Fact: Snapshots of a Performative Process

FACT.

Snapshots of a performative process

debts to Francis Bacon and Brian Ferneyhough

and Bengt Hambraeus, whose Piano Concerto is at the source of what follows

NB: All bar-numbers refer to the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra by Bengt Hambraeus (1991)

preamble

the elements of a work radiate outwards (of any work)

the performer must "see" (Castaneda) this radiation and its implications---forgetting his personal history is a prerequisite

only then can a work be truly said to expand and contract (breathe) in its own universe

20th century man has difficulty looking inside
"the mechanisms of denial are all around"

he must to that end expose his own spirit by the impinging upon it by external elements---a process which is only initially and marginally negative

the more elements impinge, the greater the surface complexity is revealed---"the pockets and dents of the soul" (CATALYZING forces from without)

the performer must "strip" all the "paint" of daily existence in order to "receive"---

occasionally an infection (of usually "sound" and "wise" experience (advice) creeps in incognito---insoluble problems often have at their root some "unfinished past business" or untenable (untransferrable) motivations (from the past)

this eternal self-actualization also applies to the reexamination of the same work at different times. one must attempt always to abstract the daily clutter ("STOPPER le monde", Castaneda)

daily clutter "freezes" the soul into manageable, quantifiable units (their energy increases in proportion to time elapsed)

the contradiction of "career-promoting" devices which presuppose a "PERSONA" often irreversibly affect the potential of the artist to "change" himself through the work instead of the work existing as eternal VINDICATION of fixed, rational (but ultimately provisional), spiritual and intellectual states.

how can this eternal variability be sustained and unfettered by "solidifying devices"?

THAT IS THE QUESTION!

d'après Bacon et Ferneyhough

One often CUTS (RIPS) off violently the "culminating" processes of preparing for a performance (perhaps after provisional run-throughs) and see how the lines of force established can radiate into the future. It also allows, at the time of resumed work, the intuition to work more readily and a certain confrontation between the "developed" of the abandoned pathways and one's current psychic-intellectual-physical state. In a sense one focuses (boils) down to the raw energy underlying a work and attempt to re-make it as IRRATIONALLY as possible (a perfect time for that). One lets go of a work in order to see what "escapes" and what remains inertially static. The escaped portion is then violently returned to physical fact, re-incarnated, transfigured, filtered through an uncomfortable grid and forced to confront its own identity. One must attempt to monitor the stages of progressive mutation as objectively as possible (the Baconian "camera") without expending time or correcting mistakes or "intellectually justifying" a "FOUND" new position.

There is an incipient danger to over-PHENOMENOLOGIZE which leads to performative IMPOTENCE.

forcing REVELATION

FORCING one pattern of behavior (irrationally, incompatible) on a predetermined object (with a particular history) occasionally forces the object to seperate itself, to explode out of its shell into deconstructed shards and reveal more clearly the pure impulses which constitute it, the fact which lies beyond its (conditioned) appearance. One tries to see what a FACT really is. One then tries to remake the object with the impulse in mind.

TEMPO too fast, too slow----tempo is one of the more obtuse and unexamined parameters which carries with it an inherent "ENERGIC" state which impinges on the object (succession of objects) to which it is applied. (often tempo resides at a subcutaneous level and the perceived flow is only a rough sediment). One can extrapolate (abstract) from the surface presentation a tempo which is only relatable back to the prescribed tempo by several operational removes.

TEMPO is also a gauge of (or incitor of) the performer's "blood-pressure", his degree of relative excitation, energisation which impinges directly on the objects in that temporal trajectory.

Temporal "freedom"

The lack of precise tempo indications seems to indicate a certain generosity on the part of the composer, ostensibly allowing his work to fit the idiosyncrasies of each new performer (obviously as second performer of the concerto, one always feels tempted to react against or embrace the first performance, violently in any case...this becomes less acute as the work becomes eroded by different interpretations and one's attitude is encouraged to look deeply into the music itself as a reaction precisely against the multiplicity of possibility made evident over the years).

It soon becomes clear that what is offered as corollary is an unexpected series of performative questions hitherto unimaginable. While the absence of tempo indications in many works (even contemporary) and the presence of generalized "rates" (Allegro, andante, Furioso) gives more latitude to the performer's deployment, there is nevertheless an agreed upon contract that insists upon the constancy of a certain "tempo", personal or otherwise. (the presence of metronomic tempo is a parameter --- if it is unreasonably rapid, it imposes certain constraints on the performer from the start, as he must prioritize (ostensibly, of course) this "numerical", quantifyable (thus irreproachable) entity-enmity)

In Hambraeus, the performer is asked to maintain a "constantly fluctuating tempo between 42 and 80 (further subdivided into three areas: 42, 66 and 80). "It is up to the soloist and the conductor to agree on such tempi, incl. accel/rit, which will allow greatest virtuosity, as well as more time for contemplation, with constant intensity!! The total duration should not exceed 35 minutes". One needs to deconstruct these indications a little.

Firstly, how can virtuosity be defined? Speed? (In which case the higher tempi would be preferable, obviously sacrificing in the process some precision and some dynamic bite) or "Effective dramatic patterning"? (Which seems to indicate how naturally and effectively certain gestures can be made to impinge on the listener's nervous system.) Obviously, the very presence of the word "virtuosity" in the forward sends some performers shooting for the stratosphere of a work, using it to project their own highly idiosyncratic personality (and using the preface as justification for it).

The boundary duration of 35 minutes is a maximal duration. However, the minimum is not specified. Herein lies the problem. One might have been expected to construct one's interpretation based on a TOTAL duration of 35 minutes if the preface had not indicated "should not exceed" (it would have been difficult anyway, for this optimum does not give any hint as to inner proportioning). There is thus no fixed duration.

One is thus ultimately confronted with how to find within each gesture the "perfect" rate of deployment at which the thing somehow miraculously communicates directly to the listener's nervous system (the "constant intensity"). This is no easy task for there is a forever seesawing motion between a more expedient type of gesture (more conventional "rhetoricized", "virtuosic" in a Lisztian sense ("learn as a 19th century concerto")) and a more eccentric irrational one which emanates from the soul of the gesture. It remains to be seen whether there is such a thing as a "factual" tempo for each gesture, or if this simply cannot be dissociated from the context it finds itself in.

It is truly extraordinary when one senses the beginning of a "verbal" relationship with a work (on a truly personal level---one might attempt a parallel with the gradual acquaintance of a new friend: one enters a relationship with optimism and politeness (the arbitrary "catalyst" destined to reveal) and discovers gradually (or doesn't) the facets of the other's personality and generalized persona.). Pace the stream of bars 90-138---the necessity for the top chords to be keening is not an imposition from without, a stylized rubato which comes from the experience of playing other musics (especially 19th century), but truly emanating from the gesture itself (after a long acquaintancy period). The gesture literally "asks" you to keen, it needs it.

ILLUSTRATIVE vs. IRRATIONALITY

p. 8 top---the necessary pause to INSTALL the TOP became, over a certain span of unmediated (when the CRITICAL SENSE is not allowed to come into play---moments like that are TIME-BOMBS waiting for an extra-sensitive moment to implode) time, ILLUSTRATIVE (literal)---increasingly subservient to a technical purpose---a hole of FICTION (in a sense EXPLICATIVE far beyond necessity) (TIME is not necessary---l.h. is surging upwards already)

One can sense this "gap of credibility" if one is in tune to the intent and the necessary IRRATIONALITY.

Also, the desire to "MAKE IT" GESTURAL affects the content (the top-down analysis doesn't work) (again, ILLUSTRATIVE)

vectoriality comes off more VIOLENTLY onto the senses if the pause is rhythmically exact!

PHENOMENOLOGY is not the ultimate answer although it can initially reveal long dormant areas of experience (IT IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP---the provisional TABULA RASA)

104 (staccato-bass) is not a SUB-SECTION! It is a continuation of the discourse (sustained harmonic tones in soprano and bass) which makes the arrival on beat 3.5 of the chord a STRIKING "FACT" instead of a peremptory resuming of ACTIVITY (if one had structured it off as such).

What is ultimately required is a CONSTANT AWARENESS to seize IRRATIONAL moments.

Spans of "wandering" ("flânerie", Benjamin), unmediated, undirected practice---sleepwalking.

If one had stopped and made that a "moment", the next FACT would have been RUINED (predicted). What was necessary was that bizarre IRRATIONAL kind of CONTINUITY (that moment alone required it---SARTRE)

SF: Although you consider the "perception" of the audience crucial...at least that's how I read your comments regarding the "returning of the fact on to the nervous system" how is that reconciled with your belief in the necessity of the "purely intellectual", the "speculative" side?

MC: Firstly, I am not concerned with the audience perception per se although I am intensely involved with making an aural image which will have maximal impact on my own nervous system, and which will expose the true "fact" of the work at hand. Of course I don't mean to suggest that there can be such a thing as a pure objective "fact", as the work is by necessity channeled through the performer, I don't know of any way around that. But if the reality is violently immanent to me, then, I do feel that in some archetypal way (much in the way Finnissy and Jung conceive of it), the result can relate to an audience which is completely uninformed about the way in which the work is constructed, knowledge on an intellectual basis in this case being fairly perfunctory and useless. The more speculative element exists simply as a catalystic agent which, impinging upon one's inner essence (whatever one might conceive of that being) reveals hitherto unsuspected facets. One can see an actual physical correlative---a solid object which is dented and sculpted (but more dented than sculpted---the DNA remains the same!) but whose dents, already preextant, are revealed, not created. They in fact already exist but are unknown, the unconscious occasionally reveals them. I think that extensive intellectual speculation, which manifestly (as a primordial prerequisite) does not take into account perception as we know it to be feasable is but one manner (including drugs and meditation and "dreaming" in a Castanedian sense) to provoke new ways of perception, new ways of seeing things, of conceiving of the world as filtered through sound. The music of Cage and Babbitt, though inhabiting extremely opposite ideologies both have this "speculative" effect, at least for me.

intense phenomenology/subjectivity is impotence inducing (brought on by a deliberate self-conscious scrutiny---guilt-ridden)

OBJECTIVE procedure corresponds to (in this case) playing "a tempo" without mediation---"SPONTANEOUS"---breaks the subjective mood (a paradox worth considering...)

One strives for UNMEDIATED connection with the audience.

Unwanted generalization

One also does not want to create a generalized mode best entitled "being intense" ("playing as fast as possible and as loud as possible" being a direct consequence) that in itself implies a superstructure of ILLUSTRATION

How much of a GESTURE needs to radiate itself outwards into a CONTEXT without there being a significant loss of gestural force and thus a need for redefinition of each MONAD (in other words, the uniqueness of the gesture and how independant can a gesture be---i.e. "RETORICO" sections)

The "TYRANNY" of the 32nd note---implies SPEED (disturbs the sonic FACT)

One must not mistake gesture for FACT (an overemphasis on purely gestural qualities ("vectoriality" e.g.) (privileging MOTION---ENERGY over pitch) with intent to be "more DIRECT"---CONSCIOUSNESS of gesture is necessary but all emanates from the PITCH-RHYTHM core (which in turn in groups engender GESTURE)

How does one not RATIONALIZE? (Critical faculty necessary?)

Why generalized methods should be feared: one has a dim view (in my opinion) of what is possible performatively (I take an ANTI-PRACTICAL position)

What might be applicable in one situation might not be in another and where does one draw the line???

(i.e. always slowing down when the text gets dense and fast)

It would be PRACTICAL but is it OPTIMALLY FACTUAL?

"using TRADITION"

How much does one want to use tradition---as a support organism for the INTERPRETATION of a work---that is, how much "factual" surprise can one allow via a more rigorous phenomenological "Baconian" approach?

Does the fact that this work situates itself, at least to some degree, within a tradition, necessitate a "traditional" approach (Gould interpreting MOZART). How open is a work to a Baconian-interpretive approach and how much does it depend on performative "signification" (LISZT and the arch-romantics). (WEBERN---mechaniker vs. Stadlen-Mahler). (the "SIGNIFIED")

Paul BLEY---"you can do one of two things...either play the song, or DESTROY the song...."

Can one feel justified in "destroying", dismantling a work's apparent imbrication within TRADITION? Does the work suffer? (Or is "actualization" necessary for the SURVIVAL of TRADITION?).

The Brutality of Fact

always a fine line between REPRESENTATION and FACTUALITY (FACT)

EXCESSIVE BODILY MOVEMENT
indication of a "mannerist" but nonetheless "ILLUSTRATIVE" approach
(and HUMMING---creating a parallel world (Gould) or simply eradicating?)
one senses its INORGANICITY, ARTIFICIALITY immediately the "STUDIED" approach

the question "WHAT DO I DO?" should never have the opportunity to be raised---it is a sign of ILLUSTRATION

a state of "embarassment" (excessive body is a way to avoid dealing with the nakedness, the embarassment) (one "recognizes" properties without highlighting them)

211 --- the difference between "rhetorical" (moments that are purely digressive and self-important...RHETORIC = the gestures have something to say in and of themselves about themselves)

211--- + "DIRECT"---which are transmitted directly to the listener's nervous system (regardless of the notes---NONO's "tragedia dell'ascolto"), no INTERMEDIARY of RHETORIC

INTUITION tells one about the nature of a gesture---hard to explain
(BACON: "why is this?" (direct vs. diatribe in the brain)

VORTEX = RHETORICAL DEVICE (isolated islands)
usually there for itself only---not part of a "logical" continuity
(their FACT is that much stronger accordingly)

the "POIGNANCY" of an image (Bacon)
(v. poigner---to grab, seize in a violent manner)

236---original 5-note OSTINATO "deconfigured" (extra notes added in between (same p. c's) to disturb an essentially rhythmic perception (the 5s become 7-8-6---all same pitch-classes (repeated-extended-from within the figure)

240---sudden VIOLENT "unlocking" of texture---a "RETURNING" (new.syst.) by way of the same 5-note figure---(TRANSITIONAL)

244---a RETURN to the tritone substitutive-"active" mode (after a static elaboration of a 5-note chord) which leads to the immediate mapping of one HEX onto the other

Is the phenomenological approach an essentially PASSIVE one?
(no, for the "discovering" of a work's root motivations is the primary feature)

FACT = ANTI-RHETORIC
(almost deliberately construed to avoid a "smug" dramatic impact)

CLUSTERS = DIRECT = MOST INHERENTLY FACTUAL--- NO "PITCHED" INTERMEDIARY, NO RATIONALIZATIONS

"I WANT AN EXTREMELY CLEAR IMAGE" (BACON)
That's another way of saying---getting to the BRUTE FACT of the matter

""HEIGHTENING" WHAT''S ALREADY THERE VIS A VIS ONE'S OWN SPIRIT"

Finding the right TEMPO (when it is not given) is a difficult issue as the notion of TEMPO seems to be an ILLUSTRATIVE issue...when comething "comes directly onto the nervous system", TEMPO is IRRELEVANT, or not immediately apperceivable...in other words, one is not drawn to the gesture's "technical background" or even "generative history" but simply subdued by its mysterious direct intensity. The "RIGHT TEMPO" ties the performer down to a NUMBER and limits his capacity to be in tune with his own vibrations.

Endless diatribes about finding the "Right Tempi" were only perverse subterfuge: when the FACT is not conveyed, these technical areas assume the greatest importance. Trying to create a shell (indestructible, of course) within the work, an impenetrable subsection elevated to the level of ART.

When the tempo is FIXED, it is no longer an issue, but another PARAMETER, to be strictly considered.

Modern interpreters should not be bound by "performance practical" considerations (another unhealthy subterfuge). Times change. This is what actualization and the FACTUAL are all about. NOW-NESS. Again, these issues dissolve when the FACT is driven home.

PERFORMANCE-PRACTICE is not a PARAMETER! This would seriously limit the capacity (one hopes) a work of art has to transcend its own time and space...(Are we living in a MUSEUM?) I believe art can do that and therefore I reject wholeheartedly the claims to authenticity by "specialists" who refuse to live in their own time, victims of the most unfortunate sort of temporal dislocation.

265---"VORTICES" ENERGIC CONCEPTUALIZING

Honest attempts to render the "factuality" of a gesture should not lead however to a purely energic, non-connected form of root musical conception. The PITCHES, the RHYTHMS, they are the SOURCE and must be integrated first. (i.e. misjudging the "CONTROL" of any GESTURE..."thinking in 1" phenomena)

things must never be allowed to degenerate into "emotive babble"---a comfortable pretext for incompetence

268---fingerings which provoke an inner understanding (and sonic) of a gesture---one chooses fingering unconsciously on occasion, out of laziness (or felicitous past experience) that do not beg the material to reveal itself to the performer---one must become conscious of automatisms and attempt to DISTURB one's PERCEPTION of the situation at hand, at any given time and without warning

some fingerings retreat into conventional PHYSICALIZATION (the FACT is dormant)

d'après BRAXTON

I think the "cult of the performer" is slowly extinguishing itself---through its rampant incestuousness. We are perhaps on the verge of realizing what state the world is in...we need TRANSCENDENTALISM, self-effacement, harmony with the vibrations of others, and a great selflessness. The western cult of the ego has achieved grotesque proportions. The aesthetic fire has gone out, the score is a distant relative, it has lost its AURA . The spiritual side has to be WORKED on---it cannot be so easily found as before. It must be PROVOKED. The work of art is an excellent catalyst for the performer or the viewer to WORK on HIMSELF. There is little time left for anything less than an abandonment of this carcass of unchallenged beliefs and ideologies and tastes which freeze the dynamic, vibrational (BRAXTON) nature of the SPIRIT. (the first thing to do is to take charge and assume our own TIME)

FACT

pre-interpretative

(no core of "reality")

willfull, unfactual

pure gesture

(no core of control)

too much willful FACTUALNESS

384---another example of gestural too-muchness

an emphasis on the counter-intuition of the gesture (that is on the 8th-note beat which does not correspond to the expanse (7+8) of the gesture) returns the gesture's directionality more acutely than if one had willed a looser, more energic discharge (the across-the-beatness is what challenges the gesture into more intense self-actualization-realization). It is emphasized by being seemingly de-emphasized/challenged.

385---trying to provoke a "deeper listening" (partly thru fingering)

1st CHORD---over-gesturalized (physically). New era of performance approaching which minimizes physical gesture---1st chord was becoming ILLUSTRATIONAL, conveying "about" itself instead of ITSELF, directly. (beyond "UNDERSTANDING") One is confronted by pressures (extra-musical-societal) to make the 1st chord an EVENT...

bar 22---creating a "crescendo" on misunderstood material---the gesture loses its factual sheen---we are one remove from the material itself---dynamic ACTS UPON solid gestural cohesion and aural FACTUALITY (in other words PITCH and RHYTHM)

FINIS