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.
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.
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
|
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
X
boiling perception until itmelts eyesmouthearnoseskinuntilitspreadsbyitselfwithoutitselfawayatyourinsideout(Boilingwaterwithoutwatergiveatry)Untilitopensanewspacebetweenheatandlemonpie
Awayfromsensesascommonsenseyoucarvewhatisyetand(n)evertocome
Listening|theopen
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
XIX
ListeningasthissuddenpoeticeruptionasvolcanicactivityoutofcontrolwithinthisasaneedforpouringoutthebodyasanotherbodyWorkisbodyworkmusicbutdifferentsimilarly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
Top Related