| Andrew Deakin : Live electronics
and the acousmatic tradition Programme Leader
BA & MA Sonic Arts
In the current issue of The Wire (October 1999, p30) Christoph
Cox refers to the notorious feud between the practitioners and followers
of musique concrète and electronische musik during the 1950’s.
He suggests that “within a few years this tension had been
resolved and replaced by a deeper one: the opposition between the
studio and the stage, between crafted electronic composition and
live electronic improvisation”. In this article I examine this
supposed rift and suggest ways in which current practice in Sonic
Arts is blurring the distinctions between stage and studio, improvisation
and composition. I conclude by proposing a number of areas which
still need development if our work is to reach a wider audience.
In acousmatic music the loudspeaker in a sense replaces the live
performer. We are at least once removed from the act of (re)creation
with the exception, perhaps, of those performances in which the
sound diffusion is live, but even then we have little evidence that
the movement of sound in space is directly related to emotional
and gestural conditions prevalent at that moment. For many, including
myself, this aspect of acousmatic music does not present a problem,
indeed it encourages the listener to concentrate solely on the musical
logic and/or emotional (ie. the objective and subjective) aspects
of the piece without reference to a performer-led “reading”.
The shared ritual of performance is replaced by a more private experience
which can, nonetheless, be equally fulfilling though at times somewhat
confusing for the uninitiated; for example, the applauding of an
acousmatic piece can feel slightly awkward if the composer is not
there to take a bow.
Thus many composers and performers have explored the use of electronic
and, more recently, computer-based technology in order to fulfil
the desire for spontaneity and interaction which they feel is lacking
in studio-bound acousmatic composition, though the notion that spontaneity
and interaction do not play an important part in the creation of
many acousmatic works is not one to which I can readily subscribe;
it is just not visible during the performance/diffusion, but surely
it can, and often is, audible?
It is commonly suggested that John Cage was the first major composer
to use live electronics in the first of his Imaginary Landscapes
(1939) written for muted piano, cymbal and, significantly, two variable-speed
turntables on which are played test recordings of constant or varying
frequencies. Important as this piece undoubtedly is, it is the work
of Cage’s colleague David Tudor which has proven to be more
influential on succeeding generations of composers and performers.
Tudor taught himself electronics and built his own ‘instruments’
and this DIY approach is typical of most of the artists who are
currently working with live electronics. This is usually out of
necessity as with only one or two notable exceptions (e.g. the D-beam
from Roland Corporation) the commercial music industry has failed
to contribute to the development of new instruments/interfaces.
Tudor built and used relatively simple electronic devices (e.g.
amplifiers, filters, attenuators) but connected them in such a way
that the potential for feedback and intermodulation was maximised,
resulting in systems where small adjustments to controls could have
dramatic and often unpredictable consequences - anyone who has struggled
to learn the French horn or oboe will recognise this chaotic behaviour
as a fundamental characteristic of the most expressive of musical
instruments.
In talking about his composition Phonemes (1981) which uses a typically
complicated system Tudor said, “Sometimes I make what seems
to be the wrong choice, and I have to sort of correct the situation
without removing what I’ve chosen. So, in other words, I have
to live with it.”
This comment encapsulates what I suspect are the main reasons that
performers and audiences are drawn to live electronics, apart from
the fame and fortune that is. Firstly, in a good performance there
will exist any number of potential ‘feedback loops’; technology
<-> performers <-> audience. Secondly, as in all live
performances, there are no second chances.
This is an appropriate point to outline a possible definition of
Live Electronics before moving on to cite examples of current practice.
Some would argue that most Pop, Rock and Dance music should be included,
based on the fact that for over 30 years this music has been produced
by musicians using electronic instruments and recording devices.
Though undoubtedly true, this is not very helpful. The use of electronic
technology is not the deciding factor. Artists such as Brian Eno
and Richard James (Aphex Twin) though working in a broadly commercial
arena are characterised by the experimental approach they take.
It is this commitment to experimentation and exploring new or unorthodox
means of production and distribution PLUS the use of electronic
technology(commercial or DIY) that, in my opinion, gives us a definition
which allows for the inclusion of artists working in most genres
without us having to make invidious value-judgements along the lines
of, “she isn’t doing Live Electronics, she’s a DJ”.
Another potential area of confusion lies with the use of computers.
The development over the last decade of increasingly fast and affordable
personal computers together with programming software specifically
designed for sound synthesis and processing has led to many artists
working solely with computers, often laptops. Purists balk at the
use of computers in Live Electronics, but if we consider programming
as a way of ‘doing electronics in software’ then the Electronics
v Computing argument becomes more-or-less irrelevant. Why then do
we still use the term Live Electronics rather than, say, Live Computing?
My only answer is that Live Electronics sounds a bit risky (think
about it!) and therefore is more appropriate for the experimental
aspirations of both artists and audience. Anyone, however, who thinks
that working live with computers is not risky should just try it.
Most computers will crash in the comfort of your own home when you
are doing little more than writing a letter to your Grandmother.
Consider what it is like on stage in a hot and humid club with a
PA loud enough to trigger car alarms outside, running a program
(which was only finished last night) which is taking an audio input
from a microphone in the Gents toilets (some people do this, believe
me), and, controlled by a custom-built interface, processing this
in ‘realtime’ before distributing the output to one of
8 loudspeakers - THAT is risky! Did I mention the hostile audience?
Two programming environments in particular have dominated this growing
area: MAX/msp and SuperCollider. The fact that both programs run
only on Apple Powermacs has led to a surprising number of artists
buying an Apple laptop (Powerbook), a couple of small sound sources
(MiniDisc, radio) giving them a highly portable system allowing
them to accept offers from festivals the world over without a second
thought. These artists have become known as the Powerbook Mafia.
One such group from Austria, ‘Farmers Manual’ need only
a table on which to put three Powerbooks (running SuperCollider)
a radio etc., and a feed into a (preferably loud) PA system. The
three musicians then sit behind their Powerbooks concentrating on
the LCD screens and making small adjustments, via the trackpads
on the laptop. In other words, there is not much to see. The minimal
setup and performance style is in direct and effective contrast
to their music, which is a rich and intoxicating mix of noise and
granulated sonic clouds which saturate the room, every now and then
forming into complex rhythmic loops. Many find this minimal approach
to live performance unsatisfying - not to worry, there is something
for everyone in Live Electronics.
Kaffe Matthews, for example. She uses a traditional instrument (a
violin) combined with hardware and software system (LiSa developed
at STEIM in Holland) a few foot pedals - and a Powerbook. She samples
the sounds of the venue shortly before playing, in keeping with
her site-specific approach to performance. She mixes violin improvisation
(drawing on a wide range of sources) with ‘grabbed’ loops,
processed and granulated environmental sounds, and noise. As a performer
she has real ‘presence’ and through her physical and gestural
movement leads and encourages the audience into her soundworld -
no need to feel alienated. I want to end with one last example of
current practice which in a way brings us back to John Cage and
David Tudor.
Janek Schaefer has developed a system which has the feedback potential
of Tudor’s network of electronic devices coupled with a turntable
and records as sound source ala Cage. This is no ordinary turntable.
Schaefer calls it a Triphonic Turntable and describes it as a three
arm, ultra varispeed, reversible play turntable. With this system
he produces what many of us would recognise as acousmatic music
(Schaefer likes to perform in the dark) yet the sense of live performance
is tangible. When I heard him a few weeks ago he was performing
from a ‘score’ and the sonic and compositional clarity
was astonishing and in a way seemed to make the distinction between
acousmatic composition and live performance almost redundant.
I want to conclude with two related observations triggered by a
comment made by Simon Emmerson in a recent discussion on BBC Radio
3. He suggested that now we have affordable and ‘realtime’
computer-based systems there is really only one remaining area needing
development - interface and /or instrument design. I could not agree
more, a 400 year-old keyboard layout is surely not the answer.
At a Dance Club recently , I witnessed a wonderful performance by
three performers; two playing aging PCs running shareware ‘tracker’
software controlled by a mouse, the third playing a DJ rig (2xturntables
and a mixer with crossfader and built-in sampler). What was so exciting
about this performance was not just the music but the obvious sensitivity
and interactions between performers and their instruments which
bordered on the virtuosic. I was not the only one enchanted by this
performance. A small crowd congregated around the performers watching
their every move and smiling in delight when they recognised the
relationship between what they saw and what they heard. This music
was not ‘easy’ nor was it ‘academic’ - it was
‘live’. Yet again I felt privileged to be alive at this
moment and working in this wonderful and perplexing area we call
Sonic Arts - long may it continue.
|
