All Hallows Marathon Souls Day

November 3rd, 2009

Halloween began around 7, with the ensemble Ne(x)tworks performing three wonderful semi-improvisatory works, Joan LaBarbara’s Woolfsongs, based on Virginia Woolf, Christian Wolff’s three-note Duo For Violins, and the entirely-improvisatory Aus Den Seiben Tagen by Stockhausen. This demands that something be said about improvisation in a classical context: it works if and (almost) only if the group listens. Of course, this goes for jazz improvisation as well–think of the jam session where the sax player disregards his rhythm section and blows sixteenth notes for four or five mind-numbing minutes–but the near-total freedom that many improvisational scores give classical players, and the absence of stylistic guidelines that are present in jazz, work to create a chasm that can only be filled by listening.

Ne(x)tworks, as a long-running ensemble of composer-performers, listens well. They brought this same quality to Wolff’s Duo For Violins, which contains all of three adjacent notes (giving a total of two intervals). Yet, instead of sounding prescribed and constrained, the entire performance seemed alive, even improvisatory. Analogous to virtuosic technicians, these musicians are virtuosic listeners, able to perform scores many others would not even be able to touch.

This provided a perfect transition to Dionne Werewolf & the Burt Bacharach Cover Band, playing hits like “Zombies Keep Chompin’ On My Head,” and “Stalk on By.” I’ll include a picture, and that should suffice. Notice The Night of the Living Dead projected on to the back wall.

dionnewerewolf

I should also mention Cat (last name?) the backup singer, whose one-woman-plus-stompboxes sideshow in front of Tristan Perich’s one-bit video installation was unexpected and somewhat engrossing. In the hallway during the set change, she layered voices onto other voices in front of some candles–nearly as spooky as Dionne Werewolf’s “That’s What Fiends Are For.”

sideshow

Which brings us to Growler, the only band I’ve seen to perform with a trapeze artist. Hard, hard rock, maybe metal, but closer to something from Seattle than from Norway, Growler has been playing for ten years. What is it with metal bands and staying together for long periods of time? Punk can’t do it, indie rock can’t do it, and pop can’t even consider it. Is it the lack of metal-based solo project potential? In a strange way, this fit the venue: loud, assaultive, and theatrical. Not that this is the venue for metal, per se, but some namby-pamby party pop group just wouldn’t have cut it for the spookiest night of the year.

Finally, All Souls Day, the tacked-on holiday that let the Holy Romans sanctify the pagan end of the harvest year. What to do but exercise and go to church? I didn’t quite want to exercise the morning after Halloween, but luckily someone else was doing the exercising for me. Either that or all of New York was fleeing something.

marathon

By early evening, some old and pretty music was in order, however, so I went to the Bach Vespers up on the Upper East Side near Lincoln Center. Let’s just say this church was super Lutheran. Like, feel-like-you’re-in-the-seventeenth-century Lutheran, where the guy sings the prayers and everything else in the service. As the first non-Quaker religious meeting I’d been to since maybe June or July, the presence of words was a bit unexpected. It was good, though, with period instruments like the viola da gamba and recorders, and a continuo playing figured bass, which is a semi-improvised accompaniment sort of like jazz chords that a Baroque keyboardist would follow to back up a choir or soloist.

Which brings me back to improvisation as an essential aspect of live performance: it is all about listening. Except, in this case, the listening was clearly, visibly filtered through the cantor, as he made motions to shape the choir and the players. Instead of submitting to one another, the players submit to an imagination as enthroned as it is benevolent (to quote Wallace Stevens). This is where “improvisation” begins to break down, and where one type of improvisation does not necessarily include or bear intrinsic relation to another. It is not just a matter of freedom versus constraint, but a matter of a score which causes the players to bear relation to each other (or themselves) or whether the players each, individually, relate to a single object. The key is for the latter to have some of the former, and for the former to be honestly, sincerely achieved so as to be almost mistaken for the latter.

Leave a comment

musique concrète (Francis Dhomont)

November 1st, 2009

Francis Dhomont

ISSUE Project Room

Francis Dhomont arranges natural recorded sounds onto stereo tape (now CD), and plays them back through eight speakers, mixing the two channels live throughout the room. This creation of fixed-media art came to be called musique concrète, a term which began in France with Pierre Schaeffer.

There are things we (an educated classical music audience) come to expect and recognize in music: the “arc,” harmonic movement (or stasis), the grammar of an ending. The natural sounds strip away any harmony, any recognizable form, and timbre–or “sonority,” why a trumpet and a saxophone can play the same note and sound different–is the only thing left. At one point in time, primarily with the Romantics beginning around Beethoven, this was achieved through orchestration, or the differentiation of instruments. Whereas Bach’s Die Kunst Der Fuge was completely devoid of instrumental markings (it has since been played by string trios, pianists, the organ, and many others), Mahler rides on the powerful sonority of the brass, and Grieg’s “Spring” from Peer Gynt is unimaginable on anything but the pure flute. Timbre serves as a support to harmony, such that we know that the blaring brass signify a climax. We realize discrepancies within the instruments as well, as a flute can be soft and pure (Grieg’s Peer Gynt) or the voice of a flaming bird (Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite).

If timbre can support and even eclipse harmony, then can harmony be removed completely? Dhomont’s music is pure sonority, without harmony or signposts given to traditional (harmony-based) musical analysis. Instead, it creates much the same form using nothing but the sounds themselves. And this is the key: the form is recognizable. Dhomont (at age 84–Friday was his birthday) seems to be a product of that late modernist generation, schooled before the formlessness (and silence) of John Cage. The endings were endings, the grammar still underlying every musical movement, even if the sounds themselves were entirely foreign. It was Modern music in the capital sense, the sense that can be better read as postModern because of its extension of the methods, rather than questioning of the motives. It was still the work of an artist, as sounds are still given voice by the man at the mixer; there were no dice rolled.

This begs the question of writing, possibly the greatest leap that musique concrète made. In the French school (meaning not Stockhausen), there was no score for these tape works (feel free to correct this statement–I’m curious to hear if examples exist). The expectation exists that the audience is hearing the voice of the artist (composer) directly, without any interference from a conductor or performer. It would seem to be a war waged against the precariousness of writing, if not for one thing: the sounds’ origins. These “natural” sounds, not sprung fully-formed from the artist and his tools but rather shaped on the chopping block (although now shaped on the MacBook Pro digital audio workstation) are appropriation itself. Like a poet’s appropriation of words, the composer creating musique concrète shapes sounds by their contexts–by what other sounds appear near them, and how those sounds may carry multiple meanings. Dhomont’s music, then, becomes even closer to writing than ever before, not because it is seemingly fixed but because it is appropriated.

Leave a comment