工具展，一个关于工具、设备、乐器的展览。每两月一件。
place holder：Lemon water nap time 柠檬水小睡的时候
place holder 是来自澳大利亚悉尼的一支乐队，有人把他们的风格称作“零浪潮”，他们演奏没有插电的电吉他、电贝司以及很多袋水泥（也可能是豆子）。
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVmZYWumW5kmNRrqHvQW9Yg
https://soundcloud.com/user-900846443
问（yj）：所以是你砸碎了那个可怜的话筒？怎么来的？有预谋的还是砸话筒上瘾了？
答（翰忠）：是 Shota 砸的。我肯定那是拿话筒当鼓槌用的一个附带效果。肯定不是预谋的，不过也能料到。
答（Andrew Fedorovitch）：砸碎那个可怜的话筒的人不是我。是 shota。我不想代表他说话。他跟我说过那是个意外。
问（yj）：为什么你们会把它看作作品？对你们来说，什么是“作品”或者“艺术品”或者“完成了的，有标题的作品”？
答（翰忠）：我只是因为参与这个系列才把它看作作品，就是你工作室的客人可以留下点东西这个事。应该说我们的贡献是比较低调和偶一为之的。而且有个很傻的标题。
答（Andrew Fedorovitch）：我当它是作品，因为有这个展览的承诺——“实践者的工具”。
这个可怜的话筒是 place holder 乐队的实践工具。
功能上它已经没用了，但是通过可见的损坏，还有血迹之类，它还在传递能量、暴力、表演时的强度和意志（inten(t)sity）——place holder 的实践的公开的一面。通过把这个可怜的话筒看作作品，它延展了公共性的时刻——观众对 place holder 的实践的进入。这和在线的录音能够提供的进入是不一样的。这个可怜的话筒在几个维度上延展了 place holder 的实践的视觉元素：地点、时间、时长、内容——爆破性的进入（和抵达？）
在这个作为作品的可怜的话筒（或者说，place holder 的实践的表现／呈现），和进行没有声音的噪音演出之间，是有一种关联的：都用到了视觉来传递／发射／推导出意义。不管怎么说，这个可怜的话筒是进一步的抽象，是提炼过的干燥。如果说演奏无声质疑了我们对声音的依赖，那么这个可怜的话筒就质疑我们对身体（或者化身）来传递意图、意义的依赖……这个可怜的话筒，作为一件作品，能不能传递 place holder 在表演中所创造的意义？
问（yj）：你们肯定不是第一个在舞台上砸碎乐器的艺术家。对那些之前的幽灵有什么感觉吗？比如说乔治·马修纳斯那帮人？
答（翰忠）：在这个乐队里我什么都不砸，虽然其他几位有时候在演出时会毁东西。我敢说我们在这件事上看法不同。我的感觉是，我们对演出时发生的任何事都会保持平静。我对激浪派不是很了解，我得查查乔治·马修纳斯！我没觉得有什么联系，比如说，我就不觉得我们在反对表演的常规。就幽灵而言，我们都被Shaggs 的幽灵纠缠着呢。
答（Andrew Fedorovitch）：尽管我知道，在我们之前，这样的行动已经完成了许多许多次，但我没有亲眼看见。它们好像是过时了，至少在悉尼吧。所以当我想到这个幽灵，就感觉他们在微笑，因为那些想法仍和某些人有关系，即使只有我们。
我觉得，因为没有事先计划，就有种诚意使它远离“已经有人做过了所以不值得做”这种叨叨。
也许“计划外的降神会”或者“可怜的话筒”是个不错的标题。
最近也有人给我看了吉米·亨缀克斯1967年在蒙特利音乐节上的狂野表演。结束之前，吉米四处甩他的吉他，把它砸碎在地上，话筒架最后也断了。看这个就让我想到这种行动的感官性——和那时候乔治·马修纳斯开始毁乐器完全不同，那种对音乐规范和不容挑战的珍贵乐器的概念上的颠覆。尽管乔治·马修纳斯的行动也可能会带出感官性，不过我感觉在这个例子里，感官性是吉米的行动的核心。当 place holder 表演的时候，那种东西毁坏或者被毁坏的自发性，与感官性的联系要多过与乔治·马修纳斯有计划的破坏的联系。
问（yj）：为什么会是一个“不用效果器的噪音乐队”（朱文博对 place holder 的描述）？而且有时候连声音都没有？
答（翰忠）：我们不需要。有时候我们和其他人一起演，我并不在乎别人用不用效果器，或者随便什么东西。为什么演得很小声呢？我们一起排练并不是那样，只是演出的时候。到现在为止，都是因为具体的原因：没有电，或者因为场地的原因不能演大声。个人来说，我很享受这些演出中的无价值。
答（Andrew Fedorovitch）：“不用效果器”的决定是无意识中做出的。是从一个老掉牙的细节开始的。后来我开始从这个决定中总结了一些含义。特别是考虑到2014年你在 Thomas Bey William Bailey 做的访谈中说过的——今天搞“噪音音乐”的太多人，可能对效果器或者数字效果用得太多，已经是依赖了。在 place holder 里，翰忠和 Laurence（分别演奏贝斯和吉他），他们不用效果器，我“唱”的时候也一样，不再用失真效果去掩盖我的嗓音，制造更大密度。
我有种感觉就是，这样用一种完全没有加效果的，干的嗓音，会更诚实（更脆弱，暴露）。这种“干燥”是 place holder 在方法和美学的生态学的选择，它是核心部分。跟 Laurence 聊起他为什么不用效果器，让我认识到他的方法的感官性和化身性。这和不用效果器制造失真和密度而进行的劳动是不可分的。通过劳动，他变得更具化身性——成为声音的化身，释放出那个发声－聆听／感觉－发声的过程中的感性……在声音的制作中——这是我的观察，不是 Laurence 说的。
这种化身，也通过 shota 和我在 place holder 乐队里制造声音的方式来呈现，它是传递强度和意志（inten(t)sity）的视觉语言的一部分。
对我来说，在一个噪音乐队里演奏而不发声，重点在于，爆发出传递强度和意志（inten(t)sity）而不借助极端扩声的暴政的可能性。我们的身体，我们的化身，能不能独自传递那同样的意图？我们要依赖电子扩声来传达强度吗？我们需要电和机械扩声（鼓）来传达意义吗？我们需要物理的声音来制造“噪音”吗？如果没有扩声，我们是不是就无力了？什么是噪音？它是一种美学，一种必须是极大声音和密度的声音事件的套路吗？
这也是一种干燥度的极端形式——我们能做到多干？
这些都是我个人的看法，我不是 place holder 的发言人，这些是我对 place holder 的想法。
图：h 工作室门外，占位符乐队的印章 | photo: place holder stamp out side of studio h
place holder is a band based in sydney, australia. they sometimes play electric guitar without electricity, or sacks of beans (or concrete powder). someone call their style as “zero wave”.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVmZYWumW5kmNRrqHvQW9Yg
https://soundcloud.com/user-900846443
Q (yj): so that was you who smashed this poor mic? how comes? you planned it or just addicted to that?
A (John Wilton): Shota broke it. I’m pretty sure this was a side-effect of using the microphone like a drum stick. It certainly wasn’t planned, but could be predicted.
A (Andrew Fedorovitch): it was not me who smashed the poor mic. it was shota. i do not want to speak for him. he did tell me that it was not expected.
Q (yj): and why you take it as a work? what is “work” or “art work” or any “finished work with a title” for you?
A (John Wilton): I see it as work only in so far as participating in this series of guests of your studio who leave something behind. Let’s face our contribution is modest and quite casual. It also has a stupid title.
A (Andrew Fedorovitch): i take it as a work because of the premise of the exhibition- ‘ tool(s) of (some)one’s practice’.
this poor mic was (is?) a tool of place holders’ practice.
it became defunct in a practical sense but with the visible damage and blood etc it continues to echo the energy, violence, inten(t)sity of the moment of performance – the public part of place holders’ practice. by taking this poor mic as a work it expands the public moment – the publics’ access to place holders’ practice. this is different to the access afforded by recordings which are accessible online – this poor mic extends the visual element of place holders’ practice in various dimensions: place, time, duration and context – exploded access (and reach?)
there is a connection between this poor mic as a work (or re/presentation of placeholder’s practice) and doing noise performances with no sound: both use the visual field to convey/transmit/infer the meaning. however, this poor mic is another step abstracted, a heightened dryness. If playing with no sound questions our reliance on sound then this poor mic questions our reliance on our bodies (or embodiment) to convey intent – meaning…. can this poor mic, as a work, convey the meaning place holder creates during a performance?
Q (yj): definitely you are not the first artist who smashed instrument on stage. how do you feel ghosts of the previous ones? the gang of george maciunas for instance?
A (John Wilton): I don’t smash anything in this band, although the others destroy things while playing at times. I’m sure we have different perspectives in this regard. My feeling is that we are at peace with anything happening at any given time while we are playing. I don’t know much about fluxus, I had to look up the name of George Maciunas! I don’t feel much of a connection. I don’t think we are reacting against performance conventions, for example. As far as ghosts go, we’re all haunted by the Shaggs.
A (Andrew Fedorovitch): although i am aware of this kind of action being done many many times before us i have not witnessed it in person. it seems out of fashion, at least in sydney.
so when i think about the ghosts i feel them smiling glad that there is relevance to the notion to somebody, even if it is only us.
i feel because it is unplanned there is a sincerity to the expression that takes it away from the conversation of ‘this-has-been-done-before-and-therefore-not-worth-doing.
maybe a good title is ‘unplanned seance’ or ‘poor mic’.
i also recently was shown a video of jimmy hendrix performing wild thing at monterrey in 1967. towards the end of the song jimmy swings his guitar around smashing it into the floor and mic stands finally snapping the neck off. seeing this reminded me of the sensuality of such an act – quite distinct to the conceptual subversion of musical conventions and unchallenged preciousness of instruments at the time george maciunas began destroying instruments. although sensuality was possibly an outcome of george maciunas’s actions i feel that sensuality was the point of jimmy’s action, in this instance. the spontaneity of things breaking or being smashed when place holder plays is connected more to the sensuality of the act rather than the devised subversion of george maciunas.
Q (yj): what is the point to play in a “noise band with no pedal” (place holder described by zhu wenbo) and sometimes even no sound?
A (John Wilton): We don’t need them. Sometimes we perform with other people and I wouldn’t care if they use pedals or anything really. Why play at low volume? We don’t jam like that together, only perform. Each time so far has it has been prompted by practical considerations: no power available, or not able to play loud because of the venue. Personally I savour the feeling of futility in these performances.
A (Andrew Fedorovitch): the decision to play with ‘no pedal’ was unconscious. and so a banal detail to begin with. later I began to ascribe meaning to the choice. particularly after considering what you said in an interview with Thomas Bey William Bailey in 2014 – the idea that a great many people who make ‘noise music’ today use effects pedals or digital means, perhaps more than use – rely on. similarly to the ‘no pedals’ of John and Laurence (who play bass and guitar, respectively) when i ‘sing’ in place holder i no longer use distortion to cover my voice and create more density. i had the sensation that it was more honest (vulnerable, exposed) to have a completely uneffected – dry – vocal sound, this ethic of ‘dryness’ is a central part of what informs place holders’ choices in the ecology of approach and aesthetic. speaking to Laurence about why he doesn’t use a pedal led me to recognize the sensuality and embodiment of his approach. this is not separate to the labour inherent in not using a pedal to generate distortion and density. Through the labour he becomes more embodied – embodies the sound and unlocks the sensuality of the process of generating-hearing/feeling-generating… in sound making – these are my observations not Laurence’s words.
This embodiment, also present in the way shota and i make sound in place holder, is part of the visual language of transferring the inten(t)sity.
The point to play in a noise band with no sound is, for me, to explode the possibility of transferring inten(t)sity without the violent tyranny of extreme amplification. Can our bodies, our embodiment, alone transfer the same intent? do we reply on electronic amplification to communicate intensity? do we need electricity, mechanical amplification (drums) to mean something? do we need physical sound to produce ‘noise’? are we powerless without amplification? what is noise? is it an aesthetic, an idiomatic form which must involve extremely loud and dense sound events?
it is also a form of extreme dryness – how dry can we get?
all these opinions are my own, i am not a spokesperson for place holder, this is how i think about what place holder does.