Svetlana Maraš (Composer)

Musicologist Michael Zwenzner in conversation with Svetlana Maraš.

MZ: So first of all, I would like to ask you just to introduce yourself and your musical activities in a concise way.

 

SM: My name is Svetlana Maraš. I work as a musician, as a composer, as a performer of live electronic music. I also work as a professor of creative music technology at Hochschule für Musik in Basel. And the field of my work encompasses a variety of formats, as I mentioned: live performance, I compose for ensembles, I build sound installations. I love building experimental musical instruments. I love thinking about what I do. And this reflects also in my more theoretical lectures about aesthetics and techniques of electronic music, for example. So I guess I work within the field of experimental music and I work in it daily. So there is a lot of work and thinking from my side when it comes to this whole area.

 

MZ: When you think about your work, would you see yourself anchored in any traditions of music or specific genres? Are there composers that you refer to or music that you refer to–maybe also of a popular kind? What’s your positioning in this respect?

 

SM: I came to an understanding of this very recently that I can position myself in the field that is historically understood under the term of experimental music. So I would say experimental music is kind of the context and the field. And also it really says a lot about the stylistic approach that I have in my work. And I was never influenced that much by, for example, pop art. But on the other hand, by lots of avant-garde art and experimental art. More recently, advances in music, technology, etc. All these things have influenced me a lot.

 

MZ: So you’re not intending to create a personal style, but you will experiment for each new project in a new way and find new solutions and new results somehow.

 

SM: Exactly! With this new work, I’m almost starting to think from scratch what form it will have. How can I approach this idea? Because my understanding is that each idea has an adequate way of being realized. So not all forms fit to all ideas. So I really aim to look into the idea itself. What’s the real way, what’s a good way of representing it?

 

MZ: Okay, so now we’re coming to your new piece. How did this personal constellation between Ensemble Ictus, Pony Says and you come about, and how close was your collaboration with both ensembles in creating the piece?

 

SM: I have worked before with Thilo from the Pony says ensemble. So we got to know each other musically by working on one piece some years ago. And for me, this was a very interesting and challenging combination of having one ensemble which is almost completely electronic and on the other hand a more acoustic kind of ensemble that would come together. So for this piece, I’m trying something very new for me, which is to implement my own way of working with live electronic sound because I’m a solo performer of live electronic music. So with this piece, I’m trying to incorporate this way of working into the ensemble. As mentioned, we have two groups, one electronic and one acoustic, so all the musicians playing electronic instruments will basically approach them the same way that I approach my own live set when I play my concerts.

 

MZ: So you’re also involved as a live electronic performer within the performance of the new piece?

 

SM: No, I won’t be playing. I actually track everything, the whole working process that we built. So we have built together some electronic instruments, we have configured their setups as if I played them with my approach to electronic sound. And now these performers have to use them like new instruments and to learn how to play with them. And I think this is very interesting. I think this is very different than composing a fixed piece of music with fixed sounds. This is rather composing the instruments and working with the technology that is there. So basically these musicians from the ensemble Pony Says have certain setups that I have tried to understand in great detail and to work around with to use them in the way to achieve this sort of like electronic sound which is currently my focus.

 

MZ: And did you also respond compositionally to the interpretative idiosyncrasies and technical skills of those musicians? Has some of this entered your compositional thinking?

 

SM: Sure. In this way of working, the idea is to configure the instruments, to design all the possibilities of how the sound can be manipulated, but then to give them just as an acoustic instruments to these performers who then can use them with whatever techniques or skills or affinities they have when they play with them.

 

MZ: Okay, I understand. Could you give us some further basic information about your new work: Is there already a title, or have you decided already on a title?

 

SM: The title of the piece is Firekeepers. I like this idea. So the piece is, as I say, not fixed or not fixed completely in a timely manner. So it’s open to improvisation and it’s aleatory in a way. So for me, this implies, of course, some heavy improvisation, a certain kind of social hierarchies and behaviors which are very appealing to me. And with the idea of Firekeepers, it should associate the thought that the musicians in the ensemble are working all together with the sound to keep it alive from the beginning to the end, to take it somewhere and not to let it go out.

 

MZ: Okay, I understand. So what can you tell me about the instrumentation for a solo trio and an ensemble? What about the concept of interplay between both ensembles? Is there some competitive concertizing or is it more changing relationships between collective and individuals? How did you work here?

 

SM: I have approached this work mainly thinking about the sound itself, so how the sound is being shaped. For me, it is the main occupation, thinking about this hybrid of mainly electronic but also acoustically enhanced sound. And so in these terms, it all stems from these ideas of how I structure this sound. All these ways of, as you say, relations between the performers. It all depends. It is all influenced by the way the sound itself is being structured.

 

MZ: Okay, So the stage setup doesn’t place the ensembles apart, but combines them? How’s the stage set up?

 

SM: You know, in a way, we have two groups in a very basic split, but this is very much an electronic piece, meaning that everybody is amplified. You know, all this configuration happens in the sound itself. So in the loudspeakers and how these sounds are positioned in space. So the spatial relations on the stage won’t tell you that much.

 

MZ: Okay. Concerning the codification of what you’re doing: You have those modular kinds of notation. Is there also a score, a regularly written score, or is it just organizing by listening to each other or by triggering things or by click track? How’s the organization going on the stage?

 

SM: For me, for very long fixed music has been something that is not appealing to work with. And I think I have almost completely lost interest in something that’s maybe recorded sound or, as I said, sound that is fixed on a timeline. On the other hand, there’s a lot of things which are fixed in this piece, which is the design of the sound and the instruments themselves. So I have worked on this for many years now and it now really got a very profiled shape in my live performance, this approach to working with sound. The idea is that there are no fixed materials with definite durations, but the idea is that they work with sound objects. And these sound objects have been defined in many different ways throughout history. But in my interpretation, these sound objects have a couple of stages, and with the technology that we have today it is possible to have great flexibility in moving through the sound objects, sort of rendering them from one stage to another and back. So it is very flexible how you play with these materials. Not having one strict thing, then another, but really working with one singular thing, which in itself has a certain development. So basically each instrumentalist in the ensemble is provided with sound objects, some of which are implemented in these electronic instruments. For acoustic instruments, they’re defined by the use of notation, which is a more traditional way of notation. But the way that they move through these materials is flexible. So, I’ve done this before. This flexibility of time is something that has been present in my music for a long time. On the other hand, as I said, lots of things are defined by the sound itself. How you play something, how something sounds, where and how long something sounds is already fixed by the definition of what the sound objects are.

 

MZ: Okay, so each performance will come to completely different results or would you say there is a kernel that is in an aesthetic sense, always there, something that you can recognize as being part of this specific piece.

 

SM: For sure. This is to a large extent a composition because it is not free improvisation. That’s kind of a comparison, because I think with our way of working, we are designing a certain framework within which we can move and which allows certain movements to and from certain sounds, so it allows a certain flexibility and elasticity of the material, but is in no ways completely free.

 

MZ: Okay. So there is also a formal design in the end, a dramaturgical sequence of things that you have fixed. Maybe you can explain this a bit.

 

SM: With this way of working, I think it provides the possibility of a very modular combination of the elements that are there. So I could imagine doing another performance with the same ensemble and configuring it differently and so basically combining these materials and durations in different ways. Maybe I should go back once again to explain the idea of these sound objects: So each instrument or instrumentalist has a certain sound object that he or she can play with for a while. This is called an instrument. This instrument allows certain possibilities within one single section, let’s say. And basically, the way this performer moves through this material and the way other performers are moving through their materials is giving some different alignments on a horizontal plane. So this means that–and this is something exciting for me–that some unexpected combinations of these materials can arise every time.

 

MZ: So but do you define the duration of the presentation?

 

SM: Yes, yes, in this sense, that some compartments are defined. And within these there is a certain flexibility of how the performers can interact.

 

MZ: Okay. So I now very well understand what you mean by saying that you are very much focused on the experimental side of presenting the music. Thank you very much.

 

SM: So maybe this was too abstract, but let’s see. Maybe there is something to get out of this.

 

MZ: Also Philip Krebs has composed a new piece for this set up. And my question to him was whether he seeks to create musical symbols for hierarchies and power structures or different forms of sociality within the music, whether this is an interest that is driving you somehow to your music? Is that an aspect that is important for you?

 

SM: I think this is a very important question. Because whatever we do, it reflects our attitudes towards this. And I think the concept of my piece, the title itself is Firekeepers. It really implies that there is a certain kind of togetherness and equality and also an approach of basically thinking about each individual instrument within the ensemble. For me the title of my piece implies a way of working, which allows a certain flexibility for each performer. I think it reflects this idea that these individual performers within the ensemble have complete individual freedom and expression. And so, as you say, power relations are only given through the overall sound itself. All the musicians work to shape this overall sound in a moment. So I think it speaks a lot about this joint kind of attempts to do something together.

 

MZ: So it’s a very democratic fashion to practice music somehow that I like very much, I must say. Would you say so also?

 

SM: I think I would agree with you. And I think it also couples with this idea that I don’t like working with fixed materials in that sense, taking out myself as a composer who specifies exactly what sound comes with what place and what time and duration. So I really tend to position myself within the ensemble in these terms. I define some parts of the piece, but they also define some parts of the piece. And I really like this idea of working. I mean, this idea of equality for me also should reflect the attitude towards the audience, because we don’t know what will come out basically in the end. I see this work rather as a process where both the ensemble and the audience are working together to hear what will happen. So it’s more about this common listening experience than about the presentation of a fixed piece or a fixed work.

 

MZ: Wonderful. Are there any other design levels that are particularly important for the aesthetic perception of your piece that you would like to talk about? What about the sound qualities your you prefer to work with? Would you like to say something about that?

 

SM: Oh, can you just repeat? Just a little bit more elaborate.

 

MZ: It’s just the question about different ways of the parametric approach that you have chosen in terms of sound qualities, of gestural qualities. Is there anything that you would like to speak about which could help the audience to focus in the right way?

 

SM: I’m inspired by technology for sure. And having such a particular setup like this, one part of the ensemble with electronic instruments–this was already something for me to start working with, to see what is the most interesting and creative way of using this setup. So I have made some little workarounds–not to say hacks–of how this equipment can be used in ways that allow certain interpretive possibilities that go beyond this very momentary way of playing, let’s say, a Midi keyboard. But you know, with the touch interfaces that the musicians have, with the possibility of measuring different ways of inputs and interaction, I think we are creating ways to manipulate sound which will reflect in the final way that the music comes together sort of. So I paid a lot of attention to the interaction design of the setup of each instrument. And also something that I think a lot about because I work in electronic music, is this: the piece works in stereo and you have only two loudspeakers basically. And so in this field, from left to right, what can you do? How can I create different acoustic spaces, how can I create different movements and transformations of sound that the audience can perceive as interesting. So this is my occupation, I guess.

 

MZ: And how strongly are those sound worlds connected to the gestural and visual qualities of instrumental playing? Is this very closely connected to each other, or can it also completely drift apart?

 

SM: Well, I think for somebody who doesn’t know exactly how these instruments work…–it’s one of these issues that are happening in general today. I think we have lost the understanding of what happens behind the technology. So especially now in the age of AI technology where everything happens sort of like behind our backs and we are not aware of the whole process anymore, it becomes questionable, you know. Can it be also just a recorded sound or does it make sense to be played? Well, for me, it’s very important that it’s played live because it has to do not so much with performativity, but with interaction. I think the way of interacting with this technology implies certain outcomes on a sound level which are not achievable in a different way. So this is the whole point of what I do, and where I think that with recorded sound and fixed sound, it’s something that they couldn’t achieve. But if I design the ways of using the technology in such ways that this interaction becomes very flexible, very versatile, I think the sound itself becomes different. So this is just for the audience to know. But as I say, I think we live in this age where you can look at one thing and you don’t know what comes out of there as a result. I think it will be very difficult to figure out exactly what is really connected to this. For me, also, the performativity in my works is really not the focus. I think it comes from this interaction with an instrument because I approach electronic music very instrumentally also when I play myself. But I think anything that has to do with how things look, so anything that also maybe goes more towards music theater or whatever, more scenic situations is not at all my focus. My focus is really the sound itself.

 

MZ: Thank you. Very interesting. Maybe we can just come to some more general questions concerning the surrounding festival, which is focusing on many, many different topics. But my question would be: Maybe you would agree when I say that we are living in rather dark times at the moment. And my question would be what is your way of dealing with this, your personal crisis mode as a composer facing reality? Is there any connection or would you like to keep things apart? Aesthetic work or artwork here and your everyday life and all the things that you experience there, also in a political, a social way?

 

SM: I think this is always reflected in my work. So this period of time is always reflected in what we do and how we choose to filter that and show it in our work is a matter of aesthetic decision for me. (…) I don’t think that I ever explicitly address political questions or extra-musical questions. But I think on the structural level, how I approach working with sound, I think on this level it really reflects. So, for example, in the way I approach the use of technology maybe also says something about it. I think the technology should be an approachable and accessible way of working with electronic sound for everybody. And so opening the doors for people to go beyond the very simple and banal things is something that I see we can do to make some progress. And I think we live in the age of sharing multitudes of everything. And embracing this in what we do is probably a crucial part of it. So losing this very deterministic and very particular statement in our work is a way maybe to address, or rather, to connect with the wider community.

 

MZ: Thank you very much. Finally, maybe just to finish our conversation, I would, in an experimental way ask you maybe to give me a very short statement which would be likely to attract people coming to the concert, just giving some information about your piece, about your intentions. If you could do that within just a minute or something, take your time to prepare in your mind. But that would be wonderful just for the social media. You know, we know we have these tiny formats we use in social media. Maybe you would just tell something very concise about your piece and why people should come and listen to it.

 

SM: Okay. So. With the new piece Firekeepers for ensembles Pony Says and Ictus I have tried to incorporate some ways of working with electronic sound that I have been developing throughout years in my live performance. This way of working and actually translating this way of working to a large ensemble is completely new for everybody, for the performers and for me. And there is a great flexibility in the way the sounds can come together in a concert situation. So I would invite the audience to join us because we will all be in the same place, mentally and physically listening to what will come out. Not in the sense that we are making an experiment and we expect a great solution, resolution or something extraordinary to happen. But rather I would invite the audience to join us in the process of hearing how we can develop, maybe sound in some ways of which are, let’s say, not part of the mainstream sound culture.

 

MZ: That’s fantastic. Thank you very much, Svetlana. Wonderful. I really look forward to listening to your piece.