about ideas.’ That’s what Liz Lerman is talking about. She speaks of the horizontal line where art, which is at the top, is measured by its uselessness, and the bottom is so embedded in culture it’s not called art. That is the dialogue that MAMM brought up in the community. I wonder if there is a successful model of a mix between the professionals and non-professionals; that was an on going issue to me: Either you are fulfilling the need of the community, or you are catering to professionals, but as soon as you are putting professionals into a room with non-professionals, you get all kinds of issues. Can you think of a tradition that successfully combines these two? AK: Indonesian Gamelan is one example, where someone who has been studying for a month can play alongside someone who has done it all their lives. The music is structured in a way that allows this. It is marvelous, but I can’t think of many other examples. The world is full of integrated dance and music, of course; but that is the norm from which Western culture has separated itself. I also wonder how much the funding infrastructure has contributed to separating discipline lines. In speaking with Naomi, we wondered whether the restructuring of the Canada Council’s community-engaged practices funding may affect them. BB: Naomi just told me that they lost a part of their funding for All Bodies Dance Project from another agency. I just can’t wrap my head around that. I can understand that if I have an idea as an artist it may not get supported, but she is fulfilling a basic community need, that no one else is really fulfilling, and she does it so well. As a musician, I come away from that group feeling the opposite of the ‘accompanist vibe’ we were talking about earlier. I just feel like a human being, and that we have discovered something together. Naomi is amazing at facilitating.
I really like the discussion that I have been getting in the last five years working with dancers. I immediately noticed a difference in my playing, and in my approach to art in general when I started working with them. One aspect is the acknowledgement of the audience. I find that musicians don’t generally do that, while dancers are always talking about the role of the audience, and how they can be more integrated. Liz Lerman asks that question about involvement and division; who gets to dance? Even in contemporary dance performance there is more consideration of the audience than among musicians. Pugs and Crows, my band, have been playing for a decade now, and it occurred to me that we probably never look each other in the eye, let alone the audience, while we are performing. The amazing thing is that we have somehow managed to play with each other and to connect with audiences this way. We just finished a week–long tour of the major jazz festivals of Western Canada, and we are a successful band in the sense that we are playing challenging music, a lot of improvised music, but we can play folk festivals, jazz festivals, rock venues — but we have managed to do that while not acknowledging the audience at all. As you know, when you are playing with someone long enough, you develop a telepathic communication. This last tour with Andria and the Amsterdam players reminded me of this visceral way of playing, where they are very present, and they definitely look you in the eyes. Evelyn Glennie does that, too. I have never had anyone look me in the eyes like Evelyn when we are improvising. Her eyes would be on me like a hawk — ‘Okay, you are making a gesture, you are moving your brush in circles, and I will be playing with these bells…’. It is incredible and Dance Central July/August 2016
21