RE: [-empyre-] engaging moment

["ben .w" <b121@eudoramail.com>]

Dear MC 
you were saying that each evening is a very different affair emotionally, although it could be considered technically the same.
Do you think this is because of the audience's level of engagement, either their defensiveness or their detachment?
Surely this invisible receiving that an audience does  is also bound up in what they would give back to you as performers and would influence the timbre of your performance as well.
 
Perhaps that unknown or unqualified engagement is itself such a powerful force and motivator. This could be why performers continue to work in spite of as you say "accounting absurdity".  

Thank you for doing so.

B


>ENGAGEMENT is maybe the specific quality of a live
>event where nobody knows, neither the performers,
>neither the public, what the evening will be and
>where the degree of detachment/engagement in which
>a viewer will put himself will have an impact on
>what he will be able to receive from the
>performance.

quicktimes of the works are little windows on
>a reality which existed once and which will never
>happen again. On three evenings of performance in
>London for example, one night was just like a
>mysterious synchrony of circomstances which made
>this particular presentation a "mystic moment"
>(dangerous concept?)... when one of the other two
>nights was ok, and the third one awkward, even
>though these 3 performances were all "the same".
>
>I guess this is why we go for it, despite the
>accounting absurdity, and we still make things
>which are only existing in the present moment:
>because it is somehow diving into the unknown,
>because it feels very human and because it is in
>the end very exciting...
>
>MC





Need a new email address that people can remember
Check out the new EudoraMail at
http://www.eudoramail.com