[Grant Scott]

For what it's worth (something for us to mull over):

I listened to the live CD of the concert yesterday and am more convinced than ever that punctuating the music with Amy's reading of the poem does not work aesthetically (I always had my doubts but felt it was worth the risk). I was very aware lying on the couch caught up in your instrumentals that her words break the spell of the music, a haunting, evocative, often melancholy but deeply stirring sound like the music Keats makes with his verse. It's terrible to lose this charm and have to climb back into it.

I'm not taking anything away from Amy's reading, which has many merits, I'm just saying it may do an unintentional disservice to BOTH the music AND the oral performance of the poem. For whatever reason (the awkward shifting between two very different media? The rough demands it places on the audience?) the effect is to break the spell of the music and force the audience to shift gears rather violently into poetry and then shift back again (twice!) into music.
At the same time, I'm loath to lose the reading of the poem and would hate to substitute a dull page of poetry for the audience to read in silence. This wouldn't work either (as we've discussed) and would divert the audience's attention and take away from the multimedia aspect of the total performance. The poem must be performed out loud. You recall we worried about reading the poem all at once at the beginning b/c it's so long and b/c such a reading risks lulling the audience. I now think we should take that risk, though I think there are ways to avoid the soporific effect by making the poem more of a narrative, by having Amy really perform it as a story with definite highs and lows, modulation of voice, an arc of development. I'm also contemplating the idea of having the poem read with TWO VOICES, which would create more interest and variation for the audience, more intrinsic drama, and also blend beautifully with the fact that there are two of you performing the music. It might then help bridge the gap between reading and playing. It might also create some great interpretive opportunities with the poem. Maybe I could read with Amy. We could practice it few times and see where it takes us.

I do think we should also think seriously about projecting parts of the poem (magnified) behind you as you play. It would bring the visual into the performance in a vital way (off the page, onto the wall). The poem's difficult enough that it would really help the audience connect the words with your adaptation. It would serve as another form of transition between the reading and playing. And we could also use images of the manuscript draft of the poem in K's own handwriting (not difficult to read), which would add an autographic, creative aspect to the show, playing up your own act of musical re-creation as well.