David Tudor's Rainforest

LMJ14_001- 11/15/04 9:13 AM Page 25

David Tudor’s Rainforest: An Evolving Exploration of Resonance

John Driscoll ABSTRACT Of the works of David Tudor, and Matt Rogalsky none would seem to be better known than Rainforest IV, his large-scale performed installation of the 1970s. Although it has received widespread and well- documented public performance, Rainforest’s germination MATT ROGALSKY: RAINFORESTS I, II AND III the existence of Rainforest IV implies in the mid-1960s in elements of that there must be Rainforests I, II Bandoneon! (1966) and its The key word in the title of this article is “evolving.” As we sur- evolution over a period of 10 vey David Tudor’s electronic music career, it is important to and III. But identifying these ver- years, from versions I (1968), II bear in mind that the specific instances that we call his “pieces” sions has not been a clear-cut pro- (1968–1969), III (1972) and IV or “works” could just as well, and perhaps more correctly, be cess and has brought me to a more (1973) through Forest Speech holistic perspective. As Tudor said (1976), have not yet been viewed as points in a continuum. Certainly this is the case for adequately assessed. This paper the works in his Rainforest series, which stretches for a decade in a 1988 interview, “My preference follows Rainforest’s trajectory over four “versions” and in which I include, as an experimen- is to use modular materials which chronologically: Matt Rogalsky tal prelude, his 1966 Bandoneon!, and as a kind of postlude, can change from piece to piece. focuses on the early versions of the work, and John Driscoll Forest Speech (1976–1979). And also it enables me to expand a piece by adding components to it describes the collaborative The most convincing arguments for approaching Tudor’s development of Rainforest IV. work from this perspective are the recurring comments I have which were not in the original for- heard in interviews and discussions with his colleagues: that mation” [1]. his performance practice was based on experimentation and In my half of this article, I wish to constant change; that it was a rarity for a piece to be assem- look at the development of the small-scale versions of Rain- bled in exactly the same way twice; and that Tudor’s score di- forest between 1966 and 1972, prior to the 1973 workshop in agrams, while giving some idea of the principles at work in his New Hampshire that led to the creation of the large-scale compositions, are definitely not to be mistaken for blueprints group version, Rainforest IV. “Small-scale” refers to the scale of that might define an “authentic” performance setup. the loudspeaker objects; for versions I–III, this meant of a size Observing the stream of the works’ development as parti- that permitted packing in a suitcase for ease in touring. cles rather than as waves, we can clearly hear that the com- The first version of Rainforest was commissioned by the positions that Tudor named—these points along a Merce Cunningham Dance Company (MCDC) in 1968 for an continuum—do have quite specific sonic identities. Moreover, initial fee of $500 plus $25 per performance [2]. The piece has its origins, however, in Bandoneon!, the work Tudor created for the show 9 Evenings of Theatre and Engineering in October 1966. We could look even further back than this: John Driscoll (composer), Shadow Interactive, Inc., 114 Devonshire Drive, New Hyde Park, NY 11040, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]. Tudor’s interest in the resonance of physical objects probably Matt Rogalsky (media artist), 94 Main Street, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7K 3Y8. E-mail: has its origins in the experience of performing such works as [email protected]. John Cage’s Cartridge Music (1960), which depends on the An earlier version of this article was presented at the symposium “The Art of David Tudor: basic idea of revealing the sonic characteristics of everyday ob- Indeterminacy and Performance in Postwar Culture,” held at the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, 17–19 May 2001. Documentation of the symposium is available at: jects. The work that Tudor identifies as his own first composi- http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/digitized_collections/david tion, Fluorescent Sound (1964), is a creative extension of the tudor/symposium.html. Cartridge Music principle: the amplification of small sounds.

Fig. 1. Rainforest IV, generalized diagram, 1973. (© Estate of David Tudor)

good ones out of a wide range of appar- ent possibilities. Tudor described Rain- forest as a piece that “teaches itself” [10], and here we catch a glimpse of him as its first student. Following 9 Evenings, the loudspeaker- object idea was laid aside for a number of months, until Merce Cunningham commissioned a piece from Tudor for his new dance Rainforest. In Tudor’s words, Merce Cunningham asked me for a piece. Well, I have those things lying around, so I might as well put them to use. So, the first thing I did was to work on an amplifier to run them. I made an eight channel amplifier with small capacity. And I made objects which I could travel with. And they were so small they didn’t have any sounding presence in the space, so I then amplified the outputs with the use of contact microphones [11]. The use of contact microphones on Fig. 2. Sliding Pitches in the Rainforest in the Field, installation view, Chocorua, New Hampshire, the transduced speaker-objects in this 1973. (Photo © John Driscoll) first version of Rainforest harkens back to Cartridge Music and Fluorescent Sound. It also raises the question of exactly where According to interviews, Tudor’s in- parently descended from a design devel- the sonic identity of a Rainforest object is terest, dating back to 1965, lay in finding oped for underwater use by the U.S. Navy. to be found; the (in)fidelity of Rainforest a means of making objects reveal their Tudor obtained a number of the com- objects depends not only on the objects own resonant characteristics rather than mercial transducers, and they were inte- themselves but also and as much on the using them as instruments to be played grated into his contribution to the 9 frequency response of the object in each manually. He put it this way: “One didn’t Evenings, Bandoneon!, as “instrumental stage of transduction. The transducers have to think of the generation of elec- loudspeakers” mounted on four radio- do not transmit bass frequencies effi- tronic music from signal source to the re- controlled carts [6] that roamed the ciently; the piezoelectric phonograph producing output, but one, instead, space during his performance. Sound was cartridges originally used for pickups might just as well start from the other end directed to 12 conventional loudspeakers have good bass response but roll off and go back and arrive at a signal in addition to the roving carts, which were quickly in higher frequencies. All these source.” Tudor described this revelation used for “spatial variation” [7]. limitations contribute to the overall sonic as an instantaneous “dream-vision of an The four instrumental loudspeakers presence of a Rainforest object, which of orchestra of loudspeakers, each speaker were, according to Tudor’s notes: course is ultimately dependent on the being as unique as any musical instru- 1. aluminum sheets (suspended ca. 15 choice of sound materials to be trans- ment” [3]. ft) duced through it. The type of audio transducer that 2. steel tray with vibrating appendages Gordon Mumma recalls that while Tudor found to cause physical objects to 3. two 14-inch wooden planks mounted Tudor was developing the piece, he did resonate in the way that he imagined was at 90º not have a name for it, and when he basically a speaker without a cone, which 4. plate glass (push-pull driven) [8] heard that the dance was to be called could be attached to a wall or a door and Other notes describe materials con- Rainforest, he said, “Now there’s a title” so become part of a home hi-fi system. sidered: [12]. So any connection between the title The year 1966 was apparently one of en- • sheet rock of the piece and its sonic content is ap- thusiasm for the idea of such a device: • glass parently coincidental. However, in a later Among Tudor’s papers we find a Popular • wood: description of the piece, Tudor wrote, Mechanics article from June 1966, de- masonite “The composition was implemented thru scribing to the home hobbyist how to barrel the construction of special insts. [instru- “Build a FANTASTIC CONELESS • metal: bronze thundersheet ments], which can be manipulated to LOUDSPEAKER! Here are the complete • furniture produce sounds resembling those of na- plans that you asked for after reading •try: ture”; and in an interview in the 1980s, about this amazing speaker in our De- metal pipe const. Tudor described Rainforest I’s sound cember issue” [4]. Also found in the fibreglass sources as “oscillators that made animal- Tudor collection is a copy of the same ar- jointed metal const. like and bird-like sounds” [13]. Thus con- ticle from a September 1966 Portuguese Piano [9] nections to an (imaginary) natural edition of the magazine [5]. Here we get a sense of Tudor going soundscape do exist, even in this strictly In 1966, audio transducers were not through the learning process that all sub- electronic version of Rainforest. available only to hobbyists willing to sequent Rainforest participants have ex- An anecdote from Jean Rigg in March spend hours painstakingly constructing perienced. Not all materials make good 1970 illuminates these connections—or them; they were commercially available resonators; it requires a process of trial their boundaries—further. Tudor was as well. The commercial models were ap- and error to come up with a handful of not touring with the Cunningham Com-

26 Driscoll and Rogalsky, David Tudor’s Rainforest LMJ14_001- 11/15/04 9:13 AM Page 27

pany; he was in Japan at the time, work- The next two options are intriguing be- sound library that Tudor, Ritty Burch- ing on the Experiments in Art and Tech- cause they seem together to constitute field and geographer Peter Poole gath- nology (EAT) Pepsi Pavilion at Expo 70 Rainforest II, and yet there does not appear ered together in 1969 and 1970 for use in Osaka. Rigg wrote to him: to be any specific record of their perfor- in EAT’s Pepsi Pavilion at Expo 70. Poole mance as compositions in their own right. brought recordings of deer and birdsong we got to the aviary in Pittsburgh, Gor- don [Mumma] w/ tape recorder, and Tudor later stated, “In the second version from the U.K.; recordings of satellite data John [Cage]. . . . and I got in to an amus- I wanted to use a vocal input to the sys- communications were gathered at the Jet ingly heated battle over whether or not tem” [19]. Mumma recalls that as part of Propulsion Laboratory; a U.S. Navy lab Gordon’s aviary recordings belonged in Cunningham’s Events—dance perfor- in California provided recordings of neu- that night’s performance of Rainforest. Well, I don’t know what was amusing mances made up of scenes from numer- ral activity. Some of the first recordings about it except maybe to find myself in ous other Cunningham dances, collaged of whale song were also included. Some heated battle with John in the first place. seamlessly together, with “free” musical sounds were recorded by the team them- Anyway, it was finally agreed that the accompaniment—Tudor experimented selves, including a vivid one of mosqui- recordings were, to use David Behrman’s with processing Cage’s vocalizations. toes in a jar. The tapes had to be tactful description, “too literal” [14]. These experiments were overlaid with “rescued” when PepsiCo decided they The piece was intended for perfor- contributions from the other company would take over control of their pavilion mance by a duo, “piano-four-hands” style, musicians. There are no specific musical from EAT. Peter Poole recalls a 3 A.M. in Mumma’s words, with each player tak- credits given for Events, so it is impossible phone call from artist Robert Whitman, ing responsibility for four objects and shar- from Cunningham Dance Foundation who warned “Gotta get the tapes out!”; ing access to a single mixer. (The records to establish what the musicians Poole and Whitman were then accosted performer would send signals to the trans- were doing for any given performance. by a policeman as they threw tapes over ducers attached to those objects.) Mumma However, I have found no record of op- the pavilion perimeter [21]. Burchfield says of the style of interaction that tions 2 and 3 above receiving perform- remembers smuggling other tapes out a ances as concert works, so if they were few at a time in the pavilion cleaners’ I was surprised to see how often David just sat aside, not doing anything except per- performed at all—and I assume they were, carts [22]. haps a level adjustment. He would listen because the list of options is so specific— Tudor made four significant sound carefully, sometimes taking notes (when it seems likely that they were realized by pieces for the Pepsi Pavilion, and the li- there was enough light), and then re- Cage and Tudor as Event contributions. brary of tapes continued to be an im- enter so that we were working together, If the versions with vocal input are portant resource throughout the rest of or I might “step aside,” in particular when David got lots of sound going [15]. Rainforest II, then the version identified his career, appearing in various compo- as “option 4” in the above list is Rainfor- sitions and used as source material for Mumma recalls that from 1970 Tudor est III. Certainly option 4 describes the Events performances with Merce Cun- began making source tapes of electroni- technical characteristics of the version ningham. cally generated sounds to replace the that was developed as a double perfor- According to Tudor’s diagrams for the hardware oscillators in order to facilitate mance with Cage and toured throughout 1972 version of Rainforest, designed for performance by others (specifically Europe in the summer of 1972. Several simultaneous performance with Cage Cage) without deep technical knowledge documents in Tudor’s papers support reading his text Mureau, only four of his setup. The piece was also occa- the identification of this version as Rain- loudspeaker-objects were employed, with sionally performed as a solo when MCDC forest III [20]. input from two stereo-cassette decks for was especially short of musicians, in The “various taped materials” of op- four separate tracks of audio source ma- which case “the sounding materials of tion 4 were drawn from an extensive terial. Pickups on the objects amplified Rainforest were somewhat simpler, but not dramatically so, because when we per- Fig. 3. David Tudor and John Driscoll at their performers’ tables, ICA, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- formed together we always left room for vania, 1979. (Photo © Kira Perov) what the other was doing” [16]. Tudor’s description of Rainforest dated 1968 (but written in 1972, I believe) [17] cites these four possible realizations: 1. Use only signal generators, any kind, as inputs. At least eight will be required. Vary the waveforms. (Note that simpler waveforms generally produce more complex results). 2. One (speaking) voice only as input; the instruments acting as filters. The outputs can be mixed down to two for this version. 3. As (2.) but with up to eight voices, singing or speaking. Four to eight output channels. 4. Various taped materials used as input. Limit these to two at any given time, distributed among the eight channels [18]. Option 1 is the Rainforest used for MCDC. We have already seen that it was subject to several variations in realization.

Driscoll and Rogalsky, David Tudor’s Rainforest 27 LMJ14_001- 11/15/04 9:13 AM Page 28

General Description The work is improvisational by nature and typically performed by a minimum of four performers continuously for 3–6 hours at a time. Between 16 and 40 sculptural speakers are suspended in the space. The work has been installed in approximately 36 different locations (mu- seums, universities, performance centers and theaters), with over 125 individual performances to date. The character of a Rainforest IV performance is that of an informal social environment in which visitors are encouraged to wander and physically interact with the work (e.g. placing one’s ear against the sculptures; feeling the vibrations in one’s hand or against one’s head; and even biting an object, allowing the sound to travel through the bones in one’s head). Per- formers are also free to move about during the performance to monitor the Fig. 4. Installation view, L’espace Pierre Cardin, Paris, 1976. (Photo © Ralph Jones) sculptural speakers and engage in discussions with the audience. Chairs are placed at the performers’ tables to en- their resonances into a four- or eight- To be too obsessive about getting the courage this interaction. David requested channel conventional sound system version numbers right is to risk losing that two particular audiences be invited (Cage did not share Tudor’s system but sight of the broader picture: that of a mu- when possible—the blind and children. had his own four-channel loudspeaker sical practice based on constant modifi- setup solely for his live and prerecorded cation and innovation. Tudor found it Origins of Rainforest IV vocalizations). A preparatory list of useful to retrospectively organize the Rainforest IV was technologically a direct sound sources per object identifies a se- Rainforest series in this way, which sug- outgrowth of the earlier Rainforest ver- lection of laboratory brainwave record- gests that each version represents a sig- sions, using low-powered amplifiers, elec- ings, water sounds, “vibes” (earth nificant stage in the development of an tronic and tape source signals and sound vibrations), and a favorite nightjar idea. But Tudor was himself at times ap- transducers fastened to objects (Fig. 1). recording [23]. A recording of the pre- parently indecisive about how to number However, the characteristics distinguish- miere performance of this version at the series [25], and this does much to ing Rainforest IV from other versions are: Radio Bremen has been released on New suggest how Rainforest may resist such pi- • The creation of a visual and sonic en- World Records [24], and in the mix we geonholing. vironment with 16–40 suspended can aurally identify other Pepsi sounds as sculptural speakers well: a beetle walking, a wasp chewing, • The size of the sculptural speakers JOHN DRISCOLL: the mosquitoes buzzing in their jar. (some as large as 12 12 ft) AINFOREST Unfortunately, the New World release R IV • The duration of the performance of this excellent recording, documenting As Matt Rogalsky mentions above, the ti- (typically 3–6 hours) one of the major (and most pointedly tles of the different versions of Rainforest • The projection of a strong acoustical egalitarian) collaborations between were not as evident as one might assume. presence in the space by each sculp- Tudor and Cage, has muddied the waters The title Rainforest IV only appeared in ture where identification of the various ver- print during negotiations with René • The use of a vibration pickup to am- sions of Rainforest is concerned. Tudor’s Block over the Rainforest LP that he pro- plify the resonant frequencies pres- contribution is (mis-)identified as Rain- duced on Edition Block in 1981 [26]. The ent in the sculpture through the forest II, and the CD liner notes give a mis- first use of the Rainforest IV title was for speakers, creating a reflection of taken description of the piece, stating the installation at the Holland Festival in what the audience hears directly in that Cage’s vocalizations were used as the 1982. A description of Rainforest, which I the object but with additional har- primary input to Tudor’s loudspeaker- authored with David Tudor, follows: monic content objects. As far as I have been able to as- Rainforest IV is an electro-acoustic envi- • The collaboration of 4–10 perform- certain from Tudor’s notes and diagrams ronment conceived by David Tudor and ers (i.e. Composers Inside Electron- and from available recorded evidence, realized by the group Composers Inside ics, discussed below) in the creation that was never the case on this 1972 Eu- Electronics. Each composer has designed of the sculptural speakers, sound ma- and constructed a set of sculptures that ropean tour. The CD notes read, “War- function as instrumental loudspeakers terials and the visual environment. bling sine-wave oscillators are used for under their control, and each indepen- Rainforest IV evolved out of a workshop Rainforest I ...but, by contrast, Rainfor- dently produces sound material to that David presented at the New Music in est II is designed for vocal input.” I agree display their sculptures’ resonant char- New Hampshire Festival at Chocorua, acteristics. The appreciation of Rainfor- with this general description, but unfor- est IV depends upon individual New Hampshire, in the summer of 1973. tunately Rainforest II is not the piece doc- exploration, the audience is invited to The first performance, entitled Sliding umented on the CD. move freely among the sculptures [27]. Pitches in the Rainforest in the Field, took

28 Driscoll and Rogalsky, David Tudor’s Rainforest LMJ14_001- 11/15/04 9:13 AM Page 29

place in a large barn and lasted for ap- formed the work for well over 500 hours evolve over extended periods inter- proximately 5 hours. The “Sliding in total. Over the years a number of other spersed with short-duration local sound Pitches” part of the title came from a composers/artists performed including events unique to one object. joint circuit-building workshop by Gor- David Behrman, Cynthia Black, Nic Because numerous performers are in- don Mumma and David Behrman, and Collins, Russel Frehling, Takehisa Ko- volved and the work is performed for up “in the Field” came from the name of the sugi, Ben Manley, Virginia Quesada, to 5 continuous hours, it is never musi- inn at which the festival was held Prent Rodgers, Ann Sandifur, Richard cally the same from performance to per- (Stafford’s in the Field). The many sculp- Teitelbaum and Andrej Zrajic. formance. It is an improvisational tures included a metal bedspring, a huge coordination of the sound materials, but wine barrel, toilet floats, cast-iron wagon Origins of the Sound Sources one that has become extremely familiar wheel rims, a stainless-steel milk con- Each Rainforest IV performer is responsi- and ingrained in the performers. Since tainer lid, lawn sprinklers, a copper still, ble for producing the sound materials for there is no single listening point, the a Styrofoam box and a large metal cable the particular sculptural speakers he or work is never heard in the same way by (Fig. 2). The performers included John she constructs. These sound materials any two audience members or perform- Driscoll, Phil Edelstein, Linda Fisher, have covered the gamut from electroni- ers, who are arranged in the periphery Martin Kalve, Greg Kramer, Susan cally produced to highly amplified natu- of the space (Fig. 3). This is why per- Palmer, David Tudor and Bill Viola. ral sounds (e.g. a fly walking on paper). formers occasionally walk about testing This first realization of the work was The only restriction David ever men- the sonic balance and density in other probably as much a revelation to David tioned is that there should not be any parts of the space. as it was to the other performers, for a prerecorded musical material used. unique visual and sonic environment was The choice of source material is moti- Evolution of Sculptural created. This performance set the stage vated by the unique set of resonant char- Loudspeakers for the evolution of the work over the acteristics that each sculptural speaker The creation, design and construction of next 31 years. David stated that his in- presents. After investigation, the com- the sculptural speakers is left to each in- tention at Chocorua was to “give away” poser creates material that will tease the dividual composer. The use of specific the Rainforest IV work [28]. This desire speaker’s resonant nodes into strong vi- sculptures varies greatly from installation lay at the heart of the long collaboration bration, creating responses that are highly to installation based upon: that grew into an extended family of as- nonlinear. It is the equivalent of tickling •Weight and shipping cost sociates eventually known as Composers someone—a little input at just the right • Number of performers (each com- Inside Electronics (CIE). spot creates great output. The resonance poser maintains a personal collection nodes of the sculptural speaker con- of objects) Composers Inside Electronics tribute to what is heard as much as do the • Scale and nature of the performance Following the Chocorua performance, original sounds and in some cases influ- space more Rainforest IV installations involving ences the result even more. It is possible •Balance of the sonic properties of the core group took place: in 1974 at the to input a sound that is unrecognizable various materials (metal, plastic, Everson Museum, SUNY Buffalo; and in coming out of the sculpture. For exam- glass, etc.). 1975 at York University, Mills College, ple, David occasionally used two out-of- Because of the varying backgrounds of The Kitchen, Fort Worth Art Museum, phase transducers to create results that each composer, some sculptural speakers DeSaisset Art Gallery and the Los Ange- did not exist in the source material. may be found objects, while others may les County Museum. The 1975 perform- There are no coordinated starting be more elaborately fabricated sculptures. ances at York University and the Fort points and ending points to the work The simplicity or elaborateness of the Worth Art Museum involved both David other than the scheduled durations of sculptural speakers was never specified. and me giving workshops with students the performances. The work relies upon The repertory of available sculptures and then performing with the students. the performers listening to each other increases exponentially as more installa- This led to installations in 1976 at the and responding accordingly. Given the tions of the work take place. Many were Houston Contemporary Art Museum duration of the work, it is possible to cre- unique to a particular installation and are and the Walker Art Museum, followed by ate large shifting sound characters that retired because of difficulty in trans- many other venues. David formed the performance group that became CIE in order to present a series of 13 performances and four installa- Fig. 5. Children tions for the Festival D’Automne at the biting sculpture, Musée Galliera in Paris (1976). The group ICA, Philadel- name evolved from discussions between phia, 1979. David and me, and reflected David’s fas- (Photo © Kira cination with how electronic components Perov) take on their own personalities and suggest musical directions derived from in- tense experimentation with them—thus, Composers Inside Electronics. This newly formed group (Paul De- Marinis, John Driscoll, Phil Edelstein, Linda Fisher, Ralph Jones, Martin Kalve and Bill Viola) became the collaborative nucleus for Rainforest IV and has per-

Driscoll and Rogalsky, David Tudor’s Rainforest 29 LMJ14_001- 11/15/04 9:13 AM Page 30

porting them due to their size or weight. evolved as daylight gave way to artifi- 7. Tudor-Fullemann interview [3]. A number have persisted and become al- cial light (the most striking use of 8. David Tudor, working note for Bandoneon!, David most “classic” sculptures that appear and light was that by the lighting designer Tudor Papers, GRI (980039), Box 3, Folder 2. reappear, some of which grow larger and Beverly Emmons at the Lincoln Cen- 9. Tudor [8]. mutate with time. ter installation in 1998) 10. David Tudor, interview with Matt Rogalsky, 28 Installations at the Los Angeles County • Assembly/disassembly—installation March 1995, Tomkins Cove, NY. Published elec- Museum of Art and the Walker Art Cen- required 1 to 3 days and disassembly tronically at http://www.emf.org/tudor. ter lent themselves to the creation of new approximately 1 day. 11. Tudor-Fullemann interview [3]. sculptures given the easy access to Dis- Because of my sculptural background, 12. Gordon Mumma, e-mail correspondence, April ney’s surplus materials in Los Angeles the task of organizing the space often fell 2001. and Honeywell/3M’s surplus in Min- to me; sometimes it was done in collabo- 13. Tudor-Fullemann interview [3]. neapolis. ration with Phil Edelstein, with input from all the performers. 14. Letter from Jean Rigg to David Tudor, 11 March 1970. David Tudor Papers, GRI (980039), Box 58, Creating the Visual Folder 11. Environment CONCLUSION 15. Gordon Mumma, e-mail correspondence, April A critical aspect of the collaboration 2001. is the arrangement of the objects in The various versions of Rainforest present 16. Gordon Mumma, e-mail correspondence, April the performance space so as to create a rich and stimulating vision of David’s 2001. both a visual and a sonic environment. exploration of resonance. In a testament 17. If the description (which includes four “options” Once a sponsor indicates interest in the to the scope of this vision, Rainforest IV for performing Rainforest) had been written in 1968, work, a site visit is usually necessary to ver- still is being actively performed 31 years it would likely not have included any but the version ify that the space can accommodate the after its inception, and a new group of for dance (option 1). Because the list includes an option that fits the version performed in 1972 on tour requirements of the work. Some sites performers have emerged to carry the with John Cage in Europe, but does not include an have presented unique challenges: at the work forward, including John D.S. option that fits the version developed in 1973 (the large group version known as Rainforest IV), I infer DeSaisset Art Gallery, some 20 suspen- Adams, D’Arcy Philip Gray, Ron Kuivila that the list was written in 1972 and back-dated to sion points had to be individually drilled and Matt Rogalsky. Planning is currently 1968, when the first version was premiered. into the concrete ceiling; a suspended under way to explore the creation of a 18. David Tudor, Rainforest description dated 1968. grid was custom-constructed at the permanent installation of Rainforest IV. David Tudor Papers, GRI (980039), Box 3, Folder 2. Musée Galliera in Paris. Other sites allow In the fall of 1995, a student version of 19. Tudor-Fullemann interview [3]. easy installation, such as the Clark The- Rainforest IV was presented at Bard Col- 20. These include score diagrams and notes that ref- ater at Lincoln Center, with its pipe grid lege. David was in attendance, though at erence the 1972 version as “Rainforest 3”; David for suspending both the sculptures and the time he was blinded by a stroke and Tudor Papers, GRI (980039), Box 3, Folder 28. the theatrical lighting. in a wheelchair. While I was wheeling 21. Peter Poole, telephone conversation, March The numerous issues that are consid- David around, we stopped at one partic- 2001. ered in the installation of the work in- ular sculpture that tickled his interest, 22. Ritty Burchfield, conversation, New York City, clude: and he turned to me and said, “See, this March 2001. • Staggering the sculptures to create was the reason we did this.” 23. David Tudor, notes for Rainforest, 1972. David pathways through the environment Tudor Papers, GRI (980039), Box 44, Folder 8. (Fig. 4) References and Notes 24. New World Records 80540-2, released 2000, doc- • The use of strong anchor points for uments Tudor and Cage’s premiere performance of 1. Interview with David Tudor, Radio 100, Germany Rainforest/Mureau at Radio Bremen, 5 May 1972. suspending heavy objects and audi- 14 June 1988. David Tudor Papers, Getty Research ence safety Institute (GRI) (980039), audio CD C157A. 25. For instance, in one note from 1974 Tudor refers to the 1973 large group version of Rainforest as “RF •Higher overhead suspension for ob- 2. Contract between David Tudor and Merce Cun- III.” David Tudor Papers, GRI (980039), Box 109, ningham Dance Company for commission of Rain- jects having a “loud” acoustical pres- Folder 18; John Driscoll says that this version was not forest, 12 June 1968. David Tudor Papers, GRI identified as Rainforest IV until the 1980s (e-mail cor- ence (980039), Box 16, Folder 10. • Hanging fragile objects, such as respondence, April 2001). 3. Interview with David Tudor by John David Fulle- 26. Rainforest IV (Berlin Version) Edition Block/Gra- Tudor’s sculpture with four Slinkies, mann, Stockholm, 31 May 1984. Published elec- mavision LP GR-EB1 (1980). out of reach tronically at http://www.emf.org/tudor. 27. Publicity document by John Driscoll and David •Creating sculptures that many peo- 4. Popular Mechanics (June 1966). ple can access at once—numerous Tudor, 1979. 5. David Tudor Papers, GRI (980039), Box 37, 28. Tudor-Fullemann interview [3]. objects have worked well this way; the Folder 6. toilet ball floats and the 55-gallon 6. The carts had been developed for choreographer drum often had couples or individu- Deborah Hay’s 9 Evenings performance piece, and Matt Rogalsky’s work as a media artist often als inside while others listened on the Tudor’s borrowing of them apparently caused some focuses on exploration of abject, invisible/in- outside; a gourd with fishing poles friction; according to Robert Kieronski, one of the audible or ignored streams of information. Re- Bell Labs engineers working with Tudor, Tudor saw often had multiple visitors biting on the gadgetry assembled for the series as a commu- cent projects include a series of performance them (Fig. 5); a long copper strip sus- nal pool of resources to be drawn upon by all—a view and installation works exploring radio si- pended high above and arcing down not shared by some of the other artists. Of the dishar- lences, a commission from the Berliner Fest- mony resulting when Tudor began borrowing things, to floor level accommodated many spiele for a new version of John Cage’s Kieronski states, “Billy, of slightly socialist lean- Fontana Mix, the sound installation Auri- people at once ings ...did not adjudicate the fray....Cage was cle in Norwich Cathedral (U.K.), and Per- •A good dynamic balance in the happy with the chaos. Nobody bothered Rauschen- berg.” Robert Kieronski, e-mail correspondence, 3 fect Imperfect, a collaborative series of placement of the objects according December 2000. “Billy” is Billy Klüver, spearhead of exhibitions with U.K. artist Chloe Steele. He to size, shape and sonic properties Experiments in Art and Technology (EAT), which produced the 9 Evenings; Robert Rauschenberg was is currently studying in the Music Department • Use of theatrical lighting—due to also an EAT founding member; both he and John of City University, London, researching the their duration, performances often Cage contributed performance pieces to the series. history of David Tudor’s Rainforest series.

30 Driscoll and Rogalsky, David Tudor’s Rainforest This article has been cited by:

1. John Driscoll. 2012. Resonance: From the Architectural to the Microscopic. Leonardo Music Journal -:22, 25-33. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]