Bach in Leipzig is currently playing in Glencoe at Writer's Theater. It's a clever production of a clever riff on the western classical music form known as a fugue. I plan to prose on here about the how the form dictates the content (browse ahead if you are a musician, or better yet, pick a fight on whether I have my facts correct)--more facts coming to a blog near you. 6 players represent each voice part (in music this can be actual singing voices, but it is more often a sort of 'character' in musical terms in keyboard realisation. Ah ha, Bach's the only dude recognized for being able to use 6 vox in counterpoint, damn he was good. And he's the never seen character who will get the job without actually auditioning (we know this from the title - I'm not spoiling anything here).
This bit of goofball writing is a critical work in progress, so commentators, here's where I could use some input from you. Any thoughts on pictoral representation of subject, counter subject, new versions of these, some additional fun facts on fugue devices? I will try for a textual representation as well.
So to continue, there are six characters, subject (Johann I, he will reappear as Johann II and Johann III, different characters within the play who represent the subject i, subject ii and subject iii) and then there's counter subject (Georg - same deal as subject).
I also will try to make a case for a magical device (Telemann who never actually speaks - waste of Mr. Lindner, but he strode across the stage masterfully - I hope he got paid full rate). This is a rather modern approach with terms that are not consistent with baroque styles, but I'll try to get some comment in on that too (ok, I have to do some more research).
These dudes present themselves in various forms: tonic, dominant, inversions, reminders of other devices in fugue form. In music you hear what today we would call a theme or (pop music) a melody repeated in various ways. Theatrically this means that a device like, "I will try to extort funds from the next character to enter stage left" hands action from one character to the next, moves the plot along and finally wraps it up.
All very diverting, but if you realize what's afoot early on, the show is a bit dull, or at least smirky. Was it the production? A lot of wink, wink, nod, nod. It was a Sunday matinee, the audience was justifiably proud for getting the format and the jokes. We were patting our tummies and commenting on the delicious fare. I felt like this was a good 3 stooges with each stooge assigned to 2 parts. They even looked a bit alike because of the gorgeous but not quite authentic costumes. Great detail on the set (how did they paint all that faux marble in time), but again, detail overtook the larger whole.
Ok, enough cattiness, this feeds into a larger discussion that is emerging for me about subtlety v. being ambushed. With such a new show and such a complex structure, some broad hints and a winking is perhaps not altogether overbearing. How rich is too rich?
Monday, March 26, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Mr. Marmalade
The Chemically Imbalanced Theater Project (sic) has a new show up at the Cornservatory in Chicago that offers some interesting views on extreme behavior, it's entrance into the mainstream, what happens when we ignore issues and behaviors that are outside the lines.
The show revolves around a 4 year's play subject and patterns during one evening while her mother is on a date. She consistently paints vignettes of disturbing and dysfunctional behavior overlaid with her own character's desparate desire for cookie cutter normalcy in the form of mother/father/child playing at 'house' and the introduction of structure where none is likely to occur naturally. The child's characters are all grown, foul mouthed and desparately unhappy, with the startling exception of a truly suicidal 5 year old playmate who is coaxed into the standard, if depressed behavior of the typical American, sport loving, junk food eating male. Ok, I admit it, if the child characters were only about 4 years older, it would be more believable.
Oddly intriguing is the fact that another (not to be named) company is mounting this show in Chicago opening April 5. First, why do multiple companies want to do the same show? I think this is because they do not know who else is doing what else, and hot shows are always of interest. More to the point, the topics covered are truly gripping, universal, the subject has been handled well by the dramatist. This show made me (and other lunatics in the audience) laugh. Sounds callous. Well we weren't, trust me.
Once again I am falling prey to the idea of being ambushed. The point of this show is that these kids are acting out the adult neediness around them. The adults pretend they have no angst so they can elude the guilt gripping them. The kids show us in the fourth wall section what's real.
The show revolves around a 4 year's play subject and patterns during one evening while her mother is on a date. She consistently paints vignettes of disturbing and dysfunctional behavior overlaid with her own character's desparate desire for cookie cutter normalcy in the form of mother/father/child playing at 'house' and the introduction of structure where none is likely to occur naturally. The child's characters are all grown, foul mouthed and desparately unhappy, with the startling exception of a truly suicidal 5 year old playmate who is coaxed into the standard, if depressed behavior of the typical American, sport loving, junk food eating male. Ok, I admit it, if the child characters were only about 4 years older, it would be more believable.
Oddly intriguing is the fact that another (not to be named) company is mounting this show in Chicago opening April 5. First, why do multiple companies want to do the same show? I think this is because they do not know who else is doing what else, and hot shows are always of interest. More to the point, the topics covered are truly gripping, universal, the subject has been handled well by the dramatist. This show made me (and other lunatics in the audience) laugh. Sounds callous. Well we weren't, trust me.
Once again I am falling prey to the idea of being ambushed. The point of this show is that these kids are acting out the adult neediness around them. The adults pretend they have no angst so they can elude the guilt gripping them. The kids show us in the fourth wall section what's real.
Extremism: reactions to bad party behavior and other walks on the wild side
Extremist behavior does not require logical thinking, but often dresses up and attends the party as an intellectual. Every so often I find myself at an event that has nothing to do with politics and zut alors, I realize I've been ambushed by a zealot. Suddenly bunches of data are offered in support of some sort of thinking. Only the data is couched in terms like, "I was watching the Sunday morning lineup...there were all sorts of well regarded journalists...but he said he could pretty much do whatever he wanted." This is not in fact data. But it is wearing the costume of expert opinion and it is ready to boogie.
Because you are not seated at the internet or armed with a copy of the Special Presidential Powers, He Can Do Anything Act (see next paragraph, Joint Auth), you will LOSE any argument you make in return because your data will not be as upsetting as their data. Here's how the argument starts. The president says he can do whatever he wants (who does he think he is, Oprah?). Move on to This is how he trampled all over your civil rights (not mine in fact because I am secretive and do my dirty business on the El where it's so loud, nothing can be tapped, taped or even seen as a rule, but you have the principal).
In rejoinder and because I now AM in my seat in front of the great and powerful INTERNET I refer you to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, here noted verbatim from the White House website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html. You can pretty much skip the Whereas's and go directly to the Now therefore department. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it most certainly does not say I now pronounce you King and Ruler of the Dominion. So there!
How, you may ask does this apply to art, artists, artistic voice? Well it's a reach, but this was bugging me (get it?). And I do not do my best work when I'm bewitched, bothered or otherwise betwixt myself and someone behaving badly. And besides, if Bush is King, what will we do if a tree or forest erupts on the scene? I cannot create my art when I'm worried about being ambushed at my next social affair. Pass me the crudites.
Because you are not seated at the internet or armed with a copy of the Special Presidential Powers, He Can Do Anything Act (see next paragraph, Joint Auth), you will LOSE any argument you make in return because your data will not be as upsetting as their data. Here's how the argument starts. The president says he can do whatever he wants (who does he think he is, Oprah?). Move on to This is how he trampled all over your civil rights (not mine in fact because I am secretive and do my dirty business on the El where it's so loud, nothing can be tapped, taped or even seen as a rule, but you have the principal).
In rejoinder and because I now AM in my seat in front of the great and powerful INTERNET I refer you to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, here noted verbatim from the White House website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html. You can pretty much skip the Whereas's and go directly to the Now therefore department. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it most certainly does not say I now pronounce you King and Ruler of the Dominion. So there!
How, you may ask does this apply to art, artists, artistic voice? Well it's a reach, but this was bugging me (get it?). And I do not do my best work when I'm bewitched, bothered or otherwise betwixt myself and someone behaving badly. And besides, if Bush is King, what will we do if a tree or forest erupts on the scene? I cannot create my art when I'm worried about being ambushed at my next social affair. Pass me the crudites.
Acting out and technology - shake it!
This is just a tiny personal revelation. In unprecedented diligence tonight I decided to deal with my broken iPod. The device has been spinning and hanging and generally not playing music for me. OK, it was fine, then it totally stopped about 6 weeks ago, I never really dealt with it.
For whatever reason I decided to try again tonight. I tried reformatting, looking for fixes on-line, etc. Then I recalled a friend laughing and commenting, "maybe he just body slams it, I don't know how he works on these problems." This was in reference to all broken Apple devices, small of footprint and large in popularity and annoying behaviors. So what did I do?
I shook it REALLY hard and I uttered the ultimate invective, a time honored family tradition, usually accompanied by a coy grin as if to say, "I never actually say this sort of thing." Now it's fine. I'm listening to my music even now (all files present and accounted for).
In principal, this is heartbreaking. This is not the behavior I wish to have rewarded. I tried several different ways to be logical, to be gentle, to be rational. Apparently the temper tantrum does work.
At least I didn't throw it.
For whatever reason I decided to try again tonight. I tried reformatting, looking for fixes on-line, etc. Then I recalled a friend laughing and commenting, "maybe he just body slams it, I don't know how he works on these problems." This was in reference to all broken Apple devices, small of footprint and large in popularity and annoying behaviors. So what did I do?
I shook it REALLY hard and I uttered the ultimate invective, a time honored family tradition, usually accompanied by a coy grin as if to say, "I never actually say this sort of thing." Now it's fine. I'm listening to my music even now (all files present and accounted for).
In principal, this is heartbreaking. This is not the behavior I wish to have rewarded. I tried several different ways to be logical, to be gentle, to be rational. Apparently the temper tantrum does work.
At least I didn't throw it.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Alec Guinness
"Oh, if only we had written everything down daily we could bore the pants off everyone all the time with our exactitude." From his book, My Name Escapes Me, 1996 (p.115).
and...
"It was the Daily Express, I think, which carried a banner headline which read, 'Deborah Kerr fails for the third time.' A very English assessment. She hadn't failed in any real sense (she had several beautiful performances to her credit) - she just hadn't been handed a trophy. A race or a fight or a game can be won but to call something 'the best' in the arts is absurd. I wouldn't mind betting Dickens would fail to win the Booker Price (too readable and too funny) and Turner the Turner Prize and poor Keats wouldn't even be considred for any poetry prize. And so on. I suggest that the givers of awards to actors, writers and artists should choose half a dozen, almost at random, and say, 'These are people we wish to honour - equally.'
"Geoffrey Madan, in his Notebooks, quotes a Cannon Liddon as follows: 'The applause of all but very good men is no more than the pricise measure of their possible hostility." (p.16)
and...
"It was the Daily Express, I think, which carried a banner headline which read, 'Deborah Kerr fails for the third time.' A very English assessment. She hadn't failed in any real sense (she had several beautiful performances to her credit) - she just hadn't been handed a trophy. A race or a fight or a game can be won but to call something 'the best' in the arts is absurd. I wouldn't mind betting Dickens would fail to win the Booker Price (too readable and too funny) and Turner the Turner Prize and poor Keats wouldn't even be considred for any poetry prize. And so on. I suggest that the givers of awards to actors, writers and artists should choose half a dozen, almost at random, and say, 'These are people we wish to honour - equally.'
"Geoffrey Madan, in his Notebooks, quotes a Cannon Liddon as follows: 'The applause of all but very good men is no more than the pricise measure of their possible hostility." (p.16)
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Stalking
Watching Infamous Commonwealth's production of "The Homage that Follows" yesterday led to some thoughts on how art reveals truth. The drama recounts the story of an attractive Hollywood actress, Lucy, who visits her mother to rest and recooperate. A similarly aged man, Archie is installed as farmhand. Archie is a mathmatician, not actually a farm hand type who is immediately interested in Lucie, largely for her looks. Why is a brilliant young man interested in a woman largely based on her looks? Why immediately and why are we as audience certain it's innapropriate, lacking in limits? The ending of the drama would be predictable, Archie wants Lucie, she says no, he kills her. Only the structure of the play precludes that by starting with the ending, epic-style and is told from the viewpoint of the mother start to finish.
This play resonated with me because the topic of stalking is intriguing. Why do people do it, who does it and how, what does it do to them and to the person being stalked? Stalking is behavior that is elemental, it's not 'appropriate' because it is expression of emotion that is not reasonable or rational, it is escalated to extremes, it is outside normal boundaries. It is however, authentic, if not acceptable in practice. It actually happens and documentation is increasing that there's plenty of it. Has it always been around? Does it exist more often in urban environments or environments that involve crowding or high density?
Love v. hate is always of interest, what are these emotions, what differentiates them? Are they just versions of strong emotion, two sides of the same thing? Love and hate, again, universal. We feel it as early as memory reaches backward. Babies probably feel these things. Young children state early on, "I love you" and just as easily, "I hate you", sometimes in the same minute.
Archie takes his self-loathing and heaps it on Lucy, blames her. Is she to blame, of course not, she is a new feature in his landscape. Will she change her mind if she feels guilty, is this pure manipulation? If she's guilty, will that relieve Archie of his own personal responsibility? Stalkers tend to follow a familier path. They channel strong emotion, repackage it and call it rational approach. The ones who can't verbalize or act out how they will make the victim pay, may feel the same emotions, but with no impact on the victim, is there no stalking?
This play resonated with me because the topic of stalking is intriguing. Why do people do it, who does it and how, what does it do to them and to the person being stalked? Stalking is behavior that is elemental, it's not 'appropriate' because it is expression of emotion that is not reasonable or rational, it is escalated to extremes, it is outside normal boundaries. It is however, authentic, if not acceptable in practice. It actually happens and documentation is increasing that there's plenty of it. Has it always been around? Does it exist more often in urban environments or environments that involve crowding or high density?
Love v. hate is always of interest, what are these emotions, what differentiates them? Are they just versions of strong emotion, two sides of the same thing? Love and hate, again, universal. We feel it as early as memory reaches backward. Babies probably feel these things. Young children state early on, "I love you" and just as easily, "I hate you", sometimes in the same minute.
Archie takes his self-loathing and heaps it on Lucy, blames her. Is she to blame, of course not, she is a new feature in his landscape. Will she change her mind if she feels guilty, is this pure manipulation? If she's guilty, will that relieve Archie of his own personal responsibility? Stalkers tend to follow a familier path. They channel strong emotion, repackage it and call it rational approach. The ones who can't verbalize or act out how they will make the victim pay, may feel the same emotions, but with no impact on the victim, is there no stalking?
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Artistic voice
How does the artist find her own voice? Is that voice the same over multiple medias? As a concept, I value a vocal tone that is focused but with plenty of overtones, neither breathy nor wavering in tonal focus (no guessing at what note she is singing). Agility is important, but lyricism is more characteristic. In vocal terms this is a lyric mezzo voice more than one of coluratura.
Does this correspond to photorealism in any way from a painter's perspective? How does use of decoration blue strait forward presentation of concept? Can you compare a song to a painting or photograph? How about a dance? Can a dance remind you of a painting? What references must be in place for their to be a link? "Sunday in the Park with George" - Sondheim's musings on a painting come to mind.
Does this correspond to photorealism in any way from a painter's perspective? How does use of decoration blue strait forward presentation of concept? Can you compare a song to a painting or photograph? How about a dance? Can a dance remind you of a painting? What references must be in place for their to be a link? "Sunday in the Park with George" - Sondheim's musings on a painting come to mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)