Prosjektet “Kva er ein norsk komponist?” er eit samarbeidsprosjekt mellom Institutt for musikk ved NTNU og Norsk komponistforening (NKF). Dette prosjektet er ein kommentar til, og vidare utforsking av spørsmåla som vart stilt då boka Hundre års utakt utkom i 2017, i høve Norsk komponistforenings 100-årsjubileum. Boka hadde som mål å “gi noen antydninger om omfanget av […] virksomheten, samtidig som den synliggjør noen av de viktigste initiativene og vågestykkene”, og å “belyse […] bredden og allsidigheten blant den relativt ukjente jubilantens medlemmer”.1 Boka skapte debatt i delar av norsk kulturliv, og i tekstar på nettstaden Ballade.no vart det stilt spørsmål ved kva forteljingar og menneske som fekk stå i fokus i boka.2 Slike spørsmål er sentrale når det kjem til historieskriving, og ein må sjå dette i tilknytning til kven det er som skriv historia og kva/kven dei syns er viktige å inkludere. Spør ein to forskjellege personar kven dei syns bør få plass i ei slik jubileumsbok kan ein få to forskjellege svar.
Spørsmåla rundt kva komponistar som blir inkludert i boka, kva musikk som er inkludert i repertoaret, og ikkje minst kven som ikkje er det, er svært sentrale i debatten frå 2017 og i dette prosjektet. Desse spørsmåla dannar utgangspunktet for prosjektet, og opnar for mange ulike perspektivar rundt kva det vil seie å vere ein norsk komponist, det å vere komponist i Noreg i dag og korleis slike ytre kontekstar påverkar musikken. Vi har vald å samle desse spørsmåla under hovudspørsmålet “kva er ein norsk komponist?”.
Dette spørsmålet er enormt. Refleksjonar rundt “norsk komponist” og kva det vil seie å vere ein norsk komponist er farga av tida spørsmåla blir stilt. Prosjektet vil i hovudsak ta føre seg eit stort tidsspenn frå etterkrigstida og til no, men med størst fokus på vår samtid. Komponistyrket har endra seg sidan då, og det har også det lydlege. Ser ein enda lenger tilbake enn desse 70 åra, kan ein sjå Edvard Grieg som ein norsk komponist med stor N, som har ein så stor plass i norsk musikkhistorie at den nærmast er umogleg å sjå vekk ifrå.
Det er nasjonalromantikk og folketonar, Norge Rundt og Dovregubben. Nokre tiår før dette vart komponisten Martin Andreas Udbye kalla “den norskeste af alle vore komponister”,3 men med dagens øyre som er vand med Grieg som ein slags standard for norsk (nasjonalromantisk) kunstmusikk, høyrast Udbye sin musikk veldig europeisk ut, og manglar dei tydelege trekka frå folkemusikken vi seinare kom til å vente oss. Nærare vår tid er Arne Nordheim ein som tydeleg stikk seg ut, med ein heilt anna lydleg estetikk. Andre komponistar som Eyvind Alnes, Pauline Hall og Edvard Fliflet Bræin blir framført med jamne mellomrom, ofte i høve deira eigne jubileum.
Som nemnd gjekk noko av kritikken retta mot boka inn på utvalet av komponistar som vart representert, eller formulert betre, dei som ikkje vart nemnd. Dette har inspirert samtalar og refleksjonar rundt kva komponistar som ikkje vert inkludert i bøker og på konsertar. No skal det også nemnast at vi ikkje har som mål å prøve å rive ned eller ta noko vekk frå norske komponistar som har fått sin plass i musikkhistoria og på repertoaret. Målet vårt er heller å presentere ulike perspektiv og gje plass for ulike stemmer, vere ein stad for drøfting og stille spørsmål ved kanon slik den er i dag. Interessante spørsmål er f.eks. kor mange verk av kvinnelege komponistar blir framført, og kor ofte står musikk av samiske komponistar på konsertprogram rundt om i Noreg? Dette er berre nokre eksempel på det vi kan gå inn på.
Dette prosjektet er støtta av både Norsk komponistforening og NTNU. Institutt for musikk ved NTNU har ei stor fagleg breidde, noko som gjer at studentar og tilsette er særs egna til å bidra med forskjellege innfallsvinklar og perspektivar på prosjektet og hovudspørsmålet. Identitet, nasjonalitet og kjønn sett saman med musikk er alle tema som er svært relevante for hovudspørsmålet, og opnar for fleire spennande samtalar, tekstar og refleksjonar frå bidragsytarane våre. Det er eit mål å kunne presentere tekstar med fagleg tyngde, side ved side ved refleksjonar rundt personlege erfaringar.
Som nemnd har Institutt for musikk ved NTNU har eit sterkt fagmiljø med ei stor breidde. Dette er ein enorm ressurs for prosjektet, saman med alt det spennande kulturlivet i Trondheim har å by på. Når dette innlegget vert skrive har Kamfest 2021 vorte gjennomført, og her kunne ein finne komponistar som Ståle Storløkken, med bestillingsverket Driv, og Eirik Hegdal, med strykekvartetten Dancing Critters, også dette eit bestillingsverk, på programmet. Både Storløkken og Hegdal er blant ei rekke norske komponistar som skriv spennande musikk som spenner over fleire sjangrar. Kanskje har ei slik evne til å skrive musikk i eit vidt spenn blitt ein eigenskap norske komponistar har?
Når ein har eit prosjekt som er sterkt forankra i identitet, både personleg, musikalsk og nasjonal, saman med musikalsk estetikk, opnar det for ei spennvidde i kva typar tekstar som blir publisert. Som nemnd vi vil at prosjektet skal vere ein kanal for fleire uttrykk og perspektivar rundt kva det vil seie å vere ein “norsk komponist”, ein komponist i Noreg i dag, og for 50 år sidan. Vi vil stille spørsmål rundt kva musikk som blir framført, korleis blir den vald ut, og kva med det som ikkje blir framført? Prosjektet si ramme på eit år gjer at forskingsartiklar ikkje er mogleg å få til, men vi er opptekne av at tekstane som blir publisert er av høg fagleg kvalitet og bidreg til diskusjonen.
Vi vil sjå utanfor kanon av norsk kunstmusikk, og gje plass for musikken og personane som ikkje har fått det tidlegare. Med dette blir forhåpentlegvis prosjektet eit nyttig bidrag til samtalane rundt norsk musikk, og kan vise breidda som finst. Gjennom tekstar forfatta av komponistar, musikarar og musikkvitarar håpar vi i løpet av det neste året å kunne presentere eit utval av desse mange perspektiva på “kva er ein norsk komponist?”.
Litteratur
1) Johnson, G. (Red.). (2017). Hundre års utakt. Oslo: Grappa Musikkforlag AS. 1) 2017:8 2) Ørstavik, M. (2017). [Bokmelding av Hundre års utakt av Johnson, G. (red.)]. Ballade.no, 3) Bergens Tidende. (1869, 19. arpil). Martin Andreas Udbye. https://www.ballade.no/kunstmusikk/jubileumsbok-med-habilitetsproblemer/
Mang en vits har nok blitt slått på årets festivalslagord “Udig festival”, men noe “udigg” var ikke å ense under festivalåpningen.
Av: Anders Olai Neerland Kruse
En fullstendig fullsatt Nidarosdom er nok fortsatt noe vi bare kan drømme om, men som festivalsjef Sigmund Tvete Vik kunne konstatere er det ganske eventyrlig å kunne sitte 400 mennesker i samme rom på konsert nå. Endelig kan vi samles igjen for å kjenne den fysiske opplevelsen av å være på store konserter – en nærmest religiøs opplevelse for mange, og hvilket rom er da bedre for anledningen enn selve nasjonalhelligdommen?
Og få musikalske opplevelser kan nok måle seg med øyeblikket under konsertens første nummer når Tine Thing Helseths krystallklare trompet møter bassdrønnene fra domens Steinmeyerorgel. Det er rent så det løper kaldt nedetter ryggen når orgelets vegg av lyd møter den enslige, men gjennomtrengende vakre trompetmelodien. Og når Helseth kommer glidende mellom publikum iført en nærmest selvlysende paljettkjole blir det himmelske bildet komplettert.
En av elefantene i rommet når det kommer til årets kammermusikkfestival er jo at festivalkomponist Caroline Shaw ikke fikk unntak fra innreiseforbudet, og dermed ikke kan være fysisk til stede under festivalen. Dette er selvsagt et enormt savn, spesielt når musikken hennes er så fylt med personlighet. Det første stykket hennes på programmet, Entr’acte, er et enormt rørende verk for strykeorkester, fylt av veldige klanger som river voldsomt i hjertet, før det brått endrer karakter og lar sin haydenske inspirasjon vise seg, like fylt av humor som det for et øyeblikk siden var fylt av ren inderlighet. Godlig plirende, med en tydelig intelligens, og alltid fylt av liv er musikken til Caroline Shaw.
Etter dette fulgte Felix Mendelssohns Strykesymfoni nr. 10 i h-moll, som lett kunne blitt malplassert blant så mye nyere musikk, men på ett eller annet underlig vis snor Mendelssohns og Shaws musikk seg sammen i minnet i en fortryllende dans. Der Shaw er innadvendt og tankefull, er Mendelssohn ildfull og dramatisk, der den ene plirer lurt står den andre med et enormt glis. Og hvordan musikerne i TrondheimSolistene danser på scenen! I fulle kast dit musikken drar dem – det finnes ikke ord for hvor godt der er å se dette live igjen.
Så kommer Ting Helseth og kantor Magne Harry Draagen tilbake, nå med et knippe velvalgte melodier arrangert for orgel og trompet. Dette kunne lett blitt konsertens sviskeseksjon, men det ligger noe så ektefølt og åpent over de to, og kombinert med melodienes nye festdrakter fyller musikken både kropp og sjel. For en enkelt utøver å skulle veie opp mot den titanen av et orgel er på ingen måte en ingen enkel oppgave, men Helseth tar orgelet ved hånden og sammen runger de utover kirkerommet.
Konsertens siste stykke – Shaws Partita for 8 Voices – som hun mottok Pulitzerprisen for i 2013 – har blitt en av nymusikkens nyeste klassikere. Et korverk som ikke sparer på noe, her blir alle klangfarger og varianter av stemmen dratt inn i et herlig sammensurium. Glidende, tette klanger og referanser til urgammel kirkemusikk flettes plutselig sammen med knurring, tale, selve pusten blir i fokus. Hvor bassene tordner, hvor damestemmene stråler! Dette er elektrifiserende musikk av øverste hylle, mesterlig presentert av Trondheim Vokalensemble, som ikke fikk slippe av scenen uten mindre enn tre runder applaus.
Virkelig, dette var en helt magisk konsertopplevelse. Kamfest 2021 har pangstartet, og her må man bare komme seg ut og oppleve alt det andre festivalen har å by på!
Conlon Nancarrow’s Piano Studies orchestrated for Pipe Organ and electronics. With improvisations exploring similar aesthetics using algorithmic improvisation software. Video recorded in Nidaros Cathedral October 31 2019
Øyvind Brandtsegg: Orchestration of Piano Studies for Pipe Organ. Computer improvisation software. Marimba Lumina
Petra Bjørkhaug: Organ
Jan Tro: Mentor and initiator of the project in 2012
Nils Henrik Aasheim: Re-initiator (2019) and inspiration.
Thomas Henriksen: Sound recording
Camtimul productions: Video recording and editing.
Mixed by Øyvind Brandtsegg and Thomas Henriksen.
Additional video editing by Øyvind Brandtsegg
Conlon Nancarrow (1912– 1997) is well known for his studies for Player Piano, as the intricate compositions would often exceed human performer limitations. He coded the music on paper rolls to be performed by the mechanic instrument. In this manner, he created complex, jazzy and hypnotic compositions based on algorithmic techniques and complex mathematical relations. These techniques influenced the melodic, rhythmic and tempo relations in the music. Still:
«My essential concern, whether you can analyze it or not, is emotional; there’s an impact that I try to achieve by these means.» (Conlon Nancarrow)
In the current project, some of these studies are orchestrated for Pipe Organ, Disklavier and electronics by Øyvind Brandtsegg. The work with the Nancarrow Studies also instigated further exploration of improvisation with these mechanic instruments in combination with improvisation software written by Brandtsegg.
As each Pipe Organ is unique, the orchestration is necessarily also unique for each instrument. Two concerts of this material (in Stavanger Concert Hall and Nidaros Cathedral) show how differently the music is shaped to match the possibilities of these two instruments and venues. Nancarrow’s music requires a quite extraordinary degree of articulation due to the rhythmic passages and high tempi. Sometimes an individual adjustment of each single note would be required, due to slight differences in timing between organ pipes. These differences stem in part from the acoustic construction, but even more it is due to the different positions of pipes in the room. The speed of sound is rather slow, and a spatial difference of 10 meters between pipes (which is not uncommon) can result in a time difference of 30 milliseconds. Compensating for such time differences has been crucial for precise rhythmic articulation and synchronization between voices.
Algorithms and automation are ubiquitous in our modern society, and Nancarrow’s compositions allow an interesting perspective on automation and mechanization within an expressive aesthetic context. It also sheds light on the necessity of manual labor of implementation and adaption to make the algorithms matter for human communication.
Famous quotes on Nancarrow:
«The stuff is fantastic… You’ve got to hear it. It’ll kill you.» (Frank Zappa)
«Conlon’s music has such an outrageous, original character that it is literally shocking. It confronts you.» (John Cage)
Conlon Nancarrows Piano Studies orkestrert for kirkeorgel og elektronikk. Med improvisasjoner som utforsker beslektet estetikk gjennom dataprogram for algoritmisk improvisasjon. Video innspilt i Nidarosdomen 31 oktober 2019
Øyvind Brandtsegg: Orkestrering av Piano Studies. Dataprogram for improvisasjon. Marimba Lumina
Petra Bjørkhaug: Orgel
Jan Tro: Mentor og initiator av prosjektet i 2012
Nils Henrik Aasheim: Re-initiator (2019) og inspirasjon.
Thomas Henriksen: Lydinnspilling
Camtimul productions: Video innspilling og redigering.
Mikset av Øyvind Brandtsegg og Thomas Henriksen.
Ekstra videoredigering av Øyvind Brandtsegg.
Conlon Nancarrow (1912– 1997) er kjent for sine Studies for Player Piano. De intrikate komposisjonene overskred ofte de fysiske begrensningene en menneskelig utøver har. Han kodet musikken på pianoruller, og den ble på denne måten framført av de mekaniske instrumentene som var tilgjengelig i samtiden. De jazz-inspirerte, hypnotiske komposisjonene var ofte basert på algoritmer og komplekse matematiske forhold. Disse teknikkene påvirket både melodikk, harmonikk, rytmikk og tempoforhold. Likevel:
«My essential concern, whether you can analyze it or not, is emotional; there’s an impact that I try to achieve by these means.» (Conlon Nancarrow)
I dette prosjektet er Nancarrow’s Piano Studies orkestrert Øyvind Brandtsegg, for kirkeorgel, Disklaver og elektronikk. Arbeidet med Nancarrows komposisjoner har også ført til en videre utforsking av improvisasjon med disse mekaniske instrumentene i kombinasjon med Brandtseggs dataprogrammer for improvisasjon. Her kobles den menneskelige improviserte framføringen til en algoritmisk behandling som skaper muligheten for et samspill mellom menneske og maskin, algoritmer og intuisjon.
Ettersom hvert orgel er unikt, er også orkestreringen nødvendigvis unik for hvert instrument. To konserter med dette materialet (i Stavanger Konserthus og i Nidarosdomen) viser hvor forskjellig musikken ble formet for å utnytte mulighetene og begrensningene på hvert sted. Nancarrows musikk krever et ekstraordinært nivå av artikulasjon, på grunn av de komplekse rytmiske forløp og høye tempi. Noen ganger var det behov for en justering av individuell forsinkelse for hver tone, på grunn av individuelle forskjeller mellom orgelpiper. Den fysiske plasseringen av hver orgelpipe spiller også inn. Lydens hastighet er relativt lav, og en avstand på 10 meter mellom orgelpiper (som ikke er uvanlig) kan gi en tidsforskjell på 30 millisekunder. Kompensering for slike tidsforskjeller har vært nødvendig for å oppnå rytmisk artikulasjon og synkronisering mellom de ulike stemmene i komposisjonene.
Algoritmer og automasjon er allestedsnærværende i vårt moderne samfunn, og Nancarrows komposisjoner gir oss et interessant perspektiv på automasjon og mekanisering i en estetisk kontekst. Orkestreringen og framføringen av denne musikken viser også tydelig behovet for manuelt arbeid med implementasjon og tilpasning for å gjøre algoritmene meningsbærende for mellommenneskelig kommunikasjon.
Sitater om Nancarrow:
«The stuff is fantastic… You’ve got to hear it. It’ll kill you.» (Frank Zappa)
«Conlon’s music has such an outrageous, original character that it is literally shocking. It confronts you.» (John Cage)
Olivier Messiaen:
Quatour pour la Fin du Temps (Kvartett til tidenes ende)
28. mars 2020 hadde vårt institutt planlagt en NTNU Forskningskonsert på Dokkhuset, hvor Messiaens Kvartett til tidenes ende skulle fremføres. Dessverre ble denne avlyst i kjølvannet av koronapandemien. Dette stoppet ikke musikernes sterke ønske om å få formidlet denne betydningsfulle musikken, og ved hjelp av studioingeniør Thomas Henriksen ble de tre satsene som kun er solo- eller duettsatser spilt inn i april 2020. Her er den innspillingen.
Kvartetten ble skrevet mens Messiaen satt i fangenskap i
leiren Stalag VIII A ved Görlitz i Silesia under andre verdenskrig, og den ble
urfremført av ham selv og tre medfanger 15. januar 1941 – utendørs i kulden
foran medfanger og voktere, på instrumenter som vi kan forestille oss var av en
helt annen kvalitet enn det våre kollegaer har tilgang på i dag.
Forordet i filmen er fra Johannes’ Åpenbaring 10, 1-2, 5-7 –
en bibeltekst som inspirerte Messiaen til å skrive dette verket. Du får høre
sats 5, 3 og 8, og forordene til satsene er Messiaens egne.
Rik De Geyter, klarinett Daniel Turcina, fiolin Øyvind Gimse, cello Mona Spigseth, klaver
Thomas Henriksen, lyd og bildeopptak, redigering
Den utsatte forskningskonserten med hele verket på programmet ble gjennomført 31. oktober 2020.
Tone Åse
in collaboration with Pamela Z and Sten Sandell, spring 2019
(In
conversation with Andreas Aase)
How the
project came about
My first meeting with Swedish pianist Sten Sandell gave me a chance to perform at the 2018 edition of the Other Minds festival in San Francisco. This festival has been essential to the development of modern American music for more than 25 years now, and I found myself surrounded by artists, composers and producers I had known about for a long time, but never interacted with. The director, composer and radio producer Charles Amirkhanian was one of Laurie Anderson´s early inspirations, some of the performers had done vocal work for Meredith Monk, and you would see people like Pamela Z and Amy X Neuburg in the audience as well as on stage. The community turned out to be open and friendly, and I settled in quickly.
Leading up to my visit there, I travelled to Stockholm to work through one of Sandell’s open compositions and a few improvisations, and it felt like home right away. Although he is a pianist working in the European free jazz idiom, he also relates to the Swedish sound poetry tradition (ljudpoesi), which in turn relates to futurism, Dadaism, and more. His performances combine piano, voice and (sometimes distorted) recitation, and he focuses on topics such as transforming and dissolving the meaning of words through focusing on their sonic properties – occasionally feeding piano textures “sideways” into the timbre of his voice.
Sten Sandell solo from concert at Dokkhuset :
The theme at Other Minds 2018 was Sound Poetry- The Wages of Syntax. As part of their rich program they conducted communal listening sessions of old recordings in this compositional vein, as well as performances of older compositions. These listening sessions demonstrated unequivocally how a lot of contemporary experimental vocalists base their work on the early pioneers. A lot of people in the audience were veterans on the avant-garde scene, and were familiar with, for example, the works of Kurt Schwitters, John Cage, Hugo Ball, and Tommaso Marinetti. Another important artist in this field is Jaap Blonk, who performed Schwitters’ Ursonata on this particular occasion, but who also composes pieces of his own. Blonk dissolves language completely in his performances, either staying close to it in the way he shapes his vocal sounds, or extending the language in ways that are sometimes quite extreme. A truly unique performer whom it was a pleasure to meet.
As has
often been the case, Sweden arrived at these ideas of liberation – not just
artistically, but sometimes also politically – much earlier than the other
Scandinavian countries. Collaborations between the artist collective Fylkingen,
EMS (Electroacoustic Music Studio), and SR (Swedish public radio) in Stockholm
resulted in works that are historically important. The fact
that this work has a place in the international history of sound poetry was
recognized by the Other Minds festival, where acousmatic pieces by Swedish
composers Sten Hanson and Åke Hodell were presented.
Something else this festival reminded me of was how the experimentation with words, voice and sounds has always been a political act. I’ve always nurtured an interest in the political potential of lyrics, next to my focus on the sonic qualities of words and language. I’ve tried my hand at it in a few solo performances, and I think it’s hard – very hard. As a consequence, I often end up with just one, or a few, sentences as points of departure for a structured improvisation:
‘It could have been you
I work with sound, voice and text in both conventional and abstract/deconstructed forms, and I perceive it as playing with different levels of meaning. For example, defined words carrying clear intent have a potential for very significant impact when you move in an otherwise abstract sonic landscape. This is something I addressed as a research fellow in my work with ‘Lydnovellen’ (‘Short story of sound’) combining storytelling, sound and music into a solo piece. I try to to reach the convergence point between these different paths to meaning more frequently; sometimes I include a defined, language-based mode of expression. My solo performance in the project with Pamela Z and Sten Sandell explored these processes:
Excerpt from solo performance, concert at Dokkhuset, Trondheim
When I look at Pamela Z, whose background as for example an experimental music DJ at a radio station makes her extremely knowledgeable in her field, I experience her as very free – there’s a healthy disregard for the past (I think) in the way she heads directly for the core of any new project she undertakes. She operates in a cross-section between music, performance art and visual art. She is a pioneer, also in the sense of being one of the few female composer-performers using music technology in the way that she does, and as an artist who initiates development of new musical interfaces for live performances. Meeting Pamela in the Other Minds Festival audience over several days confirmed that she walks it like she talks it, often emphasizing how important it is to take part in and build communities, and to expose yourself to other people’s work. When we had a conversation after my performance with Sten Sandell, I jumped at the chance to invite them both to Norway – with an eye to a possible collaboration. We were able to organize a short residency in April 2019, working with several institutions, concert promoters and one gallery ( Thanks to all of them- see list under references. )
Excerpt from Pamela Z’s solo performance, Trondheim, Dokkhuset:
The
technology
Actually I find it a bit strange that- apparently – rather few vocalists use gesture-controlled electronics on a long term basis. In Europe, two performers stand out in this experimental field as far as I can observe: German Alex Nowitz with his Strophonions, and Franziska Baumann from Switzerland with her glove, combined with other sensor controllers. They are doing groundbreaking work, both artistically and through taking part in the development of new technology and instruments, just as Pamela does. ( There are of course other projects around, including splendid people, that I’m not aware of. ) Pamela’s setup allows her to live-sample, loop and process her voice, and it gives her access to pre-record ed material for live processing and other forms of manipulation by her gesture controllers. To a certain degree, our setups are related – I also have a set of sounds available in the shape of presets to work from in my improvisations, in addition to the live sampling and live processing possibility. But the only gesture-controlled technology I have in my setup for now is a conventional infrared device that controls filters – that is, which frequencies are emphasized, or de-emphasized, in my sounds. Though this technology is commercially available going on at least ten years, and it is a rather simple function compared to Pamela’s custom-made devices, people still remark on it as a standout feature in my setup. And it does give you a different approach to performing electronic music from just using a sliding fader and a button. I considered implementing sensor controllers while doing my Ph.D.-level artistic research, inspired by Pamela’s and Alex Nowitz’ work, but I found it hard to combine with the fact that interaction with other musicians was my main area of investigation at that time (not that this would be impossible with a new setup , but there was simply not enough time to do both). Now, however, I’m considering introducing gesture controllers more into my performances, in part because Pamela demonstrated solutions and possibilities that I did not think of earlier. Specifically, I’ve been stuck in an “either/or” pattern of thinking, where the infrared controller has been sort of isolated to one side of the setup, and where I’ve been thinking that I have to choose between working in either Ableton Live or moving the whole setup to Max MSP (which is an advanced programming application). I now realize that I can integrate the Max MSP in the setup I already have, and also that I don’t have to spend years learning it – it’s fully possible to commission sounds and patches that fit with my ideas, from someone else.
Methods
The human mind keeps coming up with ideas and dreams about what kind of technology should be developed next, and how we imagine it can be used. We’re a long way down the line from digital instruments simply being used to imitate acoustic ones. However, I’m still connected to music I grew up with. Grooves in pop music is one example: though I will not try to produce that kind of grooves in my music, there is always some element in my performances that reaches for that kind of rhythmic function, though I tend to make it abstract and, on occasion, non-repetitive. Another example: I think about bass as a general musical component rather than a defined instrument: If I transpose my voice down an octave electronically, it sounds lame to my ears. To go two octaves down is better, especially if there’s a touch of reverb, and if I can chop up the sound – granulate it – and shuffle little pieces of it around, I suddenly have a bigger sonic room in which I can move up, down and sideways. Electronic performance gives us the opportunity to answer, and prolong, functions in more conventional music. It also provides a wonderful potential for openness, in the sense that real-time debates with yourself about decision-making can take place. Say, for instance, I find myself moving along a one-note looped pattern. I can filter it, I can turn it up and down, and I can combine it with something else. At that point, a voice in my head will have to say “Enough. This works. Let it go on for a while”, and I might have to suppress my other instinct, for virtuosity and resolution, and let myself go with the flow instead. Another example of how I’ll answer or prolong mechanisms from conventional music is to do something intensely rhythmic that fills the space of a fast groove, but doesn’t add up in even time signatures, it never settles in so you can tap your feet to it. Someone I know called it “beatboxing with fever cramps” – I like to call it my rhythm will. I’ll sometimes use technology for the same thing and granulate sounds so the machine feeds back rhythmic information that’s busy, irregular and dense.
I don’t
gather my concepts in alphabetical lists or strict dogmas, but I recognize that
I’ve established a handful of working methods with (extended) sounds and
improvisation. To work with roles and functions that resemble or mirror more
conventional roles in music, is one strategy, as mentioned. Another example of a
strategy is to think and act in relation to frequencies and sound qualities: to
take in the whole sonic picture and then seek out a totally different function
than what’s going on around you, but without creating fracture: If there’s a
lot of slow, low-pitched stuff going on around you, there’s a good chance you
can fit in something bright, short and dry, thus creating a new layer and
movement, adding on and opening up for new responses. In this kind of abstract soundscape,
a need for something more concrete may arise, like a word, a lyric, a melody, or
a rhythm. The soundscape might need a preparation, an introduction, or a
transformation from something/into something if you don’t want breaks and
fractures. Another simple, but very useful strategy, is imitation; one example is ‘follow singing’,
as we call it in (electronic/improvising vocal ensemble) Trondheim Voices: you
can sing an improvised melody line together with someone, if you just follow
them closely. As a result of this you also get a ‘human delay’ effect which can
be interesting in itself. I’ll use many of the same concepts in various
constellations, and also when I teach improvisation. We talk a lot about it in
Trondheim Voices: what kind of role do you assume? Don’t send sound into a
sonic area if you don’t have anything to say there. Wait and see if another
area opens up – or be quiet until you sense an interesting place you want to go
to. Find the right balance where you don’t enforce anything, but where you can
take responsibility and initiate things. Don’t be passive – stay alert to
possibilities. And let go of the need to know in advance everything that’s
going to happen. These are general issues in all improvised music, and while
they’re not exactly revolutionary thoughts, we still need to remind ourselves
from time to time about the importance of focusing, executing and evaluating
methodically, over time. Improvisation may be perceived as almost a magic
phenomenon to some listeners, it’s usually the result of systematically exploring
various ways to encounter, and develop, musical opportunities real-time.
I think electronic instruments can lock us into fixed tonal and rhythmic zones. The whole looping technology seems connected to the aesthetics of 20th-century composers like Steve Reich – but repetition has always been present in music and human life. With technology, though, you are no longer limited to the physical performance of repeated patterns. The repetitiveness of the machinery can be magical and seductive, but the loop/drone combination can also become a trap, where you create something that’s hard to change. How do you stop it, or how do you develop it further? Perhaps the answers are simple: You can work with strategies for stopping a loop: if you’re worried that there’s going to be a dramatic break when you stop it, you may want to make a different sound at the same time – to cover the break and create musical meaning. If it feels natural, you can turn the loop back on, then off, then create a game of on-and-off with it. And then you can lay it off completely. Another strategy: Your loop can contain several gaps. If it does, you can easily stop it in one of those gaps. Also, you can pitch it down, while at the same time altering the effect it’s sent through before you stop, or you can change the loop into sounding like something else through processes like granular synthesis or filtering. There’s a lot of possibilities, and it’s been important for me to recognize and practice these rather simple strategies in order to avoid getting ‘trapped’.
We seem to
have arrived – for the time being – at a general aesthetic where much of the electronic,
experimental and improvised music involving (live) sampling doesn’t open up to
a lot of harmonic activity and abrupt changes. I think the technological
boundaries and the aesthetic choices are intertwined in the reasons for this. When
timbre is a focus in itself, repetition and patience is necessary in order to guide
the performer and the listener’s ear towards the sonic quality. Once you change
a chord, it creates a different focus and you change the material’s quality as merely
sound/texture. The technology of the electronic music era, starting with the
gramophone and the magnetic tape, opened
up for this kind of sonic
focus. It also shaped the music itself, in the same way as every
instrument and technology forms our human behavior (just think about the
smartphone). The controller, the interface, is important. As an example,
I find that the use of a small drum sampler with electronic pads helps me create
something busy and fast in my music – with pads I can play short, choppy sounds
and pit them against each other. The tactility in the pads represents an
invitation for me to do this, so this function of the controller is definitely
forming the way I play.
The notion of fast can be a challenge in live processing. The path from input to experienced result is often more complex than in acoustic music. It takes time. We have discussed this in our research with NNTU- based ensemble T-EMP. We sometimes reach a point where we simply can’t process and react as fast as we want to – or would be able to do with an acoustic instrument. This is especially obvious when it comes to making fast improvised changes together as an ensemble. In the project ‘Cross Adaptive processing as musical intervention’[1] at NTNU, we research technology that enables each musician to intervene in the sound made by the others- through the way they play. This turn creates a whole new situation, and «fast» is often something you need to agree on and plan for in the setup.
I
introduced the computer into my setup about ten years ago, after using outboard
gear exclusively for a long time. Four years ago, I expanded the computer-based
setup and abandoned most of my outboard equipment (except the drum sampler.) From
time to time I can still miss parts of my old equipment, but I find joy and
creative impulses in making do with what is, relatively speaking, a very simple
and agile rig. As in all other jobs, you’ll learn something in one place that
you can use in another – an
example would be the small Maccatrol[2] controller
we use in Trondheim voices, which has led my instincts as a solo performer
towards some efficient and pragmatic technical solutions.
Improvised
conversations
‘Ny Musikk Trondheim’ (Association of Contemporary Music) set up a concert at Dokkhuset, Trondheim, with Pamela Z, Sten Sandell and me in April of 2019. We each did a solo set, Sten Sandell and I did a duo set, and we closed the performance with all three of us on stage. The concert was called ‘Voices in between’, reflecting our common ground, which is our relation to voice and language as material for transformation and abstraction[3]. When I work in open and improvised music I don’t tend to change my approach fundamentally, be it in a setting like this, or in Trondheim Voices, playing solo, or in my duo with jazz drummer Thomas Strønen. The resulting music, however, comes out differently. For example, Sten works with a kind of transparency and organic transformation between ideas that are very clear and very open at the same time, and sometimes he changes things up rather rapidly, but still the ideas seem connected. It’s like a speech, or rather a conversation, with himself, the instrument, and me. That makes it easy to pick up the ball from what he does and respond, while at the same time I’ll stay alert to any change he might introduce – or maybe I’ll be the one introducing something new. When I play with him, things seem, in a way, to happen faster than with any other collaborator. I experience this as connected to his acoustic flexibility, his totally free musical approach, and not least his way of ‘speaking’ with the piano and voice, which has been his field of research for years, and also the topic of exploration in his artistic PhD[4]. Language and dialogue are often used as metaphors when we talk about music – in Sten’s case his relation to language represents a passion, a method and a direct source of artistic material and techniques. He makes it easy for me to enter the dialogue.
Duo performance , Trondheim :
Pamela’s approach is in many ways rather different from Sten’s, and from mine. At the same time, though, the voice and language as musical and meaningful material works as a common ground that we approach from different angles. As collective improvisors we found places to meet, and even some moments where we blended seamlessly. When I listen back to the recording of the concert, sounds will appear that make me wonder if it’s me singing a note, if it’s Sten hitting a piano key, or if it’s one of Pamela’s gestures triggering a sample.
Excerpt from trio improvisation, Dokkhuset, Trondheim:
Listening back, I hear the trio improvisation as a kind of conversation, with several themes visited along the way, approached differently by each performer. Sometimes our differing (expanded) voices function in unison. At a later juncture, it would be really interesting to explore something that could develop over a longer stretch of time. I really like how we ended in a more meditative state, ‘breathing’ together. And, if we think in models and metaphors for improvisation: Perhaps the immersion in sound, the hypnotic repetition and the longer developments could be thought of (in relation to the idea of ‘conversation’) more as silence, as breathing and listening – still communicating, but not necessarily talking. Which is also an interesting thing to do. This actually resembles two different approaches in my solo work. Sometimes I conduct an active, driving dialogue with myself and the technological instrument. Other times I take more of a listening position to see where the sound leads me. In both cases, and in all the in-between variations, the technological instrument is not just an extension of my voice, but also a partner in the interplay, presenting new possibilities.
All videos by Martin Kristoffersen og Ola L. Rød at department of music, NTNU, Photo: Julianne Schütz
Tone Åse’s
Ph.D.-level artistic research project “The Voice And The Machine And The Voice
In The Machine – Now You See Me, Now You Don’t” (Research Catalogue, 2015): https://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/108003/108004
[2] Maccatrol™ is developed by Trondheim Voices’ sound engineer Asle Karstad and his son Arnvid Lau Karstad. (https://vimeo.com/202418687)
[3] The project was also
performed at Vox lab Spring Festival in Oslo, but unfortunately Sten had to
cancel on short notice, so this was the only version with the three of us
together.
[4] Sandell, Sten: «På innsidan av tystnaden,» Doktoravhandling, Göteborgs universitet, Konstnärliga fakultetskansliet, Gøteborg 2013
