I have already stated that the research process made me reconsider my research question, which was not, and could probably not be, answered through the research and findings. Still, I think that posing, or trying to pose the question, has led us in a specific direction and has consequently still been very useful. The material we collected was extensive, and both the reading of the questionnaires and looking at the filmed focus group interviews provided me with profound knowledge about the audience’s experience. This kind of direct insight into how members of the audience expressed what had happened in their minds during the performance really widened my perspective. It felt like I had obtained a new sensitivity and respect for the personal experience of a performance, and I realised in a very tangible way how a performance can really mean something to, and do something with, the listener. I think that the kind of knowledge I obtained as a performer is somewhat similar to other practice-based knowledge. It is not necessarily “clarifying” information as such, but it produces an experiential, embodied knowledge. Still, I can sum up some important observations:
– Most of the members of the audience experienced the narrative as being an important part of the performance as such.
– The more highly processed sounds were experienced by many members as being alienating, to some degree, and there were also comments about the different degrees of nearness and naturalness, and about singing and looping creating more distance than natural speech.
– The narrative became an important point of reference, both for the audience and myself, for how the music and the use of live electronics was developed and perceived.
– The type of narrative I used (as compared to my use of lyrics in music, and also the “Nature is not Beautiful” project) made it especially important not to break the relationship between the text and the music – but to challenge it.