Form and Structure

Allright, I’d suggest, we’d stick to what we have and continue from there, modifying and refining.
(To put in another picture/text/film as the basis of the structure seems unneccesary for me, and I can’t think of any that would be substantially better or even different from what we have (I’m not so much of a visual guy anyway))

So what do we have anyway:

• 55 minutes

• Subsectioning according to Fibonacci series

• a picture brought in by Claudius

• The initial idea to read this as a score, every participant getting a strip from that picture to interpret.

• There is a sax and two Laptops generating sound (in the accompanying picture as sax,s1,s2)

• There is one completely reactive laptop only processing sound that is live being produced (SP)

• There are two video layers (v1 v2)

All in all there is one instrumental layer (sax), two video layers, three electronic sound layer, two of which generating, one processing

As a suggestion I did the following:

I divided the 55 minutes into:

A: 34                                                   B:21
A1:21                        A2:13                      B1:13                       B2:8
A1a:13        A1b:8          A2a:8        A2b:5         B1a:8         B1b:5         B2a:5         B2b:3
A1a1:8 A1a2:5 A1b1:5 A1b2:3 A2a1:5 A2a2:3 A2b1:3 A2b2:2 B1a1:5 B1a2:3 B1b1:3 B1b2:2 B2a1:3 B2a2:2 B2b1:2 B2b2:1

making 16 subsections at the lowest level (which might still internally be further divided)

As not every layer should be present at all times, I suggest that every layer is present in 9 and absent in 7 subsections.

I first did a random distribution, where each layer is absent or present, and after some slight modifications to clarify the dramaturgy that tis distribution initially suggested, I came up with what can be seen in the picture (sorry for the bad drawig, I’m nt used to drawing programs too much)

Here is what this sectioning might suggest:

A1a1: 8 Minutes
sax,s1,v1:
A rather “ordinary” Opening: Live-Sax, one electronic layer, initial picture. Might present all of the material. Probably slow and not too dense

A1a2:5 minutes
Sax,s1,s2,v1,v2: strong contrast, almost a “tutti”, high density, probably loud as well

A1b1:
5 minutes
Sax,sp,v2

first introduction of processed sound,kind of “enlarged sax”, or sax playing with itself,
only one videolayer, could be more a kind of background to this almost solo sax.

A1b2
Sax,v1
3 minutes

Sax soloing to video1, slowly ending section A1

A2a1
5 minutes
s1,s2,v1,v2

electronics only, first longer pause for sax, intermiediate audiovisual high point.

A2a2
3 minutes

Sound is even getting denser by the processing electronics, video otoh goes back to only v2

A2b1
3 minutes
v2
Solo video2, no sound

A2b2
2 minutes
sax,s1,s2,sp,v2
All sound including Sa back in. End of A, soundwise the high point of the piece

B1a1:
sax,s2,sp
5 minutes
Opening section of B: Only Sound, no Video, acoustic, electronic, processed. Probably very calm again, reminding of A1a1

B1a2
3 minutes
s1,sp,v1,v2

Full video, only electronic sounds, live and procesed

B1b1
3 minutes
sax,s2,sp,v2

like B1a1 with video

B1b2
2 minutes
s1,s2,v1

live generated electronics with only one video layer

B2a1
3 Minutes
sax,s1,sp
Same situation as in B1a1, only shorter. might be reminiscent

B2a2
2 minutes
s1,v2
electronic audiovisual, maybe a reduced version of A2a1, mostly calm to prepare B2b1

B2b1:
2 miutes
sax,s1,s2,sp,v2
Sound tutti with one video layer like in A2b2, suggesting the final high point of the piece

b2b2:
1 minute
sp,v1,v2

Sound may only process rests of previous section(s)which would suggest a ing of coda. Video might do something similar.

These, as I said, are only first suggestions. Feel free to modify anything you like or put it into the waste and suggest something else.

Questions and other open issues:

• What happens to the parts of the picture that are now cancelled out?

• Nothing has yet been said about what sounds/visuals might be suitable for one part or the other (Material?) This is absolutely crucial for he continuation of our “alchemistic” approach (I kind of start liking it :-) )

• This is yet very style inependant. Will we stay like that? I’d suggest: Yes: We should avoid any resemblance to pre-existing styles. If something we do is likely to fall into a pre-existing category of style, we should take counteractive measures. (This is almost a NONO

More NONOS:

There is but one from my side:

We must absolutely avoid the impression of a piece of arbitrary, “free” improvisation (though improvisation as such may in most parts be fine, I don’t want to write a score of 55min either, at least not until July!). So let’s start the alchemy ASAP.

Oh yes: One more: There should be some fun with it as well :-)