Week 13 - Structural Fixing

A relatively short post today - there wasn't a great deal of events that resembled any kind of epiphanies. It was more a troubleshooting day where we discovered problems and found ways to overcome them.

10th May Face to Face Meeting 12:00pm-4:00pm

• After previous suggestions about using an electric violin in performance, as opposed to an amplified acoustic violin - I used my Surrey contacts to borrow one for the session. It was fairly easy to assemble and I had no difficulty transferring my performing skills between the two. Overall, it was a good call to use the electric as there wasn't any interference between the electronic sounds generated and the sound produced from the bow touching the string. I had much more control of the instrument and it would be easier to record my output as opposed to recording the surroundings and the instruments sonic qualities.
• When it came to our first run through - things didn't quite go to plan. The first issue arose with our communication, signalling to each other when we were about move into another section. A common issue was not looking up at each other and focusing more on the score. I was aware that Peer A did have some difficulty with reading traditional western notation and Peer B was still working out technical troubleshooting with the theramin. With both of these considerations, I was able to help Peer A with simplifying the notes down into arpeggiated chords that still held the musical DNA of the tonal centres and Peer B with suggesting that he would for now just alternate between the drones. This helped our communication immensly - less focus on the creation of notes, more focus on character and performance.
• In addition, there was a lack of clear structure in the run through and  our hieroglyphic notation didn't really help the situation. There was some slightly tense moments in the session when it did fall apart however we were quick to realise that a contributing factor was we were reading off our own notation - as opposed to a collaborative score. A quick photocopy of Peer A's score and we were able to fix this fairly quickly. The score was far from finished (in terms of presentation) - but at least we were reading from the same page!

As the session went on, there was a sense of emerging structure and we were quick to identify any loose sections in the music as we kept looping the movement over and over again. This has numerous benefits - first it engrains the structure into our long-term memory, especially useful for the improvisatory nature of the work, and in terms of group moral we could see the improvements we were making as we got further through the movement. Clear, visible results that were a much needed motivator.

Eventually, we got to the end of the first movement and there were some doubts as to whether the theramin and electric guitar sections were too simple. However, I was quick to point out that there was enough harmonic richness in the material that we were inspired by that there was no need for anything extra in the theramin or guitar parts when it came to playing the drones or slow arpeggiated sequences. They were enough and it worked. One important lesson learnt here for us all, simplicity can be the most ideal and beautiful solution to any creative problem.