29 February 2016, concert hall at The Grieg Academy, Norway.
Below is a description of how the Viva Voce was planned and executed with indeterminacy. Both the presentation and the examination was prepared to make an example for the public of an important aesthetic aspect in this research project; the aspect of interacting simultaneously as opposed to interacting together. This aspect is described in Open Form. A Handbook., also published in on this site.
The Viva Voce had two parts.
A. Presentation
B. Examination
A. Presentation
The presentation itself exemplifies one of the most significant aspects of interpreting and performing many Open form pieces: Interacting simultaneously as opposed to interacting together. It could also be explained by playing simultaneously instead of playing together. The aspect of playing simultaneously, also discussed in the handbook, is exemplified in the Viva Voce by letting three performances go on simultaneously, the presentation of the project being one of them.
Below is a description of how it was organized and executed:
Else Olsen S. Les (2007) was performed simultaneously by:
Eva Pfitzenmaier, xylophone mobile and silences
Stephan Meidell, el-guitar and silences
Else Olsen S., talk and silences
Scroll to the right to see Les, the score.
The interpretations were made with I ching, and other chance operations. The result of the chance operations decided what (sound and silences) and when the performers would perform.
B. Examination
The examination was held in an apparently conventional setting, where the opponent and the candidate spoke from each their academic soapboxes. To exemplify the important perspective of interacting simultaneously, with the respect of each part as important as another, the answers were prepared in advance. John Cage´s predetermined answers is a direct reference to this kind of interaction, which is also a vital reference and inspiration supporting the decision of executing the Viva Voce as a simultaneously interacted happening, where the examiner and the candidate were equal contributors.
With the deepest respect to the committee and the work they´d been doing in their assessment, 45 answers were predetermined for the examination. All answers were quotes from Pippi Longstocking, Astrid Lindgren´s strong figure, who carries a whole culture on her sheer arms. The quotes are meant to be representative to the research done, and at the same time a comment to an era in music and art history.
The committee members all reacted differently to the predetermined answers. They were totally unprepared for the roles given, but very much prepared for the roles expected. They´d done a great job examining the project and expected answers related to their questions.
Einar Nielsen was the third opponent to examine the candidate, and his interpretation of his role was to enter it with an additional layer for the audience to interpret. He entered his soap box, asked his questions and knew he would not get the expected answers. What happened was that he lit up a cigarette. This is a clear violation of the codex for a Norwegian concert hall. In fact, it´s a clear violation for anywhere inside a public Norwegian building. The staff who didn´t see this act started to get worried about the smell of fire, while the audience seemed to be relieved from some of the seriousness present in the room. If the comment from Nielsen was about him actually breaking the carved in stone-rules, or if it was the smoke itself from the cigarette, will be unspoken of in this setting, leaving any further interpretation of this act to the audience. To have a glimpse of Einar Nielsen´s smoking event, see slide show below.
