Thank you for attending and for sharing your perspective. I do think there may have been a misunderstanding of the piece—it’s not a one-woman show, nor was it intended to be. If that was unclear, I’ll take partial responsibility as the creator for not making that structure more apparent.
However, I do want to note that your review includes several factual inaccuracies, including the incorrect citing of my name, misidentified and misspelled characters, and the wrong title of the work. Happy to have a conversation over coffee or drinks to discuss, if you're up for it.
Thank you for your comment, Christian! I double-checked against the press release that I was sent (which describes it as a "solo performance") and can't seem to find these inaccuracies. Let me know what I can change. (I did make the title all caps, if that is what you're referring to) I'm truly a "one-man show" here so I do get things wrong! The work was certainly ambitious and interesting, and though perhaps it wasn't for me, as I said, the audience did seem to love it. I appreciate your engagement with the review, truly.
Thank you for your thoughtful response and your grace, Max. I truly appreciate it. It’s certainly a strange piece to describe, and I have a lot of empathy for anyone being thrown into that world and expected to make sense of it quickly.
There’s no need for formal corrections—I just felt it important to gently note a few details that may seem minor but are actually quite significant in framing the piece. For instance, it is a “human concerto with string and void,” not “for string and void.” That may sound subtle, but the phrasing is intentional and speaks to the structure and absence at the heart of the piece.
She is the opera, the accompaniment is a singular string and the void around it. The cello was never meant to carry a melodic line on its own. It is part of a larger ensemble—represented by six other instruments that were set up, miked, and unplayed because those musicians were “exhausted” by Lucine herself during “sound check.” So, what we witness is a single cellist doing what he can to support her in that newfound void. Similarly, the empty reserved signs in the front row represent the other “actors/patrons” who never showed up.
I’m not writing at all to argue your opinion—I’m genuinely grateful you made the time to attend and engage with my work. I’ve long respected your writing and your insight. I simply feel I may have failed to set up the world clearly enough, and that some of the intentionality behind the piece may have been missed.
I adore and respect creative feedback, thanks for indulging me.
Dear Max,
Thank you for attending and for sharing your perspective. I do think there may have been a misunderstanding of the piece—it’s not a one-woman show, nor was it intended to be. If that was unclear, I’ll take partial responsibility as the creator for not making that structure more apparent.
However, I do want to note that your review includes several factual inaccuracies, including the incorrect citing of my name, misidentified and misspelled characters, and the wrong title of the work. Happy to have a conversation over coffee or drinks to discuss, if you're up for it.
With gratitude,
Christian
Thank you for your comment, Christian! I double-checked against the press release that I was sent (which describes it as a "solo performance") and can't seem to find these inaccuracies. Let me know what I can change. (I did make the title all caps, if that is what you're referring to) I'm truly a "one-man show" here so I do get things wrong! The work was certainly ambitious and interesting, and though perhaps it wasn't for me, as I said, the audience did seem to love it. I appreciate your engagement with the review, truly.
Thank you for your thoughtful response and your grace, Max. I truly appreciate it. It’s certainly a strange piece to describe, and I have a lot of empathy for anyone being thrown into that world and expected to make sense of it quickly.
There’s no need for formal corrections—I just felt it important to gently note a few details that may seem minor but are actually quite significant in framing the piece. For instance, it is a “human concerto with string and void,” not “for string and void.” That may sound subtle, but the phrasing is intentional and speaks to the structure and absence at the heart of the piece.
She is the opera, the accompaniment is a singular string and the void around it. The cello was never meant to carry a melodic line on its own. It is part of a larger ensemble—represented by six other instruments that were set up, miked, and unplayed because those musicians were “exhausted” by Lucine herself during “sound check.” So, what we witness is a single cellist doing what he can to support her in that newfound void. Similarly, the empty reserved signs in the front row represent the other “actors/patrons” who never showed up.
I’m not writing at all to argue your opinion—I’m genuinely grateful you made the time to attend and engage with my work. I’ve long respected your writing and your insight. I simply feel I may have failed to set up the world clearly enough, and that some of the intentionality behind the piece may have been missed.
I adore and respect creative feedback, thanks for indulging me.
Looking forward to when our paths cross again!