Electronic Music

[Joseph K]

The front cover of Oktophonie reminds me that we haven't really said much here about how it's such an important aspect of the composition and/or performance of the music under discussion that it's presented in its multichannel format, and that listening in stereo is more of a reduction than for example a recording of an orchestra, because in a multichannel presentation the sounds might be coming from far more directions, and, as in Stockhausen particularly, this "spatialisation" isn't a special effect but is integral to the composition. One reason why this is important is that it's possible to perceive far more simultaneous and different sounds in multichannel than in stereo - something that might sound impenetrably dense in stereo can sound clear and transparent when the sound-layers are separated as per the composer's intentions.

How might one better perceive this multichannel presentation when listening from a hifi? Through headphones? Sorry if that's a daft question.

Thanks for bringing this thread back BTW. I realised in December what with this, Bruckner and then since then more jazz I have been catching up with multiple strands of recommendations and listening projects... today I'll listen to something suggested in this thread.

[Dave2002]

Performance and sequencer notations for electronic music?

Notations for "conventional" music on "conventional" instruments - even fairly new electronic ones (guitars, keyboards etc.) are well known and have been developed and refined over centuries.

Playing an electronic instrument such as a synthesiser can be done with a keyboard - but then all that is really happening is that the synthesiser is being used as a "regular" instrument - which just happens to have some unusual sounds. In that mode a synthesiser can be played either by a human player, or by a sequencing program.

The results are likely to sound rather like "conventional" music - but the "instruments" are electronically generated sounds. Pieces will still have key centres and rhythmic patterns and dynamics which can be notated using fairly standard musical notation. Features such a pitch bend can be added, but don't necessarily stretch the notation too far. Pieces could still have what might be considered melodies and harmonies.

However, for those who know how to, it's also possible to play synthesisers by knob twiddling - and this can be done in real time. A few people who do this have posted around these parts in recent years.

People who do this may have their own notation to help them perform, or they might use an improvisational approach - based on experience. They might also use recording devices - either audio or some form of sequencing recorder - to capture the sound sequences they desire. This at least would allow them to play multiphonic music - with more than one strand of electronic music. Some may only intend to make recorded performances, which allows for quite a bit of trial and error, followed by an editing session in which all the recorded sounds are patched together.

Some, however, may want to do live performances, or possibly even combine with others to do more complex works - either with other electronic instruments, or a mix of electronic and acoustic instruments - again we have seen examples of such in this thread.

Given that it is possible to record control signals - either for a physical device (such as the knob positions on an analogue synthesiser) - or for a synthesising programme, are there any common notations or descriptions used for electronic music which can be used to to recreate a particular electronic music piece by a computer based sequencer - or at least suggest a possible performance by a human performer.

Such a notation could be graphical, or might also be very descriptive.

For example.

Sequence 1:

Start with white noise.
Apply a descending bandpass filter centred at 5 kHz at time zero. The volume level should be set at (choose a scale ...) 55.
The filter should now reduce logarithmically at the rate of 1/2 octave per second for 12 seconds. The volume level should decrease by 5 units every 3 seconds.

Sequence 2:

Start with a pure tone set at 30 Hz and volume level 30.
Double the frequency smoothly every 5 seconds for 25 seconds.
Then keep the frequency constant and increase the volume smoothly by 5 units a second for a further 30 seconds.
Then fade the signal to zero at the rate of 2 units per second for 60 seconds (after which it should be 0)

Sequence 3:

Same as Sequence 2, but in reverse.

Sequence 4:
Start with Sequence 1.
After 14.5 seconds start Sequence 2.
After 7 seconds more start Sequence 3.

etc.

Repetitions could be indicated by loops in a graphical notation.

Spatial locations for sound sources could also be specified - and move around in time - as suggested by a few of the immediately preceding posts.

This might at least suggest some form of graphical notation - and it seems highly likely (near certainty) that such have already been developed - but the basic question is whether they have common currency amongst composers of electronic music, or whether each has his or her own basic notational devices.

[Serial_Apologist]

Notations for "conventional" music on "conventional" instruments - even fairly new electronic ones (guitars, keyboards etc.) are well known and have been developed and refined over centuries.

Playing an electronic instrument such as a synthesiser can be done with a keyboard - but then all that is really happening is that the synthesiser is being used as a "regular" instrument - which just happens to have some unusual sounds. In that mode a synthesiser can be played either by a human player, or by a sequencing program.

The results are likely to sound rather like "conventional" music - but the "instruments" are electronically generated sounds. Pieces will still have key centres and rhythmic patterns and dynamics which can be notated using fairly standard musical notation. Features such a pitch bend can be added, but don't necessarily stretch the notation too far. Pieces could still have what might be considered melodies and harmonies.

However, for those who know how to, it's also possible to play synthesisers by knob twiddling - and this can be done in real time. A few people who do this have posted around these parts in recent years.

People who do this may have their own notation to help them perform, or they might use an improvisational approach - based on experience. They might also use recording devices - either audio or some form of sequencing recorder - to capture the sound sequences they desire. This at least would allow them to play multiphonic music - with more than one strand of electronic music. Some may only intend to make recorded performances, which allows for quite a bit of trial and error, followed by an editing session in which all the recorded sounds are patched together.

Some, however, may want to do live performances, or possibly even combine with others to do more complex works - either with other electronic instruments, or a mix of electronic and acoustic instruments - again we have seen examples of such in this thread.

Given that it is possible to record control signals - either for a physical device (such as the knob positions on an analogue synthesiser) - or for a synthesising programme, are there any common notations or descriptions used for electronic music which can be used to to recreate a particular electronic music piece by a computer based sequencer - or at least suggest a possible performance by a human performer.

Such a notation could be graphical, or might also be very descriptive.

For example.

Sequence 1:

Start with white noise.
Apply a descending bandpass filter centred at 5 kHz at time zero. The volume level should be set at (choose a scale ...) 55.
The filter should now reduce logarithmically at the rate of 1/2 octave per second for 12 seconds. The volume level should decrease by 5 units every 3 seconds.

Sequence 2:

Start with a pure tone set at 30 Hz and volume level 30.
Double the frequency smoothly every 5 seconds for 25 seconds.
Then keep the frequency constant and increase the volume smoothly by 5 units a second for a further 30 seconds.
Then fade the signal to zero at the rate of 2 units per second for 60 seconds (after which it should be 0)

Sequence 3:

Same as Sequence 2, but in reverse.

Sequence 4:
Start with Sequence 1.
After 14.5 seconds start Sequence 2.
After 7 seconds more start Sequence 3.

etc.

Repetitions could be indicated by loops in a graphical notation.

Spatial locations for sound sources could also be specified - and move around in time - as suggested by a few of the immediately preceding posts.

This might at least suggest some form of graphical notation - and it seems highly likely (near certainty) that such have already been developed - but the basic question is whether they have common currency amongst composers of electronic music, or whether each has his or her own basic notational devices.

But the question would then be, would the above instructions lead to a meaningful piece of music?

I've always been more interested in how electronic music came about - where the aesthetic and, er, social issues entered the equation to do with how and maybe why musical languages and forms evolved in a continuum going back hundreds of years, since this maintains the perspectives by which, in this instance, the "western" or Euroclassical tradition, may be evaluated and valued. This, for me at any rate, is what makes feeding earlier radical compositions into a followable narrative more enriching in approaching current trends. We can then come onto more complex and undoubtedly controversial considerations, such as, can we now finally dispense with the idea of a self-generating western tradition of composition and compositional means, maybe on grounds - which have I believe considerable pertinence to the decline in standards of Radio 3 - that "globalisation" in its broadest possible definitions had put paid to the long-cherished idea that "the west" is capable or even willing any more to produce great leaders in the world of ideas and composition? There certainly don't seem to be that many around in this day and age; indeed, I can remember Alexander Goehr remarking ironically on the fact that the last composers really considered to be giants in the old sense had been Shostakovitch and Messiaen - and that was in a Radio 3 discussion, more than 30 years ago.

[Quarky]

But the question would then be, would the above instructions lead to a meaningful piece of music?

I've always been more interested in how electronic music came about - where the aesthetic and, er, social issues entered the equation to do with how and maybe why musical languages and forms evolved in a continuum going back hundreds of years, since this maintains the perspectives by which, in this instance, the "western" or Euroclassical tradition, may be evaluated and valued. This, for me at any rate, is what makes feeding earlier radical compositions into a followable narrative more enriching in approaching current trends. We can then come onto more complex and undoubtedly controversial considerations, such as, can we now finally dispense with the idea of a self-generating western tradition of composition and compositional means, maybe on grounds - which have I believe considerable pertinence to the decline in standards of Radio 3 - that "globalisation" in its broadest possible definitions had put paid to the long-cherished idea that "the west" is capable or even willing any more to produce great leaders in the world of ideas and composition? There certainly don't seem to be that many around in this day and age; indeed, I can remember Alexander Goehr remarking ironically on the fact that the last composers really considered to be giants in the old sense had been Shostakovitch and Messiaen - and that was in a Radio 3 discussion, more than 30 years ago.

A giant in a new sense has to be KarlHeinz Stockhausen - a ruddy great genius, IMV.

ferney posted a series of lectures given by KHS in the UK, of which lecture 1/5 given at the Oxford Union seems to be spot on target:

""Just for a moment I thought there was going to be a broadcast of Momente to start the New Year.

But you're absolutely right: they are wonderfully illustrative and entertaining talks and available on youtube -

Talk One, Musical Forming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYmMXB0e17E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMsPzuP8sXU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMvpb8b06H4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMDvbwBG6JU

Talk 2, MICROPHONIE I (Live Electronic Music):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMDvbwBG6JU

Talk 3, Moment-Forming and Integration (MOMENTE):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFvynwLkGco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FBaTDKHv-c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh4GJkdUDlM

Talk 4, Intuitive Music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywx49Qf5bW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq3rbK1f7Fc

Talk 5, Four Criteria of Electronic Music (KONTAKTE):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xyGtI7KKIY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzDhg-MoHlo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgQmGu93-F4

Talk 6, TELEMUSIK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odbvoUqq3EA

Talk 7, MANTRA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8K9gkuHpMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QASwHLZ_fBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHmcJgJiVe8 ""

[Serial_Apologist]

Phew! Thanks for undertaking the monumental job of collating all the links to those marvellous talks, Quarky.

[Richard Barrett]

I can remember Alexander Goehr remarking ironically on the fact that the last composers really considered to be giants in the old sense had been Shostakovitch and Messiaen - and that was in a Radio 3 discussion, more than 30 years ago.

Probably there have been Goehr equivalents saying such things for the last thousand years.

As for examining the implications for notation in music using electronic resources, looking through the kinds of notation Stockhausen developed for such pieces, from the two Electronic Studies in the early 1950s onward would be a good start.

The only way to get close to the impression of hearing multichannel music using stereo equipment is listening to a binaural realisation through headphones. As Joseph knows I've been busy exploring the possibilities of this medium over the past year (for obvious reasons). It isn't quite the same of course, and works best when the music has been conceived in binaural form rather than remixed from an 8-channel original or whatever. But it's an improvement on stereo, for sure.

[Joseph K]

The only way to get close to the impression of hearing multichannel music using stereo equipment is listening to a binaural realisation through headphones. As Joseph knows I've been busy exploring the possibilities of this medium over the past year (for obvious reasons). It isn't quite the same of course, and works best when the music has been conceived in binaural form rather than remixed from an 8-channel original or whatever. But it's an improvement on stereo, for sure.

Yes thank you - I sort of knew that but thought it best to check. I didn't know, however, that there was a difference between music conceived for binaural listening and music remixed that way.

I am about to give Stockhausen's Momente a listen.

[Richard Barrett]

I didn't know, however, that there was a difference between music conceived for binaural listening and music remixed that way.

Normally, fixed media music is composed to be played back in some arbitrary space with a specific number of speakers, usually a factor of 2 in number, and usually arranged in a circle or a cube. In binaural processing, there are of course no such real sound-sources apart from the headphones, and sounds may theoretically be situated in any virtual position relative to the listener including above and below the plane of the ears, and at any perceived distance from the listener since the acoustic in which they occur is also virtual; it's also possible to hear some sounds as occurring in a dry space and others simultaneously as occurring in a reverberant one, and so on. In practice, the placement of sounds in the virtual binaural environment isn't as accurate as that, because for example the perception of sounds directly in front of or behind the listener depends on small head movements, but it does open up possibilities, particularly in the vertical dimension, which aren't practical to achieve with loudspeakers.

[Dave2002]

But the question would then be, would the above instructions lead to a meaningful piece of music?

The instructions above probably would not - though we could argue that one. Instructions similar to those, might.

We are communicating here by text - using electronic communications networks. What we interact with - largely - is the text. Underneath, the text is represented by codes and data formats which many of us don't think about, and which hopefully result in some similar text appearing on screens of the recipients. It would of course be nonsense - generally - for humans to work directly at the low levels in order to express themselves. However note that the same or similar low levels of technical communications may also permit the transmission of images and sound, and sometimes control signals for complex equipment - a much wider range of communcations than pure written text alone.

In the case of classical music, we have a whole raft of conventions, which to a considerable extent enable communications. We assume that there are more or less standardised instruments, and we also have notations which when interpreted by human performers on groups of instruments will produce sounds which many of us - including perhaps the composers - will recognise.

It seems to me that the "standard" notation is insufficient to represent all the kinds of sounds and effects that composers of electronic music might want to convey.

It is surely not wrong to ask "what kinds of notation do electronic music composers use to help themselves to compose, and to communicate with others?" and to follow questions like that with queries about how effective such notation is, and whether it can be used to give "better" renditions of electronic music pieces using what may be a diverse range of electronic devices.

Is there any universality amongst composers of electronic music of notation which aids their work?

[Dave2002]

Normally, fixed media music is composed to be played back in some arbitrary space with a specific number of speakers, usually a factor of 2 in number, and usually arranged in a circle or a cube. In binaural processing, there are of course no such real sound-sources apart from the headphones, and sounds may theoretically be situated in any virtual position relative to the listener including above and below the plane of the ears, and at any perceived distance from the listener since the acoustic in which they occur is also virtual; it's also possible to hear some sounds as occurring in a dry space and others simultaneously as occurring in a reverberant one, and so on. In practice, the placement of sounds in the virtual binaural environment isn't as accurate as that, because for example the perception of sounds directly in front of or behind the listener depends on small head movements, but it does open up possibilities, particularly in the vertical dimension, which aren't practical to achieve with loudspeakers.

It is possible to achieve effects in all the spatial directions - including above and below - using loudspeakers, though I suppose when you refer to practicality you mean that so many speakers would be required that the sound system would be prohibitively expensive. Additionally there would be issues regarding the number of channels required to deliver the desired outcome.

When you discuss binaural sound are you also including virtual reality systems, in which the listener's head position and orientation is used as input to some sort of virtual reality processor, or just a static system in which the apparent sound field will move with the listener's head movements?

[Serial_Apologist]

A new series starts on Radio 3 on Sunday Jan 10 which might be of interest:

11pm - The Electronic Century
with Gabriel Prokofiev
1/3 - New Sonic Territories
To mark a century since the invention of the earliest electronic instruments, composer Gabriel Prokofiev offers a personal insight into how electronically generated sound has influenced the way we make and listen to music now. Today, he shares some of the earliest compositions made in this way, featuring instruments such as the theremin and lesser-know synthesiser prototypes like the 1937 ANS machine, inspired by the synesthesiac Russian composer Scriabin, and Daphne Oram's "Oramics Machine".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000r39k

[Richard Barrett]

composer Gabriel Prokofiev offers a personal insight

File under "why invite an authority on the subject?" (NB Thaddeus Cahill first presented his "Telharmonium" in 1902)

[Joseph K]

Now giving 'Oktophonie' a listen.

[Joseph K]

Now giving 'Oktophonie' a listen.

I think I can perceive the spatial aspect just through hifi speakers albeit possibly not to the fullest extent. The synth sounds remind me of some of the music for The Terminator (though perhaps that says more about me than about the piece). It's quite heavy, though my attention isn't flagging to the extent it was listening to Friday-Greeting the other week...

[Serial_Apologist]

It's quite heavy

It's at the limits of what my nervous system can handle!