I would have liked to hear all the reactions from all gallery attendees who listened to Canon in J (Not wanting to be an intrusive, interrogative spoiler for the piece, I wisely refrained from interviewing everyone). But as it was, I was pleased enough to hear the small but diverse sampling of opinions from just some of those listeners.
Some expressed to me that they found it unexpectedly "pretty" and harmonic, given the expectations set up on the plaque by the word "macrotonal". For others, it was a jumping off point to discuss microtonal "pitch-lattice" music (to borrow the phrase from Trevor Wishart), an avenue that seems unexplored, misunderstood, or simply, consciously bypassed by those electroacousticians with interests and expectations inclined toward more tonally and rhythmically amorphous timbral construction. Others still seemed merely unengaged by the work, if only to judge by a few noncommital expressions and abridged listening times.
Two main types of criticism were leveled at the work by some of those who clearly were fully engaged in listening, these being A) recording quality, and B) unoriginality. The first technical complaint had to do with the noise-floor and occassional artifacts from splicing in the overdubbing process. With more time, I would indeed like to remove these minor defects.
The limitations of timbre and dynamic envelope were also of some irriation to me, as these distanced the piece from it's relation to Pachelbel's Canon in D, a comparison that I wanted to be at the forefront of gallery patron's minds when listening to the piece.
Criticism B is more a question of how the piece is meant to be listened to and understood. A greater description on the plaque of intentionality or, much better yet, an accompanying primer on the Bohlen-Pierce scale and a brief set of text and illustrations meant to educate and enhance the mathematical perception of the piece-- that might have gone a long way toward appropriately guiding comprehension of the work.
Doing so might have been tantamount to invading/disrupting the art gallery setting with a piece/exhibit more science-museum-esque in display and intent. While some uninhibited souls may consider such an erasure of public space categorization to be an avantgarde action in and of itself, others would undoubtedly consider the exhibit's inclusion to be a thorn in the side of much-courted professionalism/uniformity of atmosphere. Provoking such controversy is not my intent.
One improvement in the presentation within the gallery space:
In retrospect, I believe it would have been advantageous to make the track restart button on the player more noticeable to the gallery patrons. Although the piece could be approached any time during its playback loop, hearing it progression and digress through successive layers of polyphonic complexity may have been easier to approach and appreciate if heard consistently from the beginning.
In regard to future developments/iterations:
I am satisfied with the composition of the piece, though I may rework the performance/recording at a later point. As I mentioned before, I was considering this piece a stepping stone to a live performance (live overdubbing of the three melody lines over a permanently looped bass line). Although I am still fond of this idea, I am frankly burnt out for now and more interested in pursuing entirely original compositions within the Bohlen-Pierce scale rather than works in dialog with any more well-known Baroque masterpieces.
However, I do intend at some point soon to create a video that uses the piece to drive visuals that will be directly educational in intent, rather than abstract or artistic.
