunstableposition.Itisfromthisunsteadiness

thatitwilloperatetowardstheothermultipleunsteadyelements,oscillatingbetweenthem.

Besidesthesedifferentkindsofoscillations,otherkindsofmusicalfragments,withaveryspecific

instablequalityarebrought into this context.These fragmentsarephotographical shortquotes

(chords or very short gestures) taken from historical WAM pieces: different elements from

Schoenberg’sKlavierstückeop.19(VI.)andalsothetwohistoricalchordsasfragmentstakenfrom

Wagner’sTristan und IsoldeWWV90.They are brought forth, again, for affective reasons and

because they play an important role in the ‘history of instability’ ofWAM. Although they are

completely taken out of their original context and disconnected from each other, as affective

elements,theyestablishthepieceagainasanengagementwith.Beingbroughttogetherwithother

205

fragments from other contexts (all sorts of oscillatory movements described above and other

musicalfragmentsderivedfromthemelodicopeninggesture,whichemphasizetheimportanceof

intervals of perfect/augmented 4th and minor and major 7th) they initiate, among themselves,

anotherlayerofnon-linearcircularmovement.Theoscillationbetweentheseelementsismostly

performedatthekeyboard(exceptforoneSchoenbergchordwhichismainlyplayedinharmonics

inside) but since many oscillatory layers are played simultaneously, the music-making body is

oscillating circularly between many different inside piano elements and techniques and many

different‘outside’keyboardelementsandtechniques.

Thepiece isshapedthroughtwocomplexandsuccessiverelativelysimilarevents: thesecond is

growingwider and longer than the first one and its increasingmagnitude collapseswith a first

triggeringofabell(installation)thatseemseithertosignalorto‘produce’the‘point’orsingularity

wherefurthershapingbeginstounshape.Theverybigamplitudeandloudnessofmusicalevents

beginstorarefyandfadeawaythroughsmallerandpposcillations.

When themusic seems to be vanishing, the second studio composition is triggered: the wind

sounds are unleashed and Rosinda’s voice is heard through almost imperceptible different

fragmentspresentedbelow.

emptyspacesthatlettersmustfillwithsense,here’stheperfectgameboard

–I'minthemiddleofmyheadandevensoIstartscreaming,deadinthemiddleandyou’relost,I

wasthrownoutthewindowandinsidemyheadnoteverythingisclear

whatgoesonoutsideisnotunderstoodinside,thebrainconnectsthedots,onedottothenextlike

thechildren’sgameuntilitdrawsashapeyoucanunderstand

abrainthat,outoffourthousandimages,choosesone–

(M.TavaresinSá2013)

While this audio file is playing, the oscillatingmovements rarefy and a second level of actions

activated:

àtakeallmagnettowersandcylindersoutofthepianostrings

(placetheminthestructure)

àtaketheA4sheetoutofpiano

àtakethebouncingballout

Intheperformancesituation,thelastsentence,whichislouderandmoreperceptiblethanallother

fragments, is followedbothbyanabruptsilenceandablackout. It isagainavertigoexperience

whichdisruptsandendsthepossibilityofamodusoperandi,openinghoweverforanewprocess,

whosestrategywillsomehowhavetodowiththeutteringofthislastsentence–abrainthat,out

offourthousandimages,choosesone–Silenceandblackoutlastforsomeseconds,untilIbegin

206

toplaytheupcomingpieceanditscorrespondentvideoistriggeredandprojectedsimultaneously

tomyplaying(bythelightingtechnician).

III. Weaknessofsolids

fig.40

Theprevious systemof fallingapart/pulling together (thatoperatedasamagnifyingprocessof

undecidabilityornon-linearoscillationof all themusicbodies) has crashed througha feedback

process. From this detonated system, another strategy for disruption and for dealing with

complexity,simultaneityandfragmentationisunleashed.Itisalmostanoppositestrategy:rather

thandisruptingthroughalllevelsandinsteadoftryingtodealwithallfragmentaryelementsatthe

sametime,Weaknessofsolidsdisruptsintofragmentationinasuccessiveandnon-accumulative

way.Thismeans that thebodyofmusicand themusic-makingbody (andmusicbodiesoverall)

disruptthroughonelevel/fragmenteachtimeandcanonlydealwiththisonefragmentatatime.

Hence,theoverwhelmedandoverwhelmingsystemcreatedbytherelationsofthemusicbodies

imposesthemusic-makingbodytochooseone,outoffourthousandimages5.Eachtimeuntilthe

nextdisruption.

Thisnewapproachisthenresonatingsomeideasofthe‘geometric’investigationsundertakenby

Mr.Swedenborg6and,therefore,thefollowingfragmentsofthisbookarebroughttothiscontext

asanimplicitresonantrelation7.

Weaknessofsolids

1. Aliquid’sextremityisalsoitscentre2. Liquidshaveaninfinitenumberofcentres3. Solidsaremorefragilebecausetheircentreistraceable

5Seepreviouspage.6SeeIPD,I.1.EngagementwithBookofAA,Mr.Swedenborg&animalescos7Thesefragmentsarenotbroughtexplicitlytothemusic,theyarereproducedinthebookletofIPD,asbelongingtoan

implicitrealmofthispiece.

207

The fragments are then, in the traditional assumption ofmusicalmaterial, relatively simple: 1)

specificchromaticfigurations(asmultiplecombinationsestablishedbeforehandwith‘endless’non-

established possibilities of re-construction, expansion, displacement, etc.) brought together,

exploredthroughdifferentapproaches,registers,spacings;2)thesameharmonicrelationofthe

openinggestureofpreviouspieceHierarchyofinsanity(juxtaposedperfect4thsatdistanceof½a

toneor,superposedaugmented4thsatadistanceof½atoneinanoverallenvelopeofmajor7th)

is again explored throughmultiple approaches and characters (again asmultiple combinations

establishedbeforehand,with‘endless’non-establishedpossibilitiesofre-construction,expansion,

displacement, etc.). 3) chromatic opening gestures (with many possibilities of combinations),

unleashing littledetonationsproducedbyparadoxicalmovementsof figurationsthatseemboth

centrifugalandcentripetalgestures(aspecifickindofgesturethatemergesthroughoutallpieces

of the trilogy). They start out centripetal and then produce little explosive and dispersive

detonationsofisolatedsoundsintheoppositedirectionofthecentrecreated.Thesoundsthatare

‘detonated’bythesemovementshaveastarlitorstardustcharactersincetheyhaveglowing,high

pitchedgranulatedanddispersivefeaturesandcharacter.Heretheycanemergeascombinations

of sounds of the piano, toy piano and specific bells from the bells’ installation that have this

starlit/stardustcharacter:thethreefloorbells(fromthesecondsetofbellsoftheinstallation)and

thehorse-drawncart’sbell (fromthefirstset).Thelittledetonationsandthefreneticmaterials,

whencomingtogether,produceagainbothunpredicteddirectionsandcurvaturesoftime,butalso

themagnificationofitsamplitudeandcomplexity.

Atthecoreofthispieceis,then,afloatingandungraspableideaofcentre:themusicmovesina

non-linearway, jumping from layer to layer, fromonesensationofvertigo toanother.Because

thereisnosuperpositionoffragments,whatcomestotheforegroundisthevertigosensationof

ending‘beforeanending’andtheurgencyofhavingtochoosethroughvertigo,throughlistening.

What energizes and creates direction, disrupts and shapes music is again a listening ‘event’

betweenfragmentsthatisfedforwardandback.Listeningasdisruptivevertigobringstothesame

eventapotentialofmanydifferent,undecidableandsimultaneousmusicaldirections.Hence,the

emergenceofthispotentialcreatesanultimateurgency:theabsolutenecessityofchoosingone

out ofmany possibilities (one,out of four thousand images). As such, thismusic brings to the

foregroundthelisteningeventasatangible‘inbetween’successivefragmentswherechoiceand

itsinherentrisktowardstheeventofundecidableparadoxarebroughttoasmusicthematization.

Thiscontrastswiththepreviouspiece,whichputinhighresolutiontheemergenceofthepotential

itself, as a complex and simultaneous array of possibilities, bringing the event of undecidable

paradoxasanoverwhelmingoscillatingevent.

Eachchoice,eachchosennewdirection,asanewtopologicalemergence,isbroughtisolated,ina

glimpsingperspective.Becauseparticularfeaturesorpossibilitiesoffragmentsaredeterminedin

advance and others not, layers of past, present and future are urging and converging as

simultaneouspotentialtotimelinearityofperformance.Andthisdoesnothappeninaparticularly

pacified,smoothway.Thebodiesofmusic,ofperformanceandinstrument,asunstablerelations

208

towardsthemselvesandtowardseachotherareaconstantfallingapart/pullingtogether.Linear

timeisthenapproachedinthispieceasanimmediatepresentthatcanstandfortheautonomous

choiceofthebodiesasvertigo.

àtriggerrecordedsoundoffeedback(producedbyminiamps

towardsthepiano)

àplacethebiggestcylindermagnetoncentrala,and1cmlargeand1cmtallmagnetsoncentralc,centralaandf#

àplacee-bowond#string

à place two littlemagnet balls on the limit ofmedium highregister

àverify:placingofsoftmallet,noiseboxON

IV. Allthatislighthasadarkpart(Lullaby)

fig.41

Iliedownandtrytofallasleepwithmyeyesopen,whenIthinkI’mpullingitoffIrealizeI’mfailing.

amanwatchesovertwodirectionsandhiswayofwatchingoverthemisthis:heleansoverthepaperandtriestosolveaproblemofnumbersandletters.Evidentlyitisnotarationalwayofwatchingovertwodirections,onthecontrary,withhisheadlow,eyesleaningoverthepaper,themandoesnotwatchoveranydirectionunlessoneconsidersthehumanbrainitselfhaspathsandthosearethepathshewantstowatchover.(TavaresinSá2013))

Thetitleandthetextfragments(takenfromanimalescos)usedthroughoutthisnextpiecehintat

thestrategyitiswillingtoadopt.Presentedasalullaby,andestablishingacertainconnectionwith

the12thminiatureofTTLG,thispieceestablishesastrategythat,again,putsthechoicetowards

undecidabilityinevidence(asinthepreviouspiece),butthistimeinaverydifferentperspective.

209

The lullaby is introduced through an hypnotic musical space that is provided by the following

elements as fragments: an e-bow on thea string producing, again (as in 12thmin. of TTLG), a

continuous sound from the beginning until the end; a pp gesture with a ‘grounding or tonal

character’(although it uses only non-tempered bell sounds produced by magnet preparations

placed on ‘a’, ‘f’ and ‘c’ strings) played on the correspondent ‘a’, ‘f,’ ‘c’ keys; slow melodic

descendent intertwinedcascadegesturesproduced inahighandprepared(with littlemagnets)

register;a recurrent chromaticdescendingquickbut suspendedgesture; theppwhispering-like

soundoftwolittlemagnetballsslidingonthestrings;theppsoundproducedbyrubbingfingerson

the keys (a sound thatmustbeamplifiedbya specificmicrophone); the softpercussionof the

loweststringsontwonotes,‘e’andlowest‘a’.Alltheseelementsasfragmentscometogetherin

pp,andfromthiscomingtogetheranewlayerbeginstoemerge:noise.Atthebeginning,noise

emergesasverysoftwhisperingsoundsproducedbylittlemagneticballsandthesoundsofrubbed

keys,againgesturesengagingwiththe‘autistic’characterofgesturesproducedbychildrenfalling

asleep(justasinthe12thminiatureofTTLG).Intensificationofnoise(incomplexityandloudness)

isthenaprocessthatisunleashedgraduallyinconnectiontoaveryspecificsoundaction:thesoft

percussionofthelowestpianostringswiththesmoothdrumbassmallet(producingasmoothpp-

plowsound).Thefirsttimethisactionisproduced,oneofthetwonoiseboxes(ofIPDapparatus)

isactivatedinavolumeatthethresholdoftheperceptible.Thenoisethatitproduceshasatingling,

butwarmcharacter.Thefragmentscontinuetosoftlycometogetherinanalmostcadentialway(in

termsofacertainpredictabilityontheintertwiningofactionsandsuccessionofevents).Eachtime

the low soft bass drum sounds arise from this interaction – something that is produced as an

ending/beginning of cycles of events – the volume of the noise box is (gradually) increased

simultaneouslywithit.Inturn,thepatternsofnoisecreatedbythisnoisebox(whichisreactiveto

light) also becomemore uncontrollable because they are reacting to the noise patterns of the

texturesinDanielC.Neves’videoprojection.Togetherwiththenoiseproducedbythebox,another

noise element is added to this layer of themusic: a triggered audio file, again with Rosinda’s

distortedandalmostimperceptiblevoicereadingthetextfragmentspresentedabove.Inthisstudio

composition,whichisplayedsimultaneouslytowhatisbeingplayedonstage,othernoiseelements

areintroduced,suchastherubbingofanorchestralbassdrumwiththefingers(again).

Thestrategybothfordisruptionandpullingtogetheristhatofbifurcationofthebodiesthrougha

lightpartandadarkpartandasupposednon-communicationbetweenthem.Butthebifurcation

ofthebodiesthroughdistantdirectionsdoesnoterasethepossibilityofaffectionofthebodies.In

thiscontext,thefarthesttheygetfromeachother,thestrongertheyseemtoaffecteachother.

The noise becomes more and more complex with time, overwhelming and loud. The growing

distancetowardsthehypnotisinglevelisfeedingitmoreandmoreuntilitproducesaneffective

andliteralunbearableexperience.Andprobablytheopposite:thehypnotisingmusicaleventonly

seemstobemeaningfulincontrasttonoise,sincethereisnoneedforseekingforrest,forstability,

ifthereisnonoisefromwhichoneneedstorestfrom.Bothnoiseandhypnotisingeventseemthen

to be a same event in different perspectives. But this lullaby puts in evidence that noise, as a

210

dimension of the bodies, cannot be erased: one can choose to erase noise, but thiswill be an

unproductivechoiceorachoicewithconsequences.Again,thechoicetowardsundecidabilityisput

inevidence:and,here,themusic-makingstrategy isthatofchoosingto ignoretheparadoxand

continuingasifitdidnotexist,completelydeaftotheevercrescentamplificationandmagnitude

of noise, continuing to perform ‘the hypnotising character’ of the lullaby in a dynamic ofpp-p

(somethingwhichbecomesdifficulttoperform).JustasBach’sstrategyappliedtotheGoldberg

Variations,thestrategyofthislullabymightwellnotworkatallinafunctionalperspectiveofwhat

alullabyshouldfulfil,underminingthepossibilityoffallingasleep.

But theoutcome isnotevident:noiseas feedbackswallowseverything,butnot thecontinuous

soundofthee-bow(whichhasbeenatacertainpointforgottenandnotconsciouslyheardamong

thecomplexityandloudnessofsoundelements).Exposedbythevertigostrategyoftheabruptstop

ofnoiseatanunbearableintensity,thecontinuoussoundofthee-bowisallwhatremains,exposed

as a vulnerable, intermittent and oscillating sound (these features are underlined by subtle

oscillationsofthesustainpedal).

àtrigger:soundoffeedbackamps;

àtakeoutallmagnets(exceptfixedhighregister)

àtakeoute-bow

àplaceA4sheetofpaperonthelowestregisterofstringsagain

V. Praiseofdisorder

fig.42

Praiseofdisorderwillproducetheclimaxofthiscycleofpiecesthroughadifferenttypeofevent(s).

Thepieceis,ineverysense,anexerciseofpurebrutalviolence:anexerciseofsmashing,erasing,

dampening,mutilating any possibility of an individual body expression, of individual choice, of

listening.Thepiece is thenthisexerciseofoverwhelming therelationbetweenallmusicbodies

211

throughastrategyofpureattackandconfrontation.Theperforming8bodyisvisiblyandaudibly

attacking the instrumental body, music body and listening body, but this action can also be

regarded as self-defence: the performing body is defending itself from the violence of

domesticationanddisciplineimposedbytheothermusicbodiestowardsitself.Or:theattackof

performingbodyonothermusicbodiesisitsenactionoftheattackperpetratedbythesebodies

towardsitself.

Thismusical strategy has then common featureswith thoseof complexity andnew complexity

approaches:theprocessforoverwhelmingtherelationbetweenmusicbodieswillleadallbodies

intosuchasaturationthattheperformingbodywillenduprevealingindividualfeatures,thatare

morelikelynottobesubjectiveones9.Theperformingbodywe’reapproachinginourcontextis

then a body that has been continuously violently dampened, banned, a body whose will and

excitement have been taken away (as M. Tavares’s texts underline) through an overload of

domestication rules, physical and moral impositions. The possibility of choice is limited when

listeninghasbeenmadeimpossible:whenthebodyhasundergoneorisundergoingacontinuous

dampeningprocess,itcannotescapethesystem,ithaslostconnectiontoitself.Fromthisbody,

choiceandsubjectivityareonlyallowedasultimatesurvivalevent.Inthiscontextlosingconnection

toitselfmeansnotlosingconnectionwithawhateveressence,buttheimpossibilityofbeingitself

aconnection,ofbeingaself-reflection–avibratingandresoundingunbridgeablegap.Again,the

actofchoosing,comingfromabodywithnopossibilityofself-reflectionmightbeconsidereda

dishonestfictionhere,andthereforethesubjectofcompleteneglectingsubjectivity(andtherefore

alsoautonomy)iscalledintoquestion.Thisbodyisabodywideopen,excessivelyopenedfromthe

outside.Itcannotbeaself-reflectivesystem,onlyasurfaceofreflection,reflectingotherbodies:

reproducingawell-definedchoreography.Thiscouldbeexactlywhathappensinthispieceagain:

thebody(withoutquestioning)resonatestheattackitisexperiencingthroughanotherattack–the

victimturnsintotheaggressor,usingthesameoverwhelmingstrategies.

And thepiece canbe regarded through this choreographicpointof view: choreographyaswar

strategyforattack/defence,wheredefenceandattackarethesameevent.

Thepiecebeginswithacontinuousintermittence,arhythmicalostinatoplayedinsteadymachinal

tempomadeoncentral‘e’(partiallydampenedbyblu-tackaspreparation),anelementthat(just

asthee-bowinpreviouspiece)ismaintainedthroughoutthewholepiece.Theostinatobringsan

urgency that canbeparadoxical:on theonehand, it canhint at a continuous intermittenceor

unbridgeable gap put in a continuous linear timeline (a body in lifetime) and, on the other, it

imprintstheurgencythatwillbefurtheractualisedasanattack.

Theattackbeginswithachoreographyofhandclustersintherighthandatthesametimethatthe

lefthandcontinuestheostinato. It isarhythmicalchoreographythatresonatesandemphasizes

8Insteadof‘music-makingbody’,thedesignationof‘performingbody’ishereusedtoacknowledgetheperspectiveoftheroleoftheperformingbodyinWAM.9SeeClusterI,ChapterII.DissectingthebodyinComplexityandNewcomplexitymusicapproaches

212

theintermittenceoftheostinato.Thiscomingtogetherinresonanceofintermittenceandclusters

feeds the potential of attack inherent to the intermittence and, soon after, it is amplified and

shaped into a brutal event of choreographed clusterswith both hands in central register. This

violentattackeventbegins,soonafter,anascendinggesture(againasintensification)towardsthe

highestregisterofthekeyboard,butnotstoppingthere:continuingwithaclusterchoreography

towardsthetoypiano(placedcontiguouslytothepiano)withrightthehandwhiletheleftremains

atthehighestregisterofpianoandobsessivelyinsistingonthechoreographyandregisterforsome

quiteunbearabletime–forthedifficultyofenduranceofperformance,forthebrutalityofmusic,

forthebrutalitytowardstheinstrumentandforthelisteningexperienceasbrutalityitself.

Thedescribedascendingattackgestureofclusterswithbothhandsisthenalsointensifiedbythe

triggered audio file with Rosinda’s voice enunciating the following text fragment in a

straightforward,highspeed,almost‘hallucinated’way,andalsoascendinginpitchregister:

andtheanimalhaslegsandapathalready,andallisavailabletohimexceptforhiswill,whichisfundamental,andhe’salreadypulledthewelldirectedelectricity–easily–insideoutlikeanorgan,you throw the excitement of themadman on the table, he struggles like a fish, you strike thehammer,heputsanendtoyourexcitementforgood,themedicalwayofcreatingthesedentary,Isayyes,IsayI’matyourcommand,Iclickmyheelstogether,IsayHeilHitler,Imakelightofthesituation,IfeelI’mincontroloverthosewhocrushme,Igetup,I’mvertical,Igetdizzy,Iaskforachair, Ialmostpassout, I tryagain,verticalagain, Iwanttomoveforward, I takeastepfurther,nomadicforastep,nomadicfortwosteps,andopIfalldownagain(M.TavaresinSá2013)

Theclustersaremaintainedthroughthisverytensemusicalexperienceatthehighestregistersof

thepianoandthetoypianowithRosinda’svoiceuntilsheuttersthelastsentenceopIfalldown

againandthemusicfallsinregistertowardsthe‘e’ostinatoagain.Fromthispoint,the‘e’ostinato

clearly determines an incision in two: it is a line of separation that establishes choreographed

actions on the right and on the left sides of the keyboard. But then, it also establishes the

paradoxical character of actions at the centre which, for one hand seem to be an attempt to

overwhelm, destroy, dampen, erase the incision and the divide and, for the other, seem to be

themselvesanintensificationofthisincision–becausetheattemptfordestructionisparadoxically

resonating,feedingtheobjectofdestruction,theintermittentlineofdivide.

Thewarseemstobeestablishedsincetwosidesareconstitutedbyanintermittentseparation.But

all music bodies seem to be at both sides and also at the divide line, replicated, resonated,

choreographed.Thedividelineisnecessarilyanincisioninallbodies.Thereisnowarofoneagainst

the other, and probably there never was: the bodies, attacking each other, enacting their

experienceofeachother,areattackingthemselves.

A complex musical situation and simultaneity emerges through superposition of attacks as

fragments(simpleevents):theintermittent‘e’ostinato,whichinspecificsituationsisreinforcedby

adjacentnotes‘f’and‘g’;agreatpanoplyof‘hitting’clustersandclustertechniques–handclusters,

glissandohandclusters(towardsonenote)withdifferentdirections,elbowstaccatoclusters,arm

213

clusters,glissandoarmclusters,wavingarmclusters,tremoloofclusters,handclustersintoypiano,

etc.–“random”figurationswithScarlatti-likearticulation (pianoandtoypiano); tremolo:octave

tremolos in lowest register and highest register, wrist tremolo in lowest register, tremolos as

rustlingofpaperon the lowest strings;major seventhchords inhigh,middleand lowregisters;

chromatic figurations; all bells and sirens of installation played as intermittent or continuous

sounds;manipulationof2ndnoisebox;variationsandderivationsofalltheseelements.

Musicistheconflictbetweenallmusicbodiesandthemselvesexposedasopenwoundthroughthe

incision line (ostinato in ‘e’). There is no directionality of attacks from one side to another.

Performanceisagainanon-lineareventwithsimilarfeaturestoWeaknessofsolids,acknowledging

thatthepotentialofactionismuchwiderthanthatwhatisperformed:performanceturnsintothe

bodily possible. But this time, the musical event, although being a jump and a gap from

fragmentationtofragmentation,becomesanextremeaccumulativeevent.Themusic-makingbody

doesasmuchsimultaneousactionsaspossible(inawayasinII.wherethebodieswerebrought

out as oscillationbetween asmuchelements as possible). But in this new context thebody as

oscillation is dampened, it is a body which is forced to mechanically resonate and reproduce

linearity:fittedinasteadytempowithstrictrhythmicalpatterns,withnopossibilityforlisteningor

spacing.

Thepieceisthenanunleashingandfeedingofviolencethroughalllevelsofmusicbodies.Keeping

the intermittenceoftheostinatoalwayspresentandurgent(somethingwhich isalreadyahard

tasktokeepforalongtime),andhavingonlytwoarmsandtwolegstoplay,thepieceestablishes

itselfasasuperpositionofactionsontheright, leftandcentreofthekeyboard,whicharethen

againsuperposedwiththeactionoftheleftfootonthepedalboardofbellsandsirensinstallation

andhandmanipulationofnoisebox. It is againanoctopus’ virtuosityandanextremelyviolent

orchestrationoftheselfasmultiplicity.Assaid,thepieceestablishesitselfasalternationofactions

betweenright, leftandcentreinsuperposition,butit isalwaysperiodicallyarrivingtotheinitial

rhythmicalgestureofclusterswithbothhandsatthecentre.Insteadofmakingtheascendancein

registeras in thebeginning, thisattackgesture ismaintainedat thecentreand intensifiedwith

elbow staccato clusters, actions that are superposed with the triggering of bells and sirens

installation. This tremendously violent performing event, being itself a repetition and being

repeatedthroughoutperformance,gainsacertainrondoorrefraincharacter:itisanamplification,

it isthemomentwhereeveryunsynchronizedattackcomestogether inavoluminousandnoisy

unison. It is a powerful event where divergence converges. The piece is an intermittent but

continuousintensificationofalltheseprocesses:performanceasalternationbetweenleftandright

sidebecomesmorecomplexandtheelementsbecomemoreintenseversionsandderivationsof

themselvesfromtheirconfrontationtowardseachother,the‘refrain’becomeslongerandmore

complexthroughincreasingsuperpositionand,atacertainpoint,throughtheuseofsirens.The

bellsandsirensseemtosignallimits(possiblyofviolence,loudness,noise,andperformingactions,

etc.)thatarebeingreached,butthemusicandperformancemachineisrunningonitstrackandit

isunstoppable:itisagaintheimpossibleseparationbetweenbeingincontrolandoutofcontrol.

214

Thebodiesareoutofcontrolmultiplicitiesofattackineverydirection,whicharehoweverbeing

orchestratedand‘controlled’bythissameoutofcontrolbodies.Theviolencehasnofacesandis

notsituated,itisanoverallvirtualstructuralandsystemicviolencebeingactualisedeachtimein

andthrougheachbody.Thereisnopossibilitythatsubjectivitycanchallengeorputasystemin

question,nopossibilitythattheindividualcanstopthesystemfromrunningbecauseexcitement

andwill,asM.Tavaresputsit,hasbeenremovedfromtheindividual.Thesystemcanonlyrun.The

onlyendingrenderedpossibleisthecrashofthesystem:thesystem’sauto-destruction.

Themusicbodiescannotescapefromthemselvesbecausetheycannotescapethemechanismthat

onlyallows resonatingand reproducinga systemicchoreography.Theyare this time trapped in

beingreproductionmechanisms,evenwhentheyseemtoactagainstthesystem.Dampeningturns

intofeedback:asupposedintentionhasanopposedoutcome.

Thepiecereallyendslikeacrash:thebodiesaredestroyedandswallowedbytheirowngrowing

violence in an abrupt stop. Everything stops, but the noise box that was present in all this

performance and sound activity does not stop. It continues (manipulated bymyself) after the

abruptandvertigoending,suggestingnoiseasa literalsoundofthesystemcrashing. Itremains

active and making a seemingly uncontrolled (but controlled by myself) noise for some

indeterminateseconds,untilthedeviceisturnedoffbymyself.ThemomentIturnoffthedevice,I

triggeranaudiofilewithRosinda’svoiceutteringthefollowingironictextfragments:

There’samadmanonthepianoandheplayslikeatrainedanimal,theygivehimmedicationfromtimetotime,forthepianoplayinganimalisveryviolent.

Andyes,that istheman,heismedicatedprecisely, itseemsliketheyhavediscoveredtheexactposition of a molecule; in him, in the madman, they have found the right position betweenmedicationandtheworldsothatnoragenorviolencenordisordernormisalignmentspilloutside,butsimplythedoremi,whichisexcellent.

Thetextseemstoformulatetheexactoppositeofeverythingwhichhashappenedbefore:first,

theremusthavebeenamadwoman(andnotaman).Hereagenderquestionisalreadybrought

forth: the ideal towhich theperformingbody isnormalised isamasculine,white,heterosexual

ideal. Second, and according to the opposite of the text, theymust have not found the exact

position between medication and the world because all what was heard was rage, violence,

disorder,misalignmentandnoeverpossibledo,remi.

Whatoneheardcouldagainbetheopposedtothedo, re,mi– thesilentenactionofviolence

imposed by domestication and well temperament of all musical bodies, the silent enaction of

violence inherent to theorderlydo, re,mi, amplifiedat its loudest rate.Listeningbecomes the

possibilityformakingthesilentincisionasunbridgeablegapresoundatitsloudest.

215

Resonance:

Listeningasintensificationforsensing

TheIncision

Exactly,

Precisely.

Wheretheknifecutstheflesh

andsensesthenervesspreadingthrough

There

skintoskin

weshouldmeet.

ListeningtheIncision

Isnotsolitarysensing

yourownprivatebody

Itisbeingthere

whereyourbody

touchesmillionsandmillionsof

deadincisions

otherbodies

stillpulsatinglively

inyourown

privateexperience

thisiswheretheauralHistory

takesplace:

yourbody

assharedphysicality

-corpus

WhiletheaudiofilewithRosinda’sutteringofthetextfragmentisrunning:

àtaketheA4papersheetout

àplacethebiggestcylindermagnetoncentralastrings

VI. Reality,imagination(amethodnottogoinsane)

fig.43

216

After thepreviouspiece,whichproposedthemostbrutalandmultidimensionalactualisationof

violenceofallpiecesofthecycle(andprobablyofalltrilogy),Reality,imagination(amethodnotto

goinsane)developsacompleteother(andsomehowopposed)strategy:thatofaliminal,subtlest

touching,thatofskimmingover,atskinsurface.Thereseemstobealmostnoimpact:musicseems

tobeasubtlesteventoccurringthroughoroccurringasthismostsensorialskinsurface,aprocess

thatiswillingtoexploremaximumsensitivenessofthemusicbodies.Playingisbarely‘touching’1

andmusiccanprobablybemorecharacterizedbythis‘touch’orskimmingovercharacterofplaying,

thanforanyotherconcretemusicalmaterialfeature.Butthisprocesswillalsoputinevidencehigh

sensitivenessasreactivityandhowextremereactivitycanagaintriggerthemostviolentmusical

detonations.Again,thesubtlesttouchcanopenagainforuncontrolledfeedbackofthisoscillating

amplitude:subtletycanbethemostpowerfulanddisarmingtool.

Thepiecebeginswithanopening/closingmelodicgestureinthehighsemipreparedregisterofthe

piano,withaparadoxicalcentrifugalandcentripetalmotion.Thesuspensionofthisgestureopens

foraresonance,fromwhichthesoundofthecowbellsetbeginstoemerge.Thefreeoscillationof

thedifferentcowbellsisputinmotionbysubtlehandmanipulationofthetwineasifbelongingto

this‘prior’resonance:abody(thecowbellset) isbroughtasresonantreactiontothegestureof

another body (opening melodic gesture) by the music-making body. The melodic gesture is

producedagain,nowendinginthelowregisteroftheprepared‘a’,playedalmostsimultaneously

withthehorse-drawncart’sbellonthepedalboardoftheinstallation.Fromtheresonanceofall

theseelements,thecowbellsareputinvibrationasifresonatingalongagain.Butthistimeanother

elementemergessubtlyoutof‘thiscomposedresonance’:thesoundofboatsblowingtheirhorns

at the distance begins to fade in (the boat horns field recording mentioned in Instrumental

apparatus2istriggeredbymyself).

Thecomingtogetherofvariousanddispersedelementsinthispiece,suchasfieldrecordings,voice

recordings, the semi-preparedpiano,a setof cowbells, abell fromahorse-drawncart forgesa

strangemusical spacewhereagain the realmof sound imaginationcanbeapproached through

actual sound reality and the realm of actual sound reality appears with the intangible and

implausiblecharacterof imagination3.Theinstrumentalapparatus,assemblingthisdispersionof

soundpossibilitiesis,amongotherthings,blurringandunderminingthedualitycreatedbetween

thenotions of reality and imaginationmentioned in the title. Coming fromor forging different

performancespace-times,instrumentalbodiesandfieldrecordingalsoestablishthemusicasthis

ambiguityofspace-time.

Thesoundofthedifferentboatsblowingtheirhornstogetheremergeswithapolyphonicflavour:

ithasanostalgic,fremdcharacterthatisreinforcedbytherelationcreatedwiththeperformance.

Thepianoalternatesbetweenppfallinggesturesinthelowregisterplayedwitha‘velvet-touch’

1 In Portuguese, the verbused for ‘playing’ an instrument is ‘to touch [tocar]’ an instrument and, in this sense, thisaffirmationcanhaveadoublemeaning.2SeeIPDChapterII.2.Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions3Seealsominiature7inTTLG,I.7.

217

andothercontrastingmpstaccatodampenedresonantgestures(dampenedwiththerighthand

andplayedwith the sustainpedal,witha characterof a resonatingpizzicato). Thepiano isnot

accompanying,norunderliningwhatthehornsdo,nordoingsomethingcompletelyelse:thepiano

motionseemstobeaproposalforexperiencingtheexperienceof(asengagementwiththeboat

horns at a space-time distance). But it might again be (as in the 7th miniature of TTLG4) an

experience (asengagement) at the distancewith another specific and surprising experience as

engagement5.Whatthispieceprobablyproposesmightbethenthis:notaclearmusicalidea,not

aclearmusicproposal,buta‘thematization’oftheprocessofengagingwith6itself,anexperience

atthethresholdofthesensorial.Thisengagingwithboats’polyphonichornsmetamorphosesitself

intoengagingwithsailsresoundingwiththewindprovidedbythesecondfieldrecording,whichis

edited and crossfaded to the first recordingof boats sounding their horns at thedistance. The

fremd,nostalgicandpolyphoniccharacteroftheboatsofthisfirstrecordingtransformsitselfinan

openingsensationprovidedbythesoundofsailsoscillatingfreelyinthewind.

Thisopeningsensationisexperiencedbytherealmofthepianowithaluminousandalmosttonal

quality, that soonmetamorphoses itself into something else. This metamorphosed ‘something

else’,asmusicalspace,mightbeperceivednotjustasamusicaleventoccurringatasurface(forits

subtleperformingandsoundingfeatures)butasamusicaleventwhichistheprocessofshaping

thissurface.Butthesurfaceinquestionisnotlinearnorplain,itisasubtlerhythmictexture,with

some degree of roughness, gaps or holes: themusical space, as surface, emerges as rhythmic

texture weaved through pp patterns of oscillations of 7ths and adjacent chromatic figures in

opposedregisters(highsemipreparedpianoregisterandlowpianoregister)withaskimmingover

articulation.Thetextureassurfaceunfoldsthenthroughdifferentfragmentsinthesameopposed

registersorwithsoftstaccatodampenedresonantgesturesonthelowregister.Itisthereforenot

arigidsurfacebutacomplexandmovingone.Asarelationbetweenmusicbodies, thissurface

couldbeapproachedasatouching,engaginglevelofthemusicbodies,asurfaceofaffection.

Whathappensisthatthissurface,asnon-linear,reactiveandmovingengagementlevelbetween

thebodiescreatesandunfoldscertaintendenciesas ‘vortex’movements: the ‘same’non-linear

4Seepreviousnote.5Theexperienceofthe‘original’eventofboat.SeeIPD’sinstrumentalapparatus,ChapterII.2.Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions.6 Again: the terminology of engagement with will be used as an idea that can encompass the notions of 1)‘communication’ referred as touching (Nancy), form of telepathy (Szendy) amode of affection or affection (Assis,D’Errico),capture(Massumi)andosmoseoftheunconsciousmovements(Gil)2)transductionand‘interpretation’6andalsoBachelard’snotionofdreamingbeforeanobjectas thepossibility fordevelopingspecifickindsdreamoroneiricorgans.Engagementisthenregardedinthiscontextasbothakindof‘communication’andastransformativeprocessofthebodies:the‘engagement’(initsenergeticorpoliticalsense,asyoulike)ofsonorousbodiesstarts‘here’,Iamconvincedofthis:‘here’intheformationofthetiniestdeviationsfromorgantoorgan,inthecapacityforinventionthatworksinthemidstofthetiniestbody-tobody-contacts.Herewhereeffectivephantomlimbsgrow(Szendy2016,161).Engagementwith as related to thesenotions is then intimately ‘connected’with thenotionof shaping that isbeingdevelopedinthiscontext.Engagingwithandshapingcouldbethenregardedasasameprocessbutasaprocessthatinevitablyisaparadoxicalone:thereisnocausallogicbetween‘communication’andatransformationofthebodies–thereisinevitablya‘jump’,anunbridgeablegapbetweenbothperspectivesoftheprocess,thereisnowayofdeterminingwhatoneiricorganscanbedeveloped,nowayoftellingbeforehandwhatthebodiescando.

218

rhythmicalpatternonthelowestregisterandchromaticmovementsarounditarebroughttogether

withtheactionoftherighthandplayingwithasmoothbassdrummalletonthestringsofthesame

register.Thisproducesasmallcrescendoandastrangesensationofanon-linearcircularmovement

headingtowardsacentre‘d’,thatarisesasalowsoftcloudofsound.Thiseventseemstoabsorb

thesurfacewithatendencyforimplodingthemusicalspacetowardsthiscentre‘d’.Escapingthis

centre, the surface is shaped again, complexifying its subtle texture and roughness. This

complexificationleadshowevertoafurtherintensificationofthevortexmovement:thetendency

forimplosionisfedforwardwithnopossibilityofescapeofthebodies.Thesecondtimethevortex

movementemerges,itarisesasakindofmusicalblackhole,absorbingallmusicbodiestowards

itself:thesamenon-linearoscillatorypatternofthe‘surface’isproducedbythelefthandatthe

lowestregisterofthekeyboardinalongcrescendo(frompppptoffff).Again,asinthefirst‘vortex’,

thenon-linearityofthepatterniscomplexifiedfromthebeginningbythesoftpercussionofthe

lowest strings (on the same register as the lefthandon thekeyboard)with a softdrummallet

producedbytherighthand.Thiseventseemstobegintoabsorborimplodethesurfaceagain(as

inthefirst‘vortex’)towardsthecentre‘d’.Throughalargecrescendo,andthroughthefactthat

lefthandisplayingonthekeyboardandtherighthandisplayingonthesamelowestregister(of

the left hand), the initial pppp low soft non-linear cloud gradually turns into an enormous,

insurmountablecloudofsoundwithuncontrolledwideoscillationandfrictionofthestringsandof

themagnetplacedonthe‘a’string.Whatemergesfromthisblackholeoverwhelmingactivitythat

swallowsorabsorbsallmusicbodiestowardsitselfisthentheimpossibilityforgoingfurther:the

eventseemstobegintodeconstructitself ‘byitself’throughthegradualdecreasingofvibration

andfriction.

Themusicalspaceofthepiecehadbeenunfoldedthroughtheambiguityofspace-timecreatedby

performanceeventsandfieldrecordingsatthebeginningofthepiece.Throughtheunfoldingof

thetextureassurfaceofaffection,musicalspaceturnsintoanon-situatedsomewhere.Itcouldbe

againcalledasomewhere,butanuncomfortableone,asomewherethatdoesnotallowforrest,a

somewhere that calls for an extremearousal of the senses: an uncomfortable somewhere that

mightbecontinuouslyaskingforwhere?.Thebeginningoftheexperienceofthesecond‘vortex’is

thesituatingthespaceinamoreconcretehere,butthroughthemagnitudeoftheprocessesfor

overwhelming,hereisagainanimminenceofnowhere.

Fromthisextremesensorialexperience,themusicbodiesariseanew:the‘opening’gesture–with

aluminousandalmosttonalcharacter,thatwasbroughtbythepianoasengagementwiththesails

resoundinginthewind–ishereexploredalone(withnoaudiofile,noobjectofengagement)in

ppppwiththeresonanceandthevibratoryremnantsofthe‘blackholeevent’andperformedinan

extremeslow-motion,extremesensorialengagement.Usually, in IPD, theseevents– the ‘black

hole’, its deconstruction and this extreme slow-motion ‘opening’ gesture – are forme amost

pleasurable,sensorialandtransformativeexperiencetoperform.Thisalmosttonalregisterbrings

abigpotentialforresolvingin‘d’,somethingwhichishoweverunderminedby‘resolving’againinto

a textural surface. This time, the surface brings with itself again the sound of the cowbell set

219

resounding softly and the voice of Rosinda uttering inppat the threshold of perceptibility the

followingfragment:

Andnoteventhelake,whencalmandstill,peacefulasever,willgetusoutofthisancientmonologue.Theydon’ttalktonature,mentalktothemselves,theyalwayshave.ItwasmanwhocreatedlanguageAnditwasalsohimwhocreatedthelackoflanguage,Andtheanguishitcauses.

The boat horns recording arises together with the Rosinda’s pppp uttering of the last three

sentencesofthefragmentaboveandcontinuestounfoldafterthisuttering.Theinteractionofthe

pianowithitwillproducesimilargesturestotheonesinthebeginningofthepiecebutassparse

eventsthatwillunfoldaspercussiveeventsofthemetalstructureandofdampened(withtheleft

hand)loweststringswithasoftmallet.Thesepercussioneventshaveaslightcharacterofadistant

militaryparadefortheirrhythmicalpatternandtimbres,andtheyforgewiththepreviouselements

averydifferentmusicalsituationthantheoneproducedinitiallywiththesamefile.Thiswar-like

character(whichisopposedtotheopeninggesturesofthebeginningofthepiece) isreinforced

throughtheintroductionofcylindermagnetsoscillatingonstrings(asunstableelementscreating

tension)alternatingwithpercussion.Thisoscillationisintroducedwhenthesoundofthesailsin

thewind(thesecondfile)istriggeredagain,underminingitspreviousopeningcharacter.Oscillation

andunsteadinessareunleashedthroughtheseelementsandthroughintroductionofveryhighfeed

backsproducedbyminiamps,whendirectedtothepianosoundboardandstrings.Thesoundof

the sails fades away but another file is introduced, crossfaded: a studio composition that

constitutes the followingpiece,whicharises as a gradual introductionofwind sounds.But this

crossfadeisasubtleprocessandallthepreviouspianointeractioncontinuessothatthereisno

cleardivideinbetweenpieces.

220

VII. Theelegantfall

fig.44

Thisstudiocompositionfadesinveryslowlyin,carryingallwindelementsthatwerebroughtinI.

II.andIV.andthevoiceofRosindautteringthefragmentspresentedbelow.Alltheseelementsare

assembledtogetherandunleashedwithhigherintensity,swallowingwhatisbeingplayedonstage

ataperformancelevel:studiocompositionbeginstointensifyintermsofcomplexityandloudness

andat thesametimeperformedoscillationsandpercussiongesturesbegin todissipate.At this

pointascrimdescendsthroughthedownstage,coveringallperformancebodiesbehind.Thisaction

hasadoubleeffect:thevideobeingprojectedonthebackgroundisnowbeingprojectedonthe

foreground;andthemusic-makingandinstrumentalbodiesaresituatednowonthebackground.

However,althoughtheyarebehindthescrim,themusic-makingandinstrumentalbodiesarestill

renderedvisible through the transparencyof the scrim (through theuseofminimal lightingon

stage). The music-making body gestures that were dissipating and which are being gradually

swallowedby the studio composition, stop at this ‘point’, and themusic-making body goes off

stage. The visibility through the scrim is rendered gradually impossible (through the increasing

absenceoflightingonstage).Thestudiocompositionwhichcontinuesistheaudioassemblagethat

explores theBorawindsound imageryand itsmadness farthest, through the ideaof ‘fall’,with

simultaneoustextsfragmentsbeingutteredbyRosinda’svoice:

theBorawindcomes,thewindthatmakesheadsgomad,andtheBorawindcomesinthroughthemouth,itswirlsinsidethemouth,awhirlpoolindryland;

theytakeanomad,theytiehimuptothechair,electricshocks,theykeephimfromrunningthehellout,theyuntietheknots,theysayyou’refreeandtheanimalhaslegsandapathalready,andall isavailabletohimexceptforhiswill,whichisfundamental,andhe’salreadypulledthewelldirectedelectricity–easily–insideoutlikeanorgan,youthrowtheexcitementofthemadmanonthetable,hestruggleslikeafish,youstrikethehammer,heputsanendtoyourexcitementforgood,themedicalwayofcreatingthesedentary.

Ifalldownagain,sedentaryinthewayIfall,lazyinthewayIfall,we’veremovedyourexcitement,you’reanomadnolonger,op

221

aftertwoyearstheyaregoingtobeabletomakemestandonmyown,areturntochildhood,butbythefrontdoor,bydestroyingtheorganism,goingbackbutheavier,withmorebodyandmoreideas,studyingalottobeabletostandontwofeetlikeourmonkeyancestorsdid,opop

IstandupandIamvertical,Igetdizzy,Iaskforachair,Ialmostpassout,Itryagain,verticalagain,Iwanttomoveforward,Itakeastepfurther,nomadicforastep,nomadicfortwosteps,andIfalldownagain

hereIgocommittedtothefalllikesomeonecommittedtosingingorbuilding

andafterthatallyouwantisnottofall,youaskthegroundnottoletyoufall,thatattheleast,andpleaseletthatbetheleast,I’llpraytowhichevergodyouwantmetoforit,thatthegroundwillnotletyoufallwouldbesomething,becauseyoucan’tgrabholdoftheairevenwheninthatairthere’sahalfhiddensignofthecrosswhichwasdrawntoblessbutfailed.

Ultimately, thestudiopiece isdeconstructed, theactionsthathadbeguntodispersecometoa

non-synchronousenduntilonlytheairbelowoftheharmonium(withnopitch)isheard.Atthis

point,Rosindauttersinpppa‘prescription’fortheelegantfall:

don’tbetoolightnortooheavy,justtherightweight,therighttime,theelegantfall,stickyourtongueoutasecondbefore,saygoodbyetothepeopleyouinvitedoverfordinner.

222

fig.45

Listening:theopen

223

Attachments

LTO(folder)containing:

1)thevideoofthepremièreatMariaMatosTheatre(October2016);

2)theprogramoftheconcert;

BODYOFMUSICASITSOUTSIDERS

I. Workasengagementwithotherworks/ideas:outliningaconstellationofaffects

Writingthroughthispiecewillimplyawritingfromadifferentperspective,sincethisthesisisalso

partofaprocessofcreatingfurtheroutputsbesidesthestagepiecethatisabouttobepresented.

Writing, at this point, means deconstructing a deconstruction (already entailed by the

‘accomplished stage perspective’) in order to re-open for further artistic possibilities (such as

installation(s),lectureperformance(s)and/orfilm(s)).Listening:theopenis,again,thefirstsoloto

befullyrooted(sinceitsinitialphaseofconception)inthisPhDresearchproject.

Havingasamainsubjectthemusic-makingbody,asabodylistening,thepieceListening:theopen

bringsthebodytotheforegroundthroughthethemesofincision,disruptionandgap.Broughtas

an ‘exposed’ pulsating wound, the music-making body is approached as a conflict zone and,

therefore,alsoasaspaceofandforreflectionandaspaceofandforreinvention/recreation.Itis

againabodywhichbringsitselfasoutsider(s)todealwith:abodywhichdemandstherighttobe

listening,tobecomeitselflistening.

1. Engagementwith:Listening&Theopen(Nancy/Agamben)Asafirstengagementwithotherworks,animprobablerelationwasestablished(bymyself):the

theme of listening (through Nancy) was brought together with the theme of incision and

anthropologicalmachine inherent to the formulationsof theopen (throughAgamben).Withno

clear rational reason that I could explain at the time (2014/15), I scrupulously undertook the

improbable endeavour of bringing these twobooks together – Listening (Nancy 2014) andThe

open. Man and Animal (Agamben 2015). As we referred at the beginning of this thesis1, for

Agamben, the anthropological machine is the mechanism that articulates through different

(historical,scientific,linguistic,etc.)perspectivesthedistinctionorthedistinctiveintheformulation

betweenmanandanimal.Thisincisioncreatesaliminalspacewheremansuspendsanderasesits

animality/othernesstocreateanexceptionzone–anideaofhumanity.Thisincisionanddistinction

arethenpresentedasoperating,inthefirstplace,insideman:assuspension/erasingofotherness.

1SeeClusterI,INCISIONSIN.

224

ForAgambenitisthennotamatterofcontinuingtoproducemore‘effective’articulationsbetween

man and animal, but amatter of rendering themechanism that provides further articulations

inoperative:

“Torenderinoperativethemachinethatgovernsourconceptionofman,”writesAgamben,“would

notmeantosearchfornew—moreeffectiveormoreauthentic—articulationsofthisconception,

butrathertodisplaythecentralvoid,thehiatuswhich—withinthehuman—separatesthehuman

fromtheanimal”[O92/A94;translationmodified].Thiswouldmean,followingAgamben,“totake

theriskuponourselvesinvolvedinsuchavoid,insuchasuspensionofsuspension,aShabbatboth

ofanimalandman”[O92/A94;translationmodified](DelaDurantaye2003,9,underlinemyown)

It is thenmeaningful tobring this ideaof taking the riskuponourselves involved in suchavoid

togetherwithDerrida’sautoimmunityand its inherentundecidabilityandunavoidablerisk.That

virtuosity has been formulated through this subject of undecidability as an unbridgeable gap,

resounding2notonlyresonatesthisideaoftakingtheriskuponourselvesinvolvedinsuchavoidbut

alsoNancy’sformulationsofasubject,notasphenomenologicalsubjectbutasaresonantrelation,

alisteningsubject.3

Renderinginoperativewouldmean,inmyperspectivetowardsthemusiccontextofthesepieces,

thepossibilityofopeningthebodiesasmultiplegaps,resounding.Rendering inoperativewould

againnotstandfortheideaoferasingtheincision,butriskingthroughitsresonantpossibilities,

riskingbeingresonant(im)possibilities.

2. EngagementwithJ.S.Bach’sSt.MathewandSt.JohnPassionsandNancy’sCorpusThatthebody isbroughtthroughthethemeof incisionandwoundcanexplainthemajor,orat

leastthemostexplicitengagementofthismusic,namelyBach’sSt.MathewandSt.JohnPassions.

Bach’s Passions are then brought into this context for affective reasons and because they are

(among other musical works) the highest exponents of the arts overall, celebrating the most

intrinsic ideaofourWesternculture,a conceptionofhumanityand thebody that is centred in

becoming/touchinganimageofanotherbody(thebodyofGod)andthatoperateswithinalogicof

sacrifice.This relationtoBach’sPassions ismadeevident throughListening: theopen’sopening

studiopiecethatestablishesanexplicitconnectionwiththealtoariaErbarmeDich,meinGottof

St.MathewPassionBWV244,asitwillbefurtherdeveloped.Butthemostremarkableengagement

isexposedthroughthealreadymentionedstudiocompositionthatdeconstructstheExordium4of

St.John’sPassionBWV245 inthepieceListening:theopenIII(andwhichhasbeendiscussedin

ChapterMutilatingthesemioticrealm–‘engagementwith’J.S.Bach’s‘St.JohnPassion’,inCluster

2SeeClusterII,VirtuosityI.103SeeClusterI,ChapterIII.3.Nancyandthesubject‘as’listening4SeeClusterII,ChapterIII.1.Mutilatingthesemioticrealm–‘engagementwith’J.S.Bach’s‘St.John’sPassion’.

225

II),inatextthatiscomplementarytotheongoingtext.5

ThethemeofthePassionasChrist’sultimatesacrificeconcentratesinitselfthiscentralideaofthe

Westernbody–abodyaswound,abodyaswounding.Abodyassacrificeisabodythatexceeds

itslimitstobecomeasignorsymbolofaspiritualcommunion,abodywhosewoundingisnotonly

givenasensebutwhosewoundingarisesassenseandmeaningthemselves.TheeventofChrist’s

Passion, as it is described in theGospels, concentrates in itself andwith all intensity themost

important ideas inherenttoChristianity: the ideaofbecoming/touchingthebodyofGod(made

evidentthroughtheinstitutionofritualofEucharistorholycommunion),theintangibilityofthis

bodyofGodandthesacralizationofthisimageofthebodyofGod.

Through the new notions of a general population of the world, the new notions of bodies as

numbers and statistics, andmostly through themassive numbers of deaths in the holocaust –

wheremillionsofbodiesweremassivelypiled,loosingcontours,frontiersanddistinctionstowards

oneanother–thebodyofthemoderneralostanypossibilityofmakingsense,anypossibilityof

findingasense,Nancyclaims(2000/2008).Therearenomore(meaningful)sacrificestobemade,

Nancyclaims,andthereforesacrifice,asconcept,cannotpossiblymakesense.Whatremainsfrom

thislossandfromthedisarticulationofthisformerlyestablishedrelationisthenanopenwound

thatcannotbeclosed:asNancystates,whatthemoderneragivesustoseeisnotthemultiplicity

ofthebodies,buttheuniquenessanduniformityofthewoundthroughoutthebodies.

Howtodealwiththislossofsense?Howtostopthegrowinghygienizationofthebodyandofthe

woundthatneutralizestheinevitableterrorofundecidability6andthat,initsattempttoeraseand

suspend otherness, only seems to spread the uniqueness and uniformity of the wound?

HygienizationispreciselythecentralthemeofRomeoCastellucci’sveryrecentandoverwhelming

staging of St. Mathew Passion. In Castellucci’s staging perspective, the incessant action of

concealingofthewoundthroughhygienizationandnormalizationonlyseemsproducetheopposite

outcome: excessive hygienization and normalization become themselves the exposed, uniform,

andubiquitouswound.

My strategy for trying to find a possibility for rendering inoperative the hygienization and

normalizationmechanismthaterasesotherness,evenifonlyasaslightandfaintpossibility,might

5AnditmightberelevanttoacknowledgethatthedecisiontobringBach’sPassionstothisparticularcontextwasalsoproducedthroughanotherspecificengagement,thespecificaestheticTarkovsky-Bachengagementanditsexploringofthethemeofthesacrifice.IwatchedallofTarkovsky’sfilmographyatNimasCinema(March2016)duringthecreationprocessoflistening:theopenanditwasanextremelyoverwhelmingexperiencethatwasdeterminingtothisdecisionofdeconstructingBach’smusicalimageryofthePassionandalsothethemeofthesacrifice.

6HygienizationispreciselymadeacentralthemeofRomeoCastellucci’sstagingofSt.MathewPassion(watchedatCCB,CentroCulturaldeBelém,Lisbon2019).Availableat:https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/062272-000-A/la-passione/

226

thenbeacknowledgingthewoundasinevitablepainorviolence7inherenttothebodies,andnot

totrytogiveitasense,butsensingitthroughthesenses,listening.

‘Here’, at the point of suffering, is only an open “subject”, cut, ‘anatomized’, deconstructed,

disassembled,deconcentrated.Thedawnofaspacing,clarityitself,riskandchancefor‘areality’as

whatwe’reexposedto,andwhatexposesusas‘we’–asa‘we-world’.(Nancy2008,271,underline

myown)

Exploringtheideasofhereatthepointofsuffering,riskandchanceforarealityisthenanexercise

thatwillbeundertakenfromtheperspectiveofthemusicspaceofhere8andthepreviousideasof

thebodiesasmultiplegaps,resoundingandtheimpetusofriskingbeingresonantpossibilities.

Thedecisionofacknowledgingtheroleofthebodyascrucialinthissolodemandedabackground

multidisciplinaryworkthatcouldprovideadeepercorporealconsciousnessandawareness.Inthis

sense,thedevelopmentofperformancewasassistedbydancerLuizL.Antunes(averyimportant

engagement)atafinalphaseoftheprocessofmusiccreation.Acknowledgingthiscentralroleof

thebodymeantthereforeacknowledgingthatoneisworkingandexploringthroughthefringesof

bothmusicanddance.WorkingwithLuizL.Antuneswasthenaveryfruitfulexperience,andone

thatcouldquestion,refineandboostthepotentialofthemusic-body(in)expressionthatwasbeing

developed.

3. Engagementwithothercollaborators:withDanielCostaNevesTheworkprocesswithDanielC.Neves followedasimilar logic to thatof IPD. Ina firstcontact,

duringthemusicalcreativeprocess,Iexplainedthedirections,concreteideasandconceptsthat

werebeingshaped inthenewpiece.Throughthedifferentstagesofthedevelopmentofmusic

composition/performanceIwouldthenrecordandsend9thepiecestoDanielC.Neves.Assaid,for

reasons connected to the performance being developed in LTO, the recordings that were

exchanged with D. C. Neves were videos of my performance/composition rehearsals. Neves’

engagementwith thesenewpieces thenbegan to producenew ideas anddirections (concrete

images,concreteauthors,abstractideas,concepts,techniques,aesthetics,etc.)thatwerefurther

7Again:painandviolenceareacknowledged in this context,asanoutof control,unintentional systemperturbationinherenttothedirsuptivelevelsofthebodiesandnotasintentional,inflictedorself-inflictedviolence.8Thedrivetowardsalltheseextremethematicswasalsoaconsequenceofaninvoluntaryanddisruptiveelement,theemergenceofadisablingautoimmunedisease.AsthematisedbyAndrews:howtoseekcomfortwhenabodyasparadoxcannot definitelymake sense of a bodyas such? The research undertaken for this solowas also a kind of ultimatesuspension of the suspension of the body, imposed bymy body condition. Hence, the interruptive decision to theautoimmuneeventwasthendaringtogothroughmultiplerealmsofothernessthroughresearch, insteadoftryingto‘erase’it,asawayofresisting–constructivedeconstructionledtowardsfindingotherwaysofpersonalandmusicalself-reconstruction.9DanielC.NevesislivinginBerlin,sothattheinitialprocessesofIPDandLTOcouldnotbemadeinperson.Afterthisprocessofconception thatwasmadeat thedistance,D.C.NevescametoLisbonbefore thepremière forpreparingmaterialsfortheupcomingset-upofthepieces.Foreachsuccessivepieceofthetrilogy,MariaMatosTheatreprovidedanincreasingnumberofset-updays.

227

discussed. Both the musical creation process and the staging conception were then parallel

processes engaging at the distance. From time to time10, an online meeting (on Skype) was

scheduled,newideaswereexchangedandnewdevelopmentswerediscussed.

Fromvariousassociationsand ideas,oneof themdefinitely stoodout,namely thedancegenre

butoh,andtheworkof its founder,TatsumiHijikata.Formerlycalledankoku-buyôor“danceof

darkness”,andemerginginJapanafterthe2ndworldwar,in1959,butoharoseasaverysingular

experimentalandavant-gardedance‘form’,oftendescribedasadancethatresistsfixity(Waychoff,

2009). In touch with the European cultural movements such as existentialism, expressionism,

surrealism,DadaismandinresonancewithArtaud’sTheatreofCruelty,butohemergesasadance

thatcallsforarenounceofexpression,forexploringacrudeand‘visceral’physicalityandliminality

ofmovement.Daniel C.Neveswas thus associating thedisruptivebody thatwasbeing shaped

throughliminal,disruptiveoruncannygesturesofLTOwithbutoh,andthefilmsofHijikata.

ItisobviousthatthedecisionofbringingtheimageryofbutohinassociationtothecontextofLTO

wasnotmadewiththeintentionofmakingabutohorabutoh-likeperformance.Itwashowevera

decisionthatwaswillingtoletthenewimageryofLTObecomecontaminatedbythisintriguingand

seducingartformindifferentways.DanielC.Neves’questioningonhowtounfoldaspacewhere

thedetails,nuancesandliminalityofgesturecanemergewasfindingnewdirectionsandideasin

thetheghostlyimagesofHijikataandhisdancers(...)outlinedagainstadeep,engulfingdarkness11

ofHijikata’sfilmSummerStorm.Throughtheuseofminimalscenographyelementsandlighting

andtheextremeexplorationofshadesandtextures,Hijikata’sapproachseemedtobebringingto

theforegroundtheinvisibleortheusuallyunseen.

fig.46

10Therewasnofixedregularityestablished,itdependedonthedevelopmentofideasandonDanielC.Neves’availability.Theregularitydidhoweverincreaseneartheendoftheprocess.11Filmpresentation

228

Theimageryofbutohthusspreadindifferentdirections.Inthissenseitisimportanttoreferthat

the fact that it was brought to the context by D. C. Neves helped then define ‘a quality’ of

(in)expression of performance through the rehearsals with Luiz L. Antunes. A more explicit

connectiontobutohwasthenestablishedthroughthecostumeandmake-updevelopedforthe

piece: the costume, which was designed and produced by Ainhoa Vidal (also a dancer with

experienceinbutoh),hasaskin-likequalityandwasusedthroughvariousdaysandrehearsalsof

theweekpriortothepremière(acommonpractiseinbutoh,wherethebodyshapesthecostume

and the costume shapes thebody, in aprocesswhereanother skinandanotherbodybegin to

emerge)12.Althoughitdoesnotbecomeevidenttotheaudience(becauseofthelightingused)13,

themusic-makingbody,asinbutoh,ispaintedwhite.Thisprocedurehelpsshapethecontoursof

thebodyandenhancethedetailofmovement.Anotherdetailofthemake-upisthepaintingofbig

blackeyebrows,whichareagainnotveryexplicitfortheaudience(again,becauseofthelighting)

butwhichenhanceanoddnessofthisbodybeingshaped.

fig.47

BesidesbutohandHijikata,anotherengagementwasestablishedasanimportantreferenceforthe

conceptionof a space that couldmakedetails andminimalmovementemerge,namely several

MarkRothkored/blackpaintings14.Theminimaluseofelementsandcolourcontrastswithanall

depth texturewhere liminal andorganic details of thepainting canemerge: again theminimal

12Ithinkhoweverthatthecostumeproducedisstillnotadefinitiveone:itworkswhenregardedatthedistance,fromtheperspectiveoftheaudiencetowardsthestage,butitdoesnotwork,forexample,inthevideooftheperformanceprovidedwiththisthesis.Anothermoreminimalcostumeisgoingtobedeveloped.13 In this performance white light is never used. As explained further on, the performance is conceived as amonochromatic performance that uses red (light)/ black (absence of light). Orange is the farthest colour from thismonochromaticscalethatisonlyusedforlightingthemusic-makingbodyfromtimetotime.Thismeansthat,throughlighting,thewhitepaintingofthebodyisneverexactlyacknowledgedaswhite.Thepaintinghelpsshapingandbringingthecontoursofthebodytotheforegroundwithaplasticandtexturizedcharacter.14AstheonesdisplayedbelowanddescribedintheTableoffigures.

229

enhancesanalldepthpotentialthattendstoremainconcealedincontextswithmoreinformation.

fig.48 fig.49

Engaging with all these references and elements, Daniel C. Neves decided again to create a

monochromatic space produced through red (light) and black (absence of light). Through the

minimaluseofcolours,ahugepaletteofpossibilities,combinations,variations,subtleties,etc.was

explored.Theproposal forperformanceaffords then,again,anextremely sensorialexperience:

focusing the senses and narrowing the possibilities of ‘distraction’, all changes in lighting are

producedinaveryslowmotion,sothattheiralmostunperceivedunfoldingcanemergeassudden

awarenessandsurprise.

. fig.50

And lastly, we arrive at the most important element of scenography: the giant metal plates

installationthat,beingapartofinstrumentalapparatus,willhenceforthbedescribed.

230

II. Instrumentalapparatus

1. ResonantmetalplatesinstallationAtthispointintime,itmightbemeaningfultoemphasizethatallcreativeprocessesofthetrilogy

have entailed a crisis towards the instrument and performance that led, in all cases, to a

reconfigurationofboththeinstrumentalbodyandtheperformanceapproach.Inthisthirdpiece,

animportantideawasimposedbymyselffromtheverybeginning,asanewchallenge:thatofnot

usingpropsnorpreparationsinsidethepiano,thatofnotfocusingoninsidepianotechniquesand,

therefore,ofnotcountingonthestrongandpersuasivepotential thattheseelementsconvey. I

wantedto‘test’andto‘prove’thatthismusicalapproachwasnotexactlyrelyingonthem.Again,

our theme of instrumental conception as both fascination towards and escaping from: the

acknowledgmentthatfocusingonthestrongpotentialoftheseelementsforalongtimecaneasily

leadtostagnationimposeditselfasanurgencyforescapingthem.

However,regardingtheinstrumentalapparatus,itsconception,developmentandroleinthemusic

orintherelationbetweenthemusicbodieswasnotdefinedfromthebeginning,anditunfoldedin

a very non-linear and sometimes conflicting way. Accepting the rejection of the paraphernalia

insidethepianowasadecisionwithconsequencesthatwereheadinginanoppositedirection:the

pianowas being conceived in a clear and large-scale divergence of resonantmusic bodies – a

resonantmetalplatesinstallationthatwasoperatingwiththepiano.

Musicthusbegantobeimaginedthroughtheconceptionoftheinstrumentalapparatus,something

whichinawayseemstogointheoppositedirectionoftheproclaimedideathatListening:theopen

isbringingtotheforegroundtheperspectiveofthemusic-makingbody.Thedecisionoffocusing

on the music-making body was therefore not intended from the very beginning, but reached

progressively through the whole process of composition/performance practice, research and

technicaldevelopment.Thisshiftoffocusoccurredforvariousreasons,aswewillobserve,butitis

important to acknowledge that it unfolded through a tension createdbetweena clear creative

tendencyforcomplexificationoftheinstrumentandatendencytoresistthistendencyandtoresist

theseducingpotentialoftheinstrumentalapparatusbeingdeveloped.

EngagingwithNancy’sconceptionoflistening,theinstrumentalapparatusofListening:theopen

wasbeingdevelopedasaself-reflectivepiano inalldirections:apianoasaspacingbetween,a

pianoconceivedasinbetweencaptureofresonantand/orfrictionspaces.Thisideawasdeveloped

both through resonant spacesproduced inside thepiano (where theuseof the thirdsostenuto

pedal became a fundamental tool) and resonant spaces outside the piano: a large-scalemetal

platesinstallation,whoseplatesoperateasex-tensionsordisruptiveresonantspacesofthepiano.

Theambiguityofthenotionsofoutsideandinsidethepianotendthustocometothefore,since

theresonantspacesproducedinsidethepianocanarisewithafremd,foreignor‘outside’character

andtheresonantspacesproducedoutside(inthemetalplates)willestablishobviousrelationsto

231

it,andthereforeasenseofbelongingtoit,ofbeingpartofit.

fig.51

Buttheideaofdevelopingtheinstallationwithmetalplatesalsocamefromaconcreteengagement

withaconcretematerial:twotinplatesthatIhadboughtalongtimebeforeinanoldmetallurgy

fornootherpurposethantheirsoundpotential.Afirstprototypefortheinstallationbegantobe

builtbymyselfwiththesetinplatesandotheraluminiumplates,andthemusic/performancebegan

to be developed along with it. Although the installation was, again, technically not very

sophisticated, it was stimulating in terms of sound production and potential: through a

contact/pick-upmicrophoneonthesoundboardofthepiano,thepianosoundwasbeingamplified

throughfivedifferentsmallamplifiers/speakers.Eachoftheseminiamplifiers/smallspeakerswas

clampedwithtwoscrewsononeoffivedifferentmetalplates(tinplatesandaluminiumplates).

Thescrewsonthemetalplatesshouldnotbetootight,inordertoallowthespeakerstoslightly

vibratewithsound.Inturn,eachoftheseplateswashangingfromauniquefixingpoint(asmall

holeinthemetalplate)indifferentmicrophonestands,inordertoresonatefreely.Thecontactof

thespeakersandthescrewswiththesurfaceofdifferentmetalplateswouldproducedisparate

resonantspaceswithparticularfrictions,resistances,vibrations.Outofdifferentmetalplatesused,

theoriginaltinplatesweretheonesthatwouldproducemoreinteresting,complexandsurprising

resonantsounds.Curiouslyenough,theseplateswerenolongeravailabletobuyinthemarketor

throughresellers,hencetheoptionwastoexploreothermetalplates(alongwiththeinitialones).

Fromthisprototype,alargescaleinstallationbegantobedeveloped.

232

fig.52

fig.53

VisuallyconceivedbyDanielC.Nevesasalargescaleassemblageofvariouskindsofmetalplates

(tin,brass,aluminiumandgalvanizedsheet),theinstallationwasestablishedasamajorelementof

scenography.Theassemblageoftheplateswasthenarrangedinabi-dimensional,minimalandnot

quitesymmetricaldisplay.

233

fig.54

Visual reflectionswerehowevernotwelcome inthecontextof thescenographythatwasbeing

created,andanothersolutionwasfound:oxidisingtheplateswouldabolishorrestrictunwanted

reflectionsandwouldcreateatexturizingbackgroundthatcouldbeveryeffectivefortheideasthat

DanielC.Neveswasoutliningforthestaging.

The installationwasthendeveloped inpractisebyTiagoRorke15,myselfandHélderNelson(the

soundtechnicianforthispiece).IwasresponsibleforthesoundconceptionandHélderconsulted

on technical questions regarding sound. Tiago Rorke was in charge of experimenting different

chemicaloxidisationprocesses indisparatekindsofmetals,conceivingtheset-upsystemofthe

plates and of building the installation16. Through the different chemical oxidisation processes

experimented insmallmetalprototypes,DanielC.Neveswouldchoosetheonesheconsidered

mosteffective.

fig.55

15 Tiago Rorke is a designer and artist, usually immersed in prototyping, physical computing, tools and he was acollaboratorforthisspecifictaskinLTO.16InacomplexprocesswhereIwasalsoveryinvolved(choosing,buying,experimentingmaterials,speakers,solderingcables,etc.)

2,00

m

1 m 0,30 m 0,78 m

0,78

m

0,15

m

0,15 m

Ouro Mouro(latão)

Chapa Galvanizada

Ouro Mouro(latão)

Folha de Flandres

Alumínio

Ouro Mouro(latão)

5,83 m

4,15

m

234

fig.56

Withtheshifttothebiggerplates,aproblemwiththevibrationofthespeakerswasdetected:the

size and theweight of themetal plateswas affordingmore resistance to the sound signal and

frictionproducedbythespeakers,andwouldvibrateless.Thespeakershadthereforetobeused

attheirlimitcapacitiesinordertoestablisharicherinteractionwiththemetalplates.Butthisled

tomanyspeakersandminiampsbeingdamaged,andtheprobabilityofrunningoutofspeakersin

aperformancesituationwashigh.

In order to produce more complex and interesting vibration and resonation types without

damagingspeakers,thelivesoundprocessingsoftwareBidule(Plogue)wasaddedtotheelectronic

chain,toaffordthepossibilityofcontrollingallfivechannels.Withthissoftware,theinterfaceand

theamplifierIcouldcontroleachspeaker/platepairindividually.Thischangeofset-up–fromthe

initialprototypetothefinalinstallationset-up–wassomehowdifficulttoundertake(manipulating

andhanging giantmetal plates,managing technical requirements, tryingon speakerswithnew

plates,newconnectionsandinterfaces,newsoftware,conceivingofoxidisingprocesses,etc.17)and

wasnotalwaysverysuccessful:althoughwehavefoundsomeveryinterestingfeatures,therestill

isapotentialtoexploreinthefuture(probablynotforthestage,butforotherpossibleoutputs).

Forthe ‘final’set-upof installation,sometechnicaldecisionsweremadewithHélderNelson:1)

usinganaudiointerfaceforsplittingtheinputsignalofthepianothroughvariousoutputs(speakers

in the metal plates); 2) finding an amplifier with multiple channels that could amplify various

speakersatthesametime;3)gettingamidicontrollerwithmultiplefadersthatcouldcontrolthe

17 The oxidisation processes were complex, requiring quite a long investigation on materials and many chemicalexperiments;(wehadlessthanonemonthandahalftodevelopthefinalset-upandTiagoRorkewasworkingpart-timeonthisproject);

235

volumeofeachspeaker/metalplatepairindividuallyandtwovolumepedals(invarioussituations

itbecomesimpossibletocontrolthevolumemanually);4)developingafixedliveprocessingset-

upforeachspeaker.

Althoughthemetalplates installationwasnotdeveloped in its fullpotential, itaffordedagreat

numberofpossibilities.But from thebeginningof thewholeprocess,mymusical/performance

approachwasfindinga‘new’potentialofthemusic-makingbody,andwasmoreandmorefocused

onexploringnewpossibilitieswithinthisdirection.Assuch,Idecidedtoconstraintheuseofthe

installationintoaminimalandoccasionalemployment,resistingitsseducingpotential.Themetal

platesarethereforeonlyoccasionallypresent,inpiecesI.andII(b)ofLTO.

Thisisofcourseaparadox:thepiecethatbringsthemusic-makingbodytotheforegroundandthat

constrains the use of the instrumental apparatus is the one whose instrumental apparatus is

conceivedinthelargestscale(whencomparedtotheothersolosofthetrilogy).

fig.57

2. Themusic-makingbodyasartificeThefirstdecisiontowardsthecreationofthispiecewas,again,toputasidemanytechniquesand

waysofplayingthatwererecurrentinthepreviouspieces.Thedecisionofputtingthesetechniques

asidewashowevernotanattemptat‘erasing’asingularityofamusicalpastinalogicofseeking

foratabularasa,butprobablyanexerciseintheoppositedirection.Takingawaytheartifice,what

remainsofsingularity?Isitpossibletocompletelyseparateartificefromtheideaofsingularityof

musicalexpression,inalogicofoutsiderealmversusinsiderealm?

Takingawayartifice isthereforeaveryinterestingandparadoxicalexercise:ontheonehand, it

mayputinevidencethatthesingularityofthismusicalapproachmightnotrelyonspecificobjects

or specificperformance techniques, rendering the importanceofartificeas superfluous;on the

236

other, it brings to the foreground the importance of thinking music through orwith artifice,

revealingtheimportanceofthisrelation/engagementasextremelyrelevant.Thesingularityofthis

musicalapproachmightbethennotdependantontheobjectartificeinitself,butontherelation

orengagementestablished.

The decision for taking away artifice and for somehow resisting the seducing potential of the

installationbringstotheforegroundthat,ultimately,themajorartificeofthemusic-makingbody

can be themusic-making body itself.Themusic-making body is thus brought forth, through its

relationandplasticitytowardsitself,asanothercomplexresonantspaceofsound.

Inthisultimatesituation,wherethebodybecomesartificetowardsitself,itmightbeimportantto

stressthattheideaofartificeshouldnotbereducedtothespecificperformingbody,inalogicof

dualityofsubjectversusobject,whereacomposingbody(subject)composestheperformingbody

(object)orcomposesthroughtheperformingbody.Theperformingbodyis,inourcontext,abody

that isnotaconsequenceofsomething,suchasacomposingstrategy: it isagainabody,which

emergesasoutsider(s)todealwith.

fig.58

3. An‘other’conceptionofsoundAnessential ideaof this solo is thus that themusic-makingbody is brought as a resonant self-

reflectivespace itself.Andthis idea isnot justconnectedwithemancipationofgestureandthe

fairly recent multimodal conception of music, which already opposes an idea of music as

abstraction.Itmightbeanultimateideathatsoundcouldbeconsideredanything,aslongasitis

createdasaresonantspacewithin/outabody:theultimateideaofapproachingsoundnotjustas

avibratoryeventtobeperceived,butofacknowledgingthevibratoryeventoftheliminalsensorial

experienceitself‘as’sound.Soundisthen,fromthisperspective,acomplexnetworkofinteractions

237

ofvarioussimultaneousvibratoryeventsatmultipleanddisparatelevels.Inthissense,soundisnot

just an ‘outsider’, it is not something happening exclusively outside the subject: it is happening

through all vibratory levels of all bodies, abolishing dualistic notions of inside/outside,

subject/object, perceptible/imperceptible. Sound can ultimately become the process of

engagementitself.Themusic-makingbodyisthusbroughtforthinthispieceasanothercomplex

resonantspaceofsound.

4. Soundcorpusofstudiocompositions

Since thequantityanddisparityof instrumentalbodies is this timemore reduced than inother

pieces, the sound corpus of the two existent studio compositions (overture and deconstructed

Exordium)will bementioned in the specific ‘analysis’ of the pieces (hopefully enabling amore

organicperspective).

Itismeaningfultoacknowledgethatoutofallthesolos,thisistheonlyonethatdoesnotmakeuse

of text andword. In theprevious solos, studio compositionsmadeuseof text as an important

dimensionofmusicthroughthecreationofassemblagesoftextfragments(fromotherauthors),

oftenwithdifferent layers (layers thatwereexplicitlyused in themusic, layers thatweresemi-

explicitandotherlayersthatwereonlyimplicitlyengagingwiththemusic).Althoughthevoiceis

animportantelementinthisnewsolo,notextfragmentisusedinthestudiocompositions.

Listening:theopenThebodyofmusicisshapedasatriptychprecededbyanoverture.Thesecondlevelofsemiotic

actionsofperformanceinLTOcorrespondstoasetofactions–controllingtheinstallationthrough

amidicontrollerandvolumepedals–thatinthispiecebecomeafirstlevelofperformanceactions

(in lineartime,theactofcontrolling isnotasynchronoustoafirst levelofperformanceactions,

simultaneouslybecominganongoingperformanceaction).

Listening:theopen

(overture

(I.

(II.

(III.

238

(overture(timecodevideo:00’00’’)

This overture is a short studio composition (about 2’45 minutes long) that, in a performance

situationistriggeredincompleteblackout,beforemyarrivalonstage.Theblackoutremainsfor

about20secondsofthepiece,andveryslowly(fromthebackofthestage,behindtheinstallation)

aredlightbeginstofadeinsothatthehugemetalinstallationisexposedinbacklight.

fig.59

Itbeginswithacontinuousbutintermittentbuzzingnoise,anelementwhichwillbe,inonewayor

another,presentandintensifiedalmostuntiltheend.Thissoundiscomposedbyseveralrecordings

ofdifferentcontinuousandnon-continuousbuzzsoundsofabrokenrefrigerator.Togetherwith

recordings of a CD player crashing and skipping the reading of a CD (with orchestralmusic of

Debussy),thesesoundsarepartofacollectionofnoisesusedinthispiecethatareproducedby

electric/electronicdevicesnotworkingproperlyinmy‘livinghabitat’.

The initial buzz noise of this overture is slightly intensified (through complexification of noise

superposition,etc.),andanewelementarises,gaininganevidentandexplicitrelevance:thewell-

knownmelodyofthealtoariaErbarmeDich,meinGottfromBach’sSt.MathewPassionBWV244

(asasemioticandrecognisableelement).Thiselementisbroughtthroughfragmentaryrecordings

ofmyownvoicemumblingorwhisperingexcerptsofthisaria,recordingsthatweresubmittedto

soundprocessing,mostlytodifferentkindsofdistortion.

Anothersoundcorpusisthenusedasintensification,diversificationandcomplexificationofnoise

throughout the piece, namely a collection of ebullition or eruptive water sounds: different

recordingsofgeysersandhotspringsintheAzores(acollectionImademyself,mostlyfromopen

source recordings foundonline) and several recordings ofwater boiling in pots (carried out by

myself). Another sound element could be connecting to this corpus for its urging character,

although not sharing the same type of sound material or sound production: it is the case of

239

recordingsoffiresspreadingthrough,whichweretakenfromopensourcesoundlibraries.

BecauseitusesrecognisableelementsoftheariaErbarmeDich,meinGottthispiecebringsforth,

again,thesubjectofengagementwithotherworksinamoreexplicitmanner.Overtureisagaina

piecethatputsthedivisionofmusicalrolesinperformance,compositionandlisteningincrisis:first,

itcanberegardedasmyperformanceofErbarmeDich;second,thisperformancecanbe,inturn,

theenactionofmylisteningexperienceofthissamearia;and,third,thisengagementisaproducer

ofanewpiece,theengagementismadeeffectiveasacomposition/shapingactofanewpiece(that

useselementsofthisariaofBach’sStMathewPassion).Butoneroleisnotpossiblewithoutthe

others:thisnewpieceisanotherparadoxicalexperienceofErbarmeDich,whichbringsanidealof

beautyandsublimation inconfrontationwithabodyasnoise anderuption,abody thatcanno

longerbeerased,dampened.Thisnewpiece/bodyofmusiccanbeabodyexperiencingthisaria,

asabodytouchedbyit,butnotsensedthroughit.

Thatthe‘original’ariaErbarmeDich,meinGottmightpresentitselfasasublimated,etherealbody

ofmusicinBach’smusicalaestheticof‘supressingthebody’mightthenbringthebodyofmusicto

the foreground not just as a pure ethereal body: the sublimated body makes the other,

unorganized, amoral, remnant body implicit as tension (as a channelled tension that acts as a

perfectresonatorfortheexpressivityofthismusic).Asanaestheticprincipleonecouldsaythatit

is the implicit complexity of the act of neutralising the resistance through composition and

performancethatcanbeperceivedasagloriousachievementinthismusic.

But if the tension that is implicit in thearia throughmusic’s sublimationprocess is ‘unleashed’,

noiseasbodycouldbecometheneuralgiccentreofanewmusicexperience.

Thatinthisoverturethesublimatedbodyoftheariacomestogetherwithnoisedoeshowevernot

meanadualityconfrontationofa ‘pure’againstan ‘impure’body: theelementsof theariaare

mumbledandwhisperedwithmy‘small’, roughanduntrainedvoicewithno lyrics,notext.The

voice recordings are done in fragments and are in turn submitted to different kinds of subtle

distortions. They are then disposed close to their original narrative order, but interrupted and

sometimes superposed. The voice and the melody are then (through fragmentation and

distortions),a failedsublimation,an impureascendance thatcarrieswith itselfanundampened

body,asnoisynon-controlledremnant.Ontheotherhand,thecontinuouselementofnoiseand

eruption that is brought forth as a parallel event seems to have a certain drive as a possible

semiotic, musical direction. Both parallel events are then participating at the distance in one

another,touchingoneanother,feedingoneanother.

Thesoundtensionasrelationandfeedbackbetweenthembecomesanevidentandcontinuous

rising event (mostly through complexification of noise with introduction of eruptive sound

elementsandtheirsuperposition).Thisintensificationoftensionmakesasignificantcrescendo–

moreinnoisecomplexityandintensitythaninloudness–untiladisruptiveultimatecrashswallows

bothsemioticelements,andnoiseandallsoundelementsvanish.Atthismoment,andfromafaint

240

remnantofthebuzznoise,anewandveryimportantsoundeventemerges:studiorecordingsof

thelargemetalplates(belongingtothesoundinstallation)manipulatedbyhandthroughwave-like

movementswith a profoundly low-pitch,wind-like sounds.Once thiswaving soundbegins, the

music-makingbodyentersthestage–goingslowlytowardsthepianobench).Thesesoundsseem

toshakeanddissolvetensionimmediatelythroughtheopeningofavibrationspace.Thisiscreated

byaverysimplebutpowerfuleffect:intheaudioassemblage,amonorecordingofametalplateis

putintwodifferenttracks,delayedtowardseachother,inopposedpanoramicperspectives(one

ontheleftandanotherontheright),creatingastereosoundimage.Sothattheoutcomeisn’tvery

predictable,shortincisiveeditsaremadeonbothtracks.Theresultunleashes(atleastformyself)

averypowerfulsensorialexperience:thislisteningexperiencefeelslikeamassagetotheinnerears,

itfeelslikethesoundissubtlytouchingtheinnerearswiththesewave-likemovements.Morethan

just the possibility for sensing sound as a touching event from the outside, it might open the

possibilityofsensingsoundasthisinnervibratorysensationoftouch.

(I.(timecodevideo:02’58’’)

The first piece begins with the same ambience of the red light in the background, with the

installationexposed in backlight and themusic-makingbodyperforming in backlight. From this

lightingset,variousdisparatevariationswillbeproducedsothatalmostattheendofthepiece,an

opposedimagedisproduced:theinstallationandthemusic-makingbodyareexposedinredand

thestagedisappearsinblack.Thisimageisdeconstructedattheendofthepiece:blackorabsence

oflightseemstoabsorbthewholestageandeverymusicbody(includingtheinstallation)except

forthemusic-makingbody.

fig.60

Thisfirstpieceexplorestheideaofincision,throughtwolayersorlevelsofthemusic-makingbody:

241

1&2(whereeachofthemwillthenhaveotherlayers(a)(b)(c)):

1. A subtle engagement with is evident in the first layer by its ‘name’ Zauberverlehring or

sorcerer’s ‘unapprentice’ in a playful and affectuous reference to Ligeti’s piano étude

Zauberlehringorsorcerer’sapprentice.Thisfirstlayerhastwodifferentkindsofmusicalevents:

(a)initialmelodicopeninggestures,resonantcentrifugalandcentripetalélansthatopenfor(b)

divergingandspreadingtextures.Asaresonantpoeticspace,(a)functionsasaconcentrated

potentialfromwhich(b)isdetonatedasasimultaneousspreadingofsoundtexturesin‘every’

direction.Theeventsin(b)couldberegardedfromparadoxicalperspectives:ontheonehand,

an exercise of sublimation through this multidimensional texturizing – an exercise for

‘dampening’ thebodyand forgingmusicasmagical stardust textures;on theotherhand, it

couldberegardedasanoppositeexerciseforbringingthemusicbodiesandbodyofmusicas

agranulardispersionanddivergence(again).Dampeningisthen,inthiscase,anundermined,

sabotagedexercise:themusic-makingbody,asaforgerofdivergentspreadingtextures,isnot

abodyshapingamusicalspaceasa ‘tonalsomewherebetweenthenotes’ (ahomogeneous

ethereal‘safe’space),butforging,throughtherelationfromitselftoothermusicbodies,an

irregular musical space: music is a spreading through various directions, various textures

weaved throughdisparateandsometimessimultaneousmusicbodiesandpiano (keyboard)

techniques.Texture is thereforenotacontinuum, there isadisruptionbetween layers (the

samesoundcanbediverginginmultiplesites,e.g.thepianoanddeterminatechosenplates)

andinthemselves(e.g.performancewilldevelopvarioustechniques,suchasalternatingthe

useofthesustainpedalwiththesostenutopedalforforgingdifferentresonantspacesinside

thepiano),asresonantgapsthatcanopenforotherdimensionsofthistexture.

2. Thesecondlayerisadisruptive,suspendedlevelthatappearsasanimplosionoftheprevious

divergentmusicalspace.Thislayerofimplosioncouldbethencharacterizedasanautoimmune

event where the music-making body, reacting towards the internal/external divergences

explored through diverging textures of the previous section (1b), disrupts, deconstructs its

internal organisation, falls apart. As amusical space, this disruptive second layer is again a

paradoxical space of themusic bodies: occurring as a disruptive listening event, this space

seemstounfoldbothasahereandanowheresimultaneously.Allmusictension,divergences,

spreadingsof1(b) converge into the ‘minimum’divergentoscillatingeventnow: themusic-

makingbody,suddenlyprostrated,foldsinoscillation,towardsonesingletone/key‘a2’.This

‘strategy’ofprostrationanddeconstructionofallmusicbodies(bodyofmusicincluded)carries

apotentialofvertigo.

242

fig.61

But the ‘precision’ of this body’s sudden ‘failure’, or the certain ‘accuracy’ of this loss of

direction through a nowhere also unfolds as a sudden concrete here – because the body

disruptsthroughaconcreteandprecisesingletone/key,andthroughaprecisefoldingposition.

Or,toputitdifferently:thebody,escapingfromitself,losingcontrolofitself,cannothelpbeing

imprisoned,lockedinitselfasaconcretebodyhere,andasaconcreterelationtoitselfandto

othermusicbodies.Thisnowhereofdeconstructionisthenparadoxicallyanowhereashere,or

ahereasnowhere:thetensionofbeingasingleeventwhichisbothandatthesametimea

concretehere,acollapsingnowhereandtheunbridgeablegapinbetweenthem.Inthesame

motion,deconstructionandtransduction,fallingapartandpullingtogetherariseasoscillation

inbetween: thebody (everymusicbody,bodyofmusic included) isneitherdeadnoralive,

neitheractivenorpassive,itarisesasitsownphantom,creatinganewsuspendedinoperative

logic: resonation, oscillation. A body hanging nowhere, but hanging: a body suspended,

deconfigured, disfigured, out of itself, nowhere to find but exposed as an intimate micro

vibratoryhere.Thisprocess isemphasizedthroughthe instrumentalbody:theresonanceof

layer 1 is through this disruptivemoment of layer 2 filtered through the sostenuto pedal,

emergingasphantomresonance.

243

The disparity of music bodies and their established functions clearly implode as a most

sensorial, listening, oscillatory event. Occurring through the possibility/impossibility for/of

listening and through the possibility/impossibility of rendering inoperative any trace of

organisedmechanismofthebodies,thisimplosionspaceisthemomentwherethebodiesrisk

themselvestowardsaloadedemptiness,aresonatingvoid.Hence,theprostrationofthebody

doesnotstandforresignationorapromiseofimmobility:prostrationanddeconstructionof

thebody,inthisautoimmuneevent,istheepisodethatexposesnotonlythevulnerabilityand

fallibility,butalsotheplasticity,flexibilityandkineticpotential(inherenttothisvulnerability

andfallibility)asapotentialforrestoring,re-configuringthefuture:implosionandprostration

ofthebodyasapossibilityforre-configurationandapossibilitytoresist.

In here as nowhere | nowhere as here the piano is approached through various resonant

possibilities:theuseofthesustainpedalformakingthewholebodyofthepianoresound;the

useofthesostenutopedalforcreatingandshapingdisparateresonantspaceswithdifferent

amplitudes(selectingonthekeyboardthestringsthatcanvibratesympathetically);theuseof

differentinstallationplatesthatactasmultiplepianoresonators.

Butthemostimportantstrategy,whichisusedforthefirsttimeinthetrilogyinaconsciousor

systematicway,isthatofapproachingthemusic-makingbodyitselfasaresonantspace.This

is thensomethingthathappensthroughdifferent,butassociatedevents.Themusic-making

bodycanactasaresonatingfilterthroughthepositionortheshapeofthespecificbodyonthe

keyboardorstrings(itistheshapeofthebodysurfaceofcontactthatdetermines,again,the

strings that can vibrate sympathetically) determining itself as the shaping of the resonant

space.

Butusuallythisactionispartofamoreimportantevent:throughdisruption,themusic-making

body suspends any possibility of narrative, for resounding itself: the music-making body

exposesitselfasabodythatstandsforitsownartifice.Thisisthemomentwhenitbecomes

clearer that the strict separation of designations and functions of music-making bodies,

instrumental bodies, listeningbodiesorbodiesofmusicmaynot feelmeaningful anymore,

becauseeachofthemincorporatestheothersinitself.Themusic-makingbody,implodingthe

spreading character of (1b) into a single resonant sound, is not only a body playing an

instrument, but also a body that is being played by/through the instrumental sound it has

produced.Resonanceis,inthiscontext,anengagementinalldirectionsatonce:everymusic

body is playing and being played, listening and being listened to, composing and being

composed,everyeventoccursineverydirectionsimultaneously.Thisbringstotheforeground

themusic-makingbodynotjustasabodyproducingasonicevent,thatisindependentfromit,

butasabodythatispartofthesoniceventitselfasanotherresonantspace.Themusic-making

body is therefore brought forth both as an instrumental body, a listening body, but, most

importantly,asabodyofsoundandabodyofmusic.

244

2b)Butthedisruptivelayer2canalsoemergeasanexplodedspaceinsteadofimploded:the

music-makingbody,trappedinitsownplayingoflevel1b)inthearisingtensionofarepetitive

circular loopwith both hands in opposed registers of the piano is projected backwards or

outwards,expelledasphantombodytowardsanowhereasthere|thereasnowhere.

Neither dead nor alive, neither active nor passive, this suspended body can be themusic-

makingbody,butalsotheexpelledbodyofmusic,oranyothermusicbodyinthisrelation.This

‘explosion’ofthemusic-makingbodyisshapedandemphasizedthroughitsrelationwiththe

instrumentalbody: the full resonantbodyof thepiano is resoundingwith thesustainpedal

throughthedescribedprocessoflayer(1b).Thisuseofthesustainpedalisevidentlymagnifying

theamplitudeandintensityoftheinstrumentalbody’sresonance.Atthepeakofthistension,

themusic-makingbodyorallmusicbodiesareexpelled,andthis‘explosion’occursasafiltered

resonance,oscillation.Thisbodyasresonanceisfilteredfromthepreviousresonanceofthe

sustainpedal,throughthesostenutopedal(theresonanceisrenderedaspecialandunexpected

characterorsound‘aura’).Fromtheviolenceofthe‘explosion’,themusic-makingbodyarises

asarealorphantomresonationandoscillation.

fig.62

2c) layer two can also emerge as an undermined or contained exploded space. Exploding

outwards as nowhere there, an exploded force is contained here, emerging with a double

characterbothofexplosionandimplosion.Itisthemostintenseeventoflayertwo,anditis

reachedthroughthepreviousexploringofmusicaltexturesasundulationsofthemusic-making

bodythroughZauberverlehringlayer(1).Thisundulationreachesaculmination,again,through

arepetitionthatfeedsbackthemagnitudeofundulatingmovementsofbothhandsinextreme

registersofthekeyboardinffff.Thewholecrescendoofundulatingmovementsisdonewith

thesustainpedal,whichputsthewholepianobodyandstringsinvibrationandresonation.The

momentitreachesitspointofnoreturnandthebodyisabouttobeexpelled,theexplosion

happens,thebodyisprojectedoutwards,butparadoxicallyremainsstucktotheinstrument.If

itremainsstucktotheinstrumentitisbecausethistimeitisthepositionofthebody(inthis

case of both hands) on the keyboard in opposed registers that is filtering and shaping the

245

resonance: pressed down with the palm of both hands in opposed registers, the keys are

leavingthecorrespondentstringsopentoresonatealonganddisabling theresonanceofall

other strings.Theprocessof theundulatingcrescendoandcontainedexplosion is repeated

after this resonant, oscillating event, but this time something different happens: after the

containedexplosionevent,wherethebodyremainsstucktotheinstrumentwithbothhands

asfiltersforresonance,asbefore,thelefthandabruptlyleavesthekeyboard.Atthismoment

theresonance is filteredagain(whenthe lefthand leaves,onlytherighthandactsasfilter)

from the previously filter (with both hands) and one can better perceive the sound

transformationasaconsequenceoftheactionoftakingahandoffthekeyboard.Themusic-

makingbodyisthusmoreexplicitlyexposedasaresonantfilter.Intheseresonanteventsthe

tensionbetweentheexplodedspacetowardsanowhereastherebutcontainedorstucktoa

herebecomesalmostadramaticevent.Inthisoscillationeventtheimpossibilityofacomplete

escapeisbroughtforth:abodyisabodyisabody…

fig.63

246

1.

melodicplasticityasélan

asestablishingaresonantrelation

itdoesnotreallystateanything

Althoughitmight

-open,opening

resonanceisnotwhatisheardafter

-notwhatisheardafter

butarelationinalldirections

atonce

space-timediverging|converging

(resonanceisaplasticityofthepastaspresent

andfuturetoo)

melodicgestureopens

fallingtowardsitself,

fragmenting

resonatingasitself

as

weavingimperfection

asymmetrical-multidimensional-textures

withholes,separationstofallin-out-through

texturesthatfailandfallthemselves

asaZauberlehringthat

insistentlyfails

thesublimationofmagictrick

aZauberlehringthatinsistently

bumpsuponitselfandinevitably

failsthemagic

butthen:

2.

disruptionhappens

resonancehappens

notasanouterspacebut

asaninsidefoldedoutside

themagicphantasmalspace

ofmusic

convergesas

divergence

asphantasmalspaceofresonance:

themusic-makingbody

isnotdampenedtomake

resoundtheevaporated,exhaled

music

themusic-makingbodyis

resounding

247

music-becoming

(insideisfoldedoutside

outsidein)

resonanceisabodyconcentrated

anintensifiedtension

assoundrelation:

themusic-makingbody

escapingitself

stucktoitself

-resounding

vulnerability

butnotonlythat:

makingasoundofaninstrumentresound

(withyourbody)is

filteringallotherpossibilities

concentratingmusic,as

tension

asbody

in

one

sound

andfindingout:

theopulentresonatingpotential

withintheriskof

-notmaking‘something’resound

butresounding

asplasticityofbeing

sound.

1. andfindingadirectiontowardsano-direction:

somewhere

assafe?

texturizingasbeingthemagic,conjuringtrick

inalldirectionsofano-direction

2. butfailing

toreduce,todampen

themagichere,doesnottrickanyone

anymore

withavagueideaofamagicanywhere,

248

magicishereprojectingtheweightofthebody

nowhere-

alisteningbody:

abodyasresonance

oscillates

abodyasviolence

abodyasviolence

isagainconcentrated

tension

resounding

-aparadox:

disruptionalsoasarrivalpoint:

abodyescapingitself

andfindingitself

inonemotion

-nowhereishere

orhereissuddenlynowheretofind

theunsafeturnssafe

thesafeturnsunsafe

andthendisruptingdisruptionagain

(thegame)

withasimplestaccato

-humouraspossibilityfordeconstruction

ortransduction

1. findingadirectionsomewhereasunsafeorsafe?

failingagain,

butfailingbetter,

ironicallymuchbetter:

trickingyourself,enchantingyourself

throughstarlit,stardustsounds

-becauseitisallabouttrickingyourself

asaspectatorinthefirstinstance-

Enchantingyourself

suddenlyopensapossibility

notjusttoproduceundulatingtextures

butforbecomingundulating

textures

asmusic-makingbody:

whenitisthehand,thearm

andnotthe

singlefingerthatacts

asswinglesinger

magic(un)becomes

249

2. ‘amast,anarm,ahead’

anundulatingbody

isanempoweredbody

asresoundingmast:

claiming,performingitsright

todrift

tofloat

nottobeproductive

escapingthechoreographyofthesystem

butinevitably

falling

failing

creatinganother

choreographicalstatement

abodyasundulation

isthen

alisteningbody

infeedback:

compressedviolence

unleashed

themostdramaticexplosionistheone

thatimplodes

thereashere|hereasthere

asunsafesafespace

abodythatisoversensitiveandoverreactivecanbethen

abodyalive

throughthedead

1. thebodyisthenslowlyopeningbetween

enjoying

thedelightfulness

ofbecomingsenses

themselves

250

(II.(timecodevideo:15’52’’)

Aspreviouslydescribed,theendofI.deconstructstheformerexerciseofvariationsbetweenred

lightandabsenceof light.Fromthisdeconstruction,anegativespaceiscreated,whereblackor

absence of light tends to absorb thewhole stage and everymusic body, except for themusic-

makingbody.Throughthisnegativespace,theslowness,theliminalityofgestureandthesubtlety

ofthispiece,themusic-makingbodyemergesasanewspacingoutlinedagainstadeep,engulfing

darkness.Theideasofarealizationofthebodiesandofemergenceofthephantomlimbs,which

areheretouchedthroughconcretecomposingandperformingstrategies,arefedbackthrougha

lightingapproachthatzoomsinonthemusic-makingbody,exposingandenhancingthesmallest

detail.Thislightingapproachishowevernotastaticone:isalwayssubtlyandslowlyshiftingthe

perspective, deeply exploring the use of moving shadows against the oxidized textures of the

installation(alsoasawaytoenlargethemagnitudeofcertainmovements).

fig.64

Themusic-makingbodyandbodyofmusicbringtootherlevelsandlimitsthisexerciseofbecoming

thesensesthemselves:thissecondpieceputsingreaterevidencetheclaimedfactthatthismusic

is not really about what is transmitted at a semiotic level, but mostly about the gaps and

engagementsbetweendifferentmusicalevents,differentmusicbodiesandlevelsofbodies.The

pieceisanexercisewheretheliminalsensorialandproprioceptiveexploringofthemusicbodies

(by themselves and each other) becomes itself music. This happens not through an evident

Lachenmannianstrategy,butmostlythroughastrategyofarealizationofthemusicbodies (and

bodies ofmusic): bringing themusic bodies out of themselves as both intangible and concrete

bodies,asparadoxicalsuspendedbodiesthatcanfloathere–nowhereashere|hereasnowhere.

251

Thisstrategyofarealizationofthemusicbodiesisaprocessthatistriggeredmostlythroughthe

perspectiveofthemusic-makingbody–abodyaslistening.Again,amusic-makingbodythatisin

extreme,liminalsensorialandlisteningengagement‘detaches’itselffromitself,andbecomesan

instrumental,resoundingbody.Arealizationofthebodiesthusbecomesaprocessthatdoesnot

erasethehereofthebodyas inthesonotropicperspective,nordoes it focusexclusively inthis

concrete dimension of the music bodies, but arises as ‘in between tension’ and ‘in between

vibration’.

Musicbodiesandbodyofmusicarisethenasbodiessuspendedbetweennarrativeanddisruption,

betweenmaterialityand immateriality. This ideaof ‘inbetweendisruptionandnarrative’or ‘in

betweenno-choreographyandchoreography’becomesthenthemostdifficultendeavourofthe

performance,aswewillobservefurther.

There are twohighly important composition andperformance strategies for arealization in this

context:thefirstistoreducetheconcrete/materialbodyofmusictoaminimalcollectionofvery

short resounding gestures; the second refers to the creation of the most extreme sensorial

engagementofthemusic-makingbodytowardsitssubtlestkineticpotential,aliminalitythatmight

besomethingclosetoPaxton’ssmalldance.Thisrelationisthennotonlyestablishedtowardsitself

butalsoestablishedasa‘telepathic’sensorialengagementtowardsallmusicbodies.Thisliminal

engagement,aslistening,canunleashfeedbackprocesseswiththepossibilityofamplifyingliminal

oscillation.Throughthis feedbackandamplificationprocess, themost intimateandunutterable

eventcanbecomeaudible,palpableandvisible:anowherecanariseasanoverloadedspacehere.

Fromanintenseandlongprocessofperformance/listeningexperiments,whichwererecordedin

video,thisperformancetelepathicsensorialengagementarosetogetherwithanarrayof liminal

gestures.Outofthesegestures,someaffordedaconcretechoreographic(resonant)qualitythat

waskept,whileothersafforded,throughtheirglimpsingphotographicalquality(theycanbejusta

chord,orasuccessionoftwoveryshortevents),a‘potentialforopening,oscillating,resonating’.A

collectionofaboutthirteengestureswasprogressivelyselectedfromexperimentsinrehearsalsand

compiledasforminga‘resonantcatalogue’withspecificfeatures:

- exceptforthecasesthatwillbementionedfurther,allresonantgesturesandtheoverall

experienceofthepieceemergeasaliminalperformanceexperienceandhaveadynamic

rangebetweenpppp-p(aliminalexperiencethatisagainzoomedinonbytheamplification

ofthepiano);

- someresonantgesturesareopeningmelodicélans;

- someareacrystalizedharmonicrelation;

- somehaveamoreconcretechoreographic feature:one is theexplicitoscillationof the

bodybetweenopposed registers,where thearmsandupperbodyclearlyoscillateand

undulateinafreesyncopatedwaywithbothanopeningandclosingcharacter;someare

acollectionof‘almostwaltz’gesturesthatareproduced,shapedthroughdifferentparts

252

oftheupperbody/arms(occasionallyactinglikefiltersforresonance);

- someemergeasdisruptedgesturesofthebody/arms/elbows/hands,etc.,fallingorfailing

a narrative, losing control of themselves, and arising as new sensorial relations and

engagementsofthemusicbodies;

- someareanactualizationofdisruptionintoconcreteoscillatorymovementtendencies;

- out of nowhere, specific, glimpsing ff-ffff gestures emerge abruptly (only once), as

disruptionoftheestablishedintimatesphereofhereasnowhere(anditsdynamicpppp-p

range),anddisappearabruptlyintonowhere,unfoldingspecificfremd/foreignresonances:

1) one abrupt, glimpsing ff arpeggio ascending gesture emerges (once) from the high

register(withanexpellingcharacter;2)twodifferentabruptffffimplodinggesturesoccur

in the lowest register (once each) as brutal disruptive events. Their overwhelming

resonance is immediately filtered by the position of the music-making body on the

keyboard(onegestureisfilteredbybothhandsandtheotherbytheforearm).Thisaction

producesadramaticeffect18forseveralreasons:1)whenallstringsarevibratinginfffwith

thesustainpedal,andthepedalissuddenlytakenawayatthesametimethatthearmsor

handsarepressing/layingonthe‘mutedkeys’,theresonancebecomestheshapeofthe

music-makingbody,orthemusic-makingbodybecomestheshapeofresonance.2)the

filtered resonance, for its foreign character, arises with a potentially ‘anguishing’

character. Its foreign effect is also produced through a visual factor: what is usually

regarded as the gesture for playing and producing sound – bringing the hands to the

keyboard–engendersits‘opposite’effect,filtering,reducingproductionofsound;3)after

the absolute and inconsequent brutality, the sudden hands or arm gestures and the

filteringeffectcanhaveanambiguouscharacterofassisting,relievingpain;

- onegesture(prostration)occursonlyonce,provokingtheultimatedisruptionofthebody

ofmusic, theendof thepiece: themusic-makingbody, listening, lets itself go through

disruption, losing control of one hand and then the other, both hands falling on the

keyboardwiththepalmsup.Themusic-makingbody,listening,oscillates.

Gestures have been collected to afford a flexibility for variation and a flexible idea of

sequentiality. Some ideas have been compiled throughout the creative process of

composition/performanceas‘guidelines’forperformance:

- becomingone’sown listening: it is not about thebodybeing immersed in sound,but

aboutthebodybeingabletodiscoveritselfassound;

-thereisnoobjectivetimeoutsidethebody(ies):timeisthespacingofthebody(ies)as

resonation.Timeisspace-timeasadimensionofthebodieslistening,opening;

18Thedampeninggestureofwiththehandsorarms,whichisanefficientgestureonvibratingstringsoronavibratingskin,isevidentlynoteffectiveonthepianokeyboard.However,inthiscontextitturnsouttobesurprisinglyeffective,asexplainedfurther.

253

-beinginastateofresonanceisnotapassiveorstaticstate,anditdoesnotcorrespondto

anideaofcontemplation:itisaboutanintimateandmostintenseexperienceofbecoming

partofthesoundevent;

-being inastateof resonance isnotexactlyanactivestateeither,butadelightfuland

flavourfulstateinbetween:avibrationmode,thatcanbeexplored…fedbackandforward,

subtlydampened;

-theoscillatorystateofthebodycanbeexperiencedasdifferent‘openingstates’;

-astatewherethebodycanreallysenseitselfasbeingspaceandtime;

-betweenmusicanddance;

But probably the most important and difficult feature to achieve through this performance

experience is theunbalancedbalancebetweennarrative anddisruption, choreography andno-

choreography,concretenessandungraspable,hereandnowhere.Itisveryeasyeithertofallina

logic of narrative, that enhances continuity and the relation between gestures or to fall in an

opposite logic of separation, where you lose any connection to the previous or the following

gesture. Each of these directions fall in a logic of predictability and cannot afford an intense

experience.Theideaisthentoemergeatthesurfaceasthis‘inbetween’unbalanceandbalance,

expressionandinexpression,controlandoutofcontrol

withanintensitypotentialforsurprisingandgettingsurprised.

II.b(resonance)

Resonanceofthedisruptionandprostrationgestureasliminaloscillationofthebodyandhands

continuesforsometimeafterthesoundofthepianohasfadedaway.Disruptionofsoundseems

tooccurthroughthisprostrationandliminalgesture:througha‘telepathic’subtlestengagement

ofthemusicbodies,theinstallationseemstoresonatesympatheticallyalong.Liminaloscillation

heregivesrisetoanewliminaloscillationthere.

Whathappensisthatthemetal-plates’installationisactivatedbythemusic-makingbody:oneof

thespeakershangingontheplatesisswitchedonwithasoundprocessingeffectthat,througha

feedbackprocess,producesanalmostimperceptiblepulsatingsoundwithabreathingcharacter.

Thisalmostimperceptiblepulsatingsoundarises‘alone’:thoughfeedback,theinstallationbegins

toreacttowards itself inaslowandlongcrescendo.Duringthisslowcrescendo,otherelements

beginresonatingalong.Differentmetalplatesaremanipulatedbymyselfthroughstrings(which

254

areattachedbothtotheselectedmetalplatesandthepiano).However,thismanipulationremains

intoacertainextentconcealedorambiguousthroughliminallightningoftheperformingbody:the

spaceofthestageisagainanegativeblackspaceabsorbedbytheabsenceoflightwherethemusic-

making body tends to disappear as subject of the action, and the undulating plates, through

minimumlighting,begintoemergeasundulatingshapesandshadows,creatingaverypowerful

andorganicsensorialeffect.

fig.65

The different metal plates and different ways of manipulating the strings produce different

undulating and resonating sounds. But the presence of the breathing sound effect brings an

overwhelminglivingcharactertothesoundinstallation.Thecrescendoindynamicscomestogether

with an increasing textural complexity of this undulating and breathing ‘sound creature’: the

numberofmetalplatesoscillatingincreases,theintensityofoscillationincreases,anotherspeaker

inanothermetalplatewithasimilarbreathingeffectisadded,theintensityofthebreathingeffect

in both speakers is also increased, enhancing the friction between speakers and plates. The

crescendo is produced through an overwhelming feedback process, where the complexity and

powerofsoundbegintoswallowthemselves.Ifthemusic-makingbodyemergesasabodythatis

able to discover itself as sound, through a kind of autophonic process, here it is the sound

installation that arises as both subject and autophonic instrument: through an unleashing of

intensityandfeedback,theinstrument,designedwithaverysensitiveresonationpotential,seems

tobeabletoresoundbyitselfandfeedthisresonationprocessbyitself.Throughoutthisprocess,

the negative black space of the beginning of II.b) was slowly being undermined by a gradual

increasing of lighting (exploring many nuances of shades and textures) on the metal plates

installation.

255

(III.(timecodevideo:28’07’’)

Thethirdpiecebeginsfromthedeconstructiveperspectiveoftheautoimmuneevent,andexplores

the out of control, falling apart music-making body, as a conflict. A spasmodic, reactive,

deconstructed, disassembled music-making body is brought to the foreground: it is exposed

throughitspersistentspasms,kineticdrives,flexibilityand/orinflexibility,resistance,resilienceor

non-resilience,tics, jerks.Themusic-makingbody isbroughtasaresoundingoverload:thenon-

organization,non-structurationofthedisruptedbodybecomesloudlyaudible,visible,palpable19.

After the previous ‘installation event’ of II.b, where the audio and visual focus was fully

concentrated on this installation, in III. the music-making body becomes the centre of the

performance space again: lighting is fully centred on the ‘spasmodic’ music-making body

(installationandstageareconcealedthroughabsenceoflight).

fig.66

A1) Themusic-making body is sat at the keyboard but cannot really sit right, it seems to have

spasmodic movements, that tend to expel the body in an outwards/backwards direction. This

expellingmovementseemstoberesponsibleforthefactthatthefeetcan’tfindafixedground:

throughthisattemptoffindingastablepositiononthefloor,thefeetproducerepetitivebutnon-

linearsoundingkicksonthepedalsandtheirsteelrods(whichresonateonthesoundboardandare

amplifiedthroughaspecificmicrophoneplacednearthepedals/steelrods).Oritmightbeexactly

the contrary: the kicks, as attempts for finding a ground or a stability of the body, could be

responsiblefortherepetitiveandnon-linearspasmsofthebody.Contradictingthisexpellingforce

19Thatvulnerabilityisinacertainwayexposedthroughthisautoimmuneeventdoesnotmean,again,thatitisexploredthroughapassiveandnaturalizedperspectivethatiswillingtoseeka‘rawness’ofthebodies.Vulnerabilityisnotregardedasapredictableandstablefeatureoftheclosedbody,butasundecidability.Thedisrupted,overloadedmusic-makingbodyisanewflexibilityorplasticity.

256

of the body, both hands are holding or anchored on the piano front, resisting. All the piece is

broughtasatensionbetweenbothforcesandtendencies:expellingandgrounding.Throughthis

tensioninbetween,therightarmbeginstoescape,unorderly,outofcontrol,disarticulated,falling

apart.Thedisarticulatedarm, itselbowtwistedupwards,as ifhangingfromaninvisiblehanger,

reaches thehighestnoteon the keyboardwith its right thumband ‘drums’ it unorderlywith a

seeminglyhammeringsound(thestringsofthislastkeyaremutedwithatuningdamper).Butthe

actionisdisrupted:thebodycan’tact,therightthumbbecomes‘stuck’tothissamekeyand,not

beingabletogetoutofthisawkwardarmposition,thebodybeginstotwist,tosenseitselfandfind

itselfasanewflexibilitywithinthisawkwardnewposition.Thebodyexploresthisdisruptionspace

andbecomesitselfaudiblethroughthisexploring.

B1) from thisdisruptive space,and through this tensionbetweenbothexpellingandgrounding

opposedforces,thebodypullsitselftogether,inanuprightsittingposition,andbeginstoplaythe

piano‘normatively’.Butthisengagingwiththepianoisacircular‘autistic’engagement:themusic-

makingbodyperformsacircularnon-linearmusicalmoduleinacircularnon-linearway.Inrelation

topreviousmomentA1),thisoscillatorymovementarisesasapossibilityforfindingadirectionality.

However,themusic-makingbodyremainstrappedinthis‘autisticrepetitive’non-linearcircularity.

Pulling together or reconstruction seems to be bringing the same disruptive space of A1) at a

differentandmorenormativelevelhere.

A2) Performing the previous non-linearmodule, a hand fails, literally falls on the side (on the

keyboard)andthemusic-makingbodydisruptsagainasinA1),exploringitselfagainasadisruptive

event,asaninoperative,unsovereignbody.Throughitsincapabilityofpullingitselftogetherinan

intended, directed action,movement erupts again out of control. This time this out of control

movementisbroughtfurther:thearmseemstohangsuspended,andthemovementofthe‘dead’

forearmoscillatingfreelyissensedandfedbackinbiggeramplitudesthatcanmakethearmhit

either the keyboard or the piano lid. A body that cannot act, it explores itself sensorially as

outsider(s)ofitself.

fig.67

257

B2)thebodypullsitselftogetherbutengageswiththepianothroughthesamecircularengagement

asinB1):performingthesamecircularnon-linearmoduleinasamecircularandnon-linearway.

Andagain,asinB1),pullingtogetherseemstobringforththesamedisruptivespaceatadifferent

level.Butthistimethemusic-makingbodyisabletogofurtheror,atleast,itseemsto:newmusical

elementsbegintoarisefromthiscircularnon-linearmode.Somecouldbedescribedashavinga

similarcharactertoBrahms’‘fallingcascades’,otherelementshaveaquasi-impressionistquality.

Butalthoughtheyseemtofindadirectionalitytothemusic,theyaretrappedaselementsofthe

same non-linear circularity. They are then nothing more than the complexification and

intensificationofthisnon-linear,circular,deconstructivemovement,ortheyarethissameevent

broughttoanotherlevel.Throughoutthisprocess,andalmostuntiltheendofC),thelighting(that

wasuntiltheendofA2onlyonthemusic-makingbody)beginstoexploredifferentvariationsof

redapproachestowardsthemusicbodies.

fig.68

Theexpositionofthemusicbodiesandthestageareproducedthroughagradualandslowshifting

ofdifferentperspectives,that,littlebylittle,throughoutB2),A3),andC,increasesaturationof(red)

colourand (red) light.This saturationgoesalongwithabig crescendoof themusic towardsan

overwhelmingexcess(oflightandcolour)thattendsto‘abolish’(again)linearspace.Redlight,as

excess, tends to create anegative spaceagain: the feedbackof thepositiveelement (light and

colour)beginstounshape.

258

fig.69

A3) The apparent directionality produced by the complexification of the non-linear circular

movementisinterruptedwhenatriggeredstudiocompositionbeginstobeperceptible.It isthe

deconstruction exercise of Bach’s Exordium from St. John’s Passion BWV 245 described in the

ChapterMutilatingthesemioticrealm–‘engagementwith’J.S.Bach’s‘St.John’sPassion’ofCluster

II, and whose reading is therefore absolutely complementary to this text. The audio file (the

deconstructionofExordium)istriggeredbymyselfandbeginswithalongfadein,takingsometime

tobecomeperceptibleand‘acknowledgeable’.Atapointwhereitspresencebecomesevident,the

apparent directionality of the non-linear circular movement is slowly deconstructed: the body

graduallyfallsapartinasimilarbutlessintensewayasinA1&2.Thistime,thehandsdonotfall

fromthekeyboardbuttendtoremainstucktoit(inthesamelogicofpieceII.,wherethemusic-

making body becomes a resonant body through its surface contact with the keyboard).

Simultaneouslytotheseevents, thebody,beginstoengagewiththepianopedalsas inA1&2,

throughrepetitivebutnon-linearsoundingkicks.

C)Whenthestudio fileestablishes itselfasaneffectivenewelementof themusic, thebodyof

musicbifurcatesagainthroughtwodistinctandparallelevents1)anewmusiceventandelement

(studiocomposition)thatis,asexplainedinthecomplementarytextMutilatingthesemioticrealm

–‘engagementwith’J.S.Bach’s‘St.JohnPassion’,ClusterII,themutilationofanothermusicbody

orevent:Bach’sExordiumfromSt.JohnPassion;2)theformernon-linearcircular‘module’thatis

launchedwhenthisstudiocompositionestablishesitselfasanewmusicalelementofthepiece.

Ontheonehand,hismusicalmomentcouldbesaidtohaveaconcertantecharacterforbringingto

thesameeventanorchestralpart(evenifrecorded,disrupted,distorted,mutilated,etc.)witha

259

soloist piano part. But on the other hand, it might be perceived as the exact opposite of a

concertantepiece: in this context,bringing to the samemusical event twodisparatebodies (as

musicalevents)simultaneouslydoesnotmeanthatthestrategyforcompositionisoneofbringing

togethertwocomplementarypartsinordertoconstructanintegerorharmonicwhole(asitwould

besomehowexpectableinaconventionalconceptionofaconcertante).Onthecontrary: inthis

context,thestrategyisoneofbifurcatingcomplexity.Ifuntilherecomplexificationofanon-linear

circularmusicbodyandmusic-makingbodywereexplored,thismusiceventwillnowdiverge in

twodifferent,distant,independentparallelevents.Ontheonehand,thesamekindofnon-linearity

continues,inanobsessiveor‘autistic’waythat,atfirstsight,mightseemtobeunreactivetothe

studiocompositionoraudiofile.Butontheotherhand,thecomposition/performancestrategyis

here one of finding how two disparate bodies can be affected by each other through their

differenceanddistance.Again, thiswillbeastrategyofnon-developmentofnarrative: thetwo

parallel deconstructive events are touching each other at the distance, feeding each other’s

intensity,makingoneanother grow in amplitude.Of course, the studio composition is a stable

registerwithnopossibilitytobeaffectedorchangedthroughperformance.Buttheprocessofits

compositionwasalsodonethroughrehearsalsandexperimentationwithperformanceatthepiano,

sothatthismutilated‘exordium’isalsoaffectedbyperformanceatanotherspace-time.

Ifnon-linearcircularityofB)isafeaturethatmightbetracedbacktothepieceHierarchyofinsanity

fromInPraiseofdisorder,thisbifurcationstrategycouldsomehowhaveaconnectiontothefourth

piece,Allthatislighthasadarkpart(Lullaby),ofthissamesecondsoloofthetrilogy,wheremusic

alsobifurcatesthroughtwoparallelanddivergentevents20thatcanaffecteachotheratadistance

(butinadifferentway).

ItmightbeimportanttorecallthatthisnewmusicbodyisenhancingveryspecificfeaturesofBach’s

Exordium,whichwereapproached inCluster II.:21 first, the ‘textural circularity’ imposedby the

circularmotifoftheintertwinedstrings;second,space-timedissonance,producedbythemelodic,

harmonicandtemporaldelayofthewindstowardsthecircularmotifandbythemelodic,harmonic

and temporal delay inside themelodic intertwining of the winds: different melodic lines have

differenttimesofarrival,resolutions,anticipations,etc.,asifhavingaresistanceoftheirownand

atempooftheirownthatco-existswithanurgencyoflineartimeimposedbythecircularmotif.

Thenewstudiocompositionexpandsthispotentialofdivergenceinherenttothemusicalspace-

timeofBach’spiece:through‘autoimmune’processesofeditingandcrossfading(wheretheincised

music is constantly ‘swallowing’ and ‘being swallowed’), circularity, instead of being erased, is

overwhelmed, fedback,magnified inamplitude.Theseprocesses–undertaken throughseveral

fragmentsoftheExordiumpreviouslysubmittedtotransformationsinsamplerate(andtherefore

pitchandtempo)–alsotendtohavea‘melting’effectontonality,andtoinduceboththepossibility

20SeeIPDIV.21SeeagainClusterII.ChapterMutilatingthesemioticrealm–‘engagementwith’J.S.Bach’s‘St.JohnPassion’.

260

andtheimpossibilityofresolution.

Thisotherbody,whichconstitutesthestudiocomposition,mightbecompletelydifferentfromthe

non-linearcircular‘mode’intermsofwhatisusuallyreferredasmusicalcontent.But,ontheother

hand,bothhaveaverysimilardisruptive,divergentandnon-linearcircularcharacter.Morethan

throughcontentornarrativeconvergence,thesetwodisparatebodiesareaffectedthroughtheir

non-linear circularity and their openness, which constitute their extreme potential to resonate

along.

At a certain moment in the file, the singing of a bizarre, low slow-motion distorted voice22

establishesitselfasamainelementofthestudiocomposition.Withtheemergenceofthisvoice

(whicharisesasaphantomofitself),themusic-makingbodyswitchestoanothercircularmodule

that could be characterized almost as a typical Romantic piano accompaniment, but an

inconsequentone:itfollowsthevoice,butmaintainingitspreviouscircularityandobsessivedrive

–itisanautisticgesturethatisbothaclosedinitselfgesture(initsintrinsiccircularity)andanopen

gestureaffectedbythepresenceofthevoice(avoicethatisaphantomofitself).Afterthisevent,

the initial motif of exordium returns in studio composition, superposed in faster tempi and

seeminglymoreoutofcontrolintermsofdirectionalities.Thiswillstartabigcrescendoandthe

ideathattwoparalleldeconstructiveeventsaretouchingeachotheratadistance,feedingeach

other’s intensity, making one another grow in amplitude, is here brought further. Non-linear

circularityofperformancebecomessimultaneouslyandparadoxicallymoreandmoreautomatic

andmoreandmoreoutofcontrol.Or,toputitdifferently:non-linearcircularityisfedbyintensity

insuchawaythatthemusic-makingbodybecomesoutofitself,playingwithoutitself,asifplaying

would be done alone or by itself. Themechanism of disruption takes over the body in such a

powerfulwaythatthisoutofcontrolbecomesakindofautomationwherethemechanismruns

aloneanditsoperationcanberegardedasabodyincompletecontrol(which,inacertainaway,it

also is). Again, control and out of control are not brought as opposites of a duality, they are

simultaneousperspectivesofthesameevent:abodyallowingitselftogetoutofcontrolmightbe

paradoxicallyabodyincontrolor,inotherwords,abodythatdoesnotneedobsessivelytocontrol

mightbeabody in anotherkind of control. This processbrings the crescendoandaccelerando

further,notinalinearway,but‘explosively’:thebodyofmusicisexplodedthroughthemassive

entrance of fragmented cries of the choir23 in different tempi, pitches, etc. and this out of

control/control featureofnon-linearcircularperformanceexplodeswith.Thebody isavelocity

beyonditself,before,behind,andafteritself…thisexplosionimposedbythevoiceslastsalmost

oneminute,butthemusic-makingbodybecomesautomatic,unstoppable,running‘withnobrakes’

for a longer period until resistance and friction of the singular music bodies begin to induce

decelerationforthemselves.Throughthis‘explosive’process,the‘saturatedredstage’beginsto

22ThesevoicesaretransformationsofacanonentranceofthechoirintheoriginalExordium.23ThecriescorrespondtotransformationsofdifferentmomentsofthechoircryingHerr!(Herr,unserHerrscher).

261

comecloser to the initial lighting set,exposing the installation inbacklight.All elements (music

bodiesandscenography,throughlighting’sfadeout)tendtodissipatethroughtheirownpaceand

time:thenegativespaceengulfsallmusicbodiesbutthe‘wind-up’music-makingbodyisstillonits

unquiettrail,resistingthroughthedarkness.Untilultimatelyitunwinds.

fig.70

Althoughcomingfromandforgingcompletelydifferentand‘opposed’perspectives,thisgoingout

ofitselfisinevitablytouchingagainatranscendentalperspectiveoftheRomantic.Thiscouldmean

againthatthemusic-makingbodyissimultaneouslyandparadoxicallyrunningagainstaparadigm

andtouchingit…

…obeyinganddestroyinginthesamemotion,againandagain.

262

CODA:Abodyaslistening:virtuosity

263

Abodyaslistening:virtuosityi

I.

Virtuosity(orrefusalofvirtuosity)

asimmunisation:

insuranceofthesafeandsound

II.

Immunityparadigm(1.)basedon:

-stabilityandintegrityoftheself,dualityself/other

(suspension:othernessissupressed,erasedfromtheself)

-logicofwar:immunityisthe(self)defencefromtheattackperpetratedbytheother

III.

Virtuosityandperformanceidealsthroughtime:

-mechanismsoperatingdifferentimmunisationprocesses,differentconceptions/strategiesforconstructingthemusic

bodies.Usuallyoperatingthroughthesamelogicsofdualityself/other,attack/defence,inside/outside,control/outof

control.

IIII.

-protectmefromwhatiwantii

virtuosityasclassicalimmunisation

paradigm

isnotanabstraction:

measurablepressuretokeepyoudoing,

resonatingalong

listeningtotheothers

resonatingdisciplinetogether:

choreography

(orthecompressionoflisteningwithyour

writtenconsent)

264

IIII.

Otherrecentparadigms,suchas:

(2.)theimmunitysystemseemsnottorespond

toaninvadingother

buttoseriesofinternaldifferences,

reactingtoitsownnetworkconnections

whichincorporatetheother

withintheselfiii

incorporatingotherness,multiplicity

withintheself

theimmunesystemis

fromtheverybeginning

reactingtowardsitself:

Abodybeing

indefinitestrange

bodies

immunity

is(also)autoimmunity

IIIII.theworstfearistheonethatcomesfromtheinside:

terror(ortheinalienable)

IIIIII.

Listening

asabody’scapacity

forresonating

itselfanother

feedback

IIIIIII.

Abodylistening

abodyfadingout-

-in

confining-opening

terror

resonance

asplasticityofabody

for

265

IIIIIIII.Wewillnolongerspeakaboutvirtuosity.Weshallspeakofvirtuosityinstead.IIIIIIII.Virtuosity:itsinsurmountableimplosion(autoimmunity)

IIIIIIIII.Virtuositymightbetolaunch,toactengagingwithotherness’selfthroughthedistanceor:anunbridgeablegapre|sounding(dis-tempering,undecidable)oreven:abodyaslisteningIIIIIIIIII.ListeningasdisruptionaseismicsenseoutofsubjectoutofobjectoutofsenseListeningasapointtriggeringitself:detonation

266

IIIIIIIIIII.Theoutofcontrol,outofsenseasthemostprecisepreciousinnermechanismofabodyitisnotjustanoutcallingintoquestionasaregimeofexceptionOutasthemostintrinsichorologicalperfume-theintimacyofabody:ortheimpossibilitytopredictwhatthisbodycandovirtuosityIIIIIIIIIIII.Virtuosityisnottakenforgrantedcomeswithnoformulasorrepetitions,itspossibilityissustainedinitsintrinsicimpossibilityandnonetheless,abodyescapingfromitselftrappedinitself–indefinitebodiesre|sonatingresists

IIIIIIIIIIII.

Abodyisalreadyviolenceuponitself

Or:theimpossibilityoftotaleradicationofviolenceby/tothebodies:

(thereisno‘notacting’:notactingisacting,decision.theabsenceofexpressionbecomesnewexpression.non-

intentioncomesinevitablyfromintentionitself.notcontrollingisalsocontrolling)

267

IIIIIIIIIIIII.

Virtuosityasdiplomacyandrelativity(ofthebodies):

thereareactions,decisions

lifeanddeathonbothsidesofeverydecision

deathandlifeoneverygestureproduced

ornotproduced

classicvirtuosities:wheninasamebody(andwithoutquestioning)thesamestrangebodiesorstrangelevelsofbodies

aredampened,supressed,erased,killedinthemselves/outofthemselves.

IIIIIIIIIIIIII.Disruptionisalsoreconstruction:

adisfiguredbodyisanewconfiguration,

transduction

ofbody

reconfiguration:

autonomousresponsetodisruption

or:

howabodyre|sounds,(ordoesnotre|sound)

beingotherness

anopeningforautophony~

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII.

Listening:slowly,Itswaysandthebodyrestoresthefuture

268

iPoems/fragmentstranslatedfromtheoriginalversioninPortuguesebytheauthor.ThepoemswerepublishedinthejournalonPerformingartsCoreia#1(Sá,2019).iiQuotedfromJennyHolzer’svisualartworkwiththesametitle.iiiBasedonAndrews’quote:ForJernetheimmunesystemrespondsnottoaninvading‘other’buttoanindefiniteseriesofinternaldifferences,sothata‘self’doesnotpassivelyawaitatransgressionofitsboundaries,butisalwaysalreadyactivelyrespondingto‘itsown’networkconnectionswhichnowincorporatethe‘other’withinits‘self(Andrews2011,11).

269

REFERENCES

Agamben,Giorgio(2015)trans.AndréDias&AnaBigotteVieira,OAberto.Ohomemeoanimal.

Lisboa:Edições70;

Agamben, Giorgio (2004) trans. Kevin Attell, The Open – Man and Animal. California: Stanford

UniversityPress/StanfordCalifornia;

Andrews,Alice (2011)Autoimmunity:DeconstructingFictionsof Illnessand theTerribleFuture to

Come.London:GoldsmithsUniversityofLondon,DepartmentofVisualCultures;

Assis, Paulo (2018) Logic of Experimentation: rethinking Music Performance through Artistic

Research.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress(OrpheusInstituteSeries);

Assis,Paulo (2017a) “Rasch24–TheSomatheme*” inArtisticResearch inMusic:Disciplineand

Resistance – Artists and Researchers at the Orpheus Institute. Leuven: Leuven University Press

(OrpheusInstituteSeries);

Assis, Paulo (2017b) Gilbert Simondon’s ‘Transduction’ As Radical Immanence in Performance.

PerformancePhilosophy3,No3:695-716,DOI:https://doi.org/10.21476/PP.2017.33140ISSN2057–

7176;

Barthes, Roland (1985) trans. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc. “Music’s Body (Listening/ Musica

Pratica/TheGrainof theVoice/Music,Voice, Language/TheRomanticSong/LovingSchumann/

Rasch)”inTheResponsabilityofForms–CriticalEssaysonMusic,ArtandRepresentation.Berkeley

andLosAngeles,California:UniversityofCaliforniaPress;

Borgdorff,Henk(2006)Thedebateonresearchinthearts,Amsterdam:AmsterdamSchoolofArts;

Cage,John(1978,2009),Silence,LecturesandWritings,London:MarionBoyars;

Collins,Harry(2010)Tacit&ExplicitKnowledge,ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChicago

Press;

Conquergood,Dwight(Summer2002)PerformanceStudies:InterventionsandRadicalResearchin

TDRVol.46,No.2.TheMITPress;

Cook,Nicholas(2013)Beyondthescore:musicasperformance.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress;

270

Craenen,Paul(2014)Compositionundertheskin–TheMusic-makingbodyatthecomposer’sdesk.

Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress(OrpheusInstituteSeries);

Croft, John(2015) ‘Composition isnotresearch’ inTEMPO69(272)6–11,Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,doi:10.1017/S0040298214000989;

D’Errico, Lucia (2018) “Five Glances upon the Unspeakable Body” inPowers of Divergence – An

ExperimentalApproachtoMusicPerformance.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress(OrpheusInstitute

Series);

De la Durantaye, Leland (2003) “The Suspended Substantive: On Animals and Men in Giorgio

Agamben'sTheOpen”indiacritics,Volume33,Number2,Summer2003,pp.3-9(Review);TheJohns

HopkinsUniversityPress;DOI:10.1353/dia.2005.0018;

DinizReis,P.(2011)OLivrodosAA.Lisboa:FundaçãoCaixaGeraldeDepósitos–Culturgest;

Gil,José(2001)“Acomunicaçãodoscorpos:StevePaxton”inMovimentoTotal.Ocorpoeadança,

Lisboa:RelógioD’ÁguaEditores;

Godøy, R.I., Leman, M. (ed.) (2010)Musical Gestures – Sound, Movement, And Meaning.New

York/London:Routledge;

Halfyard,Janet(2007)“Provokingacts:theTheatreofBerio’sSequenzas”inHalfyard,J.(ed.),Berio’s

Sequenzas:EssaysonPerformance,CompositionandAnalysis.Aldershot:Ashgate;

Hickmott,Sarah(2015)“(En)CorpsSonore:Jean-LucNancy’s‘Sonotropism’”inFrenchStudiesVol.

LXIX,No.4,479–493.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress;

Janus, Adrienne (2011) “Listening: Jean-Luc Nancy and the ‘Anti-Ocular’ Turn in Continental

Philosophy and Critical Theory” inComparative Literature63:2�DOI 10.1215/00104124-1265474

Oregon:UniversityofOregon;

Kant,Immanuel(1892-1914)"§53.Comparisonoftherespectiveaestheticalworthofthebeautiful

arts"inCritiqueofJudgement,London:MacmillanandCo.,Limited;

Lachenmann,Helmut(2000)revisionoftrans.PeterSzendy“L’écouteestdésarmée–sansl’écoute”

inL’écoute(ed.PeterSzendy)Paris,Montréal:L’Harmattan,Ircam–CentrePompidou;

271

Maierhofer-Lischka, M. (2015) Approaching the Liminal in the Performance of Iannis Xenakis'

InstrumentalSoloWorks.

https://www.academia.edu/13206513/Approaching_The_Liminal_In_The_Performance_of_Iannis

_Xenakis_Instrumental_Solo_Works;

Massumi,Brian(2002),“TheAutonomyofAffect” inParablesfortheVirtual–Movement,Affect,

Sensation.Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress;

Nancy,J.L.(2014).trans.FernandaBernardo,Àescuta.BeloHorizonte:EdiçõesChãodaFeira;

Nancy,J.L.(1996–2013)Êtresingulierpluriel–Nouvelleéditionaugmentée.Paris:ÉditionsGalilée;

Nancy,J.L.,(2008)trans.RichardA.RandCorpus.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress;

Nancy,J.L.(2007)trans.CharlotteMandellListening.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress;

Nancy,J.L.(2002)trad.SusanHanson,L’Intrus.MichiganState:MichiganStateUniversityPress;

Nancy, J.L. (2001) “Ascoltando” in Szendy, Peter Écoute – une histoire de nos oreilles. Paris: Les

ÉditionsdeMinuit;

Nancy,J.L.(2000a)trans.TomásMaia,Corpus.Lisboa:Vega,Limitada;

Nancy,J.L.(2000b),Beingsingularplural.California:StanfordUniversityPress,StanfordCalifornia;

Nancy,J.L.(2008)Lepoidsd’unepensée,l’approche.Strasbourg:ÉditionsLaPhocide;

Nattiez,JeanJaques(ed.)(2003)Musiques–UneEncyclopédiepourleXXIeSiècle,1MusiquesduXXe

Siècle,Paris:ActesSud/CitédelaMusique;

Pessoa, Fernando (2006) Livro do Desassossego por Bernardo Soares. Lisboa: Assírio & Alvim e

RichardZenith;

Rebstock, Matthias (2004) “Zum Kompositionsprozess im Instrumentalen Theater von Kagel” in

Tadday,Ulrich(ed.)MusikKonzepte124–MauricioKagel(IV,2004);

Rousseau,Jean-Jacques(2012)“Essaisur l’originedes langues;où ilestparléde lamélodie&de

lʼimitationmusicale” inCollectioncomplètedesoeuvres,Genève,1780-1789,vol.8:4°éditionen

lignewww.rousseauonline.chversiondu7octobre2012(http://www.rousseauonline.ch/Text/essai-

sur-l-origine-des-langues.php);

272

Sá,Joana(2019a)“Aescutacomocorpo:virtuosismo”inCoreia#1ISSN2184-4461;

Sá,Joana(2019b)"Listening|theopen–musicasdisruptivetopologicalexperience"inDramaturgias

nº11-Composição,dramaturgiaeperformancenamúsica-teatropós-1960.Brasília:Universidade

deBrasília.https://doi.org/10.26512/dramaturgias.v0i11;

Sá,Joana(2013)InPraiseofdisorder(CD).Lisboa:Shhpumarecords;

Sá, Joana & Neves, Daniel (2010) through this looking glass (DVD+CD). Köln: Blinker,Marke für

Rezentes;

Scherzinger,Martin(2012)“OnSonotropism”inContemporaryMusicReview,31:5-6,345-351,DOI:

10.1080/07494467.2012.758933,Routledge;

Sousa Santos,B.V. eMeneses,M.P. (Março2008), “EpistemologiasdoSul” in RevistaCríticade

CiênciasSociais,80,Lisboa;

SousaSantos,B.S. (Outubro,2007),“ParaalémdoPensamentoAbissal:Das linhasglobaisauma

ecologiadesaberes”,RevistaCríticadeCiênciasSociais,78,Lisboa;

Steiner,G.(2012),trans.MiguelSerrasPereira,APoesiadoPensamento–DoHelenismoaCelan,

Lisboa:Relógiod’ÁguaEditores;

Steiner,G.(2011)ThePoetryofThought–FromHellenismtoCelan.NewYork:NewDirections;

SWR2(2013),“InstrumentalesTheater”inJetztMusikGlossar

http://www.swr.de/swr2/programm/sendungen/jetztmusik/glossar//id=4979696/nid=4979696/did

=5004902/iuhufz/index.html;

Szendy,Peter(2002)Membresfantômes.Descorpsmusiciens.Paris:ÉditionsdeMinuit;

Szendy, Peter (2016) trans.Will Bishop,PhantomLimbs:OnMusicalBodies.NewYork: Fordham

UniversityPress;

Szendy,Peter (2000)“Lafabriquede l’oreillemoderne–DeWagneràSchoenbergetaudelà” in

L’écoute.Paris,Montréal:L’Harmattan,Ircam–CentrePompidou;

Szendy,Peter(2001)Écoute.Unehistoiredenosoreilles.Paris:ÉditionsdeMinuit;

273

Tavares,G.M.(2013a)Atlasdocorpoedaimaginação–Teoria,fragmentos,eimagens,Alfragide:

EditorialCaminho;

Tavares,G.M.(2013b)animalescos,Lisboa:Relógiod’ÁguaEditores;

Tavares,G.M.(2010)UmaviagemàÍndia,Alfragide:EditorialCaminho;

Tavares,G.M.(2009)OSr.Swedenborgeasinvestigaçõesgeométricas,Lisboa:EditorialCaminho;

Thelin,Hakon(2010)“Abriefretrospectofinstrumentaltheatre”inAnewworldofsounds–recent

advancementsincontemporarydoublebasstechniques,(NorwegianArtisticResearchProgramme)

Norway:NorwegianAcademyofMusic:

http://haakonthelin.com/multiphonics/the-story-of-zab/part-1-the-story-of-zab/section-3-a-brief-

retrospect-of-instrumental-theatre;

VieiradeCarvalho,Mário(2016),“Ópalavra,tupalavraquemefalta!–Reflexõessobremúsicae

linguagem”inRevistaPortuguesadeMusicologia–Novasérie.Lisboa:CESEM–UniversidadeNova

deLisboapp.1-64ISSN2183-8410;

Watson,JohnR.(1992)EnglishPoetryoftheRomanticPeriod1789-1830.LondonandNewYork:

Routledge(Taylors&FrancisGroup);

Waychoff,Brianne(2009)“Butoh,BodiesandBeing”inKaleidoscope:GradualJournalof

QualitativeCommunicationResearch,Vol.8Fall2009;

EXTENDEDBIBLIOGRAPHYArtaud,Antonin (2007), trans.AndnotesAníbal Fernandes,Eu,AntoninArtaud, Lisboa:Assírioe

Alvim;

Artaud,Antonin(1964),Lethéâtreetsondouble.Paris:ÉditionsGallimard;

Bachelard,Gaston(2014)Lapoétiquedel’espace.Paris:Quadrige,PressesUniversitairesdeFrance;

Bachelard,Gaston(1943).L’AiretlesSonges.Paris:LibrairieJoséCorti;

Berio,L.,Dalmonte,R.&Varga,A.B.(1985)LucianoBerio–TwoInterviewswithRossanaDalmonte

andBálintAndrásVarga,NewYork/London:MarionBoyarsPublishers;

274

Boulez,Pierre(1964),“Aléa”inPerspectivesofNewMusic.Vol.3,No.1(Autumn-Winter,1964):

pp.42-53;

Cabañas,KairaM.&Acquaviva,Frédéric(ed).(2012),EspectrosdeArtaud–Lenguajeyarteenlos

añoscincuenta,Madrid:MuseuNacionalCentrodeArteReinaSofía;

Cook,N.&Pettengill,R(2009)MusicasPerformance:NewPerspectivesAcrosstheDisciplines,Ann

Arbor:UniversityofIllinoisPress,forthcoming;

Cox,ChristophandWarner,Daniel(ed.)(2008)AudioCulture,ReadingsinModernMusic,NewYork:

TheContinuumInternationalPublishingGroupInc;

Eco, Umberto (1989) TheOpenWork trans. Anna Cancogni, Cambridge,MA: Harvard University

Press;

Heile,Björn(2006)ThemusicofMauricioKagel,England,USA:Ashgate;

Koerth-Baker,Maggie(2011)Thescientistwhostudiesscientists—AninterviewwithHarryCollinsin

BoingBoing.net,http://boingboing.net/2011/04/14/the-scientist-who-st.htm;

Kostelanetz, Richard (ed.) (1987, 2003) – Conversing with Cage, Second Edition,New York and

London:Routledge;

Kuivila, Ron (2004) “Open Sources:Words, Circuits and the Notation-Realization Relation in the

MusicofDavidTudor”inLeonardoMusicJournal-ComposersinsideElectronics:MusicafterDavid

Tudor(2004).Vol.14:pp.17-23;StableURL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513501;

Laskewicz, Zachàr (1992 - 2008) “The New Music-Theatre of Mauricio Kagel” inmusic-theatre-

language ebooks, Ghent: Nightshades Press 2008, ref. code: WRIT-9204-KAG,

http://www.nachtschimmen.eu/_pdf/9204_KAG.pdf

Lohner, Henning (1988), “Conversation with Stockhausen about ScenicMusic and visions of the

future”Germany:StockhausenVerlag:Kürten,Germany.

http://www.stockhausen-verlag.com/DVD_Translations/3_LICHT_WERKE_Engl.pdf

Louppe,L.(2012).PoéticadaDançacontemporânea.Lisboa:OrfeuNegro;

275

Hollings, Ken, (12.03.1999) “Lost in The Stars: Karlheinz Stockhausen. Karlheinz Stockhausen in

conversation with Ken Hollings” Kurten, Germany: The Wire http://www.thewire.co.uk/in-

writing/interviews/p=9934;

Holzaepfel, John (1994) “Reminiscences of a Twentieth-Century Pianist: An InterviewwithDavid

Tudor” in The Musical Quarterly. Vol. 78, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994): pp. 626-636. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress.StableURL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/742276;

Needham,Alex(2012)“Audiencesflocktodifficultcontemporaryclassicalmusic–TheSouthbank,

Barbican,ENOandBBC4arecateringforthenew-foundappetiteforsonicadventure”,January,

TheGuardian,UKhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jan/30/contemporary-classical-music-

finds-audience

Rebelo,Pedro(2014) InstrumentalParasites: InterfacingtheFragileandtheRobustBelfast:Sonic

Arts Research Centre, Queen’s University Belfast. Paper presented at INTERFACE: International

ConferenceonLiveInterfaces2014,Portugal.

https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/instrumental-parasites-interfacing-the-fragile-and-the-

robust;

Rebelo, Pedro (2009) The Pontydian Performance – The performative Layer. Belfast: Sonic Arts

ResearchCentre,Queen’sUniversityBelfast.AvailableinACADEMIA.EDU;

Rebelo, Pedro (2006) “Haptic Sensation and Instrumental Transgression” inContemporaryMusic

Review,RoutledgeTaylor&FrancisGroup;

Rebelo, Pedro (2003) Performing space.Belfast: Sonic Arts Research Centre, Queen’s University

Belfast.AvailableinACADEMIA.EDU;

Rebelo,Pedro(2004)DesigningAcousticThresholds.Belfast:SonicArtsResearchCentre,Queen’s

UniversityBelfast.AvailableinACADEMIA.EDU;

Rosen, Charles (1998) The Romantic Generation. Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University

Press;

Salgado Correia, J., Carvalho, S. & Pestana, M. R. (eds) (2015) Performa 2015: Abstracts of the

InternationalConferenceonMusicalPerformance.Aveiro:UniversidadedeAveiro;

Schnebel,Dieter(1970)MauricioKagel-MusikTheaterFilm,Köln:VerlagDuMontSchauberg;

Schroeder,Franziska(2006)Re-situatingPerformanceWithinTheAmbiguous,TheLiminal,AndThe

276

Threshold: Performance Practice Understood Through Theories Of Embodiment. Edinburgh:

UniversityofEdinburgh;

Stoianova, Ivanka (2004) Entre Détermination et Aventure, Essays sur lamusique de la deuxième

moitiéduXXèmesiècle,Paris:L’Harmattan;

Straebel,Volker(2005)“Musikgibtesnicht.MusiksollentstehenimKopfdesZuschauers/Zuhörers.

DieterSchnebelsInstrumentalesTheater”inAsjaJarzina:GestischeMusikundmusikalischeGesten.

DieterSchnebels"visiblemusic"[=Körper,Zeichen,Kultur14].2005:172-85Berlin:Weidler.

http://www.straebel.de/praxis/index.html?/praxis/text/t-schnebel.htm

Whatley,Kirsty(2007)“RoughRomance:SequenzaIIforHarpasStudyandStatement”inHalfyard,Janet (ed.), Berio’s Sequenzas: Essays on Performance, Composition and Analysis. England/USA:Ashgate;