The Theatrics of Performance

I'm not so ridiculous as to assume that one's perception of a musical performance can be separated into entities that rightfully coexist but are independent–sound content and gesture. But I have recently become very aware of the fact that whether people realize it or not, gesture or the theatrics of a performance (and I'm talking specifically about a musical performance) have far more of an effect on why they do or do not enjoy something. And maybe I'm a little biased and overly wishful that people would open their ears and close their eyes a little more often, but this says to me that people aren't listening.

I had a recent experience where someone accompanied me to a free improvisation performance. The performance was fantastic. My company enjoyed it as well, but what they noticed was certainly geared toward the gesture. "Sneezing" into the clarinet. Banging on the piano. And yes, these were integral parts to the performance, but describing them in such ways allows many to laugh or smirk at what in reality are truly interesting sounds made by seemingly absurd gestures.

Now before I sound too snarky about my listening habits and my expectations of the audience as a listening body even those just introduced to what they're seeing, let me point out that this encounter reminded me so much of my first reactions to music made in similar fashions. I was fascinated with the how and not really the result. It was only upon consideration after consideration of "why would people make music like this?" that I finally stopped and listened. And then I finally got it. There are far more interesting sounds in this world that don't rely upon melody or rhythm or being "in-tune". These sounds just exist, and, as composers or improvisers, there is an interest in allowing others to hear just what you're hearing and hope that they at least find some hint of what initially intrigued you–that sound that caught your ear, standing alone or following another.

Is this why people don't attach to certain works? Not just musical, but any creative body. As an audience, do we get caught up with the surface without bothering to look deeper?

So how do we show an audience these sounds without the "unmusical" gestures that accompany? If the gestures do distract first time audience members, are we really showing them what we want to? What about removing the gesture altogether? Something seems missing. The point of performance becomes downgraded. For myself, I find recordings of whatever unusual sound played through loudspeakers just don't cut it. They keep the spectral content but change the spatial. There is a clear change in the sound that was originally so interesting. Not that this destroys it, but it needs to be considered.

I realize that I sound overly idealistic. I'm not. An artform will never be just about the basic pieces that it claims to use. Sound is not all there is to music. Color and depth are not all there is to the visuals. Dialogue is not all there is to theatre. There will always be these other things that we digest without thinking about. I just hope we can all take in enough to be able to get past the surface–those features so easy to identify–and try to look for or hear what else is around the corner, beyond the accessible.

The Clarinets

The Clarinets are an improvisational trio formed by Chris Speed, Oscar Noriega, and Anthony Burr that is based around...that is correct...clarinets. The simplicity of the idea behind this group is its greatest asset. One family of instruments. Three great musicians who are humble enough to contribute and not just take flight. Phenomenal results.

None of them force themselves to the forefront, and without relying on the traditional forms of improvising, there is plenty of depth to this music with its ever-shifting subtleties and its ability to envelop the listener in the sonic conceptions made up of amazingly close intervals, beautiful textures, and a realization that simplicity truly is complex. As cheesy as it sounds, this group feels organic in its playing. They embrace the blend that is achievable by focusing on a single instrument as the foundation of the musical unit, and that greatly informs their nuanced approach to stretched out ideas and allowing sound to beautifully intermingle. The results ring with as much genius and beauty as any contemporary composition.

I was lucky enough to catch The Clarinets at Barbés in Brooklyn over a year ago and was completely delighted–I bet I was grinning from ear to ear. Though they don't appear to be playing too much (probably because the respective players are in-demand musicians with other things on their plate), everyone needs to take the time to digest this remarkable group.

As a side note, it is worth checking out all of the other music released by Skirl Records, the artist-run record label that released The Clarinets only album. Some artists that caught my ear were Ted Reichman, the Shelley Burgon and Trevor Dunn duo, and the duo of Jessica Pavone and Mary Halvorson.

Chris, Oscar, Anthony, thank you for this. I hope to hear more.

Iva Bittová

A singer, violinist, violist with theatrical inclinations while performing. Unabashedly forward with her voice that can range from loud and somewhat frightening to transcending the most beautiful territory. Playing that simultaneously sounds of such refreshing newness and reflection upon tradition. Iva Bittova is absolutely stunning.

She was brought to my ears' attention when looking through the Bang on a Can All-Stars catalogue a few years ago. Seeing this video on youtube, I was immediately captured. The Bang on a Can All-Stars album is great, but I just picked up her self-titled release on Nonesuch. Wow. I truly envy her ability to create such texturally interesting songs just using her voice and her instrument. She is joined by Pavel Fajt on percussion on a few tracks, but for the most part this album is a solo effort.

Some of the tracks were recorded as much as 20 years ago. I really wish I'd known of her earlier. So refreshing.

Björk interviews Arvo Pärt

Master Classes at The Stone

For anyone in NYC, The Stone has great news for musicians looking to learn. Now, instead of being closed on Mondays, The Stone will be hosting masterclasses by some of the most revolutionary musical minds of the past few decades. They've already started, and as far as I know, there will be a class hosted by a new musician every Monday. I am particularly excited about Cyro Baptista and Butch Morris.

The Stone is located at Ave C and 2nd St in Manhattan. For dates, go to the following link:

The Stone Calendar

And of course, amazing performances at The Stone shall continue.

The Debate Over Technology and the Arts: Can the Artist Survive This Increase in Accessibility?

I largely disagree with the following article. Yes, I believe in the proliferation of the arts. The arts should be easily accessible to the public, but this is putting an overly optimistic spin on the accessibility of video, music, and photos in an attempt to posit that the state of the arts is better than ever even though attendance of performances have declined 15% between 2002 and 2008.

How New Technologies Secure a Place for the Arts

What strikes me as strange is they never ask the question of how artists are to make a living in this new technological age. This is especially important as methods of compensation for the arts are still within the mindset of the gallery and the performing arts center. If attendance to these places is down, what is the artist to due?

Music and photos and so forth are now more accessible (and often free, regardless of legality) and there is now the potential for a larger audience, but is that really enough for those making the work? And does this new accessibility encourage or discourage the attendance of live performances? I would guess the latter.