Radiating Lines

 

Radiating Lines performance score

For your consideration a new score and the first piece of music I’ve recorded since February. Radiating Lines is an example of a  Meta-Score in that it is a score that generates a unique score every time you use it. I made during the John Cage Centenary week though it is not specifically dedicated to him. It certainly owes plenty to Cage as I think he was he first to use transparencies and in the construction of the score one is completely free to use chance operations but it is not required. But certainly a Post-Cage and one’s whose debts are I hope are clear.  Anyway on to the score (PDF download).

—

For any instrumentation and any number of performers

Components

• A circular background mounted on a square backing matte
• A square overlay the same size as the square matte
• Mounting hardware of some sort
• These Instructions
Constructing the score

The included background and overlay materials can be simply printed out and put together as described in section 3 below. However if one wishes to create a unique version of the score the following instructions will guide you through the process.

1) The background

Take a circular piece of paper and numerous circular objects. With a pencil trace around these objects. The placement of the objects should be roughly centered. Tracings should be done quickly and mostly partially. This process should be done as unintentionally as possible. Chance procedures can be used as a guidance but are not required.

Mount this circular on a square backing matte that is 25 to 30% larger than the circular background. This matte should facilitate the mounting of the transparent over ally so that it can spin. E.G. allow a push pin or other mounting device.

2) The Overlay

The overlay is a series of lines of different weights originating from a common center. The lines should extend to both directions of the centering at varying lengths. Again these can be created “by eye” without intention or via chance procedures. There should be 4 to 8 lines that extend both directions from the center (8 to 16 lines radiating from the center). At least one line should extend beyond the total size of the transparency (which is the same size as the backing matte). If more then one line is of this length they must be of different weights

The overlay should be printed onto a transparency which should be cut to the same dimensions as the backing matte.

3) Assembling the score

The circular score should be mounted to the backing matte perfectly centered. The transparent overlay should be also centered and mounted with a push pin or some other device that allows it to be rotated.

 

Performing the score

General

Radiating Lines can be performed with any instrumentation over the length of time required to get through all of the material. It can be simultaneously performed by any number of players each of which should have their own score and which should independently follow these instructions.

Setup

Each performer should take their copy of the score and rotate the overlay to an individually set position. This position can be set at the performers discretion or via some form of chance procedure.

Performance instructions

The longest, thickest line should be placed topmost and is the starting line for performance. The score can be read clockwise or anti-clockwise.  On beginning the material in between this starting line and the next line – referred to as a “wedge” – should be played. Only the material that is in-between both lines should be played.  That is if there is material above the length of one of the lines it should not be interpreted. All aspects of the material should be considered including spaces between material, overlapping sections, differences in densities, imperfections and so on.

After playing all the material in a give wedge the next wedge should be moved to in the direction chosen by the performer. This  wedge should be gone through silently in a manner corresponding to the length of time that a given wedge would take to perform the material. That is to say that every other wedge should be silent for the length time it’d take to perform it. The circle should be gone around twice in order that all of the material be either interpreted or considered silently.

All material must be played – the performance should continue for as long as this takes. When played with multiple performers the material should be played independently with no attempt to coordinate beyond the initial start. The piece concludes when all performers have performed all of the material.

—

 First Recording

For the first realization of this piece I played through the score several times with three different instruments: a pentatonic lyre, a Steim Cracklebox and a Prepared Piano iPad app. The latter uses samples made from John Cage’s preparations and is a great app available on several platforms (a perfect tablet app – worth the US$1). These three separate recordings were multi-tracked together as per the instructions – that is to say as if they were recorded live by three people. Each track is a different length, so they start together initially but end at different times generating an effect of a gradual thinning out of the ensemble.  The lyre is recorded open air so there is a bit of a field recording aspect in that layer. Anyway give it a listen for yourself and as always I reccomend downloading the uncompressed version from Soundcloud.

For John Cage on the occasion of his hundredth birthday

Happy Birthday!

Below is a score I wrote in tribute to John Cage, in this his centenary year. I may not get a chance to realize this score so I’m posting it up here for anyone to utilize. If anyone does realize this score let me know via the comments or an email. I’d certainly love to see and/or hear anyones attempts.

In recognition of John Cage’s frequent use of the I Ching for his ‘chance operations’ I chose to use it as a randomizing element for this score. I tend to not use the I Ching in my compositions; in the scores where I have used stochastic means I have only one other time used the I Ching (that was for Mid-Spring (rock, breath, 12kHz) which like all of the Eleven Clouds releases was dedicated to an inspirational artist, in this case John Cage). For this piece this would require tossing coins, or yarrow stalks three hundred times (for this year only, +3n for each subsequent year).  However one could easily automate the generation of I Ching values in such a way to accurately capture the randomness of tossing the yarrow stalks. This page covers the mathematics quite well and there are definitely apps and webpages out there to get these values. If I get a chance to work on this (perhaps later in the far) I’d implement this in a spread sheet where one could automate the entire generation process. Then one could print it out or preferably use it as a guide to creating the performance score with brush and ink.

I’m definitely free to answer any questions in order to improve understanding of how to construct or perform the score. Comments on overall clarity are appreciated even if one isn’t going to perform it.

—

One^n
(for John Cage on the occasion of his hundredth birthday)

 

Composed in memoriam of John Cage in his centenary year.

Constructing the score

where n = the number of years since the birth of John Cage

1) Take a large sheet of paper, the larger the better, and mark from 1-64 on the left edge and top edge. The marks should be equidistant apart with the same spacing on the top and bottom. For instance each mark could be 1″ apart making for a 64×64 inch grid. The spacing that you choose is the scale for this score.

2) Using the I-Ching (or anything that captures the probabilities correctly see: http://www.dentato.it/iching/) generate four numbers for each value of n:  i.e.:

1 – 23, 42, 9, 17

If there are moving lines then you should generate both values putting the second into parenthesis. i.e.:

2 – 61 (37), 45, 19, 40

3 – 29 (54) ,12(19), 4, 8

4 – 8, 13, 49 (3), 36 (23)

5 – 26, 50 (38), 13 (2), 12

and so on

These numbers should be labeled x,y, z,w where the four numbers are: x, y: coordinates, z: orientation and w: magnitude.

3) Place a dot of ink, ideally with a brush, but at least in some way that they are not uniform, at the coordinates of the first two numbers as x, y. If there is already a dot here, proceed as if there isn’t perhaps creating a larger, darker, thicker or completely subsumed dot. If there is a parenthetical value for x, y or both x and y place a second dot at that those coordinates.

Note: If one were to automate this with software cast an additional I Ching value to be used as the diameter of the dot. You should map the the value in the range of  1-64 to 4 x your scale. Changes in this case should either be applied to the second dot if it exists or added to the diameter of this dot.

4) Next mark the angle from z using the following formula using 6 degrees for each count of the generated number. Values greater than 60 should have no angle marked. If there is a parenthetical value then mark a second angle following the same system for the first.

5) Finally draw a line using either pencil or ink (or both) from the center of the dot at the marked angle the length of which is determined by w using the scale set in the grid markings (see 1). If no angle has been marked, no line should be drawn. If there is a parenthetical value then there are two conditions. If there are two angles then the two magnitudes are used for them in a one to one correspondence (and on all dots if there are more than one). If there is only one angle then add the two values together. This may extend beyond the marked boundaries or even off the paper.

Examples

With a scale of 1=1″

Ex. 1: 23, 42, 9, 17

Here there would be a dot at  23, 42 with at line at 454 degrees extending 17“.

Ex. 2:  61 (37), 45, 19, 40

For this case there would be a dot at  61, 45 and at 37, 45 with at line at 114 degrees extending 40“.

Ex. 3:  29 (54) ,12 (19), 4, 8

In this example there would be a dot at  29, 12 and at 54, 19 with at line at 24 degrees extending 8“.

Ex. 4: 8, 13, 49 (3), 36 (23)

You would have a dot at 8, 13 and then two lines extending out  at 294 degrees for 36″ and 18 degrees for 23″.

Ex. 5:  26, 50 (38), 13 (2), 12

You would have a dot at 26, 50 and 26, 38 and then two 12″ lines from each dot  at 78 degrees and 12 degrees.

 

Performing the Score

If playing electronics the score should be interpreted as an Electric Score. For acoustic instruments it should be interpreted as a Pool of Sound (a Musical Pattern variant), for which see the specific instructions below. It can be play simultaneously with other instances of this score, for which each performer should generate their own score.  A duration should not be set for performance, the performance should continue until all the material is performed.

 

I. Playing as an Electric Score

• For live electronics setup configured in response to the score.
• Markings are not indications of sounds to played but of overall effect.
• Whitespace must be taken into account
• There is not a one to one mapping of length and duration; duration should be sufficient to realize the affect of the markings.
• Always move in clusters.

 

II. Playing as a Pool of Sound

• Pools of sound arise from the space in which they are set.
• Each pool should be approached individually with common or connecting elements providing the structure.
• The path through the score is up to the performer.
• Spaces between the pools must be observed and should be also be a structural element.
• A pool should be thought of as a system which can have multiple elements: a sound, but also its duration, repetition, dynamic and so on.
• How the characteristics are determined is up to the performer but whatever structure is applied should form the basis for those that share symbolic features.

 

The Curve of the Earth Prelude

With the first performance of the The Curve of the Earth scheduled for late October (much more on this later) the Network Instrument setup has been finalized with only minor adjustments in progress. With the current setup the first recording of the score has been made which I’ve uploaded to SoundCloud for all to check out.

The Curve of the Earth [Prelude/00:00:00-00:43:30]

from the score:

Prelude
At the opening performance of the piece a prelude should be played. This can be an expression of the network at startup as it is brought into readiness by the performer for the beginning of the score. Alternatively there is hard line on the score that marks the beginning of the score but prior to that is some material that could be partially (or fully) obscured by the scroll handle or some device for holding it into place. An impression of this material can be used for this prelude. The Prelude should be specifically indicated in records or recordings of the score, which would include the duration but not a length. i.e:

The Curve of the Earth [Prelude / 00:00:00-00:43:30]

This recording is my first attempt at playing from the score and while done in my apartment approximates a live performance in that it is a single take from material which, while I created it, had yet to realize. As discussed in the initial post on the score, it is an overlay upon live electronics, a Network Instrument in specific, and thus is inherently unpredictable. I’d imagine that the more one plays the score, especially with a static or mostly static Network that increasing familiarity would lead to a certain degree of expertise.  For this first recording it is about as raw and risky as possible as, while the parameters of this particular network have been explored, its behavior and limits are certainly only partially understood.

The scan from the score above is the entirety of the portion of the score that can be used for the prelude with a bit of the actual beginning of the score to the right of the hard line. As the score is a scroll and ideally would have scroll handles (currently it does not) this bit of the score would be partially or perhaps completely obscured by the handle. The hard line was put on the score to indicate material which absolutely must not be obscured in any way. The markings prior to that aren’t really representative of the score (and some of them were brush preparations) but are usable within the rules of the score to realize the prelude.

Also I put up all the current scans from the electric score onto Flickr; check em out if interested.

The Curve of the Earth

The Curve of the Earth (excerpt)

 

The Curve of the Earth
An electric score for soloist performing on a networked instrument with optional observations

—

The Curve of the Earth, is the new project that I’ve alluded to in a few posts earlier this year. This piece is a union of three elements: An Electric Score, a Network Instrument configuration and six optional Observations.

Electric Scores

An Electric Score is a score meant to work in concert with a live electronics setup.  Live Electronic configurations are rather score-like in and of themselves, in that a particular setup has it’s own characteristic behavior which the performer interacts withs.  They tend to be self-activating to some degree and can operate independently (though often predictably) without much user input.  Electric Scores are thus designed to influence this user input but are far from the strict guidelines of a traditionally notated score in which symbols require a consistent reaction. Electric Scores are a metascore that is to say it is a set of rules used to generate scores. It has few prescriptions on what the scores should be as they depend on the associated live electronics setup but it does describe a set of parameters that insures that the generated scores are all still an Electric Score.

The Curve of the Earth is a graphic score constructed of brushed ink on a long scroll of rice paper.  The scroll is quite long -30 or 40 feet long. The ink is usually quite lightly brushed on and the folds, wrinkles and other imperfections in the paper are a vital part of the score.  The score is meant to influence the live electronic setup, so it is not that case that you are turning a knob, or moving a slider in reaction to any of these markings. They are there to influence how you are trying to guide the setup. How this is done is left to the performer, but it definitely behooves the performer to be pretty familiar with both their instrument and the section of the score they are to play.

The Network Instrument in questions

 

The Network Instrument

I’ve written about the Network Instrument quite a bit in these pages (primary articles here and here) so I won’t delve much into the theory. I used various network instrument configurations in the Eleven Clouds project and as I stated in the interview I took part in w/r/t that project, I learned a lot from that project about how I’d setup a network for extended performance. This network is the direct result of that experimentation and experience. There were several elements that I felt I wanted to add into the setup and since the conclusion of that project I’ve made a lot of progress in finding and integrated those components into my base configuration.  In general I tried to use existing items where I could adapt them as opposed to just acquiring new objects, as that way I was able to test my theories without accumulating more stuff.

The Network Instrument detail

 

In this case here I’m using the Nord Micro-modular primarily for EQ which with the Doepfer controller I’m able to make a fairly fine grained adjustments to the overall sound. This has worked well enough that I could see adding a dedicated unit for this, thus freeing up the Micro-modular for other uses.  The Rat Shack Mixer I’m using more or less as a matrix mixer and I definitely would like to replace it with the real deal – it’d be a lot smaller for one and could easily add a few more patch points. The major addition to this setup is the Jomox T-Resonator – this device is almost like a physical manifestation of aspects of Network Instrument theory.  The unit combines filters, some simple effects, internal feedback and most importantly it can modulate between it’s two channels.  It has a nice degree of unpredictability to it and after months of experimenting with it, it has really added to this setup. This network is highly (though far from totally) connected and that has really added to the possibilities.

This network allows for a variety of adjustments both in patching, connections and interfaces which I can utilize for varying parts of the score. This is vital as the score, in its section about the electronics, specifies that the network should not be fixed, that it should evolve along with the score.

Each performance of the piece should have the network especially considered for it. Which isn’t to say it should be a new network for each performance but that the section of the score that is to be played should be considered in what is to be played. Likewise the previous portion should be considered and a small section of a recording of it could even be added as a sound source at the beginning of a new section.

 

Observation 3 (for percussion) (excerpt)

 

Optional Observations

There are six “observations”  that are separate one page scores that can be performed simultaneously with any portion of the score. In the course of a complete performance they can be performed any number of times in concert with the primary score. At any given time no more than two ‘observations’ can be made. Over the course of a complete performance the tendency should be for the bulk of the time to be without observations and of course none need be made.

Observations can be made from any sound source within the specified constraints, but a network instrument, If two of them are occurring simultaneously they should be different instruments.  The material on the pages should be interpreted as a Musical Pattern in that a duration for the page should be determined in advance (in collaboration with the Electric Score performer) and that the silences between material should be consistent within this time. The observations are printed on clear transparencies which should be overlaid onto the Electric Score (the same scroll that the primary performer is used, unrolled to where the observers are. If there is not enough score left to do this, then no observations can be made). The observations are interpretations of the intersection of the primary score and the material on the transparency. Material is not to be repeated.

Observation 1 – for a stringed instrument
Observation 2 – for any sound source
Observation 3 – for percussion
Observation 4 – for any sound source
Observation 5 – for bowed strings
Observation 6 – for percussion

 

The Curve of the Earth (excerpt)

Performance and Recordings

[The Curve of the Earth] should be performed sequentially, that is to say each performance takes up where the last one stops. Each performance should perform as much of the score as the allotted time allows but the overall pace should be sedate.  Each section should be then marked and dated with the performance.  Any recordings of any parts of the score should include the length and time of the score played. I.e.:

The Curve of the Earth [00’00”-05’30” / 00:00:00-01:09:47]

As the above excerpt from the instructions indicates, The Curve of the Earth, is meant to be played in its entirety as opposed to choosing a section to play. However it is not required to be performed in one single occaison, though of course if one could devote the time to it, one could.  It is meant to be played at a deliberate pace, to allow the network instrument to reveal itself.  For as I stated above, this score is a overlay on top of this network – the network is the score. And the network should shift and change as the score shifts and change. So really it is expected to be done in multiple performances, picking up where one has left off. It is hard to determine how long it would take to perform at this point, since it is unperformed and of course this will vary by performer. In the end I don’t think it is important, except that it is meant to be played at a rather sedate pace. It should live.

—

From the perspective of a listener perhaps the details of these elements aren’t important and there is also a risk of the music, once finally experienced, not really living up to any sort of lofty claims.  But as I stated from the outset I want to more or less document the entire process of this project, to lay out what it is that is trying to be done.  This post describes the score and some of the process; look for further posts that describe more of the ideas and concepts behind it.  Ideally also performances should begin at some point, but life events may put those off for some time.  A performance of this piece is pretty liberally defined and recording in ones living room qualifies. So perhaps I’ll try to get a recording of the first few inches made before I have to pack everything away for a forthcoming move – keep an eye out for that to be posted here. But ideally in the future the bulk of the piece will be performed live. Hopefully more on that later.

The Work in Progress

A scan of a small part of the Electric Score

I thought that I should write just a bit about the work-in-progress that my last couple of posts have been referencing.  I’ve tended in the past to work on projects, usually for quite some time, finally producing some sort of finished piece.  Eleven Clouds, with its requirement of producing something monthly, was a fairly new process for me.  While generally there was a lot of behind the scenes work each month some months were fairly major undertakings that normally I’d have probably spent a lot more time on. So in a way that project was a kind of a work-in-progress as the project. Or to put it another way the entirety of the Eleven Clouds content was the actual release and each month was a work-in-progress toward that whole.

Contrast this to my Book of Musical Patterns, which I worked on for two years and then published the book and its two companion CDs. While it was not work entirely in isolation (I released one of the tracks on an i hate music comp)  that is more indicative of my process -long,  slow, contemplative with a final product being released at the end. So for this current project I’m trying to take sort of a middle ground. It will be a long, well thought out process but I thought that I’d put out some of the work as I do it could be seen to develop. The sketches of the previous two posts are the first part of the process I’ve put out so far, but at some point there will be posts on other aspects of the project. It’ll probably be quite some time before I’m satisfied with the network configuration that I’m working toward for the live electronics setup and the sketches probably won’t ultimately be very indicative of the overall sound but I thought it might be of some interest to experience some of how things develop.

This project has three major components to it:

I) An overall structure for the piece that combines an “Electric Score” which is a meta-score used for generating scores that are used with a live electronics setup and a set of companion scores that can be played along with the Electric Score by additional performers. Look for a forthcoming post on “meta-scores” and “electric scores” in particular and the score(s) for this project in particular. The header image is one (tiny) part of the Electric Score for this project.

II) A Network Instrument setup which is said live electronics setup, that is as I’ve written about, somewhat of a score in and of itself. This is what the series of sketches is working through, the attempts to create this “score” that is flexible enough to realize the primary piece. As I’ll discuss in the third point below, this is a long and involved score and the network is not required (or even expected) to be static for each performance, but it should be iteratively developed. So this also is part of the process- developing a flexible network that can evolve as per the score.

III) Performance of the score. The end result of this project is not a recording, or at least not explicitly. The Electric Score (which has been created as of this post) is quite large – the largest score I’ve made since the Book of Musical Patterns. It is expected to be played in parts, though it is not created in segments like the BoMP. The expectation is that in a performance you play a section of the whole, though given sufficient time one could conceive of performing the entire thing. However one performs it it must be played sequentially from beginning to end.  That is to say that it is not a score like, say, Treatise, where you can pick pages to play. Performance does not necessarily have to be public, one could sit down in ones backyard, or living room or studio and over a series of sessions perform the piece. My goal though is a mix of private and public performances until I have played through the piece. When circumstances arise to perform with other musicians the companion scores, which can be played with any portion of the primary score, can be utilized.

This project (as readers of this blog I’m sure have noted) combines a lot of my primary interests: Graphic Scores, Indeterminacy of Performance, Live Electronics and the Network Instrument, Structured Improvisation, Experimentalism in various forms, Long Form Works, Novel Forms of Collaborations and of course a lot more that I’ve yet to get into.  It can be seen in a way as a direct continuation of both the Book of Musical Patterns and Eleven Clouds and certainly as a product of a lot of the ideas that have interested to me for the last five or more years. Of course this is an ambitious project and there certainly is a chance (perhaps even a likelihood) of failure, or of not meeting expectations and these kind of posts can certainly add to that – they can make something seem overhyped, or overworked or less than the sum of its parts. So there is definitely some risk in these posts, but I think it’ll be interesting and informative to myself as well as any readers/listeners.

Anyway to conclude, there will be a continuing series of posts on the score(s) and probably some further sketches as I work on the network configuration and then at some point, I hope, announcements of the performances as they begin.

Sketches

http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F15743009 Sketch 0513a by spiralcage

After a period of inactivity in my own music making I’ve recently embarked on a new major project. This project involves the use of a type of score I’ve been working on that is meant to work in concert with a live electronics setup. Accepting the notion that a live electronics (or Network Instrument) setup is in and of itself a kind of score, this score is meant to work in collaboration with such a score. Thus the score is a priori incomplete – it requires the corresponding live electronics setup(s).  These I’ve been exploring and as I’ve been recording at least some of these explorations I’ve isolated several extracts that I’ve come to think of as sketches.

http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F15743467 Sketch 0513c by spiralcage

These sketches aren’t necessarily representative of the work in progress but are simply explorations of aspects of a particular Network Instrument configuration. The focus has primarily been on material – can this setup generate sounds that fit the overall project and is able to contribute to the form and structure of the piece.  This project, of which I intend to document as it develops, is ambitious and complex in scope and will require it’s components to reflect that. While each individual sketch may seem somewhat limited in scope they are merely meant as an exploration of sometimes just an aspect of a particular configuration.  While they are more focused on sound than structure there is some attention paid to form and the selected extracts are meant to reflect that. They are also short since they are after all, sketches.

Approaches to Graphic Notation

There’s No Sound In My Head from lateral on Vimeo.

There are many approaches to graphic scores – from those are require the construction of a consistent personal vocabulary like Treatise, to those that have such detailed instructions it is akin to an alternate form of traditional notation, to those that are pictures that are to be reacted to and of course the continuum of combinations and grey areas between these general approaches. This graphic score, The Metaphysics of Notation by Mark Applebaum is enough in the later category so that it was setup as an installation at the Cantor Arts Center Museum on the Stanford University campus (where Applebaum is a professor) and yet it is a detailed construction with repeated and referenced elements that a built up vocabulary would certainly serve well. It was not merely an installation in the art gallery it was presented as a score and it received weekly performances for nearly a year.   
  
A new DVD on Innova, The Metaphysics of Notation, consists of a 45 minute performance assembled from these performances, and also includes the documentary There’s No Sound in My Head about the piece.  This documentary is also on Vimeo and I’ve embedded it above. This documentary is highly worth watching even if this specific score and it’s realizations don’t particularly appeal. It touches on a lot of the issues that come up time and time again with graphic scores: are they art or music, indeterminacy of performance, comparisons with traditional notation and so on. These issues come up again and again but rarely does one see much in the culture about them, so even if the treatment is only so in depth, it’s interesting to see these questions raised and some answers given from a variety of different people (who present multiple sides of these issues).

 

Composer and sound-sculpture inventor (not to mention Stanford prof) Mark Applebaum refuses to be fenced in. This time his visually-obsessive music has emigrated from the concert hall to the museum gallery. Mark Applebaum’s cryptic, painfully fastidious, wildly elaborate, and unreasonably behemoth pictographic score, The Metaphysics of Notation, consists of 70 linear feet of highly detailed, hand-drawn glyphs, two hanging mobiles of score fragments, and absolutely no written or verbal instructions. – from the Innova DVD page

I have to admit that I’ve not been super aware of Applebaum’s music. He sort of seems to be in that post-Minimalist, Kyle Gann-ish territory with a generous helping of Trimpin (see his quite interesting looking sound sculptures) and jazz influences. I’m sure that does him a disservice but it’s immaterial when considering a graphic score that has no instruction. One thing that is important to keep in mind with graphic scores of this type is that one can apply a set of meta-rules on the top of the score and still be completely true to the score.  Considering Treatise again when you examine the score in it’s entirety it becomes clear that you have to create your own vocabulary to the symbols. As the symbols repeat throughout the score and are constantly modified, interpenetrated by other symbols and the like it also becomes clear that the score demands consistency and rigor to do justice. This can be down with overriding concerns in place – for instance a very minimalist and quiet approach can be made. Likewise a dramatic and noisy approach could be applied. What matters is that regardless of the concerns of the performers is that their interpretation remains rigorous.

The performers of the piece have ranged from improvisors such as Vic Rawlings, Liz Albee and Gino Robair, to new-complexity composer Brian Ferneyhough, to experimental music percussion ensemble Sō Percussion and many many more. The wide range of these performers demonstrate how you can apply your specific approach to an open score like this. Of course without being able to hear complete performances (and being able to completely examine the score) it is pretty hard to judge individual performances but the overarching point remains. For a fairly extreme example of this consider this performance by the Blum Blum Shub Poetry Coincidence. Cardew often stated that performers of Treatise were co-composers with him and it is this bringing of one’s own approach to the piece – while respecting the score by applying rigor to one’s approach – that is how one becomes part of the piece; a co-composer of your realization of the score. The above documentary ends with the following acknowledgement, that acknowledges not only the various performers of the piece but also this concept:

And above all [thanks] to the intrepid and imaginative performers of The Metaphysics of Notation (who understand that the composer asks for fidelity, not accuracy)

Eye Music at Collins Pub

Saturday, October 9^th, 2010 8:00 PM
Collins Pub
526 Second Ave

Eye Music, the group that I play graphic and textual scores with, has a gig at Collins Pub this Saturday.  This is our second show in the last month and features completely new material for this show. Scores include  Toshi Ichiyanagi’s Sapporo, David Toop’s Lizard Music plus pieces by group members Mike Shannon and Amy Denio.  This also is our first show outside of the wonderful new music cloister that is the Chapel Performance Space.  I’ve never been to Collins Pub, but looking at their menu it looks like they have a pretty decent beer selection and the food sounds pretty classy. So come on down and listen to some experimental music as you hoist a pint.

Complete concert details can be found on the Eye Music page.

Eye Music Ensemble holding Sapporo

Eye Music Concert

My Prepared Wire Strung Harp

We had a pretty good crowd at the Eye Music show on Thursday, something certainly not to be counted in a mid-week show late in the “holiday season”.  The performances were overall quite nice I thought, my favorites of those I was involved in was Cornelius Cardew’s Tiger’s Mind, which I’ve wanted to play for a long time.  This piece is a textual piece, a poetic little scenario with six characters each played by one of the musicians. Like the script in a play Cardew’s score  includes character notes for each character with motivations, interactions with the other characters and interesting little asides. The interpretation instructions for the piece suggest you begin with a fixed sextet and do a line by line almost literal interpretation of the piece. As you become more familiar with the piece you can work more with the characters nature as outline in the character notes and eventually you stop directly assigning the characters and the players do so themselves. Thus there could be multiple players assigned to each character but as long as they treat the other players as the other characters it all works out.  This piece is basically Cardew’s exploration of improvisation, almost a step by step process from set parts to working with the other players directly.  A great piece that I for one would like to play a lot more.

The Tiger’s Mind

Daypiece
The tiger fights the mind that loves the circle that traps the tiger. The circle is perfect and outside time. The wind blows dust in tigers’ eyes. Amy reflects, relaxes with her mind, which puts out buds (emulates the tree). Amy jumps through the circle and comforts the tiger. The tiger sleeps in the tree. High wind. Amy climbs the tree, which groans in the wind and succumbs. The tiger burns.

Nightpiece
The tiger burns and sniffs the wind for news. He storms at the circle; if inside to get out, if outside to get in. Amy sleeps while the tiger hunts. She dreams of the wind, which then comes and wakes her. The tree trips Amy in the dark and in her fall she recognizes her mind. The mind, rocked by the wind tittering in the leaves of the tree, and strangled by the circle, goes on the nod. The circle is trying to teach its secrets to the tree. The tree laughs at the mind and at the tiger fighting it.

We played just the Nightpiece (Cardew specifies that the two parts are to be played on different days) and our performance of the piece was delicate, sensitive and I thought really beautiful. Not to say that it was reductionist in any way, the score certainly calls for more aggressive playing at times: The Tiger burns; He Storms at the circle; The Tree Trips Amy in the dark; The Mind, rocked by by the Wind…and strangled by the circle; the tiger fighting it. The sleeping Amy, the padding of the hunting tiger, the wind tittering and so on, certainly sets a dreamy and floating stage out of which these points of action arise.

My Table of Manipulators

The bulk of the second set was a performance from the entire ensemble of Earle Brown’s December 1952, one of the pieces from his Folio. I love this piece and have played it with the Seattle Improv Meeting as well as with Eye Music. This was the first time I’ve performed it live though and this was my other favorite performance of the evening.  The score (which you can sort of make out on the cover of the program up there), implies spaciousness, sounds coming as discrete events twinkling out of a sea of silence. The loose “instructions” that Brown includes with the piece are almost entirely about space, approaches for navigating through the events. With sounds completely open and the diverse setups of the ensemble which was in a circle around the audience it really was a sea of sounds that came out of the resonant space of the Chapel. The score indicates that at least in one interpretation the thicker line indicate dynamics, so it wasn’t just a uniform wash of tiny sounds. No there were passages of loud and dense events that due to the nature of the score and the fact that you can play it at any orientation, not to mention the differing pace of each performer, meant they could come at any time throughout the performance of the piece. Overlapping events, loud or quiet would occasionally reach a level of actual density, but more often then not they would provide that joyous collision of sound that combined exceed the glory of the original sounds.  We played this piece for a half an hour, which really is a good duration for the piece, allowing for a nice separation of the sounds but again thanks to the size of the ensemble and the differences in the performers there were never extended periods of absolute silence. Enough I think to allow the very positive addition of the other sounds audible from the performance space but not to a degree that that becomes the piece.

All in a all a good evening of music and one I was proud to participate in. The other pieces were great as well and everything was done well. The audience was very respectful and seemed to be enjoying themselves. Thanks to all for a good evening.

Eye Music 2009 gig

EyeMusic 2009 concert poster

The second general Eye Music concert coming up in a couple of weeks once again at the Chapel Performance Space in Seattle WA . The concert takes place Thursday December 17^th 2009 and will feature performances of graphic and textual scores by Mieko Shiomi, William Hellerman, Cornelius Cardew, Boguslaw Schaffer, Greg Bright, Malcolm Goldstein and Earle Brown. Poster and text by Eric Lanzillotta.

—

Full program details:

December 17^th 2009
Chapel Performance Space at the Good Shepherd Center
4649 Sunnyside Ave. N (corner of 50th, in Wallingford)

Performing the following graphical and textual pieces:

• Mieko Shiomi Boundary Music (a Fluxus piece from the 1960’s)
• William Hellerman Circle Music 1 (a graphic quartet presented in two versions)
• Cornelius Cardew Sextet: The Tiger’s Mind (a poetic textual score that Cardew wrote initially for AMM)
• Boguslaw Schaffer Free Form I ( a Polish exploration of symbols, lines, letters, & words)
• Greg Bright Labyrinth II ( Scratch piece; an aural game of concentration)
• Earle Brown December 1952 (From Folio; one of the most well known graphic scores from this contemporary of John Cage, Morton Feldman and Christian Wolff
• Malcolm Goldstein Yoshi’s Morning Song (A Graphic representation of children’s song)

as performed by:

Eric Lanzillotta, Dean Moore, David Stanford, Jonathan Way, Esther Sugai, Amy Denio, Stuart Dempster, Robert j Kirkpatrick, Carl Lierman, Susie Kozawa, Mike Shannon and Dave Knott (more details and bios on the Eye Music site).