Sunday, 28 April 2013

The LLEAPP Experience

This year I was first time at LLEAPP, and found it an amazing experience. The Project featured workshops and performances with the group of top electronic and acoustic improvisers coming  from UK, Europe and USA. It was striking to see each performer with so individual setup, custom made software, DIY and hacked hardware.

I brought combination of instruments I use for Space F!ghtRPE Duo and Freeform projects to test their flexibility in large electronic ensamble environment. I was manipulating my own sound rather then other performers and found it challenging to fit aesthetically with so many electronic musicians. 

On the first day we were grouped randomly and performed few sets in quartets and trios finishing with the set featuring all the musicians involved. This followed by the really interesting workshops focused on communication and collaboration in the group. These changed the way group performed, and interacted with each other. I found myself not looking at the gear while performing and visually paying more attention to the people surrounding me, which was really refreshing. This was followed by unique immersive performance of 13th people each with one speaker spread around the venue. I was really impressed with speed of interactions, diversity of textures and smoothness of transitions performers generated.

The whole LLEAPP experience rose my interest in site specific projects, brought few ideas for the workshops and definitely made me play more gestural structures rather then beat based patterns that I am so used to. 

I hope we can tour the project in the future and take it to really interesting places. 

Also posted on my own website.

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

observations on the first two days

First of all thanks very much to Sean and Jules for welcoming me as an observer, and also thanks to those who took the time to discuss their individual work with me in between sessions. There was of course only so much we could cover in so little time, and it was inevitable that  conversations were cut off by other activities or I had to miss speaking with someone, but I suppose it's a good sign that I was left in the end with the feeling that I wanted to hear more from everyone. It was clear, both as an ethnographer and as a listener, that everyone had brought a really thoughtful and inquisitive attitude to the workshop.

As an outsider to the research group it's somewhat difficult to know what kind of observations are going to be seen as useful to you, but after having a quick look through the previous blog posts from this year's workshop, I've decided to focus on stimulating reflection and hopefully starting new conversations. Before I begin, however, I want to note that my position in relation to the project as a whole is not quite as 'outside' as might be expected of an anthropological observer. I started experimenting with electronics in music well over a decade ago when I was an undergraduate at McGill, and I did my master's degree in electronic music at the Institute of Sonology. There I chose to do a thesis project which was musicological rather than performance or composition oriented, and for my doctoral studies at Oxford I've remained in a position somewhere between the ethnographic and historical branches of the music disciplines. As an ethnographer I've also done a fair amount of participant-observation in the form of live performance. So in fact I could almost be writing as an insider, except that I've deliberately chosen not to work in a practice-led paradigm. This decision is motivated by my research interest in the ways that the technical and aesthetic aspects of electronic music practice are distinguished and framed by musicians, as well as the ways connections are made between the technical and the aesthetic in different historical and institutional situations. Writing as a kind of half-breed puts me in a good position to translate these aspects of electronic music discourse and practice for a cross-disciplinary audience of scholars interested in music more broadly. It also often forces me to confront the transformative aspect of the act of translation itself, and often this means highlighting issues that musicians might not otherwise have recognized as central. All this is just to emphasise, then, that I acknowledge that my contribution is not made as an objective outsider, but as someone with an equally vested interest in making (potentially different) sense of what went on. Missing the last day probably also biases my observations, but Lauren suggested that I might get to see the video of the final performance, and I'm curious to see if it might lead me to alter my interpretations. In any case what follows is fleshed out from notes taken during the workshop and further reflections I wrote down after reading my notes on the train ride back to Oxford on the morning of the 18th.

All of the musicians seemed to me to be remarkably well tuned and practiced with respect to their setups and/or instruments. A sense of instrumental mastery was foregrounded. On one hand I wonder how much of this impression was an effect of my unfamiliarity with each person's practice outside of the immediate context of the workshop. For that matter, would I really have been able to tell who was taking risks or being virtuosic, and who was playing it safe? On the other hand it didn't seem to take me long as a listener to be able to perceive differences in each musician's sonic repertoire. Each seemed to maintain a consistent identity at the level of timbre and/or timing. This was probably enhanced by gestural correspondence at a visual level, but it seemed like each person also chose to stick to a fairly stable range of material over the course of the time I spent in the workshop. Having sat through a number of similar rehearsal situations I was also surprised by the small amount of time spent troubleshooting or re-patching. I mentioned this to a few people, and it was suggested to me that this has not always been the case, and that there had been a significant effort this year to avoid getting bogged down in tinkering. Certainly the introduction of Jan as 'musical director' played a central part in this effort, but to me even the inclusion of 'non-electronic' musicians (Emma and Frauke, although I would say that making a technical distinction between what they did and what the rest of the group did was actually quite difficult in this context) contributed to the sense that this was meant to be about performance more than technology. I'm left with the impression, then, that there must have been a direct relation between the level of individuality I perceived and the deliberate effort to focus on the 'human' aspects of ensemble performance. I wonder if the sense of identity in previous years felt more nebulous. To what extent is a sense of individual 'voicing' a necessary or even deliberate aspect of LLEAPP's take on performance practice? This observation about individuality connects with several areas of concern which appeared to become central to the explorations and negotiations that took place during the workshop.

The first was the generation of some form of coherent group organisation out of the individual contributions. Having a single director for the rehearsals seemed like quite an effective way to maintain a shared focus. The fact that Jan didn't also attempt to become the group's 'conductor', however, forced individual musicians to adopt a more personal level of responsibility for maintaining that focus. One effect of this seems to have been to generate discussion around notions of freedom and democracy whenever rules or compromises cropped up unannounced or unexpected. I remember finding it particularly striking when, at the end of the day of rehearsals I attended, the show of hands on whether to move setups the following morning was split almost evenly, only to be resolved afterwards without reference to the vote. Did this belie a foregone conclusion?

Although mitigated slightly by strategies and exercises apparently designed to distribute power more evenly, there were individuals who often seemed to take a more assertive approach than others, taking on a kind of conducting role in order to effect sonic changes. Without getting too theoretical about it, I wonder if this kind of intermittent assertiveness is something people see as an inherent aesthetic necessity (does this music need a sense of 'will', a 'focus' or a 'goal'?) or whether it might invite reflection into alternative ways of distributing power in 'emergent' or other ad hoc ensemble formations. Is there a way to make sure power isn't always concentrated among the same people? Is it possible to think of models of organisation that aren't so much orientated by the notion of subjective sovereignty, or where agency is distributed in such a way as to thwart the emergence of (even momentary) leaders, or give power to the 'wrong' people?

The question of right and wrong in music leads inevitably to aesthetics. Here, however, minor conflicts over the determination of actual sonic content were brushed aside in favour of discussions on the technicalities of structure and human interaction. This was explained to me a couple of times as being for democratic reasons: you couldn't hope to please everyone at an aesthetic level. But does presupposing the incommensurability of subjective aesthetics actually render the overall aesthetic less diverse? Does the foreclosure of discussion enforce unspoken conventions? I'd say that there was a fairly clear sense of a shared background in 'non-idiomatic' free improvisation, and I noted open conversations dealing with several shared aesthetic points of reference, predominantly in the free jazz and experimental traditions. Is it not the case that a certain resistance to 'influence' is, paradoxically, idiomatic in these traditions?

Another area of concern was the role of 'communication' between the individual members. A basic model of communication appeared to pass without explicit discussion. The (to me rather classical) notion that groups of musicians should coordinate their action through visual and gestural contact seemed to go without saying. If the more or less proscenium-style framing of the space and the panoramic/circular arrangement of musicians helped to foreground this approach and probably also to facilitate it, at least in the way it was used on the day of rehearsals I attended, it also rather spectacularized it. Interestingly, as musicians became more adept at communicating in this way the sense of virtuosic display was heightened, certainly in comparison with the first evening's concert. I found myself wondering at several points why it should be worth so much effort to master just this particular kind of communication.

This seems to me an interesting place to open for discussion in the future, especially considering that so many people's setups afford other kinds of communication that aren't so obviously 'musical', at least with respect to the classical tradition. Indeed, there is a sense in which some of the more screen-oriented setups worked against this type of visually-oriented communication (I am reminded of a moment in my video documentation when Marinos continues playing for about 30 seconds following a stop signal because he hasn't looked up from his Supercollider windows). Why not, for example, explore different kinds of aural-tactile communication, different sensory interfaces which might be more accessible to more screen-oriented players? Why not explore 'virtual' communication over a network (as Rob attempted to facilitate, apparently without acceptance from other group members)? What about finding 'analogue' ways of enabling the setups to communicate independently of individual musical intentions, through feedback for example?

This brings me back to my earlier remark about the relatively small amount of time I noticed being devoted to technical issues during the workshop. Since this was intentional to a certain extent I don't want to completely undermine it. Moreover, I think the emphasis on musicianship seemed to have a focusing effect at an aesthetic level, which is perhaps ironic considering the active resistance to discussing aesthetics. My point is that it led me to wonder how much of a challenge it would be to find a productive way of bringing the setup back into the foreground without getting into the kind of technocratic autism that people seem to want to avoid. Several things about the ways musicians assembled and operated their gear were genuinely interesting and inspiring to me. There might be productive things to say, for example, about the ways people combined custom-made and off-the-shelf technologies. The different roles accorded to automation in peoples' setups could bear further exploration as well. What do we miss when we box these setups into the 'tool' or 'prosthesis' concepts often used to frame and explain common-practice instruments? Are these really just objects that mediate human musical intentions? Bearing in mind the risk of drifting into anthropomorphizing platitudes, expanding the notion of 'performance' in the project title to include non-human 'performers' might open up new questions. What role can the gear's affordances play in these explorations? In what ways might the group involve the operation of instruments in a phenomenological inquiry into 'performance practice' that doesn't assume its essential humanness? Could this be done in a way that doesn't assume the received distinctions between 'electronic' and 'traditional' instruments? Like the group's current concern with human organisation and communication, the line of inquiry into the non-human can also be expanded into an ethical domain. What meaning is given to things like mastery, virtuosity, and control in relation to technology? When does technological agency become problematic and why?

To close what is already a much longer text than I had planned, I thought it might be interesting to invite some consideration into the social and institutional positioning of the LLEAPP project. Considering the overall demographics of the academic disciplines dealing with music technology in the UK, the research group is obviously delineated around a certain career cohort which straddles the cusp between late-doctoral studies and entry-level academic work. How does occupying the 'early-career researcher' role inform and frame the direction of the project ethically and aesthetically? Is LLEAPP conceived as something that will remain stable over time as the membership either becomes more established or possibly leaves academia altogether? Are there ways of resisting or complicating the institutional orientation of the project which might prove productive, for example opening to non-musician and/or student members, or addressing the gender imbalance?

Thanks again for a stimulating couple of days. Please feel free to comment upon and respond to what I've written in any way you see fit. I'll be sharing all of my documentation once the archiving provisions are sorted out, and I look forward to seeing and commenting more as I get to see and hear more about the parts of the workshop that I missed.

Friday, 19 April 2013



fun and games

The communication strategies/games introduced by Jan was a great help - getting us away from our instruments to focus directly on interaction skills. I'm not sure we would have instigated this as a collective so it was important to have someone outside the group of players to move us beyond our comfort zone. Our playing style changed markedly after we had absorbed these techniques.

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Day 2 - JR Personal Practice

Unlike the events of yesterday (note to self - should really discuss the first day!), where the groupings were the result of spatial distribution and almost arbitrary 'numbering' (e.g. every third person), I spent more time playing with particular people (Christos, Owen, Sean, Amit, and occasionally Adam), as much as anything because they seemed to be capable of quickly moving to the same kind of sound space that I was creating and were responsive to the kinds of gestures that I was trying to introduce. As Christos has noted, there's also a familiarity with instrument and 'voice' that's perhaps an easy option, so maybe I should work harder to meet (in a sonic sense) other participants.

In the early part of the second session I sat out for a considerable length of time, partly due to virus induced lethargy, and also partly because I didn't feel that I wanted to add anything to the sustained, low amplitude textural material that was unfolding (bizarrely the auto correct on my ipad just changed a misspelling of 'unfolding' to 'noodling', which is not far off the mark IMO).

Once I'd shrugged off my torpor I (think I) became a little more directing, instigating a number of duets and trios with Amit and Christos, and a 'stabbing' simultaneous trio with Sean and Christos, which I brought back into play following my call for silence. I was perhaps overly terse at one point in discussions, but felt a bit frustrated by one of the comments made while reviewing the efficacy of signals.

There's perhaps still a need for more decisive gestures on the part of the ensemble, with more dynamic contrast and silence, while also returning to previous material giving shape and form, rather than always pursuing new opportunities (am I being old fashioned here?) I'd also really like Frauke and Emma (or anybody else) to cut loose every once in a while and really 'sing'! The final thing that I'd like to explore further is rotation of small groups with some continuing element (e.g two people in a trio drop out to be replaced by two others)

In respect of interface and instrument, I worked with a limited palette that required minimal attention to the computer and controllers, and familarity with my sound library meant that I was able to quickly load new sounds when required. That said, I think I could probably select 5 or 6 samples for scratching that cover useful timbral territory and simply turn my screen off. This might also require some kind of cueing mechanism to quickly jump to favourite parts of samples. A limited palette does mean of course, that there will be certain situations that just won't be appropriate for contribution.


We have now established a sufficient level of co-performer awareness - what do we do with it?

- Are we making the most out of our individual practices?
- Are we taking enough risks?
- Are we really struggling on any level?
- Don't we need to leave Ithaca first in order to find our way back home?

Day 2

Following a successful concert last night (which essentially amounted to as much material and outcome as we achieved in the 3 days of the first LLEAPP, but conducted in an afternoon!), after some discussion of structuring, placement and the utility of The Odyssey, we spent the best part of the morning working with Jan minus instruments.

The first exercise aimed to promote visual awareness of the ensemble and group management of 'sound' through gesture and posture. The simplified version is that through eye contact (and some pointing) we would cue in a member of the group, who would cue in another member in turn. Once all members were cued in, we began cueing members out. We did this with a variety of speeds, and it revealed the limitations of oblique lines of sight.

The second exercise introduced signals for creating solos, duets, trios etc. A participant would hold up two, three, four (etc.) fingers to invite a duet, trio, quartet (etc.) and once an agreement was established the duo/trio would jump into the circle (often to be immediately replaced by a soloist or another group). Some attempt was made at crossfading, but it seemed to produce a ministry of silly walks.

Even though we were working without sound, there was still a sense that the participants were trying to create an interesting form, with repetitions, clusters of interlocking solos and 'silences'. After a coffee break we rearranged ourselves into a slightly deformed circle (see Christos' post below), and began to introduce the cueing, signals and groupings into our work with our instruments, attempting to cue in and out all members in 30 seconds (roughly one second per cue). Unlike the non-instrumental version, we had to keep a heads up approach while (perhaps) wrestling with interface.

In the afternoon session we extended the rules and vocabulary to include a 'follow me' signal, where we should try to imitate the 'lead' performer. It became clear that augmentation was sometimes easier than imitation, and in practice the follow me signal was used to silence proceedings (as long as all members followed the cue ; )

This do-as-I-do was also intended to bring a sense of 'home' (one of the themes discussed from the Odyssey), but as the afternoon progressed, we didn't really revisit this direction. Similarly, overt crossfades seemed to be overlooked (although spontaneous introduction of new textures continued).

Other threads included 'rogue' agents (and agency) where (some) players ignored the rules completely. As the rules extended the sonic water became increasingly muddy to the point where it seemed that we were approaching free play again. While this was reasonably sonically and musically satisfying, we later attempted to bring some our previously discipline back into play.

The session closed with pieces of 2, 7 and 15 minutes which saw some confident use of gesture and augmentation, with simultaneous duets, trios etc.

Day 1 :: Public Note to Self

Following our exploratory performance and while it's all still fresh:

Vocabulary - Ways in which I was able to consciously find common ground with individual performers:

1) with Adam: Semi-dense "wooden" hits, controlling my concatenative synthesis module. Noisy bowing.
2) with Jules: Sampling my bell and buffer scrubbing while playing fragmented rhythms. Waveshaping.
3) with Lauren - Irregular snare rimshots with her Machinedrum samples. Comb filtering worked too.
4) with Frauke - Pitched cymbal bowing producing fast pulses imitating her vocals, controlling my "+++" synthesis module.
5) with Rob - Classic free improv guitar/drums drumming. Bowing.
6) with Sean - Clean feedback gestures worked well with his synth (I remember some reverb from his part but might be wrong).
7) with Owen - Spectral freezing and pitch shifting to meet him down in the low pitch areas.
8) with Bill - Playing on the wooden part of the drums with my plastic brush sticks alongside his clicky(?) sounds (quite possibly his clarinet's keys).

Things that didn't work for me:

1) I didn't feel comfortable with Marinos' placement as I was looking at his back and couldn't engage with his sound based solely on this positioning.
2) Similarly, with Radek being quite far from me (and not being familiar with his instrument as I am with Jules' and Lauren's so that I can make informed guesses, or having an acoustic instrument like Emma and Adam so that I can respond to a big extent to visual cues), I don't think that I was able to make a direct connection.
3) Amit's speaker was turned completely to the other side facing the audience so unfortunately I wasn't able to hear much of what he was doing.

Things worth exploring:

1) Positioning - I think that a circular configuration would work better, even if some have their backs turned to the audience (I don't mind being one of them). Since we're using mono, one output of the sound card could be facing inside the circle and the other to the audience (given we have another 3-4 speakers).
2) Not all instruments are the same. We should perhaps devise groupings based on instrumental responsiveness - from slower gradual, to faster instant responsiveness (or role). Either 3 groups, each having one of each (ie slow/medium/fast x 3), or 3 homogeneous groups (fast/fast/fast, slow/slow/slow and so on.) Odyssey's embedded narratives could perhaps be relevant to that?

See you all tomorrow!

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Metal boxes and clarinets

This will be my third LLEAPP, so thank you for inviting me back. This year I thought I'd bring along my clarinet to throw into the mix, along with my increasingly battered arduinome. I'm finding it tricky typing this on my phone on the train, so I shall leave it at that and look forward to seeing you all soon.
Hello all!

Just a few concepts from the Odyssey that I find interesting and could spark some inspiration:

1) Disguises
2) Nested narratives
3) Gradual loss of companions
4) Odysseus' choices of revelation and final recognition (by whom? how?)
5) Kyklopes: lawless - ruleless (similarly, different values and/or themes in each location)
6) The raft of Odysseus (the craft involved - tools - from raw materials)

That's it for now, looking forward to meeting you all tomorrow!
I will be playing my augmented drum-kit:

Monday, 15 April 2013

Hi all, I'm also looking forward to the next few days. I'll have my double bass with me, which I'll be running through some signal processing. I can also pass the dry signal on to others. I am very interested to see the ways in which the text will play a role in what we'll be doing. The previous posts have covered a lot of ground already, so I'll keep it short for now. Till soon.
We have amongst us two acoustic performers - voice and violin/viola - so I was thinking about splitting the miked signals from them and distributing this to whoever would like to incorporate these sound-sources into their own instruments/patches. Relating this to the Odyssey could be done by thinking about how the different characters react to telling of the same story, especially at the Phaeacians' palace where Odysseus is forced to listen to the bard recounting his own story before stepping in and telling more of the story himself. The shifting subject might be something we could use to mobilise the focal point in what we are doing.

Other ideas I have found myself thinking about are the gift-giving and the other related codes of conduct such as the libations, the burning of the thigh bones wrapped in fat and the ritual slaughter, both of animals, Odysseus' crew and naughty servants. Not sure how/if we could use these as structural devices in a musical context, but we could adopt some symbolic ritual signals that could herald doom or a good feed.

Oh, and I'll be playing an analogue synth

Just a quick one from me before we get started tomorrow. Very much looking forward to the next few days. I'm interested to see how we work in this new format, as a larger group, and with creative direction, and hope that it will help to keep proceedings focussed around musical rather than purely technical issues. I'm going for my MS20 / laptop / controllers / MachineDrum set up, which is what I use in this video. Until tomorrow!

J. M. Bowers & Elle Es Aich from ElleEsAich on Vimeo.


Looking forward to another LLEAPP. Haven't participated in one since the first (pressures of parenthood and PhD), so in some ways feel as new as others ; )

Main issue for me in performing is often in bringing too much stuff to the party, so I'll try to trim down for concerts. Tend to have a bipolar attitude to sound that swings between analogue and digital and find it difficult to do both together in realtime (but seem to manage it in the studio). Laptop work hinges on gestural interfaces to sample banks (Wacom tablet, SpaceNavigator, CDJ etc), coupled with graphic scoring system derived from Schaeffer via Thoreson.

In my limited reading of The Odyssey so far, I've been quite excited by aspects of adoption of identities on the part of the Gods (esp. Athena), and have been pulling appealing ideas and sentences out (e.g. Penelope working at her loom all day (mechanical, rhythmic) only to pull her work apart every night (organic, arrhythmic)). Also attracted to aspects of 'winds' as tuned noise.

Here's something to listen to:

Some time related things

Hello all, A couple of things sprang to mind when I was going over the Odyssey this weekend. As you will be able to tell, I haven't thought at all hard about them, but they might make useful food for thought over the coming days...

1) Meter: The epics were all written in dactylic hexameter, which means that they had a basic pulse in six that could be broken up in a number of ways. Each of the six segments could either be made up of a long syllable and two shorts (a dactyl) or two longs (a spondee). The first four could be either; the penultimate is usually a dactyl, the last always a spondee.

Obviously, the straightest musical response to this is to take the scheme as a metric rhythmical template. On the other hand, I tend to prefer things a bit more wobbly; the pulses could instead be interpreted more fluidly as gestures with greater latitude over length (something like Wadada Leo Smith's rhythm units?), or longer, more structural chunks of time.

 2) Improvising Poets: I was greatly tickled to read in the introduction to my translation that the evidence seems to be that recitations of the epics were, at least for some period, improvised (albeit in a very structured way).

In the Odyssey each character has associated with them so-called 'epithets' that often accompany any invocation of their name (so, e.g, Odysseus is varyingly "much-enduring" or "a man of many schemes" among things). It seems to be the case that the deployment of any particular epithet is at the service of the meter - whatever was required to ensure scansion in an improvised telling.

This brings to mind piece's like Cage's Four-Six, where it is up to performers (to an extent) to find a right time to play out certain bits of preselected material.

3) Recurrence: One thing my translation makes quite clear is how much structural repetition there is in the poem. For example, in the early books, while Telemachus is getting set to go sailing, each time he mentions it he repeats almost exactly the words spoken to him by Athena when she suggested the trip. Such points could serve as possibly useful markers if we were to do anything with an audio rendition of the poem.   

On which note, I'm off to rip the sound tracks from episodes of Ulysses 31 (which are neither in meter, nor improvised, nor particularly recurrent, but do have great DX7-prog music)

Looking forward to seeing everyone tomorrow!

Saturday, 13 April 2013

Networked Performance

As a newcomer to LLEAP I'm not sure how human / computer/instrument communications have been dealt with in the past - its nice to see that there will be someone dedicated to musical direction to deal with some of the more human issues that will arise with such a large ensemble - as for the communications between the machines OSC seems the standard and so I have build a little raspberrypi oscgroups server coupled with a wireless access point - this might facilitate networking a little unless you all have something in place - oscgroups is really handy for OSC multicast and it can NAT hole punch so its also great for tele performances when some participants are on the wide area network and some are on a local area network. Anyone interested in sending or receiving OSC could install the oscgroups client (Linux,Mac). it has the dependency of oscpack but is easy to compile. (this is a new 64bit compatible version for anyone who has had issues in the past)

Could be a nice interpretation of different flows of time suggested by the Odyssey to have network communications time staggered between the connected performers so there are moments of "now" action and repercussions influencing other performers as the network messages ripple through the network of instruments. Anyway, I shall bring along some network infrastructure and see what happens. This is me

Friday, 12 April 2013

getting ready

Very looking forward to my first LLEAPP.. not much to say, I always try to remain open and scholastically unprejudiced in that sort of cases so I can embody the whole collaborative process and respond to its specifics.  I happen to be very familiar with Odyssey but it never came to me to work artistically upon this text - it is definitely intriguing.. For now I'm just setting up a flexible enough - easy to appropriate on-the-fly - live-impro setup that could be a starting point.  Since it's a good idea to present myself somehow, here is a link to my latest project: subception.

Friday, 5 April 2013

LLEAP 2013 process ideas

I'm looking forward to coming to work with LLEAP and have been looking into the starting point of Homer's Odyssey. It's been presenting a few conceptual challenges for my anti-narrative brain, as I tend to go for minimalist starting ideas... however. I found this text by Ian Johnston which started to get a few thoughts going. I'll post it here for info, if you have any thoughts do comment. I also have some ideas about working with audio cues from an audio version of the Odyssey. (so if anyone has fourteen wireless in-ear monitoring receivers do let me know!)

'This structure, in which different stories are going on at the same time and we are shifting back and forth between them, creates a very different effect.... Here there is what I like to call an almost spatial organization of incidents, as if at one moment we are seeing one corner of a grand picture, then shifting to another, and then moving to another, and then going back to the first, and so on—with everything, in a sense, simultaneously present. This helps to create something I’ll have more to say about before I finish—a very different sense of time....'

(emphasis added by me)