Head Games?: The Strategic View of Liveness and Performance
When I tell people that I am an economist and a musician, they usually have one of two reactions. Either they tell me that I must be crazy, or conflicted—that the two things can’t possibly go together—or they immediately start talking about ticket prices, drops in CD sales, 360 deals. I however, refuse both stances. The connection that I see between what I study as an economist and how I perform as a musician is the element of strategy.
Performance, in my view, is the willful construction of a series of events to create a particular mental state for the witnesses. This is the strategic view of performance. I am a game theorist, and game theory is the foundation of the strategic view. Game theory is based on the idea that games are a metaphor for human interaction generally. It is essentially the study of strategy: the chess player imagines different actions he can take, and imagines how his opponent will respond in each case, and uses those forecasts to make his original choice; that’s strategic thinking. In “Singing to my Imagined Listener,” I describe rehearsal as playing to an imagined audience member, judging her response, and adjusting accordingly. That is exactly the strategic view.
I got the opportunity to explore this synergy between live musical performance and economics in an intimate and visceral way a couple of weeks ago—February 9th, 2011, to be exact—when I was asked to speak to a small group of students at Binghamton University who study live performance in an English course called “Representation and Popular Music” taught by Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman. I thought I would reproduce some of that talk here, via video clips, in order to breathe elements of aurality and liveness into the words that follow, which meditate on strategic differences between liveness and recording in the game that we call music.
But first, a song.
In this clip, I play the guitar and harmonica and sing a song of mine called “Sittin’ on the Mailtrain.” I strategically start off with a song that has a jarring chord in each line: my intent is to make the audience feel a bit uncomfortable with this shared live experience, so that they are more inclined to look at it with fresh eyes. At minute 7:45, I point out that I am giving a live performance to those in the room, and recording to those in the future. That’s you. As I say at minute 8:07: “There’s an audience here, in the room, and there is an audience out there in the future, who are experiencing this, but clearly in a different way than you are experiencing it.”
And, I think that you are. Even now. However self-aware and live-esque, this recorded object cannot reproduce the physicalness and immediacy of performance.
Performance is standing in front of people, feeling nervous or confident, holding a guitar, forming words, reading faces, projecting to the back of the room or getting quiet. Performance is hitting taut strings pulled across a wooden box at specific times and with a certain speed, vibrating vocal chords in a certain way, holding ones hands out to make a point, or inhaling a wail out of a blues harp. It is a series of events that are a part of a human life, in the sense that life is a series of physical moments. Agency in that visceral present moment is the essential difference between live performance and recording. Like Kathleen Hanna (frontwoman of Bikini Kill, Julie Ruin, and Le Tigre) wrote in “On Not Playing Dead” in 1999, “[O]ne thing I do as a performer is to stay physically present on stage, and that means being in the now. (Oh my god, I sound like such a hippie.)”
Halfway through my talk, however, my computer interjects with a pre-programmed dialogue that complicates Hanna’s claims. Watch here:
“Excuse me, I’d like to make a point,” my computer says aloud, for all to hear. “I felt it was important to point out that this is not exactly a live event. This is a recording, in some way.”
“Sure,” I reply, according to script.
“You typed this in to simulate this conversation that you’re having right now.”
“Yes,” I reply, “it’s scripted. Did anyone not know this was scripted?” I look questioningly at the students assembled in front of me.
“But this [lecture],” my computer points out, “is basically a recording. It’s an encoding of a particular process. So [the] physical body and mind [of the performer] decodes this script into a process, just like the CD player decodes the CD into a process! So how is this performance not a recording?”
“A recording encodes a performance, and a performance decodes a recording,” I say.
There is a strong way that any “live” performance has a recorded aspect to it and vice versa. The decoding of a CD is a performance, akin to my live performance. My computer worked from a script in the computer science sense—a set of essentially English-language commands that it followed to reconstruct a set of sounds. That is not a traditional recording, in that it is not direct storage of sound waves in magnetic tape or record grooves. However, it is functionally a recording: the user presses a button and a predictable and pre-specified series of sounds emerge.
If we agree that this computer script is a recording in this sense, then we are compelled to accept the next step—that if I, a human, am following a script, that I, too, am simply decoding a recording. That is, I had an idea about how “Sittin’ on the Mailtrain” would go and this idea was necessarily encoded in my mind; then I unpacked this encoding by arranging physical objects, namely my fingers and my voice, to create a song. The song followed an encoding in my head, like when you put a CD in a CD player. The encoding is unpacked, and ultimately results in the same thing: some vibrating object that vibrates the air which then vibrates the audience’s ears in a relentlessly physical way.
The future of performance lies in acknowledging the interrelationship of liveness and recording and further blurring the boundaries between them. The podcasts produced by the lo-fi movement are a key part of this new relationship. I am part of this artistic movement, which asserts the primacy of performance over recordings while also using recording technology to foster and promote liveness. Lo-fi’s hallmarks are: smaller numbers of performers in groups (often solo acts), an emphasis on live recordings complete with audience noise, low production quality (“Background hiss”), and a large number of recordings that often include many versions of the same song. The primacy of performance means the definitive versions of lo-fi songs are not located in recordings that live performances then try (and often fail) to recreate. Rather, the most recently performed version is the “master.” The performance you just watched of the song “Sittin’ on the Mailtrain” for example, was the most definitive version on February 9th. Today just may bring a new definitive version.
In the aesthetics of the lo-fi movement, the life of the performer is treated not as a series of objects, but rather a series of events, which can be attended or subscribed to, like a podcast. No doubt, each episode is recorded, and the audience receives it as a recording. However, these recordings are meant to be listened to once or twice and let go; they are intended to be ephemeral. A podcast, when viewed as a process over time rather than a possession, is no doubt a performance; the audience can respond from one episode to the next via comments, email, Twitter, etc. and the performer can react. What you are reading and viewing here is simultaneously a lo-fi recording event and a lo-fi performance. This. This blogpost, you reading it, the videos you can watch and listen to, my comments on it here, your comments below that you can post, you sharing it on Facebook or Twitter. You can even follow the traces of this performance through my own Twitter feed.
Strategically, I think the podcast model is the next logical step in the Lo-fi aesthetic. Standup comedy (one of my favorite kinds of live performance) is making this transition as we speak. The old model for the young comedian was to develop “an act” that one (hopefully) toured with, perhaps releasing a comedy CD or landing a role on a sitcom. The new model is a couple of comics releasing a conversational podcast once a week, responding to their biggest fans, giving a raw, intimate, unpolished performance of improvisational humor and riffing, and convincing their fans to become members; a membership that occasionally awards the listener with additional content, but more often only a sense of satisfaction that one gets from supporting something one loves. See, for example, the podcast “empire” of Jesse Thorn at maximumfun.org which includes live comedy podcasts, or the political humor of wearecitizenradio.com, which is also member-supported. What’s interesting, here, is that a pure donation podcast model is enough for some comics to make a living. Ironically, using recording to give primacy to performance, serves the artist. Yesterday’s recording can be taken away from the artist, but tomorrow’s performance cannot.
As for my own future? My own “tomorrow’s performance”? On February 25, 2011, at the Eastern Economics Association Meetings, I will perform a similar event, called this time “Rhetoric, Choice Theory, and Performance.” I will perform music and discuss the strategic view. Economists are not used to thinking seriously about performance nor are they used to thinking seriously about sound. I intend to change that, one strategic moment at a time.
Additional footage in which I define strategy and game theory, and discuss what the strategic view of performance has to say about my references to Dylan and Guthrie:
Tags: "On Not Playing Dead", "Sittin' on the Mailtrain", Andreas Duus Pape, Bikini Kll, Binghamton University, Citizen Radio, Eastern Economics Association Meetings, Economics, Game Theory, Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman, Jesse Thorn, Julie Ruin, Kathleen Hanna, Le Tigre, lo-fi movement, maximumfun.org, Representation and Popular Music, wearecitizenradio.com
About Andreas Duus PapeI am an economist and a musician.
7 responses to “Head Games?: The Strategic View of Liveness and Performance”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
- “Hey Google, Talk Like Issa”: Black Voiced Digital Assistants and the Reshaping of Racial Labor
- Beyond the Every Day: Vocal Potential in AI Mediated Communication
- “Caught a Vibe”: TikTok and The Sonic Germ of Viral Success
- Tuning In to the Desi Valley: Getting to Know a Community via Radio
- Robin Williams and the Shazbot Over the First Podcast
Search for topics. . .
Looking for a Specific Post or Author?
Click here for the SOUNDING OUT INDEX. . .all posts and podcasts since 2009, scrollable by author, date, and title. Updated every 5 minutes.
Nice work. I saw two different ideas in the piece: the performance as strategy, and recording as performance/live performance as recording.
As for the first part, I think that view of performance is great, and I like how it opens up the central idea of game theory. My one-sentence description for people who ask me what its about is “It’s the mathematical analysis of situations of cooperation and conflict,” and this is in some sense an example of both at once (hopefully mostly cooperation). We don’t have to think about game theory as describing the behavior of nasty little people, and we don’t have to think about payoffs as cash.
The second part is interesting, but I do think there’s a big difference between a live performance and a recording. Even if we agree that the idea of a song in a musician’s head is a kind of script, like a shell script or a CD recording, it doesn’t uniquely identify the finished product. The performer, the translator of this script, will not reproduce it in the way that a CD player reproduces the sounds encoded on a CD.
But that said, I think you have a good point about the give-and-take between the recorded and the live, especially as the making and distribution of recordings becomes easier and more immediate for more people. A sequence of simply made recordings can bring people closer to the experience of listening to a live performance.
AT. Thanks for your very interesting comment! I respond below, with “>” to mark quotes of your post for dialogue.
> Great post, it really got me thinking! I love the idea of a performance studies 2.0, where things like performance and liveness are considered apart from the human, explored through the context of machines.
> A thought about your points regarding strategic liveness: for many, performance is a ritual of identification and community not a matter of one-to-one, or one-to-many communication. Does being a performer necessitate a strategy?
That’s a great question. On another thread, linked in my first comment on this post, reddit user klbcr asked about improvised music. Is that a recording, a decoding of a script in my mind? I point this out because I think these points are connected.
To your question: briefly, I don’t know. What I do know, is that my performance is strategic. This is a description of how I think about performance (or, at least, how I believe I think about performance.) I’m honestly not sure how generalizable it is. I have heard some musicians agree that it describes them, however. I haven’t heard a performing musician yet who says it does not, as a musician. I would like to meet that person.
> Does being an audience necessitate decoding?
I’m not sure. I don’t have a strong opinion on this. What do you think?
> Finally, is your computer actually a listener? It’s got a lot to say, but I’m not convinced that it was ever really ‘present’ during your performance. The way I read the above scenario, your computer’s commentary acts as a secondary performance of the ‘self.’
That’s a good point. No, I would not call my computer a listener. My computer functions in a manner very similar to a CD player (at least in this capacity), which I would also characterize as not a listener. The computer is much better described as being similar to my guitar–a tool/instrument I use as a performer.
> The commentary does not serve to complicate Kathleen Hannah’s take on liveness so much as it creates an artificial distinction between you and your computer. You perform as two autonomous entities here, and …
I guess the analogy I was trying to draw was not that the computer was like me, but more that I was like the computer. I, like the computer, have some kind of mental “script” about how the show will go in my head, that I play out over time. Does that make more sense? Do you agree with that? That said, there are also clear differences between me and the computer (for example, the previous point you made that the computer is merely a tool and is not like an additional living performer/listener.)
> …that itself bespeaks a particular strategy of confusion, spectacle and the physical-esque.
Yes, very much so. “Spectacle” indeed. Wonderful word.
Great post, it really got me thinking! I love the idea of a performance studies 2.0, where things like performance and liveness are considered apart from the human, explored through the context of machines. A thought about your points regarding strategic liveness: for many, performance is a ritual of identification and community not a matter of one-to-one, or one-to-many communication. Does being a performer necessitate a strategy? Does being an audience necessitate decoding? Finally, is your computer actually a listener? It’s got a lot to say, but I’m not convinced that it was ever really “present” during your performance. The way I read the above scenario, your computer’s commentary acts as a secondary performance of the “self.” The commentary does not serve to complicate Kathleen Hannah’s take on liveness so much as it creates an artificial distinction between you and your computer. You perform as two autonomous entities here, and that itself bespeaks a particular strategy of confusion, spectacle and the physical-esque.
Comment on this post at reddit: “What about improvised music?”