Questions
Questionnaire
“Here are three primary Questions (formed collaboratively with ACTOR partners). There are two additional queries that are optional. PLEASE take a few minutes this weekend, before your memories are swept away by the New Year! … and respond with your comments. They can be of any length. It’s up to you. They will become part of a DATA Collection process, so they would ideally be substantive. Many thanks for your continuing considerations of the 206/ACTOR process and what we all are gaining from it.” R Reynolds
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
What notational issues arose for you over the course of the seminar: both in terms of conceiving of and understanding the different types of notation?
Replies:
Matthew Chung
Matthew Chung
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
(1) The notion itself of deliberately assembling a vocabulary for discussing orchestration was significant to me: now it is clear to me that precise discourse first requires a precise language of discourse, especially for something as complex as perception, which is subject to ambiguity and lack of shared reference. In this way, the seminar served for me as a case study of methodology in general for approaching subjects that do not yet have a standard vocabulary.
(2) I also found the interdisciplinarity of the vocabulary personally meaningful: the terms extend across acoustics, signal processing, psychoacoustics, perception, cognition, and aesthetics. Having them woven together out of necessity reaffirmed for me that the nature of the question (in this case, of orchestration/timbre) determines (or at least constrains) the nature of the approach. In other words, I was glad to reaffirm that people make progress by this flexible approach!
(3) The vocabulary itself succeeded in providing a means of more authentically and accurately articulating the details of my experience of sound as a pianist and composer: I feel better equipped to express my observations with terms like perceptual grouping, streams, stratification, and timbral modulation. I am 2 almost concerned that the vocabulary might supplant individual poetry, of creative metaphors (e.g. alligators) and connotations that people resorted to for lack of a precise, analytic language. I think the new vocabulary will not, however, yield creative destruction but instead further (and, probably, better) poetry, because it derives objectively from how humans listen. In other words, the vocabulary seems (a) to allow for and in fact imply plurality of personal experiences which can converge or diverge, and (b) to articulate some objective, invariant, human process of listening from which any meaningful poetry would necessarily emerge, as well as to which any meaningful poetry would also refer.
Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
I found the materials--the slides, paper on vocabulary, musical examples, and others' work--very productive. I think it would be valuable, in fact, if there were both a greater quantity of all materials and increased selection of materials from across the disciplines. If there were more examples, more literature in this vein, and more educational tools (e.g. interactive software...!), then the vocabulary might acquire deeper meaning. Also, if there were ways of articulating connections to other fields (e.g. anthropology, biology, cognitive science, critical theory, etc.) and trains of thought (e.g. by philosophers such as Deleuze, Dewey, etc.) through which to compare and contrast concepts, then the vocabulary might acquire broader meaning, and it would be more firmly situated with respect to past work. For example, if we hear more examples, then spectral centroid might become more intuitive. Likewise, if we examine how perceptual grouping relates to neurology (or the Gestalt psychologists' work, psychophysical parallelism, theory of mind, etc.), then it might stimulate broader questions of perception (e.g. color, texture, etc.) within which to situate timbre in particular. I also think that emphasizing availability of references to the relevant scientific research would be valuable to those interested--I would be interested in reading more about where perceptual grouping comes from! (I may have missed when it was mentioned, and the slides and papers do include some of these references.)How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
I found the diversity of perspectives valuable, in that it allowed for alternative interpretations and new trains of thought (for example, someone's (I forget whose) comment on empirical studies of neurological responses to timbre). The diversity also seems essential to the ACTOR project given its interdisciplinary nature. I wonder what might be brought in by conductors (who, in a way, realize orchestrations), musicologists (who might be interested in Otto Laske's cognitive musicology, etc.), and artists from other fields (who might be interested in this as a case study to carry over into visual art, dance, film, etc.). I also found the diversity challenging, paradoxically, due to the reduction of common ground from which discourse could be built. I wish we could have covered more of the science and mathematics implicit in this theory: for example, the neurological work (studies, models, analyses, etc.), the history, the mathematics (feature extraction, etc.), the acoustics (more on how space affects sound and how distance affects timbre), the 3 psychoacoustics (physiological aspects of the cochlea, etc.). I think the seminar nonetheless proceeded from the optimal common ground, and agree it is best to begin clearly and simply. Later on, however, I think that by bringing in more scientists from cognitive science, signal processing, mathematics, acoustics, psychoacoustics, etc. that the common ground will balance out more (since the vocabulary after all comes from those fields!) and that instead of complicating things, the scientists will appreciate the complex, naturally-emergent perspectives musicians bring and likewise musicians might appreciate the ways of thinking and tools scientists bring.Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
I don't think the interactive process changed my way of listening as much as the vocabulary did, although it did reveal that there was a diversity of ways people listen. This made me more aware of my particular way of listening. I may not quite understand this question, however!What notational issues arose for you over the course of the seminar: both in terms of conceiving of and understanding the different types of notation?
I found notation to be another one of the key concerns, in addition to vocabulary, in addressing orchestration/timbre. There does not seem to exist any systematic, natural notation of either composition or analysis that I know of, aside from ad hoc/paper and pencil. I think software may be necessary for filling this gap, and providing a "notation" for the theory: just as Pd and Max are not merely tools but ways of thinking and composing, and thus an embodiment of a language or self-representative notation, so might there be software that can embody the vocabulary of this seminar. I actually hope that my project for the seminar might contribute to this particular issue of notation! Such a program might generate, design, as well as analyze sound along the lines of the vocabulary, and include spectrogram operations and visualizations of grouping, spectral centroids, etc. and perhaps higher level features like streams, stratification, timbral modulation.
Stephen De Filippo
Stephen De Filippo
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
Having a formalised set of terms in relation to timbre was helpful, because I could see in my own work how I implemented some of these techniques already. However, now I hove a formal way to discuss such techniques. The work that I produced for Me class was directly related to McAdams' notion of Weberian klangfarbenmelodie, and without the process of discussing McAdams' terms in the fall semester, I would not have the impetus to start this Project.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
Similar to my response to the first question, my project grew out from our analysis of Me materials in the beginning of fall semester. In looking to the future, I really feel Mis process was Important in allowing ITO to better discuss timbre! devices in music, and I would be more confident discussing my own music in such regard.[blank]
Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
I found in particular McAdams' Music and Science lecture which we discussed in class was helpful in me being able to identity further timbral relationships between instruments, as well os relationships between composite sounds.What notational issues arose for you over the course of the seminar: both in terms of conceiving of and understanding the different types of notation?
The notation limitations in this project were minimal, but I was conscious on how to adequately convey differing rotes of speed in my project — emphasizing an increased speed in Me iterations of klangfarbenmelodie without constantly changing M.P..
Andrés Gutiérrez
Andrés Gutiérrez
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
The vocabulary helped me approach the notion of timbre from a more “objective” point of departure. These have impacted the way in which I deal with timbral transitions in the context of resonance; of timbral masking and its expressive potential (if any); an the role of timbre in its relation to blend in the context of “harmonic” voicing.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
I think that when presenting this material, it’s important to present in the context of different types of music, because many of the examples provided at the beginning were related to Roger Reynold’s “Angel of Death”, whose musical idiom is only but one of many different approaches to timbre exploration. As it turns out, many of the arrived conclusions in the article only apply to particular contexts and are not “universally” applicable. I believe that it is important to come to this realization because of the non- linear process of composition-realization. I believe it’s also a bit dangerous to assume that what can arrive at an objective, science-like paradigm in music making. It is important to be aware that there are many issues that lie outside the composer’s “control”. However, by becoming aware of these non-linearities as a composer, we can learn to identify their origin and develop strategies to overcome them.How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
I think that it was interesting to approach these things taking into consideration those elements that are beyond the grasp of a composer. I believe the role of the performers in such a context is elementary because they can help attest or refute some speculations that are too detached from practicality. While I believe that it’s important to have contact with the objectivities that are provided from the point of view of sound analysis through computation. I believe it’s important that we don’t romanticize the tools provided as a beacon of truth and a source of legitimacy.Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
I think that it is too early for me to know how this has changed my listening habits.What notational issues arose for you over the course of the seminar: both in terms of conceiving of and understanding the different types of notation?
If any, maybe the awareness of timbre as a an explicit parameter in music notation. However, this is something I have yet to think more thoroughly about.
Michael Jones (Percussionist)
Michael Jones
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
As a percussionist, my understanding of the vocabulary used in the beginning of the seminar has helped me to understand the ways in which percussion, being essentially unlimited in its timbral possibilities, has been used to great effect over the past 100 years. ACTOR has given me a lexicon with which to discuss sound choices with my colleagues when in search of a desired relationship, and has helped me to frame how I go about choosing my own sound for the pieces in my repertoire. The greatest impact has been a more precise vocabulary in considering the choices I make.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
The introductory material has proven to be musically productive in that it has outlined possible avenues which I could pursue in my work as a percussionist. As an instrumentalist who is always adding sounds to my arsenal, being exposed to the precise language and ideas of ACTOR (modeled so effectively in the reference pieces) has forced me to consider the ways in which percussion may evolve as a timbral voice.How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
It was useful to be present in a discussion that involved musicians from multiple disciplines. Most of the work done was composer centric, as the primary outcome of this project will be these pieces and the understanding that they yield. Still, I feel as though having voices that are not interested in composing new pieces but instead realizing them, and, as a result, dealing with their problems and implications, keeps the ACTOR Project very much rooted in something that is real and tactile. I appreciate having my voice as a performer and researcher honored alongside my composer colleagues.Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
My way of listening to music is typically intuitive, so I would not say that the vocabulary or ideas have changed the way I listen to music. However, it has certainly helped me to understand why certain musical effects impact me the way that they do. As a result, it has sharpened my identification of the things in music that I find beautiful. I would not say, that those things have changed for me from being in this course, however.
What notational issues arose for you over the course of the seminar: both in terms of conceiving of and understanding the different types of notation?
As a percussionist I’m fairly well-versed in a wide array of unconventional notation. So far, I have not encountered any notation that I found difficult or strange. It has all been fairly effective, with perhaps a few idiosyncrasies that may honestly just be a result of my personal preference.
Zach Konick
Zach Konick
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
The vocabulary terms offered me a frame of concern for the musical concepts I would present in my composition. These guiding concerns affected my choices in the compositions formation, to best explore the topics of concern in the ACTOR project.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
I believe the exposure of the terms and musical/scientific concepts presented were in some ways productive, and in others, hindering. I believe that many of these concepts we explored were highly specific and apt to being more relevant to some composer's aesthetic approach, and less-so to others. I decided to focus my attention to those materials which were of interest to myself. However, I have found myself at times considering utilizing certain techniques which these materials have either made me more conscious of, or have made certain composing tools a sort of music-theory.How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
It was clear that having multiple research perspectives was fulfilling to the group discussion at least to a certain degree. I liked how computer music researchers could offer a more technical/scientific approach to sonic activity, while the composers could offer a more generalized approach, and the performers, a unique perspective on the neurological and physical aspects of music production. I believe this type of interdisciplinary collaboration should continue.Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
Largely due to the discussion offered by those participants interested in scientifically examining sonification, and some interesting examinations from instrumentalists on unique considerations of performance and listening practice, I would propose that I am slightly more conscious of and curious to issues of this nature, more-so than I was prior to participating in the course. I feel I have been invited to listen to music through deeper dimensions, rather than examining only what lies on the surface perceptually.
Ioannis Mitsialis
Ioannis Mitsialis
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
It helped me to clarify nuances between concepts that I had previously slightly confused in my mind, especially in the domain of auditory scene analysis. This clarification came gradually through the useful and corrective feedback of Prof. Roger Reynolds and the participants of the seminar throughout the whole process of shaping our proposals. Because of this I was able to compose a new ensemble piece, which for the first time in my creative process develops a more flexible strategy concerning foreground and background activity of sound.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
It did in the highest possible degree, as the above-mentioned process initiated structural experimentations that are focused on simultaneous textural activity (multiple layers of musical events). These explorations have generated charts that still develop and on which new pieces are going to be composed. One was already completed right after the piece for Actor, a quintet for the Graz based ensemble Schallfeld.How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
There was a very productive and fruitful discussion between all the participants of the seminar, each one coming from a different perspective and adding to the variety of the whole context. The only aspect that seems to have still room for improvement was the computer music research domain, mainly because of the very limited enrollment of computer music students in the seminar.
Berk Schneider (Trombonist)
Berk Schneider
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
For me the study of different timbral configurations in compositional practice gave me new 8 means to analyze space between sounds in orchestration. Perhaps this had a subconscious impact on my creativity, but I can not identify a direct correlation.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
Not particularly, it was interesting to think about these concepts and use them in a theoretical sense, but at the moment I have not used them in my musical practice yet.How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
Very interesting to hear about how the composers approached their projects and was nice to collaborate and work with them in an attempt to discover new timbral combinations. In the future It might be fun to have a performance of the composers works at the end of the first seminar... then in the second quarter.. perhaps the performers could compose a few short works and have the composers perform these! This could be a very interesting/informative exchange!Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
As a performer not particularly, as a researcher yes! It’s always great to have names for things we once considered “magic”What notational issues arose for you over the course of the seminar: both in terms of conceiving of and understanding the different types of notation?
I’m not entirely sure what this is referencing, however it is my thought that notation is simply a semiotic language that tries its hardest to carry the identity of the artists who conceive it... in most situations. Some composers have very different ways of notating things. One thing that was bothersome was the eharmonics written for brass... these are not possible - the composers meant to reference the open (just intonation) of the overtone series.. assuming the mechanics of the brass instruments functioned on the same timbral plane as the strings. Another example is air in the tone. There are many different methods in obtaining this and it is sometimes funny when a composers is not sure of what sound they want/expect - thus the performer is then left to composer the work for them! Of course these are not the only issues that arose from experimenting with extended techniques that play with timbre.
Alex Stephenson
Alex Stephenson
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
A desire to reengage in a formalized context with vocabulary, concepts, and literature in music perception and cognition was a central component of my motivation to enroll in the seminar, and as I expected, the discussion was enlightening to my creative process. To give one particularly memorable example, I was struck by the exciting creative implications of the notion of timbre space. This virtual space offers composers an understanding of instrumental timbre that is grounded in rich, multidimensional, quantitative data without, at least not in my experience, intruding on a sense of deeply personal liberty and free- associative exploration that one often feels is necessary to create satisfying music. Composition could be considered to be a personal traversal of virtual spaces, among them timbre space. I find this metaphor very beautiful and creatively emboldening.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work?
This question strikes me as similar to question 1, but maybe I do not understand what is meant by "introductory material" as opposed to the vocabulary/concepts referenced above. Perhaps I could add here that I felt the exercise of studying reference works through the lens of the aforementioned terms/concepts was illuminating and helpful for my understanding of the latter.How would you evaluate the presence in the Fall Seminar of differing perspectives (composer, performer, computer music research)?
I thought the multidisciplinary (or multi-sub-disciplinary) makeup of the class was exciting, though I wondered if perhaps it would have led to richer results on a more consistent basis if the non-composer participants had at times been asked to structure their contributions differently. Specifically, I felt the notion of asking non-composers to respond to the composers' etudes was limiting, not least because the composers were working on their etudes (and only drafts of them at that) up to the very end of the quarter, meaning that the reflections offered by non-composers during the seminar could only be highly provisional and speculative. I wonder if the non-composers could have instead given presentations/demonstrations at the end of the quarter, perhaps, on how the seminar's activities had influenced their own practices. (After all, it seems to me that this is essentially what the composers were being asked to do—simply through a different medium—by producing etudes in response to the content discussed in the seminar.)Did this interactive process change your way of listening, and if so, how?
Several of our discussions, and perhaps most of all the experience of carefully studying real, substantive reference works with recordings, provided me with tools for more deeply interrogating the sounds I perceive. In other words, they contributed toward my aim of making my listening experiences ever more active and reflective.
Jacques Zafra
Jacques Zafra
How and in what way did the vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar affect your creative process, both individually and collaboratively?
The vocabulary terms and concepts discussed at the beginning of the seminar definitely affected my creative process. Actually, I can only talk about how they affected me individually, since during my creative process there was no collaboration with the performers. The place was composed based on theoretical concepts of composition and instrumentation and my previous experience as a composer.
I would say that the concepts affected in a very important way the way I approached the piece, since, in this work, unlike the rest of my works, I concentrated on vertical sound events. The phenomena described by McAdams that most Influenced my piece were fusion, timbral emergence, timbral augmentation, timbral cross swell and timbral re e. The fact of having a timbre concept described and named in mind, and the desire to try, as far as possible, to compose music that represented it, was of enormous influence on the decisions I made when writing the music. While I still can't know if I managed to represent the concepts well in my music, I can say that at least they helped me to conceptualize musics ideas very differently than I had done before.Did the introductory material presented in the Fall prove to be productive musically for you, and what influence do you think this experience may have on your future creative work
Of course, the material presented in the Fall was musically productive for me. Through the study of the timbre concepts and the intention to reproduce them in my own music, I consider that I developed my orchestral thinking Ina more systematic way and therefore, I significantly expanded the amount of compositional resources at my disposal. I believe that having learned these concepts will have an important impact on my future work. While I do not plan (at least not et the moment) to use them systematically (or perhaps consciously), I em sure they will manifest themselves In various ways In my next works. I specifically believe that several of the concepts will be useful to me when I write a large scale work. At the moment my pieces are for few instruments and I consider that several of the concepts can be realized more effectively with a greater number of instruments and with complete instrument families.