This month we held two performance
workshops as the closing events of this funded phase of the project. Shelley
came up to Yorkshire on October 26–27 for a public concert and workshop with
improvisers at the Hyde Park Book Club in Leeds, and a closed workshop with singers from HOOT in Huddersfield; a
charity working with music and wellbeing for adults with mental health issues.
Both of these sessions allowed us to develop performance ideas that we had
explored a little with Ben and Harley in the studio in Leeds in September, and led to much new
insight and understanding about how these scores could work for performers. In
both cases also we found ourselves wanting more time to properly nuance the installation and interpretations, but each certainly provided a good platform for
further research.
This was arranged through LIME (Leeds Improvised Music and Experimentation) by Harley Johnson as support for free-improvisation trio The Custodians of the Realm. The plan was to have an hour-long workshop at the start with local improvisers to develop possible readings of the score, then to have some performances that would explore these. Unfortunately we ended-up being quite pressed for time as we only had an hour to prepare the space and set up the glass and light. This meant that we didn’t really have time to get the optimum projection for the light to find the best score images; it could have been better. That said, I have to credit the players for stepping up fearlessly and getting into the challenge.
 |
| Photo Michael Coldwell |
We were joined by four improvisers, most of
whom hadn’t played together before; clarinet, guitar, two double-bass, and
myself [Scott] on cello. I tried to apply the workshop structure from our previous studio session here — to initially constrain the musicians’ ways of improvising by limiting
them to playing timbral/dynamic variations on a single pitch, or limiting pitch
choice to just three pitches — but it didn’t work as well in this situation so
we soon moved on to more free responses. I think this is because there was an
audience present. The subsequent improvised responses worked well, and the players
were happy to discuss after how they were reading the scores. Time constraints
meant that the workshop turned into a performance, but because we were
discussing between performances it wasn’t really a gig and wasn’t quite a
workshop, which was not ideal; or at least it felt like it may have been confusing for an audience. I was also unhappy with trying to direct the workshop aspects, and
play at the same time, I need to work on that.
That said, the audience seemed to really
enjoy it. We had many positive comments after about the music itself, and about
how rare it is to have a chance to see the process being discussed live. The
music was – as many improvisation sessions are – a mix of self-conscious
exploration and moments of real beauty when players came together and were
fluidly interacting between themselves and the score.
 |
| Photo Michael Coldwell |
As a first attempt for the project of
working with a group of players, and in workshopping the scores in a live
environment, this was a somewhat trial-by-fire affair, but we learned a lot
from it. Here's a brief excerpt: most of the musicians are out of shot.
HOOT - Huddersfield: 27th October daytime workshop
The following day we had a morning workshop with HOOT, a creative arts organisation in Huddersfield who work with adults with mental health issues. We had about 17 people in the workshop, which was maybe slightly too big but it worked well, and the HOOT people were very comfortable working together so it made the workshop run smoother. We were hampered a little again by limited setup time, but this was not as problematic as the night before, and in the end it made sense for us to work with just one glass piece so the limited time had less of an impact.
Part of the impetus for this workshop was that HOOT’s cross-arts practice made them open to trying new things, and they’re all very used to group singing, which made that the natural approach for the day. Ultimately, one of the big discoveries of the day was that the voice is an especially good medium for this project, due to the flexibility of timbres it can produce (more on this later), and to its being in some ways more intuitive and democratic/open.
The HOOT group were made up of specialists
from many different art-forms, including music, dance, and visual-arts. Their
visual-art lead had brought some drawing materials should the possibility for sketching
arise, and we agreed that this would be an excellent way to start the session.
After some much needed vocal warmup exercises (which also helped to stretch the
possibilities of vocal timbre) we decided the best way ‘into’ the light-scores
would be ask everyone to draw parts of the score: we also stopped the turntable
so that the score was static, easier to draw. This was a very interesting exercise
because it loosened people up, and got them thinking visually to engage with
the projected image before trying to map the forms sonically.
 | |
|
We then tried another exercise in mapping
the image to voice sounds. We opened this exercise by considering what ‘light’
and ‘dark’ might sound like in the voice, and looked for ways to stretch the
vocal timbre and explore many possible sounds. We then moved on to vocalising
some of the drawings. To make it easier for the group we did this by ‘conducting’
a path across the drawing using a laser pointer. This exercise worked very well
in creating a group-response to the piece that clearly articulated light, dark,
and many points between. The crossings from light to dark were variously sudden
or gradual, and covered many textures, all of which were appropriately
vocalised. An interesting outcome of this was that the group had a ‘sound’ — or
a response — for ‘white’, or the paper background. We considered how this might
map to the actual light scores where the gradation between light and dark was
not as simple, and where non-light might mean silence.
After a tea and biscuit break we moved on
to working with the light score itself. We found the earlier strategy of
following a point had worked well so we continued with this. To make it work
with the revolving light score we instead put some points (blu-tak…) on the
projection wall and the groups responded to the forms that crossed or
interacted with those points. We also split the singers up into three groups,
each with their own point on the wall. All of this worked very well, and as the
workshop progressed the singers found some more nuanced ways of responding to
the scores, but also suffered a little from the fatigue of singing lots of long
sounds: I think this the nuanced interpretation really requires more time,
perhaps a full-day workshop. I [Scott] was particularly happy with an analogy
between focused light caustics and highly filtered vocal sound; using the
tongue or mouth-shape to filter the sound energy and focus it in one specific
spectral area, making it strongly ‘nasal’ or similar. Several people were
making this work well, it might be something I explore more fully in the
future, possibly with specialist singers.
Overall, this was a very exciting session with
excellent learning outcomes. The structure was good, the second-half was rushed
a little because we spent a lot of time initially working with voice (which was
valuable in itself), but I’d like to spend more time on consideration of
mapping the drawn forms and vocal forms. The drawing session was certainly
productive here, we’ll do this again and look to expand the range of
‘mark-making’ on paper as an analogy to extending the voice.
It was hard to get to a nuanced
interpretation of the glass score, but this just needed more time. Following
fixed point (or moving pointer on still image – initial experiment) worked very
well, is this analogous to using small projection space (sandblasted glass etc).
Splitting into groups worked well, allows them to find their own space in the
work, but still making it a ‘group’ performance where they support each other
and reach consensus about how to proceed as a group.
The knowledge exchange in the HOOT session
especially was useful. We learned a lot from their multi-disciplinary approach,
and they found our project interesting because it allowed them to take
overlapping approaches with different disciplines and expertises.
 |
| Photo Michael Coldwell |
Conclusions and Next Steps:
Two very productive sessions, as much for
the weak-points they exposed as for the successes they generated. As mentioned
at the start of this post, both of these sessions had timing issues, both in
terms of setup time (we need more…) and development/rehearsal time (we need
more…). We resolve to plan better for installation: planning more time to setup
and allow our work time to settle into the space. In both of these cases we
rushed setting up and didn’t manage to find the optimal projection, and didn’t
have time to setup several glass objects; we got one that worked and had to
stick with that. As mentioned in previous blogs, this never changes, we always
need at least 90mins to set up the light.
This funded phase of the project is now
over, so we take a moment to thank TCCE for their support in creating this opportunity, it has really helped us to move the project forward, and has impacts on that spill into our respective solo practices. Of course we will continue the project because we love it and because we keep
learning new things and finding new approaches. Our next steps are some
concerts in December (see below) where we work with more experienced players,
and using that experience then to formulate the next phase of the project
towards appropriate funding streams. We will be looking for longer periods of
work within a space (possibly some residency work?) so that we can fully embed
in a space and optimise how the light will work with the space and the objects,
and we will look for longer rehearsal periods with the musicians so that they
too can become embedded in the work, and find their own responses that are
nuanced and fluid.
Next:
Sunday Dec. 4th 4:00–6:00 (doors
3.30) at the Hundred Years Gallery in London, with Mira Benjamin (violin),
Dominic Lash (bass), and Scott (feedback guitar & cello). I’ve worked a lot
with both Mira and Dom before, and Dom has played solo versions of the glass
scores on two previous occasions (HCMF and Circus Gallery). This should allow
us to develop several nuanced readings reasonably quickly.
Dec 7th 5.15–6.15 at the PATS
Building, University of Surrey (Guildford), performers TBC. Presented as part of the Sounds Between festival, ‘A one-day festival exploring interdisciplinary encounters in music composition’. This performance came out of our presentation in the AHRC Network Music Composition as Interdisciplinary Practice. Free entry but booking advised (see link above).
