KLANG - Direct Sound

KLANG - Direct Sound 5/14/17, 2)36 AM
(https://www.facebook.com/pages/KLANG-New-Music/650921305041191?sk=info&tab=page_info&edited=website)
(https://twitter.com/KLANGnewmusic)
HOME (/) ABOUT (/ABOUT.HTML) DIRECT SOUND (/DIRECT-SOUND.HTML) EARLY REFLECTIONS (/EARLY-REFLECTIONS.HTML)
REVERBERATIONS (/REVERBERATIONS.HTML) FEEDBACK (/FEEDBACK.HTML)
35 COMPOSERS ALL UNDERGRADS SHOULD KNOW The "Direct Sound" Page is

dedicated to general blog
(HTTP://KLANGNEWMUSIC.WEEBLY.COM/DIRECT- posts and discussions.

Various topics are covered
SOUND/35-COMPOSERS-ALL-UNDERGRADS-SHOULD- here.
KNOW) CATEGORIES
3/22/2017
1 Comment (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/35-composers-all-undergrads-should- All (/direct-
know#comments)
sound/category/all)
I think its fair to say that 20th and 21st century music dont always get a fair amount of coverage
RSS Feed (/2/feed)
in terms of music history and theory courses, specifically at the undergraduate level. I understand
this is partially because of the wide variety of styles and developments that took place during the
20th century, but I still feel it is problematic that so much is left out. The musical developments of
the 20th century, specifically the latter half of the 20th century, shaped our modern approaches and
conception of music and art in popular genres and concert music, yet so little time is devoted to the
study of that music.
I dont feel that 20th/21st century music should dominate music history/theory curriculums, and I
can only speak from personal experience, but I feel that a large majority of American music
students are lacking in their knowledge of 20th century music beyond Stravisnky, the 2nd Viennese
School and American minimalism. As an undergrad I learned about Debussy, Shoenberg, Webern,
Berg, Bartok, Stravinksy, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ives, Poulenc and Copland in detail. After that unit
of early 20th century music we jumped through Messiaen, mentioned that Darmstadt was a place
that existed, learned a lot about American minimalism (at least Glass and Reich) and then finished a
superficial passing of composers from ~1975-present.
That said, I dont really have a solution for this problem, and I understand developing new
courses and changing curricula is a long and difficult process. However, there are so many
composers that I personally think all undergraduate students should know about, especially if they
plan to continue with graduate studies in music. I have narrowed this list down to 35 composers
who, if I had my druthers, would required information for all undergraduate history and theory
courses. Below is my list of composers as well as a short rationale for each:
but before we get started
Honorable Mention
http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound Page 1 of 40
These are composers I feel could be on this list, but excluded them because they seem to receive
more coverage in undergraduate courses, and are performed more frequently. This, however, is
based solely on my own undergraduate experience and my observation of other undergraduate
curriculums I experienced through my graduate and doctoral studies.
Elliott Carter
Olivier Messiaen
John Cage
Philip Glass
Steve Reich
John Corigliano
John Adams
And, in a perfect world, I would prefer to teach two courses - early 20th century and late 20th/21st
century history - which would include the following composers:
Ruth Crawford Seeger

Carl Ruggles
Witold Lutoslawski
Gyrgy Kurtg
Toru Takemitsu
Alfred Schnittke
Ben Johnston
Stuart Saunders Smith
John Luther Adams
Joan La Barbara
Brian Ferneyhough
Tristan Murail
Claude Vivier
Libby Larsen
Salvatore Sciarrino
Laurie Anderson
Chaya Czernowin
Jennifer Higdon
David Lang
Julia Wolfe
Michael Gordon
Unsuk Chin
John Zorn
Kevin Puts
.......but we don't live in a perfect world, so let's move on

___________________________________________
The 35 Composers
Edgard Varese - emancipator of noise and sound; key figure in the early 20th century avant-garde,
made major impact on electronic music (58 Brussels World Fair) , truly unique figure who
influenced so many facets of music of the early, mid and late 20th century
Pierre Boulez - arguably one of the most frequently performed and awarded musicians on the 20th
century, very skilled conductor, virtuoso pianist, innovative composer, knowledgeable theorist and
musicologist; we should get past the mistakes of his youth and give his work the respect it deserves
Luciano Berio - Composer who balanced the lyricism and with the sound world and integral serial
methods of the Darmstadt school (in early works), later works showing more eclecticism of style
marked by post-Modernist composers, but with the gestural and harmonic language that grew out
of Darmstadt. Berio also did some pioneering work in electronic music and text-sound composition;
at a minimum one should know the Sequenzas
Karlheinz Stockhausen - Like Boulez, Stockhausen was one of the most influential musical figures
of the 20th century, but Stockhausens influence (especially in electronic music) reaches into
popular music and experimental rock and jazz; also a talented conductor, pianist and theorist in
addition to being an innovative composer
Luigi Nono - Darmstadt composer with a different approach from the total serialism of Boulez,
Berio, Stockhausen, et al; Nono brings a level of narrative and expression to what is otherwise very
aggressive music; highly influential on developments in Italian music of the middle and late 20th
century
Milton Babbitt - Though notorious for his Composer as Specialist, Babbitt was an incredible
teacher and composer who influenced many composers of the 20th century (including musical
composer Steven Sondheim); highly influential in terms of music theory and analysis of atonal
music with pitch sets, serial procedures, combinatoriality, etc.; Pioneering work in electronic music
at CPEMC
Harry Partch - His life is an incredible story; arguably the most important figure in microtonal
music of the 20th century, instrument maker, highly influential on microtonal music (experimental
and popular)
Iannis Xenakis - Major figure in electronic music and mathematical approaches to composition
with serialization; developed his own theories and approaches outlined in Formalized Music
Krzysztof Penderecki - All undergrads will know Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, but its
likely that few will know De Natura Sonoris Nos. 1 and 2, Polymorphia, Anaklasis, Kanon for
Orchestra and Tape, Fluorescences, and the St. Luke Passion. Not only are these beatiful works that
explore color and timbre as a primary formal framing device, they are all landmark works in sound
mass composition. They are also all used in various films, including The Shining, The Exorcist, Wild
at Heart, Children of Men and Shutter Island. Dont like noisy sound masses? Thats ok, because
Penderecki later turned his back on experimental noise music and began writing more traditional
neo-Romantic music, which is equally beautiful, albeit a little on the old side for my personal taste
(but no one asked for that here).
Gyorgi Ligeti - Early pieces utilizing quotation and influence of Bartok and Kodaly, 50s and 60s
compositions with micropolyphony, sound-mass composition, textural music based on electronic
experimentation; later works showing a multitude of styles. Ligeti basically did it all, and did it well.
Morton Feldman - major figure in experimental music, developed new systems of graphic notation,
influential on music and art of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Feldman is primarily important for his
contributions to aleatoric and indeterminate music (also developed by his contemporaries Cage,
Earle Browne and Christian Wolff). I think Cage is covered fairly well, and while I would like to see
Brown and Wolff covered extensively, I would be fine with undergrads having a more than passing
acquaintance with Feldman.
George Crumb - Crumb is taught to an extent, but students should know beyond Ancient Voices
and Black Angels; incredibly important figure in American new music; style is without comparison in
terms of sound and notation; no one writes like Crumb, but Crumb, new approaches to timbre
Peter Maxwell Davies - Later works are mostly tonal works for students, but he was an important
composer in Europe, and his early stage works Eight Songs for a Mad King and Miss Donathorns
Maggot were very influential on crossover works of music, theater and performance art
Jacob Druckman - similar to Joseph Schwantner in terms of orchestrational color and imaginative
use of ensemble timbre, but Druckman encompasses a very wide range of style and aesthetic. He
was highly influential on a generation of students (including Cindy McTee, David Lang, Laurie
Spiegel, Aaron Kernis, Daniel Kellogg and Chris Theofonidis), and he is a great example of a
composer who was heavily influenced by electronic music and the potential of new sounds
available, more so than many of his post-Modernist contemporaries of the mid-late 20th century.
Mario Davidovsky - Influential composer at the Columbia-Princeton Electronic Music Center, series
of Synchronisms for solo instruments and tape. Davidovsky is one of 3 composers to win a Pulitzer
Prize with a piece utilizing electronics as a primary component of the piece (Synchronism 6 for
piano and tape), the other two being Leon Kirchner and Charles Wuorinen.
Pierre Schaeffer - One of the earliest practitioners of elecronic music; established musique
concrete, created Groupe Recherches Musicales (GRM) which is still a highly influential organization
for the research and development of electronic music
Helmut Lachenmann - developed the concept of acoustic concrete, which drove entirely new
approaches to acoustic composition
Sofia Gubaidulina - Incredibly skilled Russian composer who ISNT Shostakovich (nothing against,
him, but Russian music did continue after Dmitri); lots of use of quotation, mixing of styles, use of
improvisation techniques, exploration of interesting timbres. Gubaidulina has also received
numerous awards for her music, and is somehow still not a household name among 20th century
composers.
Julius Eastman - I know weve all heard of Glass, Reich, Riley and Young, but Julius Eastman is
rarely, if ever, talked about in classroom discussions of minimalism, which is really terrible. Eastman
was an amazing performer (singer and pianist) and a brilliant composer whose life and work were
cut entirely too short. If youre looking for some minimalism with a little grit and a lot of depth,
maybe put down Reich/Glass and pick up some eastman.
Pauline Oliveros - Founding member of the San Francisco Tape Music Center and the founder of
Deep Listening. Oliveros is a highly influential composer and innovator of electronic music who
taught at numerous institutions including Mill College, San Diego State University, Oberlin, and the
Rensselaer Institute.
Terry Riley - I know I just said we all know about Teri Riley, but really most people just know about
In C, which is undeniably influential, and is a lot of fun to perform. That said, Rileys music is heavily
influenced by jazz and Indian classical music, and much of his work outside of In C shows that
cross-cultural influence, which became important to the ritualistic aspect of cell-based minimalism.
Riley also did important work at the San Francisco Tape Music Center.
La Monte Young - Another composer associated with classical minimalism who existed well outside
of that aesthetic, Young was very active in experimental music and performance art, specifically his
work with Fluxus. Youngs work was also very influential on John Cale and his work with the Velvet
Underground, and helped to pioneer the practice of ambient drone music.
Meredith Monk - Lots of important work in performance art, has received numerous honors and
awards for her contributions to contemporary art, music and theater, often works on
interdisciplinary multimedia works that stretch genres and has received recognition in the popular
music and film world.
Frederic Rzewski - American composer who is often associated with minimalism based on the
surface repetition, but Rzewskis music contains a level of subtlety and improvisation that is not
often found in the classic minimalism of Glass and Reich, but is more similar to that of Riley and
Julius Eastman (contemporaries of Rzewski). Rzewskis music is also marked by its association with
topics of social and political activism.
Charles Wuorinen - I dont think Charles Wuorinen ever was, or will be, a household name, but hes
definitely a composer that all undergraduates - especially composers - should have at least a
passing knowledge of. While most of Wuorinens output could be defined as coming from the 12-
tone and serialist tradition, and although he can sometimes be a curmudgeonly old man, his music
is vastly rich and deep, and I feel that it has stood the test of time. Additionally, he won a Pulitzer
Prize for his piece Times Encomium in 1970, the only Pulitzer Prize awarded to an entirely
electronic work. It should also be noted that Wuorinen wrote what was at one time a very influential
composition book, and he had numerous students that would later become highly successful
composers (Arthur Russeell, Michael Daugherty, Aaron Jay Kernis)
Robert Morris - Possibly better known in the theory world, but Robert Morris is an incredibly
brilliant musician and a very creative composer. His works are not limited to mental gymnastics of
serial and post-serial technique, but are full of expressive beauty and nuance. His outdoor pieces
are also incredibly creative works that utilize large outdoor spaces and spatialized ensembles to
create immersive sonic events. He was also on faculty at Eastman (along with Schwantner and Sam
Adler) and had his own flock of dedicated and talented pupils.
Kaija Saariaho - Arguably one of the most frequently performed composers of the late 20th and
early 21st centuries. Saariahos music sits somewhere between post modernism and spectralism,
but regardless of what genre you want to put on it, the music is crafted masterfully, satisfies
modernist interests in complex systematic atonality (not serial in any way, but not freely atonal)
and is simultaneously hauntingly expressive. Saariaho also has many works that are major pieces
for instruments and electronics including Pres for cello and electronics, Noanoa for flute and
electronics and Nymphea for string quartet and electronics.
Arvo Prt - The Estonian king of holy minimalism. Arvo Parts music is rich and beautiful, but it is
also important for being influential in what is now referred to as holy minimalism (along with
Henryk Gorecki and John Tavener), a style which utilizes the repetition associated with American
minimalism, but with the pacing and mood of choral music, or at least more chorale-like textures.
Part is often considered the originator of this approach to minimalism, and his instrumental and
choral works in this style are performed frequently throughout the world.
Gerard Grisey - French composer credited with developing spectral composition along with his
colleague Tristan Murail. Spectral music was a major development in composition that led to
influences in orchestral and chamber music as well as electronic composition (with and without
instruments) and film music. In my personal opinion Grisey should be included with Debussy, Les
Six, Messiaen and Boulez in terms of his importance to French music and contemporary
composition on the whole.
Louis Andriessen - Andriessens mature musical style is oten associated with minimalism because
of its use of repetition, but it is highly influenced by jazz and simultaneously by the spectral
techniques of Claude Vivier. While many minimalists chose to utilize pitch structures related to tonal
and modal harmony, Andriessens music favors crunchy European dissonance and pitch structures
based on the natural overtones series. Andriessen also utilizes odd combinations of instruments
instead of more traditional chamber groups or orchestras
Joan Tower - A major figure in the development of late 20th century American music. Tower was
also a performer and was a founding member/pianist of the Da Capo Chamber Players. Her music
has received numerous awards including a Grawemeyer for Silver Ladders. Other important works
include Sequoia, Petroushskates and Fanfare for the Uncommon Woman
Frank Zappa - Frank Zappa is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting and talented musical
minds of the 20th century. He never formally studied music or composition and could write
chamber and orchestral works on the level of Varese, Stravinsky, Berg, Boulez, you name it. He also
wrote interesting genre bending popular music in numerous styles, experimented with electronics
(having composed numerous fixed media electronic compositions), he worked at IRCAM, was one of
the first people to own a personal Synclavier, and arguably influenced music in popular music and
contemporary concert music to a greater extent than anyone on this list.
Ellen Taaffe Zwillich - The first woman to win a Pulitzer Prize (1983 for Three Movements for
Orchestra, Symphony No. 1), first person to hold the Composers Chair at Carnegie hall, a massive
list of honors and awards, four Grammy nominations, chair of the BMI Student Composer Award
(following Milton Babbitt and William Schuman). Zwillichs music and career should be taught in all
20th century music history courses, without a doubt.
Shulamit Ran - The second woman to win a Pulitzper Prize (1990 for Symphony), recorded by over
12 record labels, numerous honors/awards and five honorary doctorate degrees. Shulamit Ran
teaches at the University of Chicago and has been a leading voice in contemporary music
throughout the world and her approach to composition is influenced by her studies with Norman
Dello Joio, Ralph Shapey and Elliott Carter. This led to a compositional voice characterized by
eclecticism of style, harmonic and rhythmic language.
Augusta Reed Thomas - A talented composer who could be described as balancing postmodernism
and neo-Romanticism. Thomas was very talented as a young composer and became a tenured
professor at Eastman at the age of 33, but later went on to teach at Northwestern. Thomas has
composed for numerous ensembles and genres, has received numerous awards and commissions
and is frequently performed throughout the world. It is difficult to deny that she is one of the most
celebrated composers of the 21st century.
Thomas Ads - I feel that Thomas Ads music is similar to Augusta Reed Thomas in terms of style
and aesthetic, and I personally feel that I could not include Augusta Reed Thomas without Thomas
Ads or Ads without Thomas. His music also demonstrates his approach to post-modernism with
eclecticism of style, pastiche, quotation and colorful instrumentation.
Like 55 Tweet
1 Comment (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/35-composers-all-undergrads-should-
know#comments)
ANOTHER REFLECTION ON 2016

(HTTP://KLANGNEWMUSIC.WEEBLY.COM/DIRECT-
SOUND/ANOTHER-REFLECTION-ON-2016)
1/5/2017 0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/another-reflection-on-2016#comments)
As we all know, 2016 was not an easy year for a multitude of reasons. I always spend the last couple
weeks of December reflecting on the year (as I imagine a lot of people do), and I thought back to my
first KLANG post of 2016 (posted on this day one year ago). I couldnt remember what it was, so I
opened up my computer and checked the website. Sadly, it was my Remembering Boulez post,
which was not a stellar way to start the year, but it was a post that needed to happen in the
immediate aftermath of learning of Boulezs passing.
The problem was that it did not stop there. Over and over again 2016 took from the world one
musician after another. Concert music, electronic music, experimental music, popular music, jazz,
folk music, nobody seemed off-limits in 2016, and it was definitely a year that took a lot of
important musicians and composers who helped shape the musical landscape of 2016. Here is
(very) short list of some of the composers lost in 2016:
Pierre Boulez (Jan 5, 90)

Leslie Bassett (Feb 4, 93)
Steven Stucky (Feb 14, 66)
George Martin (March 8, 90)
Peter Maxwell Davis (March 14, 81)
Tony Conrad (April 9, 76)
Jean-Claude Risset (Nov 22, 78)
Pauline Oliveros (Nov 25, 84)
Karel Husa (Dec 14, 95)
On a more personal note, I felt directly impacted by the passing of so many of the composers on
this list. While I did not know any of these composers personally on a personal level (I had met and
spoken with Steven Stucky on multiple occasions, but always under professional circumstances),
their music, writings and lectures were a huge influence on me as a young composer searching for
my own artistic voice.
Karel Husa was a composer who sparked in me a new interest in the wind ensemble within the last
couple of years, and while Ive never been incredibly interested in the ensemble or literature I
always found his music wonderfully imaginative in substance and orchestration. Pauline Oliveros
and Jean-Claude Risset, who died only a few days apart, were massive influences on me in my early
studies of electronic music at Ohio University. Rissets Songes for instruments and electronics is still
one of my favorite early works for instruments and electronic sound and Oliveros experiments with
electronics are still of particular interest for me. Additionally, Oliveros philosophy and method of
deep listening had a huge impact on how I listen to the world around me.
Tony Conrad ignited in me a new interst in minimalism around 2008/09. While there was a time in
my early studies when I appreciated Glass, Reich and, to the greatest extent, Terry Riley, I was never
really taken by minimalism. That is until I heard Conrad's album Slapping Pythagoras with all of its
beatiful and noisy repetition of cells and drones. This album would later get me interested in more
gritty and abrasive (at least in comparison to "classic" minimalism) forms of minimalist music that I
didnt find in the works of Glass, Reich, Riley or even La Mont Yonge (nothing against those guys,
though). These included Julius Eastman, Louis Andriessen, Julia Wolfe and Frederic Rzewski.
Peter Maxwell Davies was one of the most influential composers on my musical thinking as an
undergraduate at Ohio University. I first found his Eight Songs for a Mad King when I was a
sophomore and I listened to the Unicorn recording with Julius Eastman while following along with
the score more times than I could possibly even remember. I even attempted to model my
undergraduate thesis after Davies work by writing a monodrama for baritone voice and Pierrot
ensemble. Though I fell far short of the mark with my own composition, I will never forget the
massive influence that Davies piece had on me, as well as Miss Donnithornes Maggot, in forging my
interests in the intersections of music and theater.
George Martin almost goes without saying. I was never a huge fan of The Beatles (I know,
blasphemy, right?), but I did like the later more experimental records. It was years later that I found
out about the influence of George Martin and the recording and studio techniques he employed
that made those records so special. Not to take anything away from The Beatles, but for me it was
the studio experimentation that makes some of those songs so special and interesting. Additionally,
Martin brought the idea of the studio as an instrument (an idea that had been in practice in Europe
and American universities for years) to the world of popular music. His genius as a recording
engineer was not limited to polished recordings, and he is someone Ive always looked up to in term
of creative recording technologies.
Steven Stucky and Leslie Bassett are two composers who I dont really align with aesthetically, but
as an undergraduate I loved studying their music, specifically for the orchestral color. I was all
about drawing aesthetic lines in those days of my studies - Ill listen to this because its atonal, but
thats not thorny enough, yada yada yada.. But Bassett and Stucky were different. I would listen
to Stuckys Ad Parnassum over and over again. Bassetts Variations for Orchestra was one of my
favorite pieces at a time when all I wanted to listen to was Babbitt and Stockhausen. It was also
through Bassett that I became familiar with the work of Robert Morris, who would later be very
influential on me during my graduate studies.
When I was working toward my masters at Bowling Green State University I had the opportunity of
meeting Steven Stucky on numerous occasions. My favorite memory of those interactions was at an
after-party at the end of the festival in which everyone gathered at a small bar downtown called
DiBenedettos for drinks and festival talk. I went up to the bar to get a refill on my whiskey and I saw
Stucky standing, also waiting patiently for a refill. I walked up to him and congratulated him on the
performance of his new piece Isabelle Dances and told him it was nice having met him (we had
already talked 2-3 times at this point during the festival). He reached over and patted me on the
back and said It was nice meeting you, Jon. Youre a good kid. Hopefully well see each other again
the next time Im here. Then we clinked our glasses together, took a drink and parted ways into the
crowd.
That brings us to Pierre Boulez, definitely the hardest hit for me on this list. I wont spend much
time talking about that here, since I dedicated an entire post to reflecting on Boulez a year ago on
the day of his passing. I can say that Boulezs music is still a primary influence on my own work, his
writings (yes, even the early polemical ones) have been important in the shaping of my own musical
thinking, and I feel that he has written some of the richest and most emotionally moving music Ive
ever had the pleasure of experiencing.
And with that I think Ill stop. I apologize for starting both 2016 and 2017 with downer posts, but I
felt it necessary to do a reflection on the impact of those that were lost in 2016, both for the music
world at-large and for me personally. Lets hope that 2017 is a little more forgiving. Below is a list of
performers and composers in the popular music world I also felt were major losses, at least for me
personally. You will all be missed, and thank you for your contributions to the developments of
music in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Leonard Cohen
David Bowie
Prince
Merle Haggard
Maurice White
Glenn Frey
Paul Kantner
Greg Lake
Keith Emmerson
George Michael
Pete Burns
James Woolley
John Berry
Phife Dawg
Maurice White
Like 3 Tweet
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/another-reflection-on-2016#comments)
CREATING PITCH STRUCTURES WITH SIEVES

SOUND/CREATING-PITCH-STRUCTURES-WITH-SIEVES)
9/13/2016
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/creating-pitch-structures-with-sieves#comments)
Heads Up: the following entry contains a lot of set theory. For the sake of avoiding confusion,
when referring to pc sets I will use A to represent the integer 10 (A#/Bb) and B to represent
the integer 11(B-natural)
Ive always felt that one very useful benefit of the tonal system, even when highly chromatic, is
that it contains built-in restrictions one must follow in order to adhere to the system successfully.
Even a highly chromatic tonal work must, by definition, center around some kind of tonic, and any
progression toward or away from that tonic is governed by a series of loose guidelines governed by
the hierarchical relationship of scale degrees and chords to the tonic. The same cannot always be
said of atonal music, especially atonal music based around pitch-class sets (pc sets). The composer
must create his or her own restrictions in order to establish a unifying harmonic/pitch language
within a work. This is not impossible, and there are countless organizational methods that
composers have used throughout the 20th and 21st centuries; use of symmetrical sets, limited
transpositions of a single set, serial procedures, Messiaens modes of limited transposition, and
others. One method that (I believe) is lesser-known is the use of sieves, developed by Iannis
Xenakis, Greek composer, architect and music-theorist. Xenakis was a pioneer in the use of applying
principles of architecture and stochastic processes to his music through mathematically calculated
pitch and rhythmic systems. Sieves can applied to rhythmic structures and pitch structures equally,
but I will only be going over how to apply a sieve to pitch (a post on rhythm is in the works). I will
discuss what a sieve is, how it is constructed, how it can be mapped to pitch and some of the
benefits that can be gained from using this particular method of pitch organization.
In simple terms, a sieve is a means of filtering. Mathematically speaking, it is the filtering of a set
of numbers based on specific rules so that only some members of the set remain. Christopher Ariza
defines a sieve as a formula consisting of one or more residual classes combined by logic operators.
A residual class consists of two integer values, a modulus (M) and a shift (I). The modulus can be any
positive integer greater than 0, and the shift can be any integer from 0 to M-1. A modulus and shift
will be notated M@I (read modulus M at shift I).
Another way of notating a sieve is to represent it as as an integer (the factor or modulus) with a
subscript integer to represent the shift. An example is 30, which represents the series [0, 3, 6, 9,
12]. We can alter the shift and make it 31 to create the series [1, 4, 7, 10, 13...]. You can also
combine two series together to create a new compound series. Take, for instance the following:
32 + 42 = s, in which s is the composite set of the two subset sieves
32 = [2, 5, 8, 11, 14]

42 = [2, 6, 10, 14]
S = [2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14] and the set continues
The example above is what we call a symmetrical periodic set. The two elements (32 and 42) are
individually periodic sets, and when combined together they form the interval series [3,1,2,1,3],
which is a symmetrical set. When the two residual classes have the same shift you can find their
periodicity by multiplying the two factors. In this case 3 x 4 = 12, so every 12 integers each of the
sets will be replicated, and therefore their superset [2,5,6,10,11,14] will be replicated. The shift value
of 2 indicates that the series will replicate at every 14th integer (a period of 12 with a shift of 2 =
14).
If we combine two residual classes with the same factor/modulus but different shift values we
can create a periodic asymmetrical set. Take the collection below, for example:
120 + 122 + 124 + 125 + 127 + 129 + 1211 = [0,2,4,5,7,9,11]

And with mod12 this set would be replicated following integer 11
This sieve represents the structure of a major scale. As the set replicates itself we have the same
interval structure replicating itself over and over [2,2,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1,2,2,2,1,]. We can do the same
for other scales:
Natural Minor: 120 + 122 + 123 + 125 + 127 + 128 + 1210 = [0,2,3,5,7,8,10]
Harmonic MInor 120 + 122 + 123 + 125 + 127 + 128 + 1211 = [0,2,3,5,7,8,11]
Octatonic 120 + 121 + 123 + 124 + 126 + 127 + 129 + 1210 = [0,1,3,4,6,7,9,10]
Whole-tone 120 + 122 + 124 + 126 + 128 + 1210 = [0,2,4,6,8,10]
Sieves are not limited to just the harmonic structures of the tonal system. Any set of
residual classes can be combined to form a sieve that can be mapped onto pitch space. Lets look at
the example above (32 + 42), which creates the set [2,5,6,8,10,11,14]. If we extend the sequence and
then map it onto a mod12 pitch class space we get the set [2,5,6,8,A,B], with a prime form of
(013569). We can map this onto pitch-class space, for instance the range of a piano, and we get the
following series:
This brings me back to my opening remarks about the built-in restrictions of the tonal system being
a benefit of that particular harmonic/pitch language. How do sieves help solve this problem created
with atonal pitch structures? The (32 + 42) sieve generates a repeating pattern of the same pitch
classes in each octave, all of which have the prime form (013569). While this is useful for
demonstrating the mapping of a sieve onto pitch space, it doesnt allow for much variation in the
harmonic language of a piece. I have often felt that even when I limit myself a single pc set,
(0124589) for instance, that having all 12 transpositions of that set still leaves me with a mostly
open use of all pitches within the octave. One solution is to not think within the confines of pc sets,
but to think within the confines of the octave. It is possible to create a sieve that is a combination of
repeating interval series that do not have regular points of periodicity (i.e. they do not overlap at the
same point within the octave). Each octave can be broken into its own pc set, but the pitch
characteristics will change within each octave. This is created by using two or more residual classes
with different factor/modulus values and different shift values. (Sidenote: I have found it is best to
use at least 3 interval series to fill out the register and not produce lots of large intervals between
adjacent pitches). Take the following example:
Using the range of the piano (0-87, where 0=A0)

60 + 91 + 77 = s
60 = [0, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 78, 84]
75 = [5, 12, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 66, 73, 80, 87]
91 = [1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 82]
S = [0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 42, 45, 46, 48,
52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 64, 66, 72, 73, 78, 80, 82, 84, 87]
And mapped onto pitch space (in which 0 represents A0, not C1) that would look like this:
The example above demonstrates three overlapping interval series mapped onto pitch space.
However, because each interval series is shifted by a different amount the three series do not
overlap at regular points, creating different pitch content for each octave, and variation in the
sequence of pc sets. This artificial scale created through filtering by intervals can now serve as the
basis for all pitch structure within a piece. Each octave has a unique set of pitches and contains a
unique pc set. If you are a composer who is more inclined to use transpositions of a single pc set,
the sieve above might become problematic considering each octave has a unique pc set, and
therefore, different harmonic characteristics.
Another method of creating a sieve is to structure the interval series in a similar fashion as the
sieves for major and minor scales above, but with a modulus value that is not 12. Take the following:
100 + 101 + 102 + 103 + 106 + 107 = [0,1,2,3,6,7,10,11,12,13,16,17,20,21,23,26,27]
This method creates the same variation in pitch content per octave, but results in a concatenated
series of the same pc set. The consistent modulus of 10 begins the series on a pitch class that is a
minor 7th above the first pitch class in the previous series (e.g. if the first pc set begins on 9 (A), the
next pc set will begin on 7 (G), the next on 5 (F) and so on). If we were to map this onto the range of
the piano it would look like this:
This method of generating a sieve is beneficial for working with the same pc set, but not leaving
yourself open to all transpositions mapped to the entire range of the keyboard. It is still up to the
composer to develop a meaningful way to use these materials, but using a sieve as a jumping-off
point can be very helpful in establishing a harmonic/pitch language that is atonal and has some of
the freedom of free atonality using pitch sets and the unification of pc sets and subsets that can
be gained from more structural approaches such as serial or 12-tone technique. Upon first learning
about sieves I used them in a couple of pieces with relative success. More recently I find myself
turning to sieves for generating pitch structures in all of my works. I have experimented with free
atonality, serial techniques, stochastic pitch generation, Messiaens MOLT (you name it, Ive
probably tried it), but I find that sieves provide me with the perfect balance between a structured
pitch/harmonic system and the freedom to choose how I want to order and organize those pitches
linearly and vertically.
For more information on sieves, check out the following links.
- Dissertation by Dmitirios Exarchos on Xenakis' Sieve Theory

(https://monoskop.org/images/4/4b/Exarchos_Dimitrios_2007_Iannis_Xenakis_and_Sieve_Theory_Vol_1_Text.pdf)
- (https://www.iannis-xenakis.org/Articles/Exarchos.pdf)Analysis of Sieves in Dmitrios
Exarchos' paper "Inside/Outside Time: Metabolae in
Xenakis' Tetora (https://www.iannis-xenakis.org/Articles/Exarchos.pdf)
-
(http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0148926054094396#.V5aIXVJYEU4)Christopher
Ariza's article "The Xenakis Sieve as Object" from the March 2006 Computer
Music Journal
(http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0148926054094396#.V9nZRRSU4d4)
- Sever Tipei's "Composing with Sieves" for the Computer Music Project
(http://ems.music.illinois.edu/people/tipei/Papers/Files/perth.pdf)
You can also check out the chapter on sieves in Xenakis own Formalized Music
Keep an eye out for the next topic on sieves applied to rhythmic structures.
Like 35 Tweet
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/creating-pitch-structures-with-sieves#comments)
REMEMBERING BOULEZ
SOUND/REMEMBERING-BOULEZ)
1/6/2016 0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/remembering-boulez#comments)
I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of composer,

conductor, pianist and author Pierre Boulez on January 5, 2016.
I woke up this morning (Wednesday, Jan. 6), made myself a cup
of tea, opened my laptop and continued working on a Max/MSP
patch to run the electronics for Boulezs Anthemes II for violin
and electronics - a project Ive been working on constantly for
the last few days - when I took a brief detour to check the news.
The first thing I saw on NPR was an article titled "Composer
Pierre Boulez, A Reverend Iconoclast, Has Died at 90," and I was
completely stunned. Literally, stunned for a second - I couldnt
move enough to refresh the page to make sure the article was
real. After a minute or two the initial shock wore off and I read
the article in front of me. I went on a search to find more
articles that could confirm the story. I just couldnt believe that Boulez had passed away.
Im not sure why I had such a hard time believing this was true. Boulez was 90 years old and I
knew that he had health issues that were preventing him from traveling to various performances
and festivals throughout 2015, but it still came as such a shock to me. The music world lost such an
incredibly talented, creative, thoughtful, and imaginative musician - a man who is arguably one of
the most important figures of the 20th century whose music, recordings and writings will continue
to influence musicians long into the 21st century. I have only been familiar with Boulez and his
contributions to music for a decade, but I can honestly say that he has been the most influential
voice on my career as a musician.
My first interaction with Boulezs music was when I was an undergraduate at Ohio University. His
name came up in a history book in relation to his work Le Marteau sans Maitre and post-WWII
Darmstadt serialism, but little time was spent on the topic. I mostly knew Boulez as a conductor,
and I owned many of his recordings (most importantly The Complete Works of Anton Webern), and
listened to them often. When I began my graduate studies at Bowling Green State University I
became much better acquainted (figuratively) with Boulez the composer while taking a
contemporary music survey course with Dr. Mikel Kuehn. I later studied composition with Dr.
Kuehn, and he continued to foster my interest in Boulezs music through score study, guided
reading, small exercises in serial and post-serial composition, etc. I was fascinated by the immense
spectrum of timbral color that Boulez could get from both a large orchestra and a solo performer.
His mathematical compositional techniques appealed to my more rational side of thinking and the
visceral result of his music appealed to my personal aesthetic taste. And, if Im being honest, his
writings appealed to my love of working against the grain and shaking things up. Boulez became a
new compositional idol for me, and he has remained a constant source of inspiration.
While many will remember Boulez as a young polemical composer/performer in the middle of
1940s war-ravaged Europe, I hope that most will choose to remember him for the numerous
contributions and innovations he made to the world of contemporary music. Additionally, there are
myriad interviews with Boulezs colleagues over the years (Daniel Barenboim, Simon Rattle, Pierre
Aimard and others) who speak very highly of Boulez as a person, speaking of his gentle demeanor
and lighthearted attitude. Was he an intense musical figure? Yes. Did he place extreme demands on
performers? Yes, that too. Did he say outlandish inflammatory things at a time when he was a young
man surrounded by musical pioneers in the center of new music of the world and was basically
given a podium and a bullhorn? Yes, but that should all be water under the bridge at this point. With
that out of the way, what I have read so far in obituaries and social media postings have been
incredibly positive and uplifting and speak very highly of Boulez both as a musician and as a human
being. I can only hope that this kind of courtesy and heartfelt remembrance of a great musical hero
and pioneer will continue.
And with that, I say goodbye, Maestro Boulez, and thank you for all that you've given me, and
more importantly, thank you for everything you've given to the world of music.
Pierre Boulez, Mmoriale (1985), Ensemble InterContemporain.
Below is a selection of obituaries, videos of Boulezs music and a video tribute to Boulez put
together by Universal Edition.
Articles:
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/arts/music/pierre-boulez-french-
composer-dies-90.html)
BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35241250)
The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/06/pierre-boulez-classical-musics-
maverick-dies-aged-90)
The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/12084616/Pierre-Boulez-obituary.html)
Universal Edition Tribute (all interviews available in full on the UE youtube channel)
A Tribute to Pierre Boulez: MusikSalon
Pierre Boulez, Structures I & II (Kontarsky/Kont
Pierre Boulez Messagesquisse, sur le nom de P
Pierre Boulez Eclat-Multiples (1965-1970)
Like 27 Tweet
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/remembering-boulez#comments)
WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE? PROGRAMMING TRENDS

AMONG CHAMBER ENSEMBLES
SOUND/WANTED-DEAD-OR-ALIVE-PROGRAMMING-
TRENDS-AMONG-CHAMBER-ENSEMBLES)
10/24/2015
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/wanted-dead-or-alive-programming-trends-among-
chamber-ensembles#comments)
On July 27, Eric Guinivan (the curator of the website Composers Circle) published research on
programming trends among American orchestras (http://composerscircle.com/special-report-state-
of-the-art/), specifically the number of living vs. deceased composers on orchestra programs in the
2015-16 concert season. The article was very interesting, and while there was nothing surprising in
the data Eric gathered, it was good to be able to apply empirical data to the topic. Heres a quick
rundown of the numbers Eric presented:
= Living composers account for 10.9% of orchestra programming

= 162 pieces by living composers out of 1,483 total pieces programmed in the 2015-16 season
= Living female composers is limited mostly to Jennifer Higdon, Anna Clyne, Gabriella Lena
Frank and Sarah Kirkland Snider
= Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Strauss make up more than 25% (387 pieces)
of orchestral programming
(Please see the rest of Guinivans article for more details. Its an interesting article and must-read
for composers, especially young/emerging composers)
Again, this shouldnt be shocking to anyone who follows orchestra concert seasons. Guinivans
research confirms the upsetting fact that orchestras and large concert halls simply are no longer a
primary support system of the music of today. The numbers in Guinivans study combined with this
article (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music) by New
Yorker columnist Alex Ross (and many others like it) paint a dismal picture of the current state of
contemporary music. It would seem that audiences, curators, and now even performers are less
interested in hearing and/or performing new works by young composers. But is that actually true? I,
personally, am not satisfied with that mindset, whether it is the truth or not.
That said, Guinivans article got me thinking. I knew that there are many outlets for living composers
- calls for scores, established new music festivals, start-up festivals, touring chamber groups and
soloists actively commissioning new works, artist residencies, etc. After making a long list of
opportunities and outlets for younger generations of composers I decided to do my own version of
Guinivans study. I gathered programming information for the 2015-16 season for various chamber
ensembles, primarily American chamber groups. I then gathered the total number of living and
deceased composers per ensemble. I calculated the number of living composers, deceased
composers, male, female, total number of works by a composer and total number of commissioned
works by each composer. After gathering this data for each ensemble I made a database of all the
composers to take a look at the numbers without dealing with the issue of duplication (in other
words, the database calculations would only count a composer once even if they appear on the
roster of multiple ensembles).
Then there was the issue of scope. Chamber music is a very broad category. To get a good sampling
of (nearly) everything that goes on in chamber music I broke ensembles up into the following
categories:
= Mixed ensembles of more than 8 players (8 ensembles)

= Mixed ensembles of 4-8 players (4 ensembles)
= String quartet (4 ensembles)

= Saxophone quartet (2 ensembles)
= Wind quintet (2 ensembles)
= Percussion ensemble (2 ensembles)
= Brass quintet (2 ensembles)
= Vocal ensemble, mostly a capella (2 ensembles)
The following is a list of all of the ensembles used for this research.
American Modern Ensemble * American Brass Quintet * ^
Crash Ensemble * Meridian Arts Ensemble +
Ensemble Dal Niente * ^ Emerson String Quartet
Ensemble Modern Julliard String Quartet
Ensemble Intercontemporain Kronos Quartet
Great Noise Ensemble Imani Winds * ^
Ictus Madera Wind Quintet + ^
International Contemporary Ensemble * ^ Prism Quartet * +
Bang-On-A-Can All Stars * ^ XASAX Quartet +
eighth blackbird * ^ Line Upon Line Percussion * ^
Loadbang * ^ Third Coast Percussion ^
Yarn/Wire * ^ Roomful of Teeth *
Quince Contemporary Ensemble * ^ JACK Quartet *
* = ensemble was contacted and directly provided programming information

+ = ensemble repertoire list and past programs used to collect data; programs subject to
change during season, full rep. list is used throughout concert season
^ = ensemble does residencies at schools/universities during concert season and performs
student works not listed on regular concert season
So what did the numbers look like, you ask? Heres a short breakdown:
= 934 total pieces by 561 composers
= 443 out of 561 are living composers (79%)
= 118 deceased composers (21%); compared to 89.1% of orchestra programming
= 36 composers deceased within the last 25 years
= 476 male composers to 85 female composers
= 15% female composers. Still a terrible number
In short, the numbers for chamber ensembles is totally opposite of what Guinivan found to be the
trend for orchestras. The only number that isnt drastically different is the number of female
composers. While 15% is an embarrassingly small number (and poor representation) of female
composers, what is important is that the 15% represents a total of 85 female composers. Compare
that to a little more than 4 in orchestral programming.
The two graphs below show the difference in programming living vs. deceased composers for the
chamber groups in my study and the orchestras in Guinivans study.
I was really excited by the results on a preliminary compiling of all the data, so I decided to dig a
little deeper and see what else I could uncover. Here are a few more tidbits:
= 934 total pieces programmed

= 265 by deceased composers (28%)
= 669 by living composers (72%)
= compared to 162 by orchestras (who are also programming roughly 549 more pieces
than chamber groups [60% more music than chamber groups])
= 281 commissioned works
= 30% of total programming is made up of commissions
= Loadbang, Yarn/Wire, Crash, Great Noise Ensemble, Bang-On-A-Can All Stars create
most of their programs from commissioned works due to the nature of the
instrumentation
= 41% of music by living composers is made up of commissions
Those are some pretty great figures if you ask me. It seems from these numbers alone that the
chamber groups are not only supporting the music of living composers, but they are actively
commissioning new works! The numbers for commissions got me thinking even more about who
exactly are these ensembles commissioning? Bill Doerrfeld wrote and article for New Music Box
called Ageism in Composer Opportunities (http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/ageism-in-
composer-opportunities/) about the limited opportunities made available to aging composers, and
my research made me wonder if I could find anything to confirm or deny Mr. Doerrfelds claims.
Here is what I came up with:
= 443 total living composers

= 243 composers under the age of 50
= 200 over the age of 50
= 323 pieces by composers under the age of 50 (34.6% of total programming!)
= 101 living composers with multiple pieces programmed
= 281 Commissioned works
= 133 composers under 50 with commissioned works
= 165 total commissions by composers under 50
= 100 total composers over 50 with commissioned works
= 112 total commissions by composers over 50
= 4 commissions by deceased composers; pieces still part of ensemble repertoire and
programming catalog
Well it would seem that if youre a composer under 50 living in America and actively writing
chamber music then youre in a pretty good place. That isnt to say that the state of things for
composers over 50 is necessarily awful, but there is a slight tilt toward favoring programming and
commissioning younger composers, at least by the ensembles who took part in my research. The
graphs below give you a better look at this information.
(/uploads/1/2/3/0/12308331/8304734_orig.png)
(/uploads/1/2/3/0/12308331/2947068_orig.png)
(/uploads/1/2/3/0/12308331/4310928_orig.png)
The following graph shows all of the information gathered in the master database of composers
The last thing I decided to look into were the numbers for the ensembles themselves instead of
looking primarily at the master list of composers. The following is the breakdown of some ensemble
data:
Top 10 Ensembles programming living composers

1. American Modern Ensemble, Bang-On-A-Can All Stars, Crash Ensemble, Great Noise
Ensemble, Loadbang (all with 100% living composers programmed)
2. Third Coast Percussion (93.75%)
3. Yarn/Wire (93.3%)
4. Quince (92%
5. Kronos Quartet (91%)
6. Line Upon Line (91%)
7. Ensemble Dal Niente (90%)
8. eighth blackbird (89%)

9. Roomful of Teeth (88.9%)
10. Prism Quartet (88.2%)
Top 10 Ensembles for programming women

1. Kronos Quartet (43% of season program)
2. Bang-On-A-Can All Stars (35%)
3. Quince (36%)
4. Roomful of Teeth (33%)
5. American Modern Ensemble (27%)
6. Loadbang (26%)
7. eighth blackbird (17.8%)
8. Ensemble Dal Niente (17.7%)
9. Prism Quartet, Ensemble Intercontemporain (11.7%)
10. JACK Quartet, Line Upon Line (9%)
The following graphs show the percentage of living and deceased composers broken down by
ensemble (top) and the total number of pieces programmed by living and deceased composers
divided by ensemble (bottom)
So what did I take away from all of this? Well, first, the state of new music is not in dire straits as Ive
always believed. The chamber ensembles sampled for this research are not only actively seeking out
living composers, but they are thriving on that music. In addition to that they also favor music by
younger generations. While this may be upsetting for the older generations of composers, it is
comforting (at least for me) to know that so many talented ensembles are giving the composers of
my generation a voice.
Something else I found interesting while poring over the numbers is that many of these ensembles
perform more frequently at venues other than concert halls and universities. While there is a large
number of university performances, it seems that many smaller ensembles are seeking out new
venues to share music with people. Some are performing at nightclubs, some at libraries, art
galleries, outdoor spaces, and other non-traditional venues dedicated to the performing arts. What
this says to me is that these performers are seeking new audiences - and apparently finding them if
this trend is ongoing. A conversation I often have with my friends and colleagues is how to get our
music to more people. How do we fill up out concert halls with a packed house? How can we bring
our art to the communities in which we live? I think many of these ensembles have found the
answer, and that is to bring the music to the audience. So much new music (especially experimental
new music) is more fitting in a more relaxed setting than a concert hall provides, and people might
be more inclined to sit and listen to a concert of challenging music if it is presented to them in an
environment where they already feel relaxed and comfortable. I have more I could say on the topic,
but if you want to know more you can check out my discussion of the Omaha Under the Radar
Festival this past summer (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/reverberations/omaha-under-the-
radar).
I also noticed that the more traditional ensembles (string quartets, wind quintets, brass quintets)
are programming more music by deceased (some long-deceased) composers. And why shouldnt
they? They have a much larger catalog to pull from and audiences have come to expect certain
things from these ensembles. That isnt to say they are not supporting new music, just that their
numbers may lean more in favor of playing classic pieces of the genre in addition to new works and
commissions.
Also, my research was done with a very small sample, and the numbers might change if we were to
consider, say, 100 chamber ensembles. Maybe the numbers would show stronger favor for
deceased composers? Though, I would like to think that they would change very little. The
ensembles that I chose are some of Americas (and Europes) top performing chamber groups right
now. They are a benchmark of new music and are the trendsetters for new music worldwide. And it
seems that trend is one that leans in favor of supporting living composers and encouraging the
creation of new works in hopes of spreading contemporary music to the world.
Thanks for reading. Please feel free to share any thoughts or comments below.
Like 73 Tweet
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/wanted-dead-or-alive-programming-trends-among-
chamber-ensembles#comments)
TALES FROM THE ROAD - ICMC AND THE BARN DANCE

SOUND/TAILS-FROM-THE-ROAD-ICMC-AND-THE-BARN-
DANCE)
10/10/2015
1 Comment (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/tails-from-the-road-icmc-and-the-barn-
dance#comments)
It has been a while since the last KLANG post, mostly due to my crazy fall semester schedule, but
Im hoping to get on a more regular schedule again now that some of the craziness has died away.
This week I would like to do a quick review of a couple recent festivals I attended last week - ICMC
and the Electroacoustic Barn Dance.
From September 25 through October 4 I was one the road with two friends of mine - Kramer
Elwell and Chris Ozley - attending the International Computer Music Conference in Denton, TX
(University of North Texas) and then the EA Barn Dance in Fredericksburg, VA (University of Mary
Washington) and it was a blast! I have been a little hesitant to apply to ICMC in the past because the
cost of the conference alone is pretty high (for good reason) and the cost of international travel has
always been an issue. However, this year, ICMC was not only in America, but it was only 4 hours up
the road from where I live (Austin, TX). I would have been crazy not to apply, right? So I did, and
ended up presenting my 8-channel acousmatic piece Wind Chimes Clatter through the Mist and Fog.
It was a really incredible experience, and Im thrilled that I was able to attend the festival and
present some of my music in such great company.
In general I had a really great time at ICMC. Jonty Harrison (Univ. of Birmingham/BEAST director),
Miller Puckette (UCSD and creator of Max/MSP) and Carla Scarletti (developer of KYMA) were the
keynote speakers and all three gave incredible addresses. There were a number of wonderful and
interesting papers presented and many of the pieces I heard were absolutely mind-blowing. With
that said, I wasnt quite mentally prepared for ICMC. I have been to conferences and festivals in the
past, but they always last 2-3 days. ICMC was my first 7-day conference with events stacked right on
top of each other, and more careful planning on my part would have saved me a lot of listening
fatigue and concert burnout. I came away from the conference really loving some of the pieces I
heard, while others really didnt stick with me at all, which I guess is almost to be expected from a
conference of that size and scope. However, I do feel that I may have missed out on some great
pieces as a result of not listening attentively enough or not giving them a fair shake due solely to the
fact that my brain was completely fried by the end of day 3. I do have some thoughts on the
programming of the conference that may have improved (or at least lightened) the amount of
fatigue i experienced, but that is a much larger topic for a later post.
I think the highlight for me was hearing Jonty Harrisons keynote address, followed by a live
diffusion performance of his piece Unsound Objects (my favorite acousmatic piece!) the next day.
Ive gone to concerts in the past in which friends and colleagues get to hear a performance of their
favorite works and they talk about what a moving and enriching experience it was. I had never fully
experienced that until ICMC. Ive heard plenty of pieces in concerts that I absolutely love and have
had many unforgettable concert experiences, but sitting behind Jonty Harrison and watching him
diffuse his piece in a hall with a diffusion system he designed himself was something I may never
experience again. Not only that, I heard Unsound Objects the way Jonty intended it to be heard. It
was diffused into the space exactly as he wanted, mixed as he wanted it mixed, and performed to
perfection. Jonty closed out the concert and after he finished I was so taken by his performance that
I was honestly speechless. I ran into Elainie Lillios (my former teacher at BGSU) right after the
performance and she asked me what I thought of it. I didnt have any words for her. She just smiled
and said something to the affect of it being like a religious experience, right? and all I could do was
shake my head in agreement. It really was one of the most moving musical experiences of my life. It
was a performance that I will never forget and a presentation of piece that I (unfortunately) may
never experience again. That alone, made the entire conference worthwhile, at least for me.
Kramer, Chris and I got on the road Wednesday (a couple days before the end of ICMC) and drove
up to Virginia (yes, all 21 hours of it) for the Electroacoustic Barn Dance. The three of us perform as
a laptop trio called Cmd+Q and were scheduled to perform at a late night concert at the Barn
Dance. I have to say the Barn Dance was like a breath of fresh air for me. While ICMC was a
wonderful opportunity and experience, there was so much music presented that one cant help but
be overwhelmed and miss a lot of what goes on. In addition to that, the majority of the concerts
were about 2 hours long (sometimes a little longer), and while I understand it has to be that way in
order to program everyones music, it makes it difficult as an audience member to stay fully
engaged throughout the conference. With that said, the UNT faculty (Jon Nelson, Andrew May,
Panayiotis Kokoras), the CEMI staff and everyone involved did a bang-up job of running ICMC. I'm
stoked and thankful that I was able to attend and present my music .
The Barn Dance, however, took a different approach. There were a lot of concerts throughout the
weekend, but they all last roughly an hour (sometimes a little under an hour). The pieces were
programmed well, there was never a risk of listening fatigue and the performances were really
astonishing. There was also a nice blend of fixed media and pieces with live performers on each
concert in addition to a nice blend of styles and aesthetics. I heard everything from analog synthesis
pieces to chamber ensembles with electronics to feedback performance, performance art and
video/multimedia pieces. Suffice to say I had a wonderful time, and I was very happy that Cmd+Q
was able to be a part of it. Mark Snyder has a really amazing program at Mary Washington and I
urge everyone to apply to this festival in the future. I guarantee you will have an amazing time.
Below are some highlights from ICMC and the Barn Dance along with some photos (none of which
were taken by me personally).
Thanks for checking in, and Ill be back soon with a review of Eric Honours CD Phantasm which
features works for saxophone and electronics.
ICMC
Jonty Harison - Unsound Objects
Elainie Lillios - Contemplating Larry
Mark Pilkington - Lens 7
Phillip Sink - Frayed Cities
Per Bloland - Solis-EA
Mike Polo - Warped Metals
Michael Thompson - Pressure
Chris Biggs - Decoherence
John Gibson - Red Plumes
Steven Ricks - Medusa in Fragments
Keith Kirchoff - Seeing the Past through the Prism of Tomorrow
Ioannis Andriotis - Lokassena
Barn Dance
Becky Brown - Hold Still
Kaitlyn Wagner - I, Phillip
Jerod Sommerfeldt - Dharma in Excelsis
Joo Won Park - Eyelid Spasm
Aaron Anderson - Studio Study I
Mark Phillips - Waiting for Lucille
Eric Honour - Extensions
Eli Stine - Ring|Axel|Gear
Anthony Morasco - Weld
Tom Dempster - ahalugisdi unole
Phillip Schroeder - Lightness is the Root of Gravity
Andrew Walters - Red Plastic Bell Abstract

Brian Sears - Reverberance
(There were so many great pieces at both events, and this is just a short list of the pieces that stuck
out in my mind. Check them out!)
Like 42 Tweet
1 Comment (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/tails-from-the-road-icmc-and-the-barn-
dance#comments)
RUMINATIONS ON LUMPY GRAVY, OR SOME THOUGHTS

ON TITLES, OR MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE MORE LONG-
WINDED...
SOUND/RUMINATIONS-ON-LUMPY-GRAVY-OR-SOME-
THOUGHTS-ON-TITLES-OR-MAYBE-SOMETHING-ELSE-
MORE-LONG-WINDED)
8/5/2015
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/ruminations-on-lumpy-gravy-or-some-thoughts-on-
titles-or-maybe-something-else-more-long-winded#comments)
For this weeks post I want to talk about something that has been on mind a lot over the last
couple of years - titles. Composers, and all artists for that matter, spend a lot of time laboring over
the titles of their works. I would say they also spend as much time arguing with each other about
good and bad titles, but that's just an observation from personal experience. But it is this
argument that I want to talk about here, specifically the idea of bad titles. I think this is a subject
that should be discussed more frequently, mostly because of the heated arguments Ive seen - and
in some cases been a part of - wherein one party considers a title absolutely awful whereas the
other party might love that same title. Ill try to keep this a brief discussion of my own feelings on
titles, what they mean, and what might constitute labeling a title as either good or bad.
I think before we can even talk about the difference in criteria for a good or bad title we first
have to think about what the actual function of a title is. It might be more useful to first think about
the function of titles in other art forms. For instance, what is the function of the title of a book or
film? The main function in those mediums is to get the reader's/viewer's attention while
simultaneously giving some kind of clue as to what will be unfolded in the book or movie - plot,
characters, setting, or something else entirely. For these art forms a title is incredibly important. It
not only has to immediately grab the readers or viewers attention but also has to give a glimpse
into the work without giving too much away or being too vague. Creating an effective title for a book
or film is really an art in itself. I would argue the same goes for visual arts (painting, sculpture,
digital video, etc.). Even in the case of abstract art, the title can give the viewer insight to the mind of
the artist or process employed in creating the piece and also help provide context for the work that
might not necessarily be immediately visible.
But what about music? Music is a different animal than the arts presented above, mostly
because it is essentially just abstract sound. Music, regardless of it's complexity and beauty, is just
vibration of air molecules. Books contain words and language, which we have ascribed meaning to.
As long as one speaks the language of the book they can make sense out of what is inside. Films
contain moving images and dialogue, which again create an immediate connection for the viewer to
make sense out of what they are seeing. Visual arts, even the most abstract, can have some kind of
meaning and context given to them even from a simple association of a well-crafted title. Sound,
though, has no inherent meaning, until we give it meaning. We can attribute certain characteristics
to sounds - consonant, dissonant, rich, abrasive, high, low, loud, soft - but these terms dont
describe anything other than acoustical properties of the sound. The only situation in which music
can really start to take on meaning beyond acoustical properties is when there is an accompanying
text. This is still problematic because if one were to remove the text and replace it with gibberish
the music itself would not change. By that I mean that the meaning and characteristics of the
sounds would be no different, but the extra-musical association with those sounds would take on a
completely different meaning, or take on no meaning at all!
So, again, what is the function of a title in music? Well, first, a title is simply a way of naming a
piece of music, making it easy to reference whether that is for programming purposes, cataloging,
etc. Giving a piece a title is really just a means of identifying it. But that seems like a gross
oversimplification of this topic, so let's dig a little deeper.
I think its good to think about the historical use of titles. Looking back to the Medieval and
Renaissance periods, a large portion of the recorded catalog of music is vocal music - both sacred
and secular - in which titles were often derived from the text used. Moving into the Baroque period
instrumental music, cantatas and staged operas became more common. The titles for operas and
cantatas typically came from the libretto used, so there is still the text association. Instrumental
music often served some sort of function, whether it was for dance, court functions or other rituals.
The titles for these instrumental works were often derived from the style or form of the piece
(sarabande, gigue, suite, sonata, etc.). That isnt to say this was always the case. Some instrumental
works did have programmatic subtitles, such as Vivaldis Four Seasons concerto. Still, many titles
were a reflection of the form and/or function of the piece.
This practice can been found throughout Classical period rep, but more pieces with poetic or
descriptive subtitles (Hammerklavier, Jupiter symphony, Surprise symphony, and others) start
popping up in addition to the more general form/function and opus number titles. In the interest of
time well skip through the Romantic period in which many pieces, specifically instrumental works,
were titled with programmatic and evocative titles that gave the listener little or no insight to the
form or function of a piece. Going into the 20th century this approach to descriptive/programmatic
titles became more common practice, to the point that I would say its far more common to see
pieces with a programmatic title than with a title such as symphony, sonata, cantata, etc.
So, why has Western music moved in this direction, and what does it mean for the function of a
title in 21st century music? I would say that one explanation for moving away from form-descriptive
titles is that many works, specifically experimental compositions, no longer follow those more
traditional forms. That isnt to say that composers are not still using more traditional forms, it just
seems like a less common practice in the 21st century, and uses of "symphonic form" or sonata
form is often a deformation of the traditional formal trajectory. However, some composers, and Im
thinking specifically about mid-century atonal composers, used what seem like programmatic titles
but they actually describe the structure or form of the piece in some way. These titles are like a
middle ground between the two methods of titling a work (programmatic and form/function). Think
about Boulezs Structures, which is a piece focused on the large-scale and small-scale structural
framework of the piece. Stockhausens Kreuzspiel (cross-play) describes the registral interaction of
the instruments. Lutoslawskis Chain I and Chain II reference the composers use of what he called
chain form. This is really just a slightly more poetic approach to form/function titles.
But lets get back to the programmatic titles, which are really at the heart of what I'm talking
about with the "good" vs. "bad" dichotomy. Why do composers choose more evocative titles?
Sometimes the title of a composition is a reference to some kind of external element. Maybe the
title references a piece of visual art, architecture, a book or short story, maybe a line from a poem.
This explains where the title comes from, and in some way should give the listener clues as to how it
relates to the music. The connections may be difficult to hear on the surface, but that doesnt mean
they dont exist in some form. The use of these programmatic titles can help provide the listener
with some kind of mental image the composer intends to evoke with the sounds he or she creates.
Maybe the piece was inspired by a work of visual art and the creation of the music mimics the
structure of art work in some way. Maybe the behavior of two instruments references the
interaction of two characters in a book.
Still, though, when dealing with music - and at this point I will only be referring to instrumental
music with no aid of text - we are dealing with abstract sound with no actual meaning beyond the
acoustical properties of vibrating air molecules. I hate to keep coming back to that, but I think its a
good point to keep in mind. In a way, a programmatic title can provide some level of insight to the
piece for the listener, but when the title doesnt reference a clearly audible element of the music
what is the point? Could that title be replaced with something else equally poetic and evocative, but
with a different mental image attached to it? I dont think there is a clear-cut answer to this
question, but I do think it is a question any composer should think about if they intend for their title
to give the listener some kind of context or insight to the music.
All of this brings me to the final topic of good titles and bad titles (took me long enough, I
know...). Personally, I dont think that bad titles exist, and I think arguing over the idea of a good or
bad title is kind of silly. I think some titles can be more memorable than others. Some titles are
more descriptive of the form, which is fine. Some titles are very programmatic in nature, which is
also fine especially if the title DOES evoke the mental images or emotional reaction the composer
intends. But ultimately, music (and all art for that matter) is a product of the artist and he or she
should feel comfortable giving their work whatever title they see fit. I know that sound overly
Cageian and is kind of a cop-out answer, but I feel there is a lot of truth to that sentiment.
One example in defense of my position is Frank Zappa and the often ridiculous titles he used for
his music. Frank Zappa is arguably one of the most prominent American composers/musicians of
the late 20th century, and was a composer who made a mark in rock, blues, fusion, experimental
music and orchestral concert music (I mean come on, Boulez conducted some of his music). He also
used titles like Lumpy Gravy, Black Napkins, It Must be a Camel, G-Spot Tornado, Toads of
the Short Forest, and one of my personal favorites Prelude to the Afternoon of a Sexually Aroused
Gas Mask. Its also worth mentioning that all of these titles are for instrumental works. Keep in
mind that humor and zany lyrics were a staple of Zappas music, so it makes sense his titles would
just as ridiculous. But I dont think that makes the point of his strange titles any less valid. While I
dont think the titles often add anything to music itself, they also dont take anything away. I'm sure
you would never hear someone say "man I love that song, but if only Frank hadn't titled 'Camarillo
Brillo...'". And you would be hard-pressed to argue that these titles dont instantly grab your
attention and arent delightfully memorable.
I guess my point here is that, as the artist, your title should be whatever you want it to be. I'm
going to go into a bit of a tangential argument, but Ive had conversations with musicians who
maintain that a piece should never rely on the theory and/or process used to create it, and the final
product, the music itself, should be the primary criteria for evaluating a piece. Im inclined to agree
with that. However, if someone is willing to disregard theory and process as evaluating criteria then
the title of a piece should be the absolute LEAST of our worries when evaluating a piece. Ultimately,
a good or bad title is completely subjective, and its a waste of everyones time to talk about the
merits of a good title. I think it's more important to think about creating a memorable or
appropriate title. After sitting through a long concert I might not remember a piece titled "Sonata
no. 4 for oboe and piano" but I would definitely remember a piece with the title "Fembot in a Wet T-
Shirt" (yes, that is another Zappa title).
That went on a lot longer than I had planned, but it turned out I had more to say on the topic
than I thought. For an added bonus, in case youre curious, I included a list of some of my favorite
titles below. What are some of your favorite titles, and why do you like them?
Until next time!
Aaron Cassidy i, purples, spat blood, laugh of beautiful lips

Pierre Boulez Pli Selon Pli (Fold Over Fold/Fold Upon Fold)
Natasha Barrett Racing Through, Racing Unseen
Luciano Berio Eindrucke (Impressions)
Joseph Schwantner and the mountains rising nowhere
George Crumb Ancient Voices of Children
John Adams On the Transmigration of Souls
Morgan Krauss Pallid Tongues
Chris Chandler Deep in Liquid Indigo
Frank Zappa The Girl in the Magnesium Dress
Elainie Lillios Dreams in the Desert
Morgan Krauss Pallid Tongues
Mikel Kuehn ...lilac shrieks and scarlet bellowings
Brian Ferneyhough Schatten aus Wasser und Stein (Shadows Made of Water and Stone).
Fausto Romitelli Professor Bad Trip
Like 36 Tweet
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/ruminations-on-lumpy-gravy-or-some-thoughts-on-
titles-or-maybe-something-else-more-long-winded#comments)
LET'S TALK RHYTHM PART 2: NESTED TUPLETS

SOUND/LETS-TALK-RHYTHM-PART-2-NESTED-TUPLETS)
7/24/2015
6 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/lets-talk-rhythm-part-2-nested-tuplets#comments)
Welcome back! This is the second topic of a three-part series on rhythm techniques. The first
part of the series covered the topic of irrational meter and in this part I will be discussing complex
tuplets, specifically nested tuplets (tuplets inside of tuplets). This is a rhythmic device that can be
perplexing and even polarizing. The very sight of a nested tuplet can send some musicians into
intellectual bliss while other musicians might react with total apathy and others into a fiery rage. My
goal with this post is to discuss nested tuplets, how they are created, how they can be broken down
in a musical context and some reasons why a composer might choose to employ complex tuplets
(whether nested or single-level) in his or her music, and ultimately the practicality (of lack thereof)
of using nested tuplets.
I want to begin by defining nested tuplets. A nested tuplet is a group of notes in a measure of
music that have been divided into multiple levels of tuplet rhythms. In other words, the composer
creates a top-level or first-level tuplet and each of the individual divisions of the tuplet can then be
further divided into second-level tuplet divisions, and those into even further tuplet divisions (this
can get out of hand very quickly) to create a multi-level nested tuplet unit, which might look
something like this:
Nested tuplet rhythm of 5 8ths in the space of four 8ths. The example on the left has the beats under a
single beam. The example to the right breaks the single beam to better demonstrate where the individual
beats are within the tuplet. Either form of notation is acceptable
A nested tuplet rhythm is created using a top-down approach. First create the top-level tuplet,
which looks like a typical tuplet you would see in music. When that tuplet has been created you can
treat each subdivision of the tuplet individually to create a simple division of the beat (e.g. 8ths into
16ths, 16ths into 32nds, etc.) or you can divide the subdivisions into further tuplet divisions. The
example above is a group of 5 eighth notes over the time of 4 eighth notes. Inside of this group of
quintuple eighth notes, the first two eighths are further divided into 3 triplet eighths, the next two
into a set of quintuple sixteenths and the last eighth subdivided into a 32nd note and a dotted-
sixteenth (not a tuplet). This is a two-level nested tuplet in which the quintuple eighths are the top
level and the triplet and quintuplet are the second level of the tuplet. Lets break this down a little
further:
Breakdown of the top-level tuplet and each individual second-level nested tuplet
In this group of notes the top-level group of five 8ths are moving at a slightly faster rate than a
set of four 8ths in that span of time. In turn, each of the second-level tuplets move at a faster rate
than they would as top-level tuplets. The example below shows the rhythms in a single measure
presented as a nested grouping and as top-level tuplet rhythms not under a grouping of 5:4 8ths.
Click on the image below to hear the difference between the two.
(/uploads/1/2/3/0/12308331/example3_final.mp3)
Click on the image to play an audio file of the measure
So thats how a nested tuplet is constructed. While this might be helpful for a composer
wanting to create this kind of rhythm, it isnt very helpful for a performer who is expected to
perform the rhythm. The top-down approach is, I feel, equally helpful in deconstructing these
tuplets. First determine the division of the top-level tuplet, which will let you know how many equal
divisions of the tuplet there are. Count out how that tuplet would sound as individual rhythmic
impulses without the added tuplet and non-tuplet subdivisions. In the example above the top-level
tuplet is a group of five 8ths. Start by counting two beats subdivided into 4 even 8th-notes, then two
beats subdivided into five 8ths and end with a group of another group of regularly subdivided 8ths,
a total of six beats. Well think of it as one measure of 6|4.
The next step I would take would be to add the first second-level tuplet, in this case the triplet.
Again, count two beats of 8ths and then the first two beats of the quintuplet 8ths would be counted
as a triplet followed by the last three quintuple 8ths and finally two more beats of regularly
subdivided 8ths. You could also count beat two of the measure as triplet to feel the difference
between a regular triplet and the second-level nested triplet. The last step is to add the second-level
tuplet, the quintuplet 16ths. Follow the same process of counting a 6|4 measure with the preceding
8ths into the nested tuplet and the final two beats of eighth notes. Add the 32nd and dotted 16th to
complete the entire nested tuplet unit. The entire breakdown might look something like this:
Process of breaking down a nested tuplet in a piece. Click on the image to hear how each layer sounds.
While this might seem very time-consuming, Ive found it to be a very effective method for
deconstructing how to count and feel the nested tuplets. Though Im not a performer, I have had to
follow this same process when composing nested tuplets. I think its important that a composer
know how a nested tuplet will sound and feel in context, and this process of breaking the tuplet
down piece by piece has been incredibly useful for me, both when writing my own pieces and while
analysing pieces by other composers.
Now that Ive gone through defining nested tuplets, learning how to create a nested tuplet
grouping and also breaking one down, the next topic at hand is the question of why a composer
would choose to use this kind of rhythm. What is the benefit of nested tuplets? Well, lets think
about the purpose of using any tuplet. Tuplets of all kinds - triplets, quintuplets, etc. - are groups of
notes in equal subdivisions that are not typically allowed by meter used. In more general terms, a
tuplet can be used to increase or decrease the density of notes in a given amount of time and thus
allowing for new rhythmic variations or a new feel to the music; a triplet beat that uses an 8th and
a quarter note as opposed to a beat using a dotted 8th and a 16th. Nested tuplets achieve the same
ends, but on multiple levels.
Lets say a composer is writing a melodic phrase consisting of 4 measure of 5|8, but with a
feeling of energy gain in the final measure. The most obvious means of creating energy gain is to
create a higher density of notes that move faster than what came before. One way to do this would
be to simply double the rhythmic value of the notes - write 16ths instead of 8ths - but that isnt
always an elegant choice, at least not in my humble opinion. Sometimes Im looking for a more
gradual or subtle increase of energy (and yes, I have taken on the role of the hypothetical
composer), so instead of doubling rhythmic values, I could choose to divide this measure of five
8ths into a set of 6 8th notes over the entire duration of the measure. Remember, though, that this
is not the same as a measure of 6|8, as the six 8ths are happening over the course of what would
normally be five 8ths. Now lets also imagine that we want a gradual increase of energy within the
measure from start to finish. We could then divide the first two 8ths into a triplet, the second two
into a set of four 16th and the last two into a quintuplet of 16ths, which would look like this:
The nested tuplet bar looks more like a bar of 3|4, but it moves at a faster rate than if the bar
were written in 3|4 as opposed to a nested tuplet in a measure of 5|8. Click on the image below for
a comparison of the measure in 5|8 followed immediately by the same rhythms in a bar of 3|4.
Click on the image to hear the example. Both lines are played individually and then played simultaneously
to demonstrate the nested tuplet moving at a noticeably faster rate.
In short, the purpose of this kind of rhythmic grouping is to manipulate the energy of a gesture,
whether that energy is increasing, decreasing or becoming increasingly jerky and disorienting.
Furthermore, by using these kinds of rhythmic groupings measure after measure a composer can
create a waxing and waning sense of gestural motion while also obscuring any sense of rhythmic or
metric regularity.
All of this now leads us to a different question of why a composer would want to use these
kinds of rhythms. We know from the paragraph above why they might be employed for the
manipulation of time, but there is also the question of why they would be used on the basis of
practicality. Theres the obvious argument of surface difficulty, not just in performing this kind of
rhythm but also in just understanding how they work. These kinds of rhythms are rarely (if ever)
talked about outside of composition seminars and lessons, so it is likely that many musicians never
come into contact with nested tuplets, let alone find themselves in a situation in which they need to
perform nested tuplets. So, given that these rhythms are seldom used (outside of the realm of New
Complexity composers), not often taught, and are incredibly difficult to perform, why would
anyone want to utilize this kind of rhythmic device in a piece? Wont it limit the number of
performers who will want to learn that piece, and in turn limit the number of performances the
piece will receive?
The simple answer to these questions is yes, writing difficult music (rhythmically speaking) will
inevitably limit performance opportunities. However, I dont feel that limited performance
prospects should dissuade a composer from using these kinds of rhythms. The example above
which compares the nested tuplet in 5|8 to the same rhythms in a bar of 3|4 demonstrates that in
order to get the desired sense of energy in a gesture, and to squeeze a certain number of rhythmic
impulses into a given amount of time one must write the rhythms in this way, even at the risk of the
music being far more complex visually. The audience listening may not be able to hear that what
they listening to is a complex grouping of nested rhythms, but what they will hear is the sense of
energy gain or energy loss that the composer desires, and that communication is what is really
important.
One argument in defense of nested tuplets is that at the end of the day they are just rhythms.
They are quantifiable, measurable rhythms. If one goes through the process of breaking down a
nested grouping (as long and painful as it may be) then the rhythms can be learned, and eventually
performed, given rest of the elements of the gesture are idiomatic for the instrument. The rhythms
may be difficult to play and they may be even more difficult to read (and for the record they are
also difficult to write), but that doesnt mean that composers should shy away from using them,
especially if it is the clearest way to notate the desired rhythmic gesture. There was a time when the
rhythmic language of Debussy was highly complex. Elliott Carters system of metric modulation was
a radical idea in the mid-20th century. But composers of the New Complexity school have been
using these kinds of rhythmic devices since the early 1970s, and I think that after 45 years its time
to stop looking at these rhythms with skepticism, confusion and disdain and accept nested tuplets
as a viable tool for compositions of the 21st century.
After all, its just a bunch of numbers, right!
Like 34 Tweet
6 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/lets-talk-rhythm-part-2-nested-tuplets#comments)
LET'S TALK RHYTHM PART 1: RATIONALIZING THE

IRRATIONAL
SOUND/LETS-TALK-RHYTHM-PART-1-RATIONALIZING-
THE-IRRATIONAL)
6/26/2015
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/lets-talk-rhythm-part-1-rationalizing-the-
irrational#comments)
This post is the first of a series of three posts on the topic of rhythm, specifically complex rhythmic
notation. The first segment (the one you're currently reading) will cover irrational meter, the second
segment will focus on nested tuplets, and the last on generating rhythms through the use of sieves.
My goal is to shed some light on these topics and (hopefully) clearly explain these more esoteric,
complicated and sometimes overlooked rhythmic devices.
I chose to do irrational meter first because its something Ive recently become very interested
in. Also, I had two separate conversations in one week recently (with two different people) on the
topic of irrational meter, so its pretty fresh in my head right now. I dont think its farfetched to say
that many musicians never come into contact with irrational meters, and I personally have never
heard the term irrational meter mentioned in a theory class (graduate and undergraduate). But,
just because it isnt a commonly used or understood rhythmic device doesnt mean it isnt a useful
device. Its like a rarely used, but sometimes necessary tool you keep in the bottom of a toolbox,
just in case you need it one day, like a shingle froe.
So, what is irrational meter? In music, the term irrational does not have the same meaning as in
mathematics with irrational numbers, which are real numbers that cant be expressed as a ratio of
integers, like Pi. In music, irrational is used to identify a meter in which the denominator is not a
power of 2 (1, 2, 4, 8, 16...). Some examples of irrational denominators are 3, 7, 10, 12, 14, and these
numbers represent fractions of a whole note - 1/3 of a whole note, 1/7, 1/10, etc. (more on that
later). A measure notated with irrational meter uses standard rhythmic values, but the notes are
played at a slightly faster or slower rate than normal (not irrational) meters. The example below
shows 2 bars of music with the 2nd bar written in an irrational meter. Well dissect this later.
The point of an irrational meter is make a measure faster or slower in relation to the measures
that come before and after. Another way to think about it would be to consider a measure with
irrational meter as a very temporary change of tempo. But how is irrational meter created? The
denominator of meter is derived by determining how notes fit into a whole note. Common divisions
of a whole note are 2 half notes, 4 quarters, 16 sixteenths, etc. The same concept applies to
irrational meters, but with different divisions of the whole. If a bar were broken into 6 equal
divisions (also written as 2 quarter-note triplets) you could use 6 as a denominator. A measure
using 6 as the denominator would be written as quarter-notes that move at the rate of a quarter-
note triplet in a bar of 4|4. A bar could be broken into 12 equal divisions (eighth-note triplets),
making the denominator 12. The numerator of an irrational meter represents the number of
denominator divisions that are contained in the measure (4|4 containing 4 quarters, 6|8 containing
6 eighth notes, etc.).
So, lets break this down with some examples. To create a measure of 5|12 we first need to break
a whole note in 12 equal divisions. This can represented as 4 beats of eighth-note triplets. Each note
of the triplet is 1/12 of a whole note. If we were to excerpt 5 triplet-eighths of the total 12 and put
them in a measure by themselves that would be a measure of 5|12, written as 5 eighth notes.
Each quarter broken into a One measure of 5 8ths in
group of 3 triplet 8ths which each 8th is played at the

speed of a triplet 8th in the
measure of 4|4
These 8th notes are not played at the same rate as the eighth notes in a measure of 4|4, but at the
rate of triplet eighth notes in a measure of 4|4. In this example, the measure of 5|12 moves at a
faster rate, or tempo, than a measure of 4|4, because the eighth notes actually represent 1/12 of a
whole note instead of 1/8 of a whole note. If the quarter-note tempo at 4|4 were 60 BPM, that
would make the eighth note pulse 120 BPM in 4|4. In the measure of 5|12 the eighth note tempo
would be 180 BPM, because a triplet eighth note is three times faster than a quarter note (60 x 2 =
120; 60 x 3 = 180). The example below is the four measures in context.
(/uploads/1/2/3/0/12308331/example1.mp3)
Click the image to play an mp3 of the example
Its a little more rare, but you can also use irrational meter to create a temporary slowing of the
tempo. For example, the denominator 7 implies 7 equal divisions of a whole note. This is typically
conceived as 7 quarter notes. However, it could theoretically also be written as a group of 7 eighth
notes at a slightly slower rate than would fill the space of 8 eighth notes, like a group of 2 eighths in
one beat of 6|8 measure. Granted, tuplets of a longer beat division (2:3, 7:8) are far more rare than
tuplets of a shorter beat division (3:2, 5:4, etc.), but that doesnt mean they arent possible. A
measure of 8|7, with the 7 representing eighth notes at a slower rate, would be written as follows:
Click to play an mp3 of the example
A measure of 8|7 with the quarter-note pulse would look like this:
Yeah...you can click this one, too
This example causes a temporary slowing of the tempo, as opposed to a temporary quickening of
the tempo with 5|12. However, when using 7 as a denominator for eighth notes it is a good idea to
note in the score that the 7 represents the eighth note, as 7 is often a denominator used to
represent quarter-notes. One way around this would be to put a metronome marking in the score.
For instance, if the quarter-note tempo at 4|4 is 80 BPM, a measure of 8|7 with an eighth note
pulse would have a tempo of eighth = 140 BPM. However, if the 7 denominator is a quarter-note
pulse, then the quarter-note tempo would be 140 BPM, making the eighth-note tempo of the
measure 280 BPM. This wont have any impact on the aural result, but will effect the notation of the
measure and how the performer interprets the it. If the goal is to make the measure seem slower
than surrounding measure the eighth-note pulse should be used. If the goal is to make the measure
move more quickly (almost 2x faster!) then the quarter-note 7 denominator should be used.
The examples above all show how irrational meter can be created, but what does it sound like
in a more musical context? The example below contains an measure of irrational meter sandwiched
between two measure of standard 5|4 and 4|4 meters. The measure is approached by a triplet and
the first beat after the irrational meter is a beat of 4 sixteenth notes to help demonstrate the
changing rhythmic rates in relation to the quarter-note meters.
(/uploads/1/2/3/0/12308331/irrational_meter_flute.mp3)
Click it!
So there's a little crash course in irrational meter. One questions you might be asking yourself at
this point is why would someone choose to do this? Doesnt it make reading the score complicated
for the performer? Isnt there an easier way to notate these rhythms if theyre basically just tuplets?
Why should a performer have to mathematically analyze the music just to play it? These are all great
questions, and the short answer is that irrational meter achieves a certain rhythmic push and pull
that is really not possible to notate any other way.
The whole point of using irrational meter is to use an irregular grouping of an uncommon
fractional division of a beat. You wouldnt use an irrational meter of 6|12 because that is 6 eighth-
note triplets, which can be written more clearly in 2|4. However, 5|12 can only expressed as an
irrational measure, because you can't divide a quarter-note into just 3 triplet eighths. That same
5|12 measure could be written as a measure of 5|8 with an 8th note tempo 3 times faster than the
original quarter-note tempo, but I feel that would be just as confusing for a performer to read. Both
options present problems, but only for sight reading purposes. I think it also goes without saying
that music that uses irrational meter is not intended to be sight read perfectly (if at all). At the end
of the day it is up to the composer to choose which method best communicates their idea to the
performer in the cleanest notation possible.
Tune in next week for a discussion on nested tuplets, how to break them down, how to create them
and some thoughts on why a composer might use nested tuplets.
Until next time!
Like 18 Tweet
0 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/lets-talk-rhythm-part-1-rationalizing-the-
irrational#comments)
SOMETHING IN THE WAY THEY MOVE - NOTATING

PHYSICAL GESTURE
SOUND/SOMETHING-IN-THE-WAY-THEY-MOVE-
NOTATING-PHYSICAL-GESTURE)
6/17/2015
3 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/something-in-the-way-they-move-notating-physical-
gesture#comments)
This week I would like to talk about something that has been on my mind a lot recently, that
being the practice of notation of physical gesture. What does it mean to notate physical gesture, you
might ask. Lets think for a second about what were looking at when we read music. We see a line of
musical symbols displayed as rhythms, pitches (sometimes), dynamics, articulations, etc. This is a
representation of what should result from the physical actions of the performer playing his or her
instrument. But what if, instead, a score provided instructions for how the performer should play as
opposed to what the performer should play? This is the central idea to notating physical gesture.
The first time I came into contact with this type of notation was with Frank Coxs Recoil for solo
cello. In Recoil, Cox notates the desired pitches and rhythms, but not as a single line of music. He
notates the physical motion and gesture of the performer through a multi-staffed scored in which
the performer realizes all staves simultaneously. The staves represent (from top to bottom) 1. bow
pressure/position (right hand only), 2. the string(s) which should be played (right and left hand) and
3. the pitches fingered with the left hand (left hand only). Each staff is rhythmically independent,
resulting in a contrapuntal relationship of physical movement, as opposed to a contrapuntal
relationship of separate distinct voices.
I find this method of notation very fascinating. There is so much physicality to playing a musical
instrument, but as musicians (specifically in the Western art music tradition), the instructions we
look at - the score - provides us with the sonic result, but not with instructions on how to create that
result. Cox has taken a different approach, a prescriptive rather than descriptive approach to his
notation in Recoil. Other composer including Helmut Lachenmann, Klaus K. Hubler and Aaron
Cassidy also practice their own methods of this form of notation. With all of these composers
(among others interested in this notion), the concept of physical gesture of the performer - the
actual motion required to make the sound - is what is communicated to the performer. It is the
performers job to then communicate the resultant sound to the listener. The following are
examples of scores that use this method of notating gesture over sonic result:
Frank Cox's "Recoil" for solo cello
Richard Barrett's "EARTH" for trombone and percussion (only the trombone part is shown above)
Aaron Cassidy's "The Crutch of Memory" for indeterminate solo string instrument
Helmu Lachenmann's "Guero" for solo piano
An initial question one might ask when looking at these scores is why choose this method of
notation over traditional notation. What does the composer gain from taking this approach? What
does the performer gain from this notation? Does the notation really accomplish something
different than traditional notation, or does it just serve to complicate the learning process and
performance experience for the performer? In addition to providing the performer with a
completely foreign notational concept, the counterpoint of the physical actions is incredibly
intricate and the presentation of the score is often highly complex and difficult to decode. So, why
do this?
My response to these questions is that music of this nature really cant be notated any other
way. Take a piece like Recoil, in which the bow pressure and direction have their own rhythmic line
while the left hand is changing pitches with different rhythmic patterns, often completely separate
from bow changes. At the same time the performer is asked to play the same pitch patterns on
different strings. To notate the resultant sound of those actions would be close to impossible. Even
if one were to notate that resultant sound, would it be less complicated than Coxs notation? What if
the desired result is impossible to notate? Richard Barretts piece EARTH for trombone and
percussion (shown above) uses a similar notation that Cox uses in Recoil. The trombonist reads
multiple staves that display slide position and the partial to be played. At certain times the slide
position and partials do not align rhythmically, just as the left and right hand don't always align in
Recoil. How could a composer notate the sonic result of that kind of physical action? More
importantly, how would the performer know exactly how to produce that resultant sound? In this
situation, there is no clearer way to notate the music than by describing to the performer the
physical actions necessary to produce the music.
Another argument in favor of this type of approach is that all notation is really just a system of
abstract symbols. We can attach any meaning we want to those symbols and realize them in any
fashion we feel necessary in order to achieve our artistic goals.. In the situation of Coxs Recoil he
uses traditional notation, and prescribes a new meaning to what the rhythms and symbols
represent, as does Barrett. Lachenmann takes a fully graphical approach with his piece Guero
(shown above), wherein the graphic images represent the motions of the player and position of the
hands on the keyboard. Cassidys The Crutch of Memory (shown above) uses both standard and
graphic notation, all of which is representative of movement rather than sound. Really, this is a
similar approach to tablature for stringed instruments, which uses numbers to represent fret
positions and staff lines to represent strings. Some composers, including Aaron Cassidy, refer to
their scores as using tablature notation. Tablature also does not provide the performer with the
resultant sound, but instead with the physical placement and motion of their hand(s). Going back to
the opening paragraph of this post, the performer is instructed how to play, not what is heard.
There is a lot more that can explored concerning this topic, and other types of nontraditional
approaches to notation, too, but this post is intended to just be an introduction on the topic. If
youre a musician interested in this method of composer/performer interaction, I strongly
encourage you to explore some of this music through listening, analysis of these pieces, and even
try to play some of these works if youre feeling adventurous! If nothing else, it will give you a new
perspective of all the physical action(s) of performing music, even something as straight-forward as
a simply notated melody.
Like 20 Tweet
3 Comments (http://klangnewmusic.weebly.com/direct-sound/something-in-the-way-they-move-notating-physical-
gesture#comments)
<<Previous (/direct-sound/previous/2)
CREATE A FREE WEBSITE POWERED BY

KLANG - Direct Sound

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

KLANG - Direct Sound

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

KLANG - Direct Sound 5/14/17, 2)36 AM

REVERBERATIONS (/REVERBERATIONS.HTML) FEEDBACK (/FEEDBACK.HTML)

35 COMPOSERS ALL UNDERGRADS SHOULD KNOW The "Direct Sound" Page is

(HTTP://KLANGNEWMUSIC.WEEBLY.COM/DIRECT- posts and discussions.

but before we get started

Ruth Crawford Seeger

.......but we don't live in a perfect world, so let's move on

electronics and Nymphea for string quartet and electronics.

ANOTHER REFLECTION ON 2016

Pierre Boulez (Jan 5, 90)

CREATING PITCH STRUCTURES WITH SIEVES

32 + 42 = s, in which s is the composite set of the two subset sieves

32 = [2, 5, 8, 11, 14]

120 + 122 + 124 + 125 + 127 + 129 + 1211 = [0,2,4,5,7,9,11]

Using the range of the piano (0-87, where 0=A0)

100 + 101 + 102 + 103 + 106 + 107 = [0,1,2,3,6,7,10,11,12,13,16,17,20,21,23,26,27]

For more information on sieves, check out the following links.

- Dissertation by Dmitirios Exarchos on Xenakis' Sieve Theory

I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of composer,

Pierre Boulez, Mmoriale (1985), Ensemble InterContemporain.

A Tribute to Pierre Boulez: MusikSalon

Pierre Boulez, Structures I & II (Kontarsky/Kont

Pierre Boulez Messagesquisse, sur le nom de P

Pierre Boulez Eclat-Multiples (1965-1970)

WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE? PROGRAMMING TRENDS

= Living composers account for 10.9% of orchestra programming

= Mixed ensembles of more than 8 players (8 ensembles)

= String quartet (4 ensembles)

* = ensemble was contacted and directly provided programming information

= 934 total pieces programmed

= 443 total living composers

Top 10 Ensembles programming living composers

8. eighth blackbird (89%)

Top 10 Ensembles for programming women

TALES FROM THE ROAD - ICMC AND THE BARN DANCE

and the Electroacoustic Barn Dance.

Andrew Walters - Red Plastic Bell Abstract

RUMINATIONS ON LUMPY GRAVY, OR SOME THOUGHTS

Until next time!

Aaron Cassidy i, purples, spat blood, laugh of beautiful lips

LET'S TALK RHYTHM PART 2: NESTED TUPLETS

After all, its just a bunch of numbers, right!

LET'S TALK RHYTHM PART 1: RATIONALIZING THE

Each quarter broken into a One measure of 5 8ths in

group of 3 triplet 8ths which each 8th is played at the

Until next time!

SOMETHING IN THE WAY THEY MOVE - NOTATING

Frank Cox's "Recoil" for solo cello

Helmu Lachenmann's "Guero" for solo piano

CREATE A FREE WEBSITE POWERED BY

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen