“Experimental Music and Playwriting” by Sheila Duane (_literature_)

Abstract

In 2019, the Dramatists Guild launched a program called #don’t change the words. This prompted many academic discussions regarding artist reinterpretations of plays including plays by living playwrights. This article is a response to the continuous reinterpretation of plays and the relationship to experimental music that encourages new interpretations and changes in performance. As a college instructor in 2024, I am charged with welcoming and educating gender-fluid students who often feel shut out of casting. I believe a more open attitude should be adopted when casting theater performances.

           Is performance art a fixed artform?

           I contend that the performance arts are never fixed and must be open to multiple layers of meaning and interpretation. Many playwrights disagree.

           I asked the following playwrights for their thoughts on this subject: How do you feel when directors and actors suggest a ‘reinterpretation’ of your work, not by changing the words but by shifting genders, races, character ages, historical time periods, etc. in order to ‘experiment’ with the context of the piece? Is this something that you would approve if a reputable experimental theater company, actor, or director asked?

Emma Goldman-Sherman:

“I think it’s a complex question and the answer is, it really depends. I am very open to directorial ideas and have allowed, for example, a two-hander to become a four-hander although I have some regret about that, and eventually so did the director. I think collaborations when things are being created can be really exciting, and then once a piece is created and “set,” hopefully the playwright gets to experience it in accordance with their original vision. After that, I don’t see why productions can’t play with the work, but then it’s not necessarily the playwright’s original vision, is it? And for me, that can be okay, but I don’t think it’s a rule for the field. I think it’s the exception. I was once asked to change a character to accommodate a different casting, so I ended up writing several versions. I liked making the change, and I didn’t mind being asked. I think playwriting is such a rarefied artform these days that if a theatre in Baltimore wants me to change the setting from Philadelphia to Baltimore, I don’t see why that should be a problem. But playwrights should be paid for our work. But that’s not so much experimentation as personalization for a specific production. Experimentation in my mind is doing a two-hander with an ensemble of ten, which I suggest can be done in my play, “Man & Wife.” So, I am indeed open to these things, and they will, after my death, hopefully happen. I would rather have a wildly experimental production than no production at all.”[1]

Lucy Wang:


“Yes, I would be open to experimenting with gender, ethnicities, ages, races as long as words are not changed without approval.”[2]

Edith Freni:

“I think it would depend. I’d want to have a conversation with the director to understand why the desire to recontextualize. In a more abstract or representational work, it likely wouldn’t be a problem. But for a piece really grounded in realism/naturalism, a seemingly small change like recasting gender or race might radically alter the play’s primary question. That could be interesting or disastrous. So, I’m not wholesale opposed. but it warrants a discussion.”[3]

Matthew Paul Olmos:

“I’ve received an email asking about gender before, and while I definitely gave my okay, it was mostly for a couple reasons. I felt the change in gender added an intriguing complexity to the ideas already in the play. The director wrote me asking me to consider it, and very much offered alternatives in case i wasn’t okay with it…it didn’t feel like an ultimatum. 

However, if it was a production that was going to be reviewed, or be seen more publicly than that one was, I would have wanted to have a discussion, or hear more what they felt it was a necessary change, and I might want to ‘adapt’ the play a bit to make it make more sense.”[4]

Donna Hoke:

”I will always hear a request, and most often I’ve said yes, though I have said no. I do feel strongly that new work needs the gift of a director who wants to work with the playwright to present a play that honors the playwright’s intent while allowing freedom for directorial vision. Wanting to change things before I’ve even seen the play wrote seems tantamount to just wanting a different play.”[5]

Experimental Music and Playwriting

           “Horse Sings From Cloud”[6] is a composition written by the respected experimental composer Pauline Oliveros. Like most performances today, people can turn to YouTube to hear Oliveros’ performance of this piece of music. Also on YouTube is a recording of the same composition by The Laptop Orchestra of Louisiana at LSU.[7] The two recordings sound completely different, which would have thrilled Oliveros. She believed that the traditional boundaries between composer and performer must be diminished in an evolving creative culture, insisting that “The creative process is shared.”[8] Fellow American experimental composer John Cage goes further and describes the audience as participants in the creative act: “The emotions – love, mirth, the heroic, wonder, tranquility, fear, anger, sorrow, disgust—are in the audience.”[9] While opinions on these composers and their work vary, it is impossible to ignore our culture’s need for the communion suggested by their ideas.

           Many playwrights, such as Samuel Becket, see their scripts as ‘bibles’ and assert full control over their work and how it is interpreted. Does this idea overlook the fact that that theater is a collaborative space; some playwrights like those mentioned above do consider the philosophies of Oliveros and Cage. And some playwrights view each reading or performance of new work as an evolution and a shared creative process. There are playwrights with whom I’ve worked as an artistic director who are unwilling to change even a stage direction during a performance. This calls into question the nature of theatrical experiences. Are plays, even ten-minute plays, more like paintings than musical performances? If so, it’s true that the Mona Lisa has not changed, but our interpretation of it has. And even ‘finished’ works of art like Waiting for Godot have layers of meaning and interpretation that have evolved as the culture around it has changed.

           For a time, many theater writers evaluated the negative in the communal artistic space called play development. They warn against revising plays based on responses they believe can actually harm a play or convert a story into mishmash in which the unique voice of the playwright is lost. It’s important to note that there can be no comparison between Oliveros’ concept of ‘shared creation’ and the destructive ‘development.’ As in the world of avant-garde music, expanding the creative process doesn’t muddle the voices of playwrights or diminish their power. Instead, it springs a community of artists who hope to share in the experience of performance. Collaboration, without agenda, is a beautiful thing.

           ‘Agenda:’ the watchword of a new political era. This may be the reason collaboration has become problematic. Allowing revision of a play without sustaining the voice and vision of the playwright is like drowning the baby. But parents often believe their babies are perfect even though that opinion may not be shared by others. In a shared creative space, collaboration without agenda doesn’t drown the playwright’s vision. Sometimes recontextualizing a play adds to its relevance. This is why the full creative process, which includes human relationships, is so important. The community of artists, actors, directors, designers, and other playwrights is essential. When collaborators are welcomed into the circle with respect and a common goal, achieving the voice of the play, agenda is often diminished or even eliminated.

           There’s a famous urban legend about the actor Steve McQueen, the King of Cool, and his character development discussions with directors. He was very protective of his antihero image and often asked for script modifications to maintain his persona as fearless and laudable. On the surface, his maintenance of this image could be described as his ‘agenda.’ However, it could also be said that McQueen considered himself to be just as much an artistic partner in the production of his films as the directors and writers. There is a difference between embracing and fighting for  the integrity of a character or a piece of writing and dismissing the voices of artistic partners and the theater community. Further, times have changed, and the character on the hero’s journey holds a different place in the modern world than the terrain of Steve McQueen. Traditionally, heroes are alone on their journeys. The solo artist is isolated in an era when conversation has become dangerous in the universe of social media and political divide. Theater as a community can help artists feel less alone and less fearful of losing their voices in the ambition of the mob. Keening in the wilderness can be isolating.

           I recently rehearsed a monologue with a fabulous, open-minded actor who immediately read the intent of my piece. My conception of how she ‘should’ perform the piece evolved during two rehearsal hours. Her collaboration helped me to craft a more comprehensive realization of my vision. At the end of that short rehearsal, I came to believe that she understood my piece as well as or even better than I did. I’m not an actor, but I have known actors who had overwhelming agendas. Is that a sign of the times? Or is it dependent on the individual actor? Whatever objectives playwrights assign to their cohort, the world today, even the world of theater, might benefit from the kind of communion prescribed by Oliveros and Cage.

           I believe people should listen to other people. This is especially true in the creative universe. Playwrights should listen to actors, and actors should listen to playwrights. As a general rule, the audience is there to listen and, hopefully, participate in the story being told. Playwrights don’t have to rewrite based on feedback or even allow changes to a piece of writing. The playwright is the final voice. But respecting the process and listening is fundamental in any community. Pushback and resentment don’t enhance a shared creative space. Further, these open spaces may lessen the isolation caused by the pandemic, by social media, and by the political divisions in the nation. John Cage once described his effort as an artist saying, “I am trying to be unfamiliar with what I’m doing.”[10] What could be better than to discover our own voices in another’s understanding of what we write when the “creative process is shared.”[11]


[1] Emma Goldman-Sherman, playwright. Interview by S Duane. Email. April 11, 2024.

[2] Lucy Wang, playwright. Interview by S Duane. Email. April 11, 2024.

[3] Edith Freni, playwright. Interview by S Duane. Email. April 11, 2024.

[4] Matthew Paul Olmos, playwright. Interview by S Duane. Email. April 11, 2024.

[5] Donna Hoke, playwright. Interview by S Duane. Email. April 11, 2024.

[6] Pauline Oliveros, “Horse Sings From  Cloud,” track A on Accordion & Voice, Lovely Music Ltd., 1982, vinyl.

[7] Erin Demastes, “Horse Sings From Cloud,” YouTube video, 4:57, November 1, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9GiCTipbCE

[8] Pauline Oliveros, “Four Meditations for Orchestra,” Deep Listening Publications – ASCAP, 1996.

[9] John Cage, “Silence: Lectures and Writings,” Wesleyan University, 2011.

[10] John Cage, “Silence: Lectures and Writings,” Wesleyan University, 2011.

[11] Christopher Sutton, “Interview: Deep Listening – The Story of Pauline Oliveros,” Online, date unknown, https://www.musical-u.com/learn/interview-deep-listening-the-story-of-pauline-oliveros/

Bibliography

Cage, John. “Silence: Lectures and Writings,” Wesleyan University, 2011.

Demastes, Erin. “Horse Sings From Cloud,” YouTube video, 4:57, November 1, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9GiCTipbCE

Freni, Edith. Interview bySDuane. Email. April 11, 2024.

Goldman-Sherman, Emma. Interview bySDuane. Email. April 11, 2024.

Hoke, Donna. Interview bySDuane. Email. April 11, 2024.

Olmos, Matthew Paul. Interview bySDuane. Email. April 11, 2024.

Pauline Oliveros, “Four Meditations for Orchestra,” Deep Listening Publications – ASCAP, 1996.

Pauline Oliveros, “Horse Sings From  Cloud,” track A on Accordion & Voice, Lovely Music Ltd., 1982, vinyl.

Lucy Wang, playwright. Interview bySDuane. Email. April 11, 20

About the Author

Sheila Duane is a teacher, playwright, and associate artistic director of a small play-reading program in Holmdel, New Jersey. Sheila is an alumnus of the DUAF; her plays, The Palmist, The Loom, and Restoration Parts, have been chosen to be part of the festival between 2020 and 2022. Recently, her plays have also been produced at the JSAC in Ocean Grove, in Long Branch, Middletown, and Maplewood, NJ, in Florida with Femuscripts, and at the Magnetic Theater in North Carolina.