Derek K. Jeppsen - Junior Level Exam

8/8/2019 Derek K. Jeppsen - Junior Level Exam

1/47

sender; corruption; receiver;composition as the noisy channel model;

a junior level exam byderek kay jeppsen

dvd1. inertia; (performance, december 5, 2009)

cd2. humanity=nostalgia;

a. performed by Zachary Hazenb. performed by Laurel Grinnell

3. disorder etude;

4. curation1;


2/47

introduction:

The works that comprise this collection, composed over the past 13 months, areexamples of some of the musical concepts with which I am enamored. When compilingpieces which I thought showed the most progression of depth and gave an insight into mymusical and philosophical background, I began noticing a pattern. It seems that impetus formy pieces is simple miscommunication. There is most likely an irrelevant psychological

reason for this, but it certainly informs my views and aesthetics within music.

The noisy channel modelgives us an objective way of studying communication. Bits ofinformation (any information) are transmitted from one person or thing (the sender), toanother (the receiver), but the pathway on which it travels is tenuous. Any sort of corruptioncan take place in between the two agents. With the help of stochastics, we can model a wayof reverse engineering the sent (intended) message to derive full comprehensibility.

In this portfolio, you will find four pieces which each deal with their own noisy channelmodels, in which the listener can reconstruct intentions or meaning:

1. inertia; - a sent message from an electronic composer to an audience (the public at large)which is corrupted by confusion about what kind of music comes out of a laptop.

2. humanity=nostalgia; - a sent message from a piece of music to a text file, corrupted byoptical character recognition

3. disorder etude; - a sent message from a recording to time itself, corrupted by therandomization of time

4. curation1; - a sent message of a composer's subjective will machine, corrupted by thebarriers to creating a map of the composer will


3/47

inertia;for:

1.inertia.pd (real-time loop sampler)2.voice


4/47

inertia;

1. introduction;

inertia; is the first piece that I created inside the Pure Data environment. It was initially

a study on how to properly play back samples without using the [tabplay~] object, whichcalculates the sample rate and length of the file to be played back, and allows the sample tobe triggered with one bang message. My inertia sampler records input of up to fivesamples, and plays them back with the [tabread4~] object which does not have its ownoscillator, nor does it have any sample rate calculation. With this more mathematical style,[tabread4~] can play back samples at various speeds (including reverse), although the inertiasampler does not utilize these possibilities at this time.

2. methodology;

I added a simple controller for the keyboard's a and s keys to control the beginning

and ending of the recording of the samples. This allows for a quick turnaround of thesamples, requiring only two keys to not only gather a sample, but also to allow for thesamples to be overwritten and replaced with the same mechanism.

The samplers are extremely basic, consisting of only a playback mechanism that playsthe sample, can loop the sample, and does basic amplitude enveloping in an attempt to maskend of sample discontinuities. The amplitude envelope, consisting of a 30 millisecond rampdown and 30 millisecond ramp up, contributes to the perceived rhythm of the loops of thesample as well. For example, a sample that lasts roughly 100 milliseconds (such as the onesin section ii) spends 60ms in the ramping process and 40ms with its full amplitude.

One of the other main features of the patch is a subpatch, [pd pansequence], which

makes stochastic choices about the angle of pan on each individual sampler/channelindependently. It can choose from 7 divisions across the pan spectrum, and can choose tomove it smoothly to that position over any length of time between 250 and 2000 milliseconds.When the pan reaches its destination, the patch then chooses the next set of variables for itmove to.

The other function of this patch is a tap sequencer, which takes its input from the /key, after it has been initialized by the , key, and stops recording the tap rhythm when the .key is entered. The sequencer can record up to ten seconds of rhythms input by the meansof the / key. It is stored on a table as a square wave with only two possible values: one orzero. This is then looped infinitely, but does not affect anything in the patch until it is routed tothe two variables that can read the table: a pan controller, and a sample-on controller.

When the tap sequencer is running and routed to the pan controller (which controls thepan on each separate sampler), the tapped sequence serves as a control for a series of[shuffle] objects that make two choices: which side to pan the sound to, and how far to thatside. These choices are made immediately in the tap sequence, translating a tap from the /key into a choice and immediately initiates movement to a new spot on the pan spectrum.When the tap sequence is routed to sample start, it re-triggers the sample in the rhythm of thetap sequence.


5/47

3. aesthetics;

This piece does not have any prescriptive melodies or harmonies; no specific notes orrhythms need to be performed. This is not to say that it is a piece to be wholly improvised,but that it is a piece that allows itself to change as needed. The piece, as it is composed, is aform that contains a run-through of the abilities of the sampler with the performer able to reactto themselves, an audience, a venue, etc. The instrumentation need not be voice, but it is

somewhat tailored to vocals because of the role of performer in their tactile use of the laptopkeyboard.

The choice to use vocals for the piece was somewhat happenstance, but entirelynatural. The quickest and easiest way that I had figured out to test new code, and to not haveto awkwardly switch back and forth between playing and programming, was to have a vocalmicrophone on a stand as for input. It fit well because of my ability to make a near-continuous wall of sound by taking samples without the attack or release of my voice. Thisquickly became a strong point of the piece, as it allowed me to move quickly on the creationof the sampler, and it helped form the project as it was being created.

I have, on occasion, toyed with the idea of writing concrete parts (with prescriptive

harmonies and melodies) but ultimately found it to not be rewarding. I enjoy the idea ofanother person being able to learn the patch and to make a drastically different sound with it,as the sound that I make with the patch is one that is subjectively pleasing to me.

The most important aesthetic aspect of the piece is the ability for the audience tounderstand the process that they are witnessing. The piece is designed in a way that makesit easy to understand that the main function of the laptop in the piece is to take vocal samplesand loop them against each other in real time. There is, in this patch, no modulation of thesound of the input and it is obvious that the samples are being taken live because theaudience sees the performer singing into the microphone.

The idea that I needed to reach out as a composer to the audience and make a

gesture to help everyone understand what laptop composers do, came about because of thereactions I receive when people ask me what instrument I play and respond laptop. Thisgenerally initiates a conversation where I attempt (but ultimately fail) to state in a clear andconcise way what kind of work I do in music. This piece helps bridge the gap because of thetransparency of the method.

4. conclusion;

The most shocking and educational role that this piece played for me, in addition tobeing my first functional performance patch in Pure Data, was in affirming me thatcompositional technique is extremely difficult to define in contemporary electronic music. The

main compositional issues that I faced were answering questions about what language canbe used to describe the compositional aspects of a piece that does not originate in atraditional manner. This piece includes the compositional techniques stochasticism andindeterminacy, and when using my voice, the harmonies create in the piece are modal, andthe piece retains elements of ameteric and chronometric time. No one school of compositionor term can be used to define or describe the whole of the piece.


6/47

v5v4

v3v2

v1

section i:

section i is characterized by taking samples into each channel and looping them tocreate harmonies pleasing to the performer, keeping five voices at all times even ifsamples are rotated out for new ones. Input is single notes or glissandi in acomfortable range. section i (as with each of the sections) can last any length.

section ii:

v5v4v3v2v1

section ii is defined by taking

samples with higher pitch (at thetop of the performer's vocal range)that are very short (trying for 80-100ms) and keeping the loopfunction on each channel

section iii:

v5v4v3v2v1

section iii is defined by activating the

random pan sequencer andsubsequently routing the tapsequencer to the pan automation

section iv:

v5v4v3v2v1

section iv is defined by returning tolonger samples with the tapsequencer still controlling the pan ofthe samples

section v:

v5v4v3v2v1

section v is defined by using the tapsequencer to control the startpointsand pan simultaneously and slowlymaking the attacks more sparse untilending the piece

inertia;

= long loops = short loops = pan control

key:


7/47

humanity=nostalgia;for:

1. XXXXXXXXXXXX (undefined)


8/47

humanity=nostalgia;

1.introduction;

humanity=nostalgia; is a piece that addresses the concept of system failure. It came

about because of an interesting idea that I had that would re-purpose my scanner/copier, andmake it try to do something I already knew it could not do. The experiment typifies arelationship that I (and I would assume, many other electronic musicians) have with thetechnology that we are constantly surrounding ourselves with.

When we use technology to be creative, we are always walking the line between whatis accepted by the system, and what we want as an artist. Sometimes a compromise can bereached, and other times the system is capable of offering an adequate solution. Sometimes,the system will break down entirely with new, interesting results. This piece addresses analternative to these: setting out to do something that technology will fail at, and try to pick upthe pieces and still make something out of it.

2.methodology;

This piece was originally for solo violin, and was written as an assignment for aComposition Laboratory class. In this form, the point of the piece was to explore the timbresof a violin within the format of the class: the piece was to be sight read by a professionalviolinist and take less than three minutes. Because of these constraints, I wanted to make atechnical, yet simple piece. It included a lot of extended techniques, wide and varyingdynamics, but was incredibly simple as far as the pitch content, staying within the first positionof the violin.

This piece came about when I purchased a new scanner/copier. When I first set it up, I

was testing all of its capabilities, and found that it performs Optical Character Recognition(OCR). The scanner has the ability to take printed documents, scan them, and produce aneditable text file out of them. This is done by line detection, a method for reverse engineeringwhat the symbols are on the paper being scanned (usually aided by a noisy channelmodeler). After trying this procedure on a few documents and finding that it workedsurprisingly well, I then put in the score of the violin piece. What it gave me is now the title-page and score of the piece. The only editing done to the file after its conception was the de-capitalization of my name on the title page.

The instrumentation of the piece is still somewhat violin-esque, but only because of theability for the scanner to reproduce the markings of pizz and naturale. I was interested,

however, in how other instrumentalists with other backgrounds would interpret the notation.

3.aesthetics;

Included in this portfolio are performances of the piece by Zachary Hazen and LaurelGrinnell. The performances were chosen to illustrate the subjective nature of the piece, andhow wildly variable the symbols in the score are. The piece is also gratifying to me visually,as it contains disjunct, out of context symbols that lose their original and proper meanings.The performers of the piece then have the opportunity to restore meaning to the symbols, and


9/47

it is at their liberty.

4.conclusion;

This piece has been a very rewarding experience for me, as it has allowed me theopportunity to work in indeterminate acoustic music, which is a field that I generally do not

work with. I have had the idea to rework the piece, doing different interpretations of it withdifferent systems (electronic and acoustic) but have never really been inspired to make newversions.


10/47

-----------.-.:r--- ------

humanity=nostalgia

derek kay

jeppsen


11/47

Allegretto COn rubato

~= ~0:='=;. . ~ ...... . . . .. .. .

. '---"" ----- ~ ------- ------- .------ ----- ... .ifzp fifz p ppp

r~.f ifzPmf- f= p

~ t~immu--

mf pp ppff

Pff

25 tempo di valse moderato

=r~~-~~. = P. . izz. izz.

32~~= C"C"C" C"-...; --.

~ > > > > > > > > > >

=============---pfl II~nh" 0 naturale

~Ssl=isss > > >

P


12/47

disorder etude;for:

1. a sample

2. pure data


13/47

disorder etude;

1. introduction

The disorder etude is given as a first use of a utility that I have built, which loads any

.wav or .aif file, analyzes the attacks of the file, and builds a map of them. This then allows arandomization of the successive events of the piece, and the file can be played back in anyorder of attacks. This was first built in the spirit of making a stochastic break beat machine(break beats are the common samples taken from drum breaks and repurposed by electronicmusicians).

Two additional signal processing techniques add more corruption of the time elementsin the sample. The first is a spectral delay machine, which is a form of delay which works inthe frequency domain, making it possible to apply a short delay to specific frequencies in thefrequency spectrum. The second is a scrub controller, which allows the user to define a pointin the sample to move to, and how fast the audio should be played to get to that point.

The input of this performance of the disorder etude; is a performance that I engineeredofLadrang Geger Sakutho Slendro Nem, a classic Central Javanese composition. It wasperformed by the Music 361 class at San Diego State University, and I was invited to engineera recording, and to perform real-time electronics with the group (which also had a drum setplayer in addition to the standard gamelan ensemble).

The real-time electronics used for the piece consisted two processes. The first is alive-timestretching algorithm, which could use granular synthesis to repeat small chunks(grains) of audio, making it sound as though a note was held for longer than it was on therecording, and then snap back to what was happening live. The second was an eight-tapdelay (eight repetitions of the signal) that was controlled by analyzing the predominantfrequency of the input (the gamelan), and adjusting the delay to make the reverb of an

imaginary room with eight perfectly reflective surfaces at the distances that would constitutethe wavelength of the fundamental frequency of the predominant frequency.

A few days after the recording of the gamelan performance, I built a patch in Pure Datato search my hard drive for five randomly selected .wav files and return one second of eachfive files every second. This patch corrupted the file system of my hard drive, and I lost all ofthe patches that I had built in a six month period, including the patch used for Geger, so itwould be impossible for me to give more in-depth examples of systems included in it.

2. aesthetics

The patch that constitutes the instrument fordisorder etude; was originally researchinto the same concepts that inspired inertia; (also included in this portfolio), in the sense thatthe patch was designed as an instrument to take something that happens live, and show anaudience exactly what the computer is doing with that audio. These types of constructionsinterest me in the sense that the audience can follow precisely what is happening, with out itbeing predictable, or beyond their ability to comprehend.

The way that the patch works with time is by taking something that is meaningful andcomplete, but then also shows it in a way that makes it into a completely different reality, anacoustically impossible reality, although it retains its original acoustic profile. This is ultimately


14/47

the goal of this construct.

One of the resulting features of the patch is the concept of style mining, which isderived from the practice of data mining, or taking a large amount of data, and processing itin a way that derives new information. Musically, this process is performed by the patch,which renders out new meaning for the input, as it creates a new awareness of the reality ofthe piece, by putting it in a new context. This topic is discussed with more depth in the essay

included with the piece curation1;

3. construction

The patch is made up of three discrete systems: 1) the sample loading and playbackengine, 2) randomized playback engine, and 3) the spectral delay processor. The sampleloading and playback engine is extremely simple in nature, as it just loads a .wav or .aif file,and has controls for playing, stopping, and scrubbing the file. The scrubbing mechanismcalculates how far away the playback is from the destination, and lets the user control howlong it will take to scrub to that point. The scrubbing engine is modeled after a tape scrubber,which re-pitches the content depending on how fast the head (in this case, the [tabread4~]

object) is moving.

In disorder etude; the file is loaded, and then must be played once in its entirety for theanalysis of the randomized playback engine to take place. This offers the listener the abilityto hear the sample in its original form before hearing it in the randomized form. The analysisconsists of an algorithm that determines when an attack has taken place, and then places amarker on the file in that spot. Once these markers have been placed, then the randomizedplayback engine can choose to play the file from any of these points.

Illustration 1: the loading and playback engine


15/47

The random playback controls have three separate modes of playback: 1) by scrubbingto the next point chosen, 2) by triggering attacks at the interval of a pulse, or 3) by playingback the attack points in a random order while retaining their original (natural) timing.

The spectral delay unit is based on one that has been published by Johannes Kreidlerin his book loadbang(published online at http://www.pd-tutorial.com/), but with a differentmethod of controlling which frequencies are delayed and at what length. This is done by asine wave generator which is undergoing a few mathematical transformations to determinethe delay at certain frequencies. The delay window in the unit shows, on the x axis,frequency (20 Hz to 20 kHz, linear scale) and on the y axis, amount of delay (0 millisecondsto 105 milliseconds).

The determination of these sine waves can be controlled manually via these controls,or they can be randomized over a period of 0-15 seconds, creating a smooth transformationof the delay spectrum.

Illustration 2: random playback engine

Illustration 3: the spectral delay


16/47

4. conclusions

The sounds produced by this patch come together on the idea of realigning the musicaltime of a piece to something entirely different. It is gratifying, to me subjectively, to haveevents take place that can be in any order, without any loss of consistency or intensity. It wasan extremely difficult patch to build, as the construction of even a stereo table for the sampleto be loaded to gets complicated quickly. The components that make up the patch are, to

date, the most polished utilities I have built in Pure Data.

The technical challenges, however, do not make up the piece. The label of etude hasbeen given to the piece because it has been an intention of mine to write specific music to gointo this piece, but have not made it that far in the process. Plans for collaborations do existthat will bring this concept to fruition.


17/47

disorder etude;

score for this performance:

1. load the sample and play/analyze

2. start random order playback

3. adjust to natural timing

4. readjust to pulsar timing and find a better pulse speed

5. engage the spectral delay by increasing dry/wet control

6. randomize spectral delay in successively faster increments

7. increase feedback to 100

8. randomize spectral delay in a long increment

9. increase pulsar timing to circa twice as fast as set in step 4

10. enable scrub controller

11. disable random playback

12. use scrub controller and spectral delay randomization, one after the other

13. stop


18/47

curation1;for:

1.subjective human2.pure data

3.digital samples of mrindangam4.two analog synthesizers


19/47

1

curation 1;

1. the two engines: compositional/interfaces, and audioThe piece relies on two separate engines, the compositional and interface engine and

the audio engine. The compositional/interface engine is constructed entirely in Pure Data, isan interface for the performer to run the piece, and the composition is mostly housed withinthe patch. The audio engine is Propellarhead's Reason, which is a soft synth (short forsoftware synthesizer) music creation program. Reason is used as the audio engine for thepiece because of its simplicity and stability. Of course, all of the things that are happening inthe audio engine are achievable with Pure Data, but would require creation of instrumentsand constructs that already exist in Reason. Such a thing may happen to the piece at a laterdate, but for the sake of not spending more time on building audio systems (taking away fromthe compositional focus), the piece does not contain any custom audio systems; all audio

processing takes place in Reason.

The instruments that are used in the piece are (two instances of) Reason's Subtractor,a subtractive synthesis model, and the Kongdrum designer, an analog and digital samplemodeling instrument (in the case ofcurartion1; it is used to trigger custom digital samples).

One of the major facets of the piece is the ability to randomize most of the controls thatare on the Subtractor, which randomizes the timbre of the first melodic voice, the unlogicedvoice. These are fairly standard controls/parameters that could be extended to any othersoftware or hardware synthesizer with a way to communicate with PD (midi, OSC, or anyother possible method).

The Kongdrum machine is utilized as a digital sample player, and holds nine rhythmic

samples that I made of a mrindangam, a drum that is used in Indian Carnatic music. Thedrum is, compositionally, a good fit for the piece as it is generally played in a style that islinear, that is to say, it is played with sequential attacks and generally not with anysimultaneities. This feature coincides with the rhythmic generation system that is contained incuration 1; which tends to make entirely linear patterns.

There are various other sonic treatments in the Reason patch, most of which deal withcompression/limiting, equalization, and distortion. These are modules that are necessary forthe sonic realities of the piece, making it possible to have an acceptable mix alwayshappening even when the instruments change tessitura, or in the case of the first voice,timbre. Some of these modules exist to the composer's subjectivity as well (primarily, the

distortion and processing on the mrindangam samples, and the slow attack on the masterlimiter to make a punchier sound).

2. inspirations-large dimension

The following section of this essay is provided as a thorough background of whatinspired this work into being, and to give a certain level of understanding the aesthetic of thecomposer. The vast works by philosophers and theorists on what art is, at its core, are ofgrave importance to me, and the specific works that inspired this piece set the stage for the


20/47

2

piece's function and what it is at a larger dimension.

With this in mind, it becomes imperative to state that the Western traditions ofphilosophy and music are strongly represented in the composition, and that this essay willrefer to concepts and philosophies in a way of reinforcing and furthering the concepts of that

culture. Thus, it is necessary for the reader to understand that terms which appear universalwill obviously not be. When reference is made to aesthetic or art, it is done so as definedin Western culture. While a more lengthy conversation on the cultural implications of this typeof work will have to wait for another time, it seems important that a distinction be made at theonset.

The fundamental ideas of this piece are inspired by aesthetic and theoretical works inthe music theoretical and philosophical field of phenomenology, chiefly James Tenney's Meta+ Hodos and Martin Heidegger's Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes. After the fact, IannisXenakis' Formalized Musichas proven extremely valuable in exposing a more thoroughaesthetic in which this piece comfortably resides. In these works, different ideas areespoused about art and aesthetic that deal mainly with a physical perception of art (inXenakis' case, working in composition toward an objective physicality of sound) and anattempt to slough off some outdated understandings of what art and music really are.

In addition to these works, much reference will be made to the field of computationallinguistics and information theory, which have inspired a new system for explaining anddocumenting curation1; as well as clarified the more general processes employed by manysystems that exist in the piece (i.e. Markov processes controlling melodic generation,weighted probability, weak artificial intelligence).

2a. Heidegger's model of artistic being

In Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes, Heidegger seeks a distinction not of what is art orwhat is not, but rather, what work art does. In this sense, the progress of art is completely leftopen by Heidegger, as his generalizations lead to a greater awareness of what art can do.Heidegger tackles art as he would any other perceived object, with emphasis on where the artof the object comes from. Art, in his view, is still just an object. He explains that Beethoven'sQuartets lie in the storerooms of the publishing house like potatoes in a cellar. 1 Heideggeracknowledges that the object itself is not art, but rather, the work of the art is what makes itart.

Heidegger's main distinction between what is art, and what is not, is based on the thework involved with the object. For instance, one could have a pair of work shoes, which aremade with the idea of work and wear in mind. When these shoes do their work (of protectingthe feet) then there is a resulting wear, a breakdown of the actual object. They stop beingable to perform their function at some point, having lost their reliability, their equipmentalquality, and must be discarded or re-purposed.2 The distinction between this work, and a workof art, is that the art never deteriorates because of its work.

1. Heidegger, Martin. The Origin of the Work of Art, in Philosophies of Art and Beauty: Selected Readings inAesthetics From Plato to Heidegger, ed. Albert Hofstadter and Richard Kuhns (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1976), 652.

2 Ibid., 664.


21/47

3

Throughout the essay, the example of Vincent Van Gogh'sA Pair of Shoes (1886),illustrates the way that art works with the creator of it. This simple painting shows, forHeidegger, what he means when he says that the work of the art is completely detached fromthe object which holds the art. One can see the shoes, and experience the truth (or

unconcealedness) put forth by them (Heidegger uses the Greek aletheia), as the shoesare not the actual shoes of a peasant laborer, but rather, the essence of the form peasantshoes. The way the artist set(s) the truth in his work, is to put it on a pedestal, and to allowthe surrounding truth of the shoes manifest.3

This, Heidegger refers to this as the work setting up a world. 4 This world is the worldthat surrounds the work, the openness needed to have a world apart from our reality whichshows the truth and reality of the work. Heidegger gives the example of a temple, which isitself, rock, metal, and other building materials. Each of these materials is, by itself,worldless, giving no truth about anything but itself. The work that it takes to bring themtogether is non-destructive, in the sense that they are all present, and not decaying becauseof their work (which is being a temple).5

In this, Heidegger explains that The work moves the earth itself into the Open of aworld and keeps it there. The work lets the earth be an earth.6Essentially, the work movingthe earth into the open, refers to the work of the temple creating its own spot in our reality,which is beyond our reality. Its meaning is much more than a building. It is the meaning thatdistinguishes itself from a building, and that meaning is a world of comprehension,recognition, and sensibilities that accompany the world of the temple. This is what Heideggermeans by truth.

Heidegger's notion of art is based on the truth that is portrayed in the Open of theearth. This truth, he claims, is the work that makes art into art, not merely an object. Amodel of how Heidegger proposes that this work takes place is portrayed thusly:

While this model seems philosophically attainable, and proves to be quite correct (inthat scope), it seems to ignore entirely what the perceiver of art actually brings to the work ofart. The subjectivity of all parties to art (in music: composer, performer, and listener) iscertainly a difficult subject, and one that Heidegger does not approach. The essay is, ofcourse, not an unlimited source for all that makes up art, but the creation of art does notinherently explain how art is received, how it is understood, or what affect or information is put

forth for a viewer to respond to.

In Heidegger's model, we could merely say that a listener may not have enoughreference to identify the truth that has been unconcealed, which then leads them to ignorethat truth, or in other cases, actively reject it. We could also find hypothetical situations wherethe composer unconceals an unimportant, or unwanted truth. For the performer's subjectivity,

3. Ibid., 666.4. Ibid., 672.5. Ibid., 674.6. Ibid., 674


22/47

4

we can find a parallel where the performer could misrepresent the truth being unconcealed orcould not understand that truth well enough to unconceal it. This gap in mutual subjectivitycan lead to the disregard of the truth, a destruction of art and its function. As will be shownbelow, the only way to truly know how much of the performer's and composer's subjectivity

goes into that unconcealing is by placing them in situations where we can derive (viaperceptual subtraction) how much their influence is changing the piece.

With Heidegger's model of creation in mind, we can begin to ask the real questions ofhow art exists once it has been created. Creation itself cannot stand to be the end game inart, as it takes perception and reception to truly function. One could say that the model thatHeidegger lays out is a fine model for how art can come to being in the first place, and that weneed to identify a model for the next steps of art's work. These questions are the difficult,large scale questions that curation1; attempts to answer.

2b. Xenakis' model of composition

The subjectivity of the composer is certainly one of the most obvious questions posedby listening to any music. Possibly the most employed tactic for creating a master out of acomposer, is to label them with the term genius. Of course, it is hard to understand what itis that the masters have done to achieve the title without understanding a status quo fromwhich they rose. This status quo is the heart of Western art music's subjectivity.Shenkerian's can bemoan the loss of the musically educated public all that they would like,but it still does not make a difference in the fact that the public no longer shares the subjectiveknowledge that they once did with the masters. With out knowing where the third and fourthmovements of Beethoven's Fifth Symphonyshould break from each other, the novelty of anattacca movement is lost.

The majority of Western art music has relied on some kind of prior knowledge of thelistener to attain full understanding of the music, but what is even more interesting, is that ondeeper contemplation, this is less about the convention of listening, and more about theconventions of the composer. It is the subjective knowledge of what the listener will identify inthe music that the composer has, which allows them to play with the audience's expectations.What, then, is the proper role of subjectivity in composition? Had Beethoven's FifthSymphonybeen orchestrated for six cannons and a bowed saw, the attacca betweenmovements three and four would probably not resonate as much as an innovation. Thesubjective knowledge of what was an acceptable instrumentation was employed at theinception of the piece.

In Xenakis' Formalized Music, he lays out a sequence, in which he believes a work of

music is derived. This process can be applied, more or less, to composition in whole as a toolof analyzing some of the features of a composed work. According to Xenakis, these are theFundamental Phases of a Music Work7:

1. Initial conceptions (intuitions, provisional or definitive data);

2. Definition of the sonic entities and of their symbolism communicable withthe limits of possible means (sounds of music instruments, electronic sounds,

7. Xenakis, Iannis, Formalized Music(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), 22.


23/47

5

noises, sets of ordered sonic elements, granular or continuous formations, etc.);

3. Definition of thetransformations which these sonic entities must undergoin the course of the composition (macrocomposition: general choice of logical

framework, i.e., of the elementary algebraic operations and the setting up ofrelations between entities, sets, and their symbols as defined in 2.); and thearrangement of these operations in lexicographic time with the aid of successionand simultaneity);

4. Microcomposition (choice and detailed fixing of the functional orstochastic relations of the elements of 2.), i.e., algebra outside-time, and algebrain-time;

5. Sequential programmingof 3. and 4. (the schema andpattern of the workin its entirety);

6. Implementation of calculations, verifications, feedbacks, and definitivemodifications of the sequential program;

7. Final symbolic resultof the programming (setting out the music on paperin traditional notation, numerical expressions, graphs, or other means of solfeggio);

8. Sonic Realization of the program (direct orchestral performance,manipulations of the type of electromagnetic music, computerized construction ofthe sonic entities and their transformations).

Of course, Xenakis' description is biased to the language of his own music, but if we renderout the mathematical connotations, what we get is a clear division of the elements ofcomposition which are subjective in the process, and of the objective within the process.

Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4, show themselves to be highly subjective. Steps 3 and 4 eveninclude in them the word choice, which points directly to the composer's subjectivity.Xenakis' piece Pithoprakta, is for two trombones, percussion, and strings. The choice ofinstrumentation is most likely linked somehow to the dialog that the piece contains (i.e. what itwill explore). Ultimately, though, the instrumentation is a decision based on practicalities, orwhat the instruments offer for that dialog, which are not inherent features of that instrument.For instance, the strings in the piece are needed for bars 52-57 to perform pizzicato glissandi,but there's no reason that the same orchestration would not be able to be played on other

instruments with different effects.

Steps 5 through 8 show objective processes that are needed to make the art-object.The objective nature of these steps can obviously change (Xenakis has called this out in theparentheses of steps 7 and 8), but their end is the necessity to, as Heidegger says, set upthe work. This is the end-game of the piece's creation, or from above, the Heidegger modelof artistic being. But it is obvious, from reading the first four steps, that the subjectivity of thecomposer is what is necessary to set the entry into composition.

The subjective choices that Xenakis makes at the onset of his compositions gives an


24/47

6

excellent example of the gray areas that arise out of this process. Firstly, the initialconceptions from the first step also have with them the objective definitions of provisional ordefinitive data. This goes to show that even though the process itself is subjective, Xenakisattempts to also leave it open for objective concepts. In his case, the impetuses for his pieces

tend to be scientific or mathematical. He is, after all, searching to make music that is ruled bythe same mathematical (stochastic) concepts as the events in our everyday lives. 8

No matter the derivation of the concepts which are involved in the actual piece beingcreated, the impetus for composition is subjectivity. Taken to an extreme, the choice toendeavor the path of creation itself is a subjective one. There is no objective truth that makesit so that one must compose. It is not a given function of humanity to create art-objects. It israther, our ability. To put objective material into the choice to compose does not change thefundamental function of the composer, as that itself has already compromised the objectivityof the piece.

Xenakis' process does not adhere fully to either a subjective or objective direction, butrather walks a fine line between both. The end result of this are pieces that are in some wayssubjective (composing for accepted instrumentation) and are in some ways objective(macrocomposition takes place within mathematical constructs). The end result is a beautifulmix of both: a composition that uses familiar means (subjectivity for the listener) to introducean objective compositional approach (stochasticism), with a result that is approaching anobjective scientific process, which aims to take data on how the audience hears the piece.

The antithesis of this result is the aim ofcuration1;. It is to proceduralize thesubjectivity of the composer, to take objective statistics of that process by 1) allowing theperformer a subjective role which is subservient to the composer's, then 2) allowing theperformer an equal role to the composer, then 3) allowing the performer zero subjectivity, withonly the composer's subjectivity informing the choices made for the piece. As we will see

below, the large scale construction of the piece instigates discrete perceptual values for eachmovement which are the statistics of the subjectivity contained in the method of eachmovement.

3. philosophical interlude: subjectivity and objectivity

In curation1; the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity are of primary importance, andit is necessary to cursorily define them here. There is really no need to catalog the extensiveconversation in Western culture about these concepts, be we can distinguish the concept ingeneral from their application within this work. In Tenney's Meta + Hodos, he gives a cleardefinition of what he calls the subjective set, as expectations or anticipations which are the

result of experiencesprevious to those that are occasioned by the particular piece of musicnow being played.9 Beyond this, Tenney offers only one example of how the subjective setworks in perception, and it is one of the practice of direct quotation.

This omission of discourse on the topic was the primary provocation of this piece. Thissomewhat taboo subject is confronted head-on by the piece in an attempt to dissectsubjectivity itself, to help it find a home in musical discourse.

8. Ibid., 9.9. Tenney, James, Meta + Hodos and META Meta+ Hodos (Oakland: Frog Peak Music, 1986), 44.


25/47

7

Subjectivity has been the scapegoat of Western culture's decline in musical literacy forsome time now. It has been the assertion of the masses that musical taste must be entirelysubjective, or else everyone would share the same taste. Our commercial culture hasgenerated much music that does not contribute any meaningful discourse, or in Heidegger's

terms, does not unconceal any truth (besides the socio-economic truths pertaining to effectiveadvertizing and inspirational consumerism). Still, subjectivity is evoked to defend the rights ofthose who are the audience for these advertisements to continue to (willingly) subjectthemselves to ineffective art. The confusion of subjectivity with a lack of musicalunderstanding (or desire to attain that understanding) is made possible due to the lack oftestability, its massive scope and applicability, and a misunderstanding of the physicality oflistening.

It is counter to the laws of physics to make the argument that two people can heardifferent things in a recording or live performance. The same sound waves encounter theeardrums of any number of audience members and the difference in physical sound that twoaudience members would experience at any musical exhibition will be negligibly different (and

unless extreme circumstances occur, musically irrelevant). It is, of course, our cognition andexperience of music that varies from person to person. This is done through applyingsubjective information, or information that would not necessarily be a part of any otherperson's experience.

Relying on one's own experience to exercise judgment on musical experiences is aperfectly natural and universally human, and the more one can interact (cognitively) with apiece, the more rewarding the piece becomes. John Cage, quoted in Joseph Byrd's 1967review ofVariations IV, explains the new role of the listener: ... we must arrange our music,we must arrange our Art, we must arrange everything, I believe, so that people realize thatthey themselves are doing it, and not that something is being done to them. 10 This attitude ofletting the audience know that they are an element of the piece is a strong connection thatcan be built with the listener, and one that yields high subjective interaction.

The discourse of unearthing the subjectivity of the composer is extremely important.Without the composer's subjectivity, how to we even get to the origin of art that Heidegger'stheory revolves around? The impetus for composition is itself a subjective cognitive processinvolving a judgment of which art needs to exist that currently does not. The analysis ofcomposition as a subjective suggestion seems a bit dull on its own, but if we extend thatsubjectivity to the role of the listener, we get to see a true objective end.

It is this subjectivity of the composer that really translates into the success of a piece.The subjective processes of determining the elements of a piece are what determine itscultural function, its shape (in the musical sense), and the truth which it unconceals about our

reality. This is where subjectivity creates style, which creates an audience who identify withthe subjective content of the composer's work. Even without being able to trace what thatsubjectivity is, listeners can still identify which music they like, and which they do not. This isa function of the composer's subjective input to the piece, and the listener's subjective input tothe physical act of listening. If the amount of overlap between the two is maximized, this isbound to translate into the listener having a more fulfilling experience with the music.

10. Byrd, Joseph. Variations IV, in Writings about John Cage,ed. Richard Kostelanetz (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1993), 135.


26/47

8

These concepts result in a theory of genre. The slander that the concept of genrecurrently endures is the same process that subjectivity endures, as both have beenrepurposed in an act of false egalitarianism. It is believed by some that music should not belabeled by its attributes, because that limits the music's scope, and hence, the music's

audience. What is not understood is that the music itself declares a style, and those stylescontained in a piece are what define its subjective features; this is what is given by thecomposer, and interacted with by the listener.

Jan LaRue's Guidelines for Style Analysis lays the groundwork for a study in genre, ifonly his taxonomy was applied to higher hierarchical levels (such as, periods of a composer'sworks, or more modernly, entire albums, or works across a genre). This, along with JamesTenney's conceptions of parametric intensity could provide a full view of what binds togethera genre, or finds unity across seemingly disparate works.

curation1; plays with musical features that are constructed in a way to make the styleof the piece largely ambiguous. For instance, the percussive voice is derived from the timbreand technique of the mrindangam, a drum used in Indian Carnatic music. The digital samplesof the drum are also heavily processed to suit a subjective desire of the composer (uses ofdistortion and compression to derive a sound most commonly found in the electronic genre ofDrum and Bass), and the rhythms played with the samples are determined by an algorithmthat fills a sequencer with random samples at any given timepoint (which is akin to thealgorithmic approach to composition taken by Xenakis) . These three features, contained inone voice, are from disparate genres in which each of these features is most expected, andall three are very unlikely to be found in the same piece.

It seems that middle- and small-dimension features are the most flexible hierarchicaldegrees with which the composer can exert this kinds of subjective choices. As long as eachfeature, on these hierarchical levels, can function as an expected feature for the audience, or

conversely, as a novelty of the piece within the style, then the listener will be able to relate tothose subjective choices by the composer. These flexibilities are what defines one piece fromanother inside of a particular genre.

In curation1; the middle- and small-dimension characteristics are defined based onconstructs that are inspired by the study of information theory, and of computational andstochastic linguistics. These inspirations and actualities identify the piece to be (generally)similar in genre to Xenakis' compositions, and to the technique and style employed by theIDM duo Autechre (since their employing of algorithmic composition on their album Confield).

4a. interdisciplinary inspirations stochastic linguistics

During the creation of this piece, it has been the composer's privilege to study

(cursorily) the fields of stochastic linguistics and information theory. The overlap of thesefields with music seems a natural fit, seeing as the field of linguistics and music have beentheoretically linked since the publishing of Lerdahl and Jackendoff'sA Generative Theory ofTonal Music(1983)11, and information theory (at least the probability concepts therein) hasbeen employed to create music for the past 60 years, most notably by Iannis Xenakis (whoexplains the theory surrounding his information theory inspirations in Musique Formelles

11 Clarke, Eric F. Theory, Analysis and the Psychology of Music: A Critical Evaluation of Lerdahl, F. andJackendoff, R., A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, Psychology of Music 14 (1986), 4,http://pom.sagepub.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/content/14/1/3.full.pdf+html (accessed Dec. 4, 2010).


27/47

9

(1963), and the expanded English edition also cited in this work as Formalized Music(1971), .All of these disciplines have sizable overlap and give a new perspective for a modernunderstanding of music, as well as the generation of music.

The idea of algorithmic composition was an expected end for Xenakis considering his

other trade, architecture. Using his mathematical background to compose was his large-dimension subjective choice (see 2b. above). The processes he employed are a synthesis ofthe objectivity of his mathematical approach, and the subjectivity of a composer which iscrucial in giving form to a new reality. His process, however, now looks extremely similar toprocesses employed by the field of computational linguistics, which would use the sameformulas as he did to create so-called weak artificial intelligence, to make it appear that acomputer is using language.

Weak artificial intelligence, sometimes also known as expert systems are the kind ofcomputational device which uses the power of computation to serve a specific function.Linguists use this concept to construct search algorithms, text-to-speech generators, andgrammatical checkers. These practices rely heavily on the field of information theory, whichuses probability to decipher ambiguities, which abound in linguistic reception and production.The work of Claude Shannon, a information scientist who created the concept of digitalcommunications, gives us a model for how to reconstruct messages that have been corrupted(or veiled), which then can be applied to any digital use of information 12.

The process by which this is done is discussed further below in respect to curation1;'slogiced voice and how it generates melodic contour. Although the small-dimensionactualities of the piece are derived from these techniques, the piece derives a portion of itslarge-dimension inspiration from this theory of weak AI. The piece is, after all, about the linkbetween the composer's subjectivity and the subjectivity of the audience. What better way torepresent this subjectivity than by creating a automated system that composes in the style of

the composer? This is achieved with a simple recognition of what subjective input makes itinto the piece (methods and logical processes which the composer could go through in the actof composition), and then allowing a computational process control what is actually chosen inthat framework (on the small-dimension/surface level).

The ability of the computer to decide the actualities of a performance of the piece alsobrings with it a certain understated objectivity. The probabilistic processes are used as a wayof helping to set up a world for the piece, bringing it to fruition in a perpetually differentmanner but within parameters that create certain invariances. This is not improvisation (asthe computer does not choose which rules it obeys), but rather an aleatoric expression, whichcarries with it the objectivity of not having any prior inclinations to form any idioms involved inany genre.

The use of randomization in the piece is the only attempt at offering an objectiveapproach in the composition. It acts as a way of making objective phrasing, melodies, andcounterpoint, which are not necessarily the most musical choices (in an historical sense),but are decidedly unable to become an inside joke to a group of elite listeners. This allows forthe piece to be experienced objectively without listeners being afraid of being outside of thegroup of listeners for which the piece is intended (as there is no specific group in mind).

12 Anouschka Bergmann, Kathleen Currie Hall, and Sharon Miriam Ross, eds. Language Files 10 (Columbus:The Ohio State University Press, 2007), 592.


28/47

10

The process of determining the subjective parameters of the piece is a process ofuncovering what the composer believes the resulting music shouldbe. This can be extendedto a few levels and the inspirational phase of any work; this piece should exert this feature, allpieces should explore this question of perception, this music should to be composed in

chronometric metric time instead of musical time, etc. In curation1; each of the parametersneeded to be created within a programing environment (Pure Data), so each parameterneeded to come from a specific need for the piece, as defined by the composer.

4b. a comparison with the work of composer Michel Philippot

An early piece with a similar construction is by Michel Philippot, whose 1960composition, Composition pour double orchestre is based on a process which Xenakis callsan imaginary machine.13Xenakis includes, in Formalized Music, comments by Philippotabout the imaginary machine, a system where composition takes place based on a flow chartof the decisions that he would normally go through in the act of composing.

Philippot catalogs a number of decisions that must be made, reduces it to binary (yesor no) decisions, creates the flow chart of the decisions, and then goes through the process ofthe machine. Philippot then rewrites the flow chart to delete results which he believes are notpart of his musical taste, re-runs the flow chart.

Philippot states that he is creating a piece of music that he himself would make withoutthe aid of this system, but that the motivations for systematizing his compositional processes,he believed that it would output some insight into himself as a composer: At the end of theexperiment I possessed at most some insight into my own musical tastes, but to me, theobviously interesting aspect of it... was the analysis of the composer, his mental processes,and a certain liberation of the imagination.

Although very similar to the processes and intentions ofcuration1; there are a fewimportant differences. Philippot's process allows the composer to rewrite the flow chart if themusical intentions of the composer were not met by the output. The process used forcuration1; does not allow re-checking the output of the machine. The composer had theability to build a system in the first place, and this becomes the piece. The choices made aspertaining to the functionality of the machine (what it is capable of), are set. That a naturalfacet of the piece.

A more important difference, is that Philippot's process is binary. The machine canonly accept or reject something. In curation1; the choices made by the system are in the formof parametric choices. The computer uses a higher degree of logic, not choosing from achoice of yes or no, but choosing, for instance, a note from a mode (scale) instead. Thismakes the processes more active in curation1; which allows more objective (probabilistic)decision making. These processes will be discussed further below.

5. actualities and algorithms: small- and middle-dimension composition

The small- and middle-dimension features ofcuration1; are defined by three specificvoices: the unlogiced voice, the logiced voice and the percussive voice, and one binding

13. Xenakis, Iannis, Formalized Music(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), 39.


29/47

11

inspiration for their construction: to build a machine to follow the same subjective logic thatthe composer works through when composing. The ultimate goal of such an endeavor (if itwere actually possible to fully succeed), would be to define a specific style of the composer, acompendium of what art the composer wants to bring into being, without the need for the

composer to have to articulate what they are looking for.

For this reason, the choices made about what the piece is possible to generate (what

the absolute parameters are that programed into the piece), are entirely subjective means,but with largely objective ends. The parameters included are (mostly) musical features thatare pleasing to the composer, and are not necessarily chosen for any reason beyond thatgoal. The ranges of those parameters can have multiple functions, from strictly physicalnecessity, to entirely subjective. We will now dissect the voices individually, and define theirfunctions and possibilities. First, we will define the percussive voice.

5a. the percussive voice, small- and middle-dimensions

The percussive voice is sonically defined by the samples that are loaded into eachchannel (shown by the nine rows). These samples were derived from sampling amrindangam, and then were heavily processed with a modified attack envelope (making theinitial attack, the strike tone of the drum hit, proportionally louder than the decay phase, orringing, of the drum), distortion (provided by Reason's Scream4 distortion model), andcompression which provides a needed mixing functionality.

The surface rhythms that are ultimately executed by the percussive voice (the small-dimension features) are chosen by an algorithm which generates a rhythmic sequence as it iscalled for by the other controls in the patch. An illustration of the Pure Data objects needed toconstruct the rhythmic pattern generator is included to illustrate how simple the algorithm is.

Illustration 1: sequencer view of the "percussive voice"


30/47

12

As can be seen from the illustration, there are more objects in the sub-patch that deal withenvironmental issues than there are of actual generation. The process of generationproceeds as follows:

1. receive instruction to generate a sequence (via sub-patch [inlet], reception of [addpat]variable, or a bang from the 2nd outlet of [pd allclear] which controls the clearing of the

sequencer)

2. repeat this process x times ([kalashnikov] the number of timepoints contained in thesequencer)

3. choose a random floating-point number between 0 and 20, then truncate ([randomF20] then [i])

4. if this number is in the range 1-9, add hit on this timepoint (x of step 2), ([moses 1] [moses 10] construction is range filter)

Illustration 2: "pd algorythm" sub-patch - rhythmic pattern generator (left paths) andclearing function (right paths)


31/47

13

5. if number is out of the range 1-9, do nothing (results in a rest on timepoint x)

If we calculate these ratios, we find that there is a 9 in 20 (45%) chance that we willhave a note on any given timepoint, and that there is an 11 in 20 (55%) chance that we willhave a rest on any given timepoint. Furthermore, there is a 1 in 9 (11.112%) chance that any

particular sample will be given the note.

This math may seem to be a dull or insensitive process, but it is up to the subjectivity ofthe performer to make the algorithmic generation musical by controlling the other (higherlevel) controls that deal with how fast the sequence is played. The composer's subjectivity isreflected by the sense of accentual openness in a simple 32 timepoint pattern. The composerand computer share the same outlook on the 32-step sequencer, that it is a grid which can befilled in any way, as the grid is simply 32 evenly spaced musical timepoints.

The computer need not define what timepoints make up the grid, as they are chosen inthe next hierarchical level of controls (which are located in the interface of the patch andaccessible by the performer during the first two movements).

The interface controls that deal with the middle-dimension features of the sequencerare as follows:

1. the step resolution (i.e. the length of each step on the sequencer)

2. add pattern, clear, and new on clear (which allow a one-shot manual application ofeach function to the grid at any given time)

3. tempo modulation (which actually modulates the master tempo of the patch) andaddpattern/newpattern controls (which can allow a new pattern to be generatedwhen modulating, or adds a pattern to the existing one at the time of the modulation)

4. the new pattern every and add pattern on controls (which respectively, generate anew pattern after x amount of repetitions, and generates an additional pattern afterx repetitions of the pattern)

The tempo modulation control is in the form of a ratio, and the send button. The ratioon which it operates is x in the space of the last eight timepoints on the grid. This meansthat when the clock gets to the last eight timepoints, it will choose a random drum sample(from the nine used by the voice) to play the polymetric pulse that the tempo is modulating to,and when the pattern gets to the beginning of the sequencer (step one) everything will

Illustration 3: middle-dimension controls "for percussive voice"


32/47

14

modulate to that tempo. The newpattern and addpattern controls allows the performer orcomputer to modulate and respectively, generate a brand new pattern, or add an additionalpass of the generation algorithm to the pattern that already exists.

These controls are the determiners of the style of the surface rhythms played by the

percussive voice. It does not include large-dimension elements, or small dimension controls,such as where any given note will be played. The former is controlled subjectively by thecomposer (in the form of direct choice), and the latter by the subjectivity of the composer (inthe form of the weak artificial intelligence systems which make the small-dimension choices inall engines contained in the piece).

5b. the unlogiced voice: small- and middle-dimensions

The rhythmic sequences created for the percussive voice are also used (in two of threemodes) for the unlogiced voice, a subtractive synthesis model whose melodic contour iscontrolled by randomization within a selected musical mode. The three procedural modes inwhich the voice operates are titled correlated, unified, and pulsar.

The pulsar mechanism is the most straightforward operation. When activated, thevoice plays on the pulse given by the master clock, and generates its melodic contourrandomly within the selected musical mode. The mode, however can be constricted in theorder which is shown in Illustration 4. This ordering of the mode is a subjective choice of thecomposer. For example, if the performer slides the constrict mode slider to the left, they willeliminate the options for the third scale degree (^3) to be chosen, then the sixth (^6), thefourth (^4), etc. This operation works in both the pulsar and unified operations.

If unified is selected, the same random generation and mode constriction applies, butthe rhythm is derived from the 32 step sequencer of the percussive voice. This mode ofoperation has been created by the composer to fulfill an aesthetic of rhythmic coherence

between the percussive content and the melodic content of the piece.

If correlated is selected the generation of which scale degree is played is no longerrandomized, but instead, correlates to the actual tracks of the 32 step sequencer of thepercussive voice. The scaling of this data is as such: if track one has a note on a specifictimepoint, then there will also be a melodic note on the first scale degree on that timepoint.There are nine tracks on the percussive voice's sequencer; the first track through seventhcorrelate to the first scale degree through seventh, and tracks eight and nine, correlate toscale degrees one and two, respectively.

Illustration 4: unlogiced voice:middle-dimension controls


33/47

15

In the middle-dimension, the unlogiced voice's main source of movement is timbre.The timbre controls are constructed as a replica of some of the controls in Reason'sSubtractor subtractive synthesis modeler. curation1; can control the Subtractor's oscillators,mix and FM of the two oscillators, the filters, filter envelope, amplitude envelope and filterenvelope. These modulations are all controlled by randomization, of which the performer cancontrol three parameters: 1) after how many pulses of the master clock randomizationhappens, 2) how long it takes to reach the generated number (in milliseconds), and 3)whether to send the generated numbers or not.

There are a few additional functionalities that relate to the changing to a random timbrethat are available on the pd timbrenature sub-patch. For instance, the performer orcomputer can decide to send the ideal length of change. This means that the change

Illustration 5: curation1;'s visulazation of random timbre controls

Illustration 6: Reason's SubTractor synthesizer


34/47

16

between two timbres will take the full amount of time between the two timbres, and movesmoothly and continuously. If the line resolution is set to less, the timbre change will happenin less time, meaning it will move smoothly to the next timbre, and stay there until the nextchange. Conversely, if it is set to longer than the ideal length, the Subtractor's settings will

move slower and never make it to the generated settings. This technique also can be used(by making the setting considerably longer) to have the timbre modulate, but not very far fromwhere it is at any given point.

In the second movement, control is given to the performer over the individual settingsof which are being randomized as well, in the sense that the performer can stop therandomization of any of the parameters individually, and there are also two large groups ofthe parameters which can be selected to be enabled. For example, the score to the firstmovement asks the performer to choose either the all parameters group, or the smoothparameters group, and depending on that action, the score asks the performer to disengageeither the randomization of the mod envelope or the filters, and then reset it.

The final controls for the middle-dimension level of the unlogiced voice are it's tessitura

and mode. The tessitura is controllable by a simple slider, which controls which octave thevoice's is in at any given point. Both the unlogiced and logiced voices are constrained to asingle octave tessitura, except for in one specific circumstance (but both can be manuallymoved by the performer or computer). When the unlogiced voice is set to the unifiedrhythmic method, and the mode is constricted to anything other than the full mode, theseventh scale degree is allowed to either appear above (a major or minor seventh) or below(a major or minor second) the first scale degree.

The mode selector is also applicable to both melodic voices, which simply allows theperformer to choose which of the church modes the voices operate in. The performer canalso choose the tonic note of the mode. The patch initializes to C phrygian, which is a strictlysubjective decision of the composer.

5c. the logiced voice: small- and middle-dimensions

The third voice in curation1; is the so-called logiced voice. This moniker is derivedfrom how it generates it's melodic content. It was the first voice built in the piece, and its useof rhythm is designed to test the theories of James Tenney, as put forth in Meta + Hodos. Therhythms employed by it are controlled in the small-dimension by a randomization withinspecific musical time durations.

Illustration 7: pd timbrenature sub-patch, middle-dimension

timbre control


35/47

17

Illustration 8: rhythm controller for "logiced voice"

There are 14 possible durations for the voice to choose from on the small-dimensionlevel (see Illustration 8). On the middle-dimension, however, there are four modes by whichthe surface rhythms are chosen. The pulsar, random, triple meter and duple meter

controls, plus the constrictor slider, each have their own degree of randomization which theywill allow when selected. For example, during the first movement, the performer is instructedto constrict the rhythmic selection to something less than [a] whole [note], and then selecteither the triple meter or duple meter modes. If triple meter were selected, and theselection constricted to twhole or less, the durations of any individual note that is generatedby the voice will be one among these durations: triplet whole note, dotted quarter note, triplethalf note, quarter note, triplet quarter note, or triplet eighth note. Random, triple meter, andduple meter each generate a new duration for each note played. In pulsar mode, the rhythmis a continuous pulse of a chosen duration.

The melody generated for the voice is a first order Markov process, which deriveswhichever note will come next based on a weighted probabilistic construction. This technique

is similar to many functions in the field of computational linguistics, where certain searchalgorithms and spelling corrector functions need at least one word of prior context to properlyfunction. As such, an illustration is provided which is a Finite State Machine-stylerepresentation of the process (Illustration 9). Each note that has been chosen (the note thatwe are currently on in the melody), then can move in the probabilities listed to each next note.For instance, the highest probability that is in the system is. The probability that the secondscale degree will be followed by the first scale degree 60% of the time. This reads in theillustration as P(^1, ^2)=60% as in, the probability that scale degree one will follow scaledegree two is 60%.

Each of these probabilities was subjectively chosen by the composer, as a way ofavoiding certain cliches (for instance, V cannot be followed by I), and as a way of promoting

the generation of less major chords. These are not necessarily noticeable in the piece, asthese stochastic melodies are nearly always operating with randomized rhythm as well.

The timbre of the logiced voice is static, and the piece has no construct to ensure ordeny any individual timbre for the logiced voice. The performer could change settings of thesynthesizer manually, either before or during a performance, if they saw fit. The synthesizerpatches that have been used for the performances of this piece have been generated by theunlogiced voice's timbre randomization, and applied to the logiced voice, but there is noconstruct in the piece for this function. It is, ultimately, a comfortable ambiguity in the piece.


36/47

18

Illustration 9: Markov process for "logiced voice" melodic generation


37/47

19

6. recapitulation of systems

A table of systems is given as a recapitulation of sections 5a 5c. The input of theperformer in the second movement and the computer in the third is entirely on the middle-dimension level.

Voice Scale Feature

Percussive voice Small-dimension Algorithmic Surface Rhythms

Middle-dimension Step Resolution

Pattern Controls

Tempo Modulator

Unlogiced Voice Small-dimension Randomized Melodic Content(unified and pulsar modes)

Randomly Determined

Pattern (correlated mode)

Timbre RandomizationGeneration

Middle-dimension Mode Constriction

Tessitura Selection

Logiced Voice Small-dimension Timbral Parameter Randomization Destinations

Stochastic MelodicConstruction

Randomization of Rhythms

Middle-dimension Mode of RhythmicRandomization

Tessitura Selection

Other Elements(accessible to performer inmovement2;)

Middle-dimension Mode Selection

Master Clock Tempo

Table 1: table of systems and their subsequent hierarchical levels

7. theoretical interlude: testing Tenney's theory of clang

In James Tenney's Meta + Hodos, he lays out a new framework of theoretical ideas asa way of understanding the complexities of 20 th century music. The reason for taking on sucha task is, as Tenney says, the problem of a nearly complete hiatus between music theory andmusical practice.14 The elements employed by music had certainly changed in the first half ofthe 20th century, and Tenney's goal is to form a theory which is inclusive of all music, via a

14. Tenney, James, Meta + Hodos and META Meta+ Hodos (Oakland: Frog Peak Music, 1986), 4.


38/47

20

theory of perception.

Tenney proposes a new standard for formal units of sound, sound-configuration,and musical idea, which treats all as the fluid units of measurement that they are: theclang. This is a way of stripping the tonal harmonic conceptions of form, harmony, and

melody of their loaded nature. The next step up in Tenney's hierarchy is the sequence,which is a unit formed by successive clangs.15

The delineation of musical figures then can be seen as the perception of any musicalidea, instead of delineation reliant on a traditional conception of harmony, dynamic, etc. Thisopens. Tenney cites certain Gestalt psychologists whose interest was in how perception itselfworks, and explains that factors of similarity and proximity are the primary factors that areused in the act of perception to delineate groups of events. 16 This grouping is the definition(while perceiving) of the clang and sequence.

Beyond these two factors are the four secondary factors that Tenney believes are atwork in cohesion and segregation. They are 1) the factor of intensity, 2) the repetition-factor,

3) the objective set, and 4) the subjective set. Of these four factors, Tenney seems to focusmost on the factor of intensity as the most able to initiate cohesive clangs, and to finalizingthem.17 (pg. 37) In other words, the intensity level of clang can be determined by the intensityof the elements that make it up, and a sequence of these clangs can then have a map ofchanging intensity from clang to clang.

Tenney's concept of clang is put to the test by the small- and middle-dimensionfeatures ofcuration1; by creating, for example a voice that is highly musical, adhering to amode and using musical time, but containing no instructions beyond this. The constructs, at ahigher level, relate to the composers subjectivity of what the voice needs to operate, but itdoes not adhere to any musical style or idiom. This is the pure test of the clang, as it is justby chance that any sort of similarity/dissimilarity or proximity/distance arises in this voice,

which contributes to any way of parsing a motive or phrase.

If it is the changes in small-dimension parametric intensities that defines these musicalconstructs of motive or phrase, then the algorithmically generated melody and randomizedrhythm will tend to create places to parse them. It is down to the subjectivity of the listener asto whether this happens or not, and up to the performer and/or computer as to give this outputto allow the audience to test the concept. At all times, these musical constructs may appear,or they may not.

The middle-dimension constructs of the piece are all modeled after the aforementionedconcept of parametric intensity, creating the differences in perception from sequence tosequence. This is as a way of testing Tenney's concepts by moving them to different

hierarchies in the musical framework, to see if parametric intensities create the sameperceptual markers (in the sense of defining a form of a piece) in similarity and proximity onthese levels.

This test is also employed on the large-dimension scale, as the only real differences inthe piece's movements are based on the three sources of middle-ground choices: 1)subjectivity of the composer, 2) the subjectivity of the performer, or 3) randomization thereof.

15. Ibid., 22.16. Ibid., 32.17. Ibid., 37.


39/47

21

8. large-dimension construction: objective ends through subjective means

In the large dimension, the piece is constructed in a way that outputs three separatevalues to compare, one for each movement. These three perceptual values are the overallshape of the piece's construction on the middle-dimension level, which result from theinstructions that are given, via the interface, to the composition to generate small-dimension(surface) melody, rhythm and timbre. The sum of the three

Since each of the movements successively lose a layer of subjectivity, the difference(as in mathematical subtraction) reveals something about the composer and performer'srespective subjective sets. For instance, the first movement contains three layers ofsubjectivity: 1) the composer's subjectivity as reflected by the score, 2) the performer'ssubjectivity as called out for by the score, and 3) the composer's subjectivity in thecompositional engine itself.

The second movement contains two of these three layers of subjectivity, deleting the

score from the piece at the onset of the second movement. This makes the subjectivity of thecomposer equal to the subjectivity of the performer, each being exerted on only oneconstruction of the piece at this level.

The third movement then deletes the performer's last subjective input of the piece, theirability to control the interface. All that remains at this point is the subjectivity of the composer,which is exerted by the composition engine as it takes over and randomizes the control of themiddle-dimension parameters and their intensities. Probabilistically speaking, the output isthe aggregate of what the system is capable of without the interference of subjective musicalinformation from the composer or performer in middle-dimension constructs.

Illustration 10: large-dimension construction of movement1;



40/47

22

As the piece changes from movement to movement, the resulting perception of changebecomes a measurement of the subjectivity that each construction contains. If we take theperceptual difference of each of these movements, we can derive meaningful data aboutwhich subjectivity exerts which force on the piece. In a mathematical sense: the subjectivityof the composer (as exerted by the composition engine) is equal to movement 3, thesubjectivity of the performer (as exerted by their input to the interface of the composition) is

equal to movement 2 minus movement 3, and subjectivity of the composer (as exerted by thescore and resulting form of movement 1) is equal to movement 2 minus movement 1.

Ultimately what this gives the listener is a full view of the subjective information that themusic results from. This exploration is the true goal ofcuration1; which defines for theaudience exactly what it is that the composer believes is needed in the composition, showswhat the musical preferences or curiosities are of the performer, and shows an aggregate ofwhat the machine is capable of by randomizing its middle-dimension controls.

9. personal conclusions and future projections

The questions asked by curation1; have no simple answers, and certainly there is nounanimous answer, as the subjectivity of the listener is put to the test. The questions for thelistener are not ones that need to be specifically stated, and its unclear whether someone whois not privy to the philosophies and theories that inform the piece would ever be able tounderstand what the piece is asking them. Such is the essence of music theory andcomposition. It is not necessary to communicate such a technical or niche objective to thelistening public.

The choices that were made about the sonic results of the piece were done so as anorganic growth of the compositional systems employed throughout its creation. This does notensure any sort of pleasing musical experience per se, but the pleasing music experiencecan result from the piece. This hinges entirely on the subjective input of the listener, as this

piece has taught me. Ultimately, the truth that the art unconceals for me, personally, is a newunderstanding of subjectivity and its role in composition.

The role of the composer's subjectivity is one that is detached from the listener'ssubjectivity, and when operating in a mode of artistic creation, it is obvious (to me, at least)that the composer is attempting to form art that they think will please themselves. With theopenness of that subjective end, it is obvious that a composer can never fulfill the desire of allof their subjectivity. It is an endless pursuit to create personal sonic gratification.

It is the role of the composer, not of neuroscientists, linguists, and computer scientists,



41/47

23

to explain the phenomenon that is music, and this is done by composing what they believe afurthering of their culture's tradition consists of. There need be nothing more than output fromcomposers to take data on how music truly works. Their own reactions lead to technicalinnovation, pushing through to new techniques and styles that gratify their own subjective

means. Their audience gives their reaction to the music as a judgment of what assubjectively worthwhile to them, and form meaningful communities around their idealsubjectivity overlaps.

More practically, building the systems in Pure Data has shown me that this attempt atachieving subjective gratification has another direct correlation to the field of computationallinguistics. The field of data mining consists of research based on taking a large set of data(a corpus) and deriving from it new statistical information that would be unknown otherwise.The third movement ofcuration1; inches toward a musical parallel, which I will refer to asstyle mining.

When the computer controls all of the middle-dimension features of the interface, viarandomization, the result is a completely different musical output, which is, probabilistically, anaggregate of the possibilities inside of the system. What results from this aggregate is a morepure representation of what the system was built for, as it contains nothing but the subjectivityof the composer, and what it is that I, personally, was looking to achieve with the piece. Thechanges of parameters in this fashion are much more musically disjunct, but in a way that ahuman performer possibly never choose. The changes in musical features that areaccidentally possible are exhilarating.

If this concept is extended (a current plan is to build the third movement of the pieceinto an extended version, possibly curation1.5;) then one can envision a logical end withmany more systems that gratify more musical possibilities, as in, many more major subjectiveinfluences from the composer. If a compendium of the composer's style were possible to

construct, and an automated system built to create middle-dimension and small-dimensionchoices inside of that compendium, then an aggregate music of all the personally pleasingmusical features could result.

Such research already exists in the domain of music listening with Pandora's MusicGenome Project.18 But what if these systems could be automated for the creation of music.No longer would people tune into internet radio stations to hear music that an algorithm tellsthem that they would like, but rather, music is generated for them based on what they like,and it is their own personal manifestation of taste, endlessly, and with the added interest ofserendipitously combining musical elements that they are interested in.

curation1; is a far cry from this goal, but its philosophical contemplations and design is

the perfect entryway into research on the subject. I will continue to conduct this research,defining what the subjective goals of the composer are, and applying them in systems thatmake it possible to find new information about that subjectivity and to create music based onwhat we all want from music, to please us on the personal level.

18. Pandora.com, About the Music Genome Project, (Pandora Media Inc., n.d.)http://www.pandora.com/corporate/mgp (accessed Dec. 9, 2010).


42/47

24

Bibliography

Bergmann, Anouschka, Kathleen Currie Hall, and Sharon Miriam Ross, eds. Language Files10. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2007.

Byrd, Joseph. Variations IV, in Writings about John Cage,ed. Richard Kostelanetz, 134-135.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.

Clarke, Eric F. Theory, Analysis and the Psychology of Music: A Critical Evaluation of Lerdahl,F. and Jackendoff, R., A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Psychology of Music 14(1986): 3-16, http://pom.sagepub.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/content/14/1/3.full.pdf+html(accessed Dec. 4, 2010).

Heidegger, Martin. The Origin of the Work of Art, in Philosophies of Art and Beauty:Selected Readings in Aesthetics From Plato to Heidegger, ed. Albert Hofstadter and

Richard Kuhns, 650-708. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Pandora.com, About the Music Genome Project. Pandora Media Inc.: n.d.http://www.pandora.com/corporate/mgp (accessed Dec. 9, 2010).

Tenny, James. Meta+ Hodos and META Meta + Hodos. Oakland: Frog Peak Music, 1986.

Xenakis, Iannis. Formalized Music. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1971.


43/47

25

appendix: screen shots of full interfaces

Illustration 13: user interface at step 0)


44/47

26

Illustration 14: user interface at step 6a1)


45/47

27

Illustration 15: audience interface


46/47

curation1;

performer's score

mvmt. 1:

1. force: start machine by starting the clock2. force: add pattern to the sequencer3. choice: increase the pulse of the grid once the

Documents

Derek K. Jeppsen - Junior Level Exam