Max Savikangas: Maito jousikvartetille ja lausujalle
Milk for string quartet and reciter
Programme note
Maito (Milk) for string quartet and a reciter was inspired by the similarly titled text by an artist friend Teemu Mäki. The text was originally part of Mäki’s video art work. At the end of the video the text is read while a female head in an aquarium is slowly covered in milk. This video inspired me to write a composition based on the same text. Milk is a melodrama, combining music and spoken text, which is a form of composition that I feel is too often overlooked nowadays.
Max Savikangas
Max Savikangas characterizing his music
In my compositions, I have constantly aimed at widening the expression scale of the viola - and consenquently other instruments as well. However, my new playing techniques are not the final goal, but a necessary method to achieve my own musical expression. Perhaps there was a good reason to call me - as banal as it may sound - "The Hendrix of the Viola" (Jukka Isopuro in his cd review, Helsingin Sanomat, Finland, 2004)?
The starting point in my instrumental composing is improvising. I enjoy improvising on the viola, and as often happens, some ideas survive and begin to live their own lives. Some of these ideas end up as starting points of written compositions. The nucleus of my composing is therefore the heard sound, perhaps in opposition to some more abstract ideas on paper or in a computer. Larger musical forms are born from interesting sound events – if they are strong enough to survive. Improvisation has a special meaning to me as a performing musician as well.
This doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t have a great interest in music that is notated in every detail. For example Milk is notated very carefully, and my viola repertoire includes a large number of technically difficult works by more and less well-known contemporary composers.
I’m is also very interested in developing the viola as an instrument. I play on a viola built in 2002, a model which I have been working on with the Finnish luthier Pekka Mikael Laine since 1998, utilising computer spectral analysis.
In addition to composing and playing the viola, I have been involved in multi-disciplinary co-projects often utilising sound, image and information technology. Largest such project was the composition workhop for children in connection to the Hugo Simberg exhibition at the Ateneum Art Museum (2000). Another multi-disciplinary work in progress is entitled Ääninen, which is an internet-based Finnish sound vocabulary and compositional environment for children, published on the internet in 2002 (www.siba.fi/aaninen). Ääninen was also modified into a reduced, three-language version for Music Exhibition at Heureka, The Finnish Science Centre in Helsinki, Finland (2005-2006).
Max Savikangas 2009
MAITO / MJÖLK / MILK
Teemu Mäki: voiceover text to milk (29/10/1998)
ORIGINALLY TEXT FOR A VIDEO BY ARTIST TEEMU MÄKI IN COLLABORATION WITH ANJA BARGUM AND ÅSA WALLENIUS. Performers: Anja Bargum, Åsa Wallenius. Camera: Liisa Lounila. Production: Theater Academy (Helsinki), Academy of Fine Arts (Helsinki). Made in Teemu Mäki's "Uttrycksutopier"-workshop in the Theater Academy (Swedish Department). Distribution: www.av-arkki.fi, www.teemumaki.com
This text is also used as the reciter text for MAITO, a composition by Max Savikangas (1999) for string quartet and reciter (to be reciter either in Finnish, Swedish or English).
IN ENGLISH
Somebody starves to death somewhere, somebody else feasts in luxury somewhere else. What is their relation? If the luxury is there at the expense of the starved, does it automatically cause guilt in the mind of the exploiter? If the feeling of guilt does arise, does the luxury lose its taste? If the guilt, experience of it, doesn’t arise, is the exploiter emotionally numb? To be without guilt, is it to be unable or unwilling to
feel in general? Can you experience guilt, suffer from it, and yet whenever the time is right just switch to another mode and willingly enjoy feasting at the expense of others? Somebody is dying of hunger on the other side of the TV-screen; somebody else is feasting on this side of the TV-screen. This is a fact. Who is hurt by this? The one who dies of hunger. The 10-years-old in slave labor in a sneaker factory. What about me? Who benefits from this? The owners of the sneaker factory? The one who feasts and watches telly. Does the ice-cream have more intense taste when on TV there is something to compare it with, ice-creamlessness? If on the other side of the screen there was somebody with chocolate, should I have the most expensive caviar to still have this luxurious feeling? If everybody gets caviar, a Mercedes and vacations in Bermudas, will we some day all of a sudden realize that a carrot, day care and sauna is enough? Tell that to the last cupful of rice. If everybody had TV and chocolate, would the paradise be not only here but everywhere? Or would at least the desperation be gone? An unemployed person who is more interested in alcohol than the public library: how much happier is he than the starving one? What do I use to measure the difference? Am I now getting rather gloomy? Let’s get back to the point. What if I decide that the deprivation of the majority is not the result of the luxury of the minority, if the privileged are not feasting at the expense of the poor, do I still think that the poor must be helped? Does guilt arise? Does it lead to action? On whose behalf and against whom? Or do I choose pity? Maybe also
charity? Unless it interferes with my mortgage payments. Are pity and charity the results of the ill feeling that seeing a being like me starve to death causes? Or are the pity and charity a result of the wealth? Because of my wealth I can afford them. Because of my wealth I need them. Why? I'm standing on top of the mountain of my riches, and to experience the sweet dizziness of it I have to look down, and down there in the abyss there must be people starving to death. The underprivileged must be helped; do I think so because that's just how it is, automatically, or because it’s in my own interest to do so, not to be faced with an angry revolt of the poor later? Is that what I'm afraid of? Or am I afraid that myindifference to people starving proves my affection to my child shallow and false? Does it? Shallow and false to whom? To me, to others or to my child? Can't the commandant of a concentration camp, in his spare time, be a good father?
(Enlish translation: Teemu Mäki)
IN FINNISH
Joku kuolee nälkään jossain, joku toinen herkuttelee jossain toisaalla. Mikä heidän suhteensa on? Jos herkuttelu tapahtuu toisen nälkiintymisen kustannuksella, synnyttääkö se automaattisesti syyllisyyttä riistäjässä? Jos syyllisyyden tunne syntyy, viekö se herkusta maun? Jos syyllisyyttä, syyllisyyden tunnetta, ei synny, onko herkuttelijan tunne-elämä laimeaa — onko syyllisyyttä vailla oleminen kykenemättömyyttä tai haluttomuutta tunteisiin? Voiko syyllisyyttä tuntea, kärsiä siitä, ja tarpeen tullen kuitenkin paitsi unohtaa, myös peräti vaihtaa vaihdetta ja täysin rinnoin nauttia herkuttelusta toisen kustannuksella? Joku nälkiintyy jossain, tv-ruudun tuolla puolen, joku toinen herkuttelee, tv-ruudun tällä puolen, tämä on tosiasia. Kenelle tästä on haittaa? Sille, joka kuolee nälkään. Sille, joka on 10-vuotiaana pakkotyössä lenkkitossutehtaassa. Entä minulle? Kenelle asiaintilasta on hyötyä? Lenkkitossutehtailijalle? Tv:n ääressä herkuttelijalle? Maistuuko herkku herkummalta, kun tv:ssä on sille vertailukohta, herkuttomuus? Jos ruudun tuolla puolen olisi joku syömässä suklaata, pitäisikö minulla olla kalleinta kaviaaria, että herkku tuntuisi joltain? Jos kaikille hankitaan kaviaari, Mersu ja palmurantaloma,
havahdummeko joskus siihen että porkkana, päivähoito ja sauna ovat tarpeeksi? Sano se viimeiselle riisikupille. Jos kaikilla olisi tv ja suklaata, olisiko paratiisi ei vain täällä vaan kaikkialla? Tai olisiko edes
epätoivo poissa? Työtön, joka hakee mielummin viinaa kuin kirjastokortin, kuinka paljon onnellisempi hän on kuin nälkäänäkevä? Millä mittaan? Olenko nyt kovin synkkä? Pysytäänpä asiassa. Jospa keksinkin, että enemmistön nälkiintyminen ei johdu vähemmistön herkuttelusta, jos herkuttelu ei tapahdu
herkuttomien kustannuksella, ajattelenko silti että vähäosaista pitää auttaa? Syntyykö syyllisyys? Johtaako se tekoihin? Kenen puolesta ja ketä vastaan? Vai valitsenko säälin? Ehkä myös hyväntekeväisyyden? Sikäli kuin se ei romuta asuntolainani maksuaikataulua. Ovatko sääli ja hyväntekeväisyys seurausta pahoinvoinnista, jonka kaltaiseni mutta nälkään kuolevan olion näkeminen tuottaa? Vai ovatko sääli ja hyväntekeväisyys seurausta hyvinvoinnista? Vaurauteni vuoksi minulla on varaa niihin. Rikkauteni vuoksi tarvitsen niitä. Miksikö? Seison vaurauteni vuorenhuipulla, ja jotta tuntisin juovuttavaa huimausta siitä, on monien kuoltava rotkon pohjalle ja minun katsottava heitä. Vähäosaista pitää auttaa, ajattelenko että niin vain on, myötäsyntyisesti, vai että niin kannattaa tehdä, oman edun vuoksi, ettei vähäosainen myöhemmin tule tänne kostamaan? Sitäkö pelkään? Vai sitä, että välinpitämättömyyteni nälkiintyviä kohtaan tekee kiintymykseni omaa lastani kohtaan epäuskottavaksi? Tekeekö se? Epäuskottavaksi kenelle? Minulle, muille vai lapselle? Eikö keskitysleirin komendantti voi olla vapaa-aikanaan hyvä isä?
IN SWEDISH
En dör av svält någonstans, en annan frossar någon annanstans, vilket är förhållandet mellan dem? Om frosseriet sker på den svältandes bekostnad, föder det då automatiskt skuldkänslor hos den som tar för sig? Om du känner skuld — dödar det aptiten? Om du inte känner skuld, betyder det att du är känslokall? Att du inte kan eller vill känna? Kan man känna skuld, lida av det och ändå vid behov helt och fullt njuta av att frossa på någon annans bekostnad? En dör av svält på andra sidan av TV-rutan, en annan frossar på den här sidan av TV-skärmen, det är ett faktum. Vem lider av det här? Den som dör av svält. Den tioåring som tvångsarbetar på en skofabrik. Och jag då? Vem drar nytta av situationen? Fabriksägaren? Frossaren framför TV:n? Smakar glassen mer när det finns något på TV att jämfcsra det med — glasslöshet? Om någon i TV-rutan åt choklad skulle jag då vara tvungen att ha den mest exklusiva kaviaren för att det ska smaka gott? Om alla får kaviar, en Mercedes och solsemester, inser vi då någonsin att det kunde räcka med en morot, dagis och bastu? Säg det till den sista koppen ris. Om alla hade TV och glass, skulle paradiset då finnas inte bara här utan överallt? Skulle förtvivlan och desperation ens försvinna? En arbetslös som hellre köper en flaska sprit än går till biblioteket och lånar en bok — hur mycket lyckligare är han än den som svälter? Hur mäter vi det? Är jag väldigt dyster? Låt oss hålla oss till saken. Om jag kom på att majoritetens hunger inte beror på minoritetens frosserier, om frosseriet inte sker på den hungrandes bekostnad — tycker jag ändå att man ska hjälpa dem som har det sämre? Föds en skuldkänsla? Leder den till handling? För vem och mot vem? Eller väljer jag medlidande? Kanske också välgörenhet? Så länge som det inte hotar återbetalningstakten på mitt bostadslån. Är medlidande och välgörenhet en följd av det illamående jag känner när jag ser en svältande varelse som är lik mig? Eller är medlidande och välgörenhet en följd av välfärden? Det är på grund av min välfärd som jag har råd med dem. Det är på grund av min välfärd som jag behöver dem. Varför? Jag står på mitt berg av rikedom och för att jag ska kunna uppleva den svindlande känslan av mitt välstånd måste många dö i klyftans botten och jag måste titta på dem. Man ska hjälpa dem som har det sämre, tycker jag automatiskt att så är det bara eller tycker jag att det lönar sig att hjälpa för min egen skull. Så att inte de som far illa senare kommer hit för att häinnas. Ar det vad jag är rädd för? Eller är det så att om jag inte bryr mig om den svältande blir min kärlek till mitt eget barn mindre trovärdig? Blir den det? Mindre trovärdig för vem? För mig, för andra eller barnet? Kan inte komendanten för ett koncentrationsläger vara en god far?
(Svensk översättning: Anna Andersson)
IN ENGLISH
Somebody starves to death somewhere, somebody else feasts in luxury somewhere else. What is their relation? If the luxury is there at the expense of the starved, does it automatically cause guilt in the mind of the exploiter? If the feeling of guilt does arise, does the luxury lose its taste? If the guilt, experience of it, doesn’t arise, is the exploiter emotionally numb? To be without guilt, is it to be unable or unwilling to
feel in general? Can you experience guilt, suffer from it, and yet whenever the time is right just switch to another mode and willingly enjoy feasting at the expense of others? Somebody is dying of hunger on the other side of the TV-screen; somebody else is feasting on this side of the TV-screen. This is a fact. Who is hurt by this? The one who dies of hunger. The 10-years-old in slave labor in a sneaker factory. What about me? Who benefits from this? The owners of the sneaker factory? The one who feasts and watches telly. Does the ice-cream have more intense taste when on TV there is something to compare it with, ice-creamlessness? If on the other side of the screen there was somebody with chocolate, should I have the most expensive caviar to still have this luxurious feeling? If everybody gets caviar, a Mercedes and vacations in Bermudas, will we some day all of a sudden realize that a carrot, day care and sauna is enough? Tell that to the last cupful of rice. If everybody had TV and chocolate, would the paradise be not only here but everywhere? Or would at least the desperation be gone? An unemployed person who is more interested in alcohol than the public library: how much happier is he than the starving one? What do I use to measure the difference? Am I now getting rather gloomy? Let’s get back to the point. What if I decide that the deprivation of the majority is not the result of the luxury of the minority, if the privileged are not feasting at the expense of the poor, do I still think that the poor must be helped? Does guilt arise? Does it lead to action? On whose behalf and against whom? Or do I choose pity? Maybe also
charity? Unless it interferes with my mortgage payments. Are pity and charity the results of the ill feeling that seeing a being like me starve to death causes? Or are the pity and charity a result of the wealth? Because of my wealth I can afford them. Because of my wealth I need them. Why? I'm standing on top of the mountain of my riches, and to experience the sweet dizziness of it I have to look down, and down there in the abyss there must be people starving to death. The underprivileged must be helped; do I think so because that's just how it is, automatically, or because it’s in my own interest to do so, not to be faced with an angry revolt of the poor later? Is that what I'm afraid of? Or am I afraid that myindifference to people starving proves my affection to my child shallow and false? Does it? Shallow and false to whom? To me, to others or to my child? Can't the commandant of a concentration camp, in his spare time, be a good father?
(Enlish translation: Teemu Mäki)
|
