What You See Is What You Hear

Using visual communication processes to categorize various manifestations of music

notation

by Christian M. Fischer

In electroacoustic music as well as in other domains of contemporary music, a vast

number of experimental representations and alternative approaches to music notation
have come to life in recent decades. Since the 1960s, composers and artists have
explored and documented their work using those alternative notation approaches from
various perspectives. The essays about music notation by Earle Bown or Mauricio
Kagel at the Darmstädter Ferienkurse für Neue Musik (Thomas 1965) as well as Erhard
Karkoschka’s Das Schriftbild der neuen Musik (1966) and John Cage’s Notations
(1969) give insight into common practices of that time. Theresa Sauer’s collection of
graphic notations and essays about the practices, Notations 21 (2009), can be regarded
as a successor of John Cage’s Notations. The See This Sound audiovisuology project
comprehensively examined the connection between image and sound in art, media and
perception from a rather historical point of view (Daniels and Naumann 2009). In
Extended Notation (2013), Christian Dimpker “depicts the unconventional” by
developing a coherent and consistent notation system for extended playing techniques
as well as the utilization of electroacoustic instrumentation.

Although all these profound works examine alternative notation from different
perspectives, one important aspect is almost completely left out: the process of visual
communication — how the music is represented visually and, more importantly, how
information is conveyed. In other words, how the performers will read and understand
the notation. Visual communication processes are the core of the conveyance of musical
ideas through notation. Considering and understanding communication processes can be
a valuable contribution to the discussion and examination of alternative music notation
approaches. Furthermore, the visual communication process is proposed here as one
common base that can assist in the categorization of virtually any kind of experimental
representation of acoustic phenomena in music notation.

Music Notation — A Definition

Already the general definition of notation in music offered by the Encyclopedia
Britannica raises several important points indicating why the visual communication
process is important in music notation:

Musical notation, visual record of heard or imagined musical sound, or a set of visual
instructions for performance of music. It usually takes written or printed form and is a
conscious, comparatively laborious process. Its use is occasioned by one of two
motives: as an aid to memory or as communication. (Bent 2001)

The first sentence of the Britannica’s definition is almost identical to the beginning of
the general introduction to music notation in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians (Sadie 2004), which states: “A visual analogue of musical sound, either as a
record of sound heard or imagined, or as a set of visual instructions for performers.”
And further on in the text: “… there are two motivations behind the use of notation: the
need for a memory aid and the need to communicate” (Sadie 1980). There are two
important distinctions to be made between aspects of these two definitions. First,
whether the notation is meant to offer a means to record musical ideas or as guidance
how to play. Second, if the notation is to be used to memorize music or to communicate
it to others. In this context, memorizing can be regarded as a musical form of
interpersonal communication, an exchange of information for and with oneself. So apart
from its use as a guide of how to play what the notation is meant to represent through
codified signs, symbols and annotations, the main use of the notation of music is
communication. The way the conveyance of musical information works is the core of
music notation. In other words, music notation makes sense only if the visual record can
be understood by the receiver — who is usually a performer of music.

Context
Before we attempt to characterize, define or categorize any kinds of music
representation, the context in which they are used needs to be clarified — regardless of
whether the representation is in the form of, for example, Western staff notation on
paper, live-generated graphics, a photograph or a video score. Contextualization is the
question whether the object was initially meant to serve the purpose stated in the
definition above, namely to communicate the music that is to be performed, or not. A
graphic featuring conventional pitched and unpitched staff notation used in an
unconventional manner, e.g., like Mohican Friends (1993) by Brent Michael Davids
(Sauer 2009, 59) can be understood within the context of music notation more easily
than Blue Line (2006) by Catherine Schieve (Ibid., 216–217), in which a 30-metre piece
of canvas painted in blue and white tones, and meant to be installed in a variety of
outdoor environments, serves as the score for a musical performance. The simplest
explanation — and one that has held a certain amount of currency in the past few
decades — is that essentially any visual object could be utilized as source of a musical
interpretation, simply by contextualizing it. Whether it makes “musical” sense or not.
However, not every visual object intentionally associated with a specific musical
performance can realistically be considered as a form of music notation. Visual music,
music videos or the work of VJs are initially created to translate already existing music
or sounds into an appropriate, related visual representation. The visuals are created
according to a sonic input. Initially, they are not normally meant to communicate music
to a performer — in the VJ context in particular, the imagery is typically created
subsequent to the music it accompanies — and are therefore unlikely to be understood
as notation of music. However, it needs to be clear that abstract graphics created by a
VJ, for instance, could be utilized as a musical score simply by contextualizing them.
Those visual representations, which inherently do not feature common elements of
music notation (similar to the piece of blue cloth in Blue Line) can only by
contextualized by clearly indicating their purpose. This is usually done by the
composer. By contextualizing it, any visual object can become a music representation
intended to mediate the communication of music or musical intention, i.e. a musical
score. However, the type of score and whether this score can and should be considered a
form of music notation — even if it corresponds to the accepted definition of music
notation — still needs to be determined.

The Visual Communication Process

Communication theory is the study of communication processes. Within this particular
field of information theory, the main elements of communication, sender, receiver and
message have been defined (Shannon 1948). Schematically, a communication process
works as follows: a message is encoded and sent from source to receiver using a
communication channel; the receiver decodes the message and gives feedback. In the
traditional context of music notation, the source would be the composer, the message is
the encoded music, the channel is the visual object (the score) and the receiver decoding
the message is a performing musician. Regarding the performance of music, however,
the communication process does not create a loop of sending, receiving and feedback as
is common in human communication (for instance, a conversation). In the context of
music notation, the feedback is not directly addressed to the sender. It creates rather a
new communication process which manifests in the complex process of performing and
perceiving acoustic phenomena (Truax 2001).

Figure 1. The three steps (encoding, sending and

decoding) of the visual communication process regarding music notation. [Click image
to enlarge]

Regarding music notation the process of coding and decoding information is also called
“mapping” (Fischer 2015). In an ideal process, the receiver decodes exactly the same
content as the source that was previously encoded. In this case, the mapping process
has, in theory at least, been applied without any loss of information. In an analogous
manner, in his 1997 text “Semiotic Aspects of Musicology: Semiotics of Music,”
Guerino Mazzola refers to Jean Molino and Paul Valéry and their description of the
tripartite communicative character of music. He describes three niveaus: the “poietic”,
the “neutral” and the “esthesic”:

[The poietic] niveau describes the sender instance of the message, classically realized
by the composer. According to the Greek etymology, “poietic” relates to the one who
makes the work of art.

[The neutral] niveau is the medium of information transfer, classically realized by the
score. Relating to the poietic niveau, it is the object that has been made by that instance,
and which is to be communicated to a receiver. But it is not a pure signal in the sense of
mathematical information theory. The neutral niveau is the sum of objective data related
to a musical work. Its identification depends upon the contract of sender and receiver on
the common object of consideration.

[The esthesic] niveau describes the receiver instance of the message, classically realized
by the listener. (Mazzola 1997, 4)
The neutral niveau describes the channel, the score itself. The “identification” and the
“contract of sender and receiver” encompass the content of the message, as well as the
way this message is understood. The term “contract” is used here, as there should be a
kind of mutual agreement between sender and receiver. For instance, in Western staff
notation, the understanding of the message (“contract”) is ensured by relying on a
system of meaningful signs (staff, note value, etc.) that have been previously learned by
both the sender and the receiver. Only due to this “contract” can the message be
conveyed. The question that arises now is: what happens if there is no “contract”
between sender and receiver? Can the conveying of musical information work if sender
and receiver do not rely on a common system of meaningful signs? A visual
communication theory and models that define three forms of communication processes
will help here.

Visual Communication Theory

According to German communication theorist Heinz Kroehl, in visual communication
theory there are three models that form the basis of a communication process. Basing
his work on the semiotic studies of Charles Sanders Peirce, Kroehl proposes three
clearly distinct communication systems: Everyday Life, Science, and Art (Kroehl 1987).

Figure 2. The three visual communication

systems of Heinz Kroehl put in context of music notation. [Click image to enlarge]

The Everyday Life model refers to real objects that surround us; Kroehl calls this
“denotative information”. Our spoken language defines (mostly physical) objects.
Objects have a name and we can assume that we are understood by others, using the
same language, if we use the right name for the corresponding object. When I say
“door”, everybody who is capable of understanding the English language will know
what object I am referring to. In discussing music notation, this model is of little or no
significance, because it is not precise enough. Even if we use the term “door” and the
receiver of our message understands the meaning of the word “door”, the source and the
receiver would most likely not have the exact same door in mind. Furthermore, pitch,
dynamics and rhythm are not physical objects that can be seen, let alone touched. In
order to be more precise and to minimize the loss of information during the mapping
process, terms referring to objects that need to be shared between a source and a
receiver would need to be precisely defined. Then it would be possible for both to have
the same object in mind when using the term “door”. However, those particular
definitions are not used in the Everyday Life model, but rather in the Scientific model.

In the Scientific model, signs convey meaning according to definitions and rules;
Kroehl calls this “precise information”. Mathematics is such a scientific model. In such
models, terms and objects, as well as the coherences between them, are clearly defined
to create meaning. Regarding music, Western staff notation is an example of a Scientific
model, consisting of a system of specific rules, syntax and modes that together create
meaning. This system needs to be learned and understood to be able to apply it for
musical performance. There is a pre-defined connection between sign and sonic result.
The Scientific system of Western music notation was formed over the course of many
centuries, with the neumes — which were developed in the early Middle Ages out of
wavy lines guiding the recitation of religious texts — gradually evolving into the staff
notation we know and use today. Anyone able to read modern staff notation knows
exactly which key to press on a piano keyboard when reading one specific note (e.g., C4
, or “middle C”) in a score. Another musician on the other side of the world and reading
the very same score will therefore press the very same key on the piano keyboard when
reading this note. To interpret this C4 as a completely different pitch and therefore
pressing any other key apart from C4 would be regarded as wrong. 1[1. Within, of
course, the Western music system for fully composed music. Differences in tuning
standards around the world and indeed throughout history mean that the actual
frequency of the note may vary. Although there is scientific variance, semantically
speaking the differently tuned C4’s are considered to be the “same”. Further discussion
of this issue falls outside the scope of the present article.] Music scores which use the
Scientific model are based on a system. This could be an established system like
Western staff notation or a unique system developed by a composer. The system can be
complex or rather simple. But in any case the graphic objects used in the system aim at
a universal validity, at least within the closed system of the score itself. Western staff
notation in its current manifestation has been used for an infinite set of works by
countless composers for over three centuries. Nevertheless, over the course of the past
century, and particularly since the 1960s, there are composers who have created unique
music notation systems just for their own œuvre, like Anestis Logothetis (1999), or just
for one single piece (Cage 1969). In the case of the systematically notated score that is
not based on a common system, there are typically a number of interacting and
reoccurring components which have predefined meaning. Visually, individual
components with singular meaning have to be clearly recognizable, if they are to
function properly and consistently within the system. Furthermore the application of
those components is also clearly defined by the composer. The systematic approach,
using the Scientific communication model, tries to reduce possible lack of
understanding for sender and receiver to a minimum.

The third of Kroehl’s communication models is Artistic. This model uses connotative
information and works in an entirely different manner from the Scientific model (Kroehl
1987). In accordance with the basics of visual communication theory, meaning is
generated in this model through interpretation. A photography, a picture or a drawing
cannot be read; it can only be interpreted (Müller 2003). The Artistic communication
model conveys possibilities. It is not likely that two people (in our case musicians)
interpret or understand a message in exactly the same way and play exactly the same
thing when reading from the same source. The decoding might lead to a different result
than the source intended in the coding. Thus, the mapping process in the Artistic model
is not lossless. The message is rather an invitation for performers to generate meaning
by starting their own mapping process. However, the interpretation is not arbitrary, as it
is contextualized. A red square in an advertising context will be interpreted differently
from a red square in a music notation context. In advertising, a red square could be
recognized as a logo of a brand and thereby associated with certain attributes according
to the public relations strategy of the company. In a music notation context, a red square
could indicate a specific instrument or a certain playing technique according to the
composer’s instructions. Contrary to the Scientific model, the Artistic communication
model does not aim to develop a normative canon or any kind of universality. Within
the context of music notation, it is up to the composer to decide if and how the mapping
process is guided. In the context of graphic notation, Mauricio Kagel used the term
“determined ambiguity” (Thomas 1965) to describe how composers can set the
boundaries for performers. Within the Artistic model, composers are able to give
meaning to graphical attributes within a score while others are left completely open for
interpretation. The level of determination is up to the composer. Scores using the
Artistic model are not music notations — they are interpretational and alternative music
representations.

Typology

Figure 3. 3D model of the typology utilizing the

visual communication models. [Click image to enlarge]

The 3D model shown in Figure 3 allows for the categorization of musical works
according to their scores. As a fundament the typology uses the indication of the
previously discussed communication models (on the x-axis). The other axes are
necessary to be able to differentiate the very diverse approaches in alternative music
notation. Some scores only communicate specific aspects of a musical performance,
while leaving others out. The meaning of the three axes will be explained in more detail
below. The grey spheres display musical works. These musical examples were chosen
as they use partly extreme approaches of alternative music notation and are useful to
clearly display how the model works. The pieces are described more in detail below.

The 3D coordinate system consists of the following:

 x-axis — interpretational / systematic level. First, there is the clear distinction

between a systematic music notation using the Scientific communication model
(the right half of the cube) and alternative representations with an
interpretational approach using the Artistic communication model (left half of
the cube). The more to the right that a work sits within this framework, the
stricter the systematic approach and the less interpretational freedom there will
be within the communicational model.
 y-axis — level of improvisation. Improvisation in this context is meant as the
individual share the performer has to introduce in order to perform the piece. It
is an indication of how much effort and own ideas the performer has to invest in
the interpretation. The level of effort invested depends highly on the composer’s
intention and willingness to indicate direct connections between graphic and
 sonic parameters. The clearer the composer’s instructions, the less effort that is
required by the performer and the more a piece would be classified toward the
bottom of the y-axis. A piece without clear instructions, which is open for any
kind of interpretation and is merely a trigger for improvisation, such as Earle
Brown’s December 1952, is therefore on the top end of the axis.
 z-axis — musical-actional. The distinction between musical and actional is
important to distinguish: “musical” here means that the score depicts the sound
itself. For instance, a single graphic displays the sonic attributes of a sound. On
the other hand, there are scores which are rather actional in nature. “Actional”
means that the score depicts a certain physical action that needs to be executed
by the performer in order to produce a sound. Also, the timing of those actions is
often indicated quite precisely. In other words, musical and actional refer to
whether a score concerns the characteristics of a sound (musical) or its conduct
(actional).
 Area of determined ambiguity. In the middle of the cube is an area that
reaches only a little into the right side of the cube and about half into the left
side. This is an area where the composer sets certain rules and boundaries for a
score, in which the performers are free regarding their interpretation.

A typology like this serves as a visualisation of the characteristic parameters of the

alternative notational representations of music in order to be able to characterize and
compare them, despite their different approaches. However, a typology like this can
only be descriptive. The proposed parameters cannot be measured or calculated
mathematically. Practice shows that when a score is more systematically notated and
tends more toward the Scientific communication model, a lesser degree of interpretative
freedom is granted to the performer, and correspondingly less individual initiative will
be required. This indicates that the x-axis and y-axis correlate, while the differentiation
between musical and actional score remains independent.

Examples

The examples that follow (in chronological order) reflect diverse examples of
alternative approaches to music notation and can be used to illustrate the proposed
typology. The characteristics of each example are described and it is this analysis that
determines the positioning of the pieces (represented as grey spheres) within the 3D
model. Also, the positioning is by no means a result of calculations, but rather a
subjective evaluation of the pieces’ characteristics.

Earle Brown — December 1952 (1954)

The score for Earle Brown’s December 1952 is one of the most cited in discussions of
alternative notation approaches explored by the musical avant-garde of the mid-
twentieth century. 2[2. The score for December 1952 and some information on the
composer can be consulted on the Graphic Notation’s “Earle Brown” webpage.] It
should perhaps not be considered an example of graphic notation — as is typically the
case — but rather a musical graphic (Daniels 2009). This score clearly uses the Artistic
communication model. The composer offers only a few hints on how to read the score.
One aspect to consider are the relationships and the size of the displayed musical objects
(black lines) and blank spaces between them. Inspired by the art work of Alexander
Calder and Jackson Pollock, Brown himself saw the score as a trigger for spontaneous
decisions to be made by the performer (Gresser 2007). Even within the Artistic
communication model, the expression is very vague, and the level of improvisation is
therefore very high. The instrumentation, the length of the piece and clearly the music
itself is left entirely up to the performer(s). It is also not defined whether the score is to
be considered musical or maybe rather actional.

Karlheinz Stockhausen — Studie II (1956)

This famous score is exceptional and has to be understood in its historical context. At
the time, the realization of electronic music was done exclusively in a few well
equipped studios by people with a profound knowledge of the studio technology. In the
foreword of the original score, published by by Universal Edition in 1956, is written:

This score of Study II is the first Electronic Music to be published. It provides the
technician with all the information necessary for the realisation of the work, and it may
be used by musicians and lovers of music as a study score — preferably with the music
itself.

The introduction is followed by exact instructions about pitch, the mixture of sounds,
volume, duration and the realisation. The score itself displays frequencies in hertz and
the volume in decibels over time. This approach is very systematic. The score is both
musical and actional. Within Stockhausen’s system, the blocks are a representation of
“note mixtures”, each consisting of five sinusodial notes with constant intervals, and
thereby convey the sound as such; the blocks are therefore musical. At the same time a
block indicates when to start and how long to play a note mixture, while the triangles at
the bottom indicate the volume of a block. Those indications, either for the technician in
the studio, or if we hypothetically assume the score could be played live, would be
rather actional. The score does not leave any room for interpretation or improvisation,
since the system is based on mathematics and all indications are very
precise. 3[3. Although the human operating a potentiometer to change the level of an
individual sinus tone in the production of the piece could perform this task “musically”
(interpretively), this is not in fact the goal of the piece — this could nevertheless impact
the perceived “musicality” of the piece in the form of a residual result. Such an
“interpretation” of the parameters would theoretically be absent in computer-based
versions of the piece, such as the one produced by Georg Hadju.]
 Figure 4.
Screenshot of a software generating the score of Karlheinz Stockhausen’s Studie II by
Georg Hajdu (2011). The score is very close to the original by Stockhausen. [Click
image to enlarge]

Anestis Logothetis —12-Tonzyklen im freien Kanon und eine 2-Stimmigkeit (1987)

From the mid-1950s until his death in 1994, Anestis Logothetis composed works
exclusively with his own graphic notation system. Three elements form the basis of his
notational approach and appear alone or in combinations in all of his scores (Logothetis
1999):

 Pitch symbols refer to note values in Western staff notation and indicate a
relative pitch as they are often not accompanied by the typical five-line staff.
 Association factors describes graphics that indicate loudness, timbre changes
and sound character.
 Action signals are graphics (very often curved lines or dots) that display
movement graphically and are to be translated into musical movement.

Additionally, Logothetis uses the actual text in his vocal works, where words and letters
are formed into shapes to display the way they should be sung or spoken. His scores
generally combine all these elements in complex ways and therefore require a profound
examination to be played correctly. Although his approach is quite systematic, it still
offers the performers a great degree of freedom of interpretation, or as Mauricio Kagel
called it, “determined ambiguity” (see also Fig. 3). The graphics display relations and
correlations of elements and not precise instructions.
 Figure 5.
Score for Anestis Logothetis’ 12-Tonzyklen im freien Kanon und eine 2-Stimmigkeit
(1987). [Click image to enlarge]

Pauline Oliveros — Primordial/Lift (1998)

Pauline Oliveros’ 1998 work Primordial/Lift, for accordion, cello, electric cello,
guitar/harmonium, violin sampler and oscillator, requires the performers to have two
parallel approaches to its interpretation. On one hand, the score reflects Oliveros’ idea
of deep listening (Oliveros 2016) in music performance. The score indicates
correspondences between listening and instrument playing, but leaves the execution up
to the performer. On the other hand, there is an indication of a time structure regarding
two different parts of the piece and the usage of the oscillator. The level of
improvisation is rather high. Apart from the oscillator, there is no indication of the
sounds the performers are expected to play or make. The graphic elements in the score
refer to an ideology of how to perceive and work with sounds and music. Therefore, the
score is action-oriented and its notation sits on the very edge of a determined ambiguity.
 Figure 6.
First page of the score for Pauline Oliveros’ Primordial/Lift (1998), for accordion, cello,
electric cello, guitar/harmonium, violin sampler and oscillator (Sauer 2009). Permission
pending. [Click image to enlarge]

Ryan Ross Smith — Study No. 31 (2013)

Over the years, Ryan Ross Smith has developed his own notation system for dealing
with animated notation. His scores use a variety of symbols and organized elements:

 Primitives. Irreducible static or dynamic symbols (e.g., the dots in Video 1).
 Structures. Two or more primitives in some interrelated relationship (dots and
arches).
 Aggregates. A collection of primitives, structures and their respective
dynamisms that correspond to a single player (circles).
 Actualized indication. The use of a playhead to trigger (see the lines with
numbers at the end of the video).

The score is systematic and actional. According to the composer, the score features
“distinguish Animated Music Notation as a particular notational methodology” (Smith
2015).
Video 1. (7:50). Ryan Ross Smith — Study No. 31 (2013).

Christian M. Fischer — Biological Noise (2016)

The score for my 2016 work Biological Noise is an alternative music representation that
I call “musical motion graphic”; it is not a systematic music notation. It was written for
electric guitar, effects and live electronics, and uses animated abstract graphics that are
interpreted by the performer according to a set of guidelines. As the score manifests as a
video, the timing of events and the overall length is determined. There are also
guidelines how to deal with the score. For instance, one guideline is that the
interpretation should be coherent and comprehensible. By this, I mean that an individual
visual element should have the same corresponding sound throughout the whole piece.
On the other hand, the interpretation itself — tasks such as finding, choosing and
performing sounds that correspond to the visuals — is left to the performer. The score
thus creates a determined ambiguity as discussed in the typology above. Rather than
describing actions the musician is expected to perform, the score describes sounds and
music that are expected to result from the performance of the work.
Video 2. (7:00). Christian M. Fischer — Biological Noise (2016).

Conclusion
Visual communication processes are an integral part of music notation in general. The
utilization of visual communication processes offers a simple and practical tool to
categorize any kind of alternative music notation. A contextualized differentiation of the
present communication model of a score is the core of the proposed typology. Within
the typology, the communication process (on the x-axis) is linked to the “level of
improvisation”, or the effort a performer has to invest to perform a score (on the y-axis).
Furthermore, the typology includes a differentiation of whether a score aims to
represent sounds or actions (on the z-axis). This three-dimensional model allows for a
differentiated classification of alternative approaches of music notation. Thereby it is of
no significance here whether a score is meant for acoustic instruments or electronic
music. The typology is meant to support further discussions of alternative notation
approaches as it allows us to position them in relation to new approaches as well as to
already-existing notation systems.

Bibliography
Bent, Ian D. “Musical Notation.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last updated 12 January
2001. http://www.britannica.com/art/musical-notation [Last accessed 20 February 2017]

Cage, John. Notations. New York: Something Else Press, 1969.

Daniels, Dieter and Sarah Naumann (Eds.). See This Sound. Audiovisuology
Compendium: An interdisciplinary survey of audovisual culture. Cologne: Walther
Koenig, 2009.
Dimpker, Christian. Extended Notation: The depiction of the unconventional. Zürich:
LIT Verlag, 2013.

Fischer, Christian Martin. “Worlds Collide: Utilizing animated notation in live

electronic music.” eContact! 17.3 — TIES 2014: 8th Toronto International
Electroacoustic Symposium (September 2015).
http://econtact.ca/17_3/fischer_notation.html

_____. “Book of Life: Biological Noise.” 22 June 2016. http://c-m-

fischer.de/2016/06/22/book-of- life [Last accessed 20 February 2017]

Gresser, Clemens. “Earle Brown’s Creative Ambiguity and Ideas of Co-Creatorship in

Selected Works.” Contemporary Music Review 26/3 & 4 (2007) “Earle Brown: From
Motets to Mathematics,” pp. 377–394.

Hajdu, Georg. “Karlheinz Stockhausen: Elektronische Studie II.”

http://georghajdu.de/6-2/studie- ii [Last accessed 20 February 2017]

Kroehl, Heinz. Communication Design 2000: A Handbook for all who are concerned
with communication, advertising and design. Basel: Opinio Verlag, 1987.

Logothetis, Anestis. Klangbild und Bildklang. Vienna: Lafite, 1999.

Mazzola, Guerino. “Semiotic Aspects of Musicology: Semiotics of Music.” 21 May

1997.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.31.943&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[Last accessed 20 February 2017]

Müller, Marion. Grundlagen der visuellen Kommunikation. Konstanz: UVK

Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003.

Oliveros, Pauline. “Mission Statement.” Deep Listening Institute.

http://deeplistening.org/site/content/about [Last accessed 20 February 2017]

Sadie, Stanley. “Notation.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians.
London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 1980.

Sauer, Theresa. Notations 21. London: Mark Batty, 2009.

Shannon, Claude. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. New York: The Bell

System Technical Journal, 1948.

Smith, Ryan Ross. Study No. 31 (2013), for 7 triangles and electronics.
http://ryanrosssmith.com/study31.html [Last accessed 17 September 2016]

Stockhausen, Karlheinz. Nr. 3 Elektronische Studien — Studie II. London: Universal

Edition, 1956.

Thomas, Ernst. Darmstädter Beiträge zur neuen Musik — Notation. Mainz: B. Schott,
1965.
Truax, Barry. Acoustic Communication. New York City: Ablex Publishing Corporation,
2000.

Biography

Christian M. Fischer is an interdisciplinary worker in the fields of photography, sound

art, media design and electroacoustic music. Over the years he has performed and
exhibited his works in events and places like the ISCM in Stuttgart and the Estonian
Museum of Applied Art and Design. He has also taught in several academies in
Germany, Estonia and Egypt, where he was head of the Media Design Department at
the German University in Cairo. In summer 2016 he completed his PhD studies in the
composition department of the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre in Tallinn.
http://c-m- fischer.de

eContact! 19.3 — Notation for Electroacoustic and Digital Media / Notation pour
l’électroacoustique et les médias numériques (January / janvier 2018). Montréal:
Communauté électroacoustique canadienne / Canadian Electroacoustic.