Picking up on Marcus' mention of '1,2,3,lots...' and triangles, I woke up thinking about the triangularity we will have with our 3 dancers and 3 musicians. Three is the minimum number with which to produce a meaningful dimensionality of sound in an ensemble but with three you can start to approach a sense of 'lots'.
Put the two ensembles together and we have...lots, and with Marcus that makes... more lots. Then with mirrors and projection...lots and lots...
Amongst the ways I want to deploy the three musicians, one is to place them spaced apart on three sides of the periphery of the space, essentially forming a 'triangle'(but perhaps conceived more as a 'circle'), to get a sense of a dynamic spatialisation of the sound. Syllables flying across the space. The challenge in scoring this is that the performers need to have some independent means of rhythmic organisation if they are to produce a tight rhythmic structure without being conducted. I would also like to do this vocally, with all the performers: in this case using each performer's pulse rate to achieve multiple tempi - a real sense of lots can be achieved this way.
At the other extreme, I want to place them close together and facing in, to perform a variety of 'games' that signify dice-throwing in different ways. One of these is permutations of three points. Another is a kind of 'paper-scissors-rock' idea that produces endlessly permutating chords. These will be potentially infinite. They will just start and stop spontaneously. We can play with ways to vary and mutate them.
Other ways of conceptualising and organising 'three': two musicians, one dancer. Two dancers, one musician. Marcus on trumpet makes four musicians.