REMOVING THE IMAGINARY BOUNDARY BETWEEN SCORE AND … · 2020. 4. 7. · symbols in scores such as Cornelius Cardew’s Treatise (1963-67) and George Crumb’s Makrokosmos (1972-79)

REMOVING THE IMAGINARY BOUNDARY BETWEEN SCORE AND WORK: INTERACTIVE

GEOMETRICAL NOTATION

Jason Noble McGill University

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

In many notational practices in late 20th- and early 21st- century music, the score has a visual artistry all its own. Nevertheless, even heavily graphical Augenmusik scores are often experienced only by the composer and performer, and are not part of the audience's visual experience of per-formance. Because elements from non-auditory modalities (especially visual) seem essential to many musical works, I argue for a multimodal understanding of such pieces, re-moving the imaginary boundary between score and work. I discuss a type of aleatoric, flowchart-like geometrical no-tation that I frequently use in my own compositions, using hybrid notation combining standard musical notation with geometrical forms. This kind of notation helps clarify the analogy between visual and auditory modalities. In my piece simple geometries, I integrate geometrical notation into performance with the projection of an interactive, an-imated score that uses movement and changes of zoom perspective to make the logic of the work’s open form ac-cessible to the audience.

1. SCORE AND WORK: A FRONTIÈRE IMAGINAIRE

The traditional model of production in Western art music keeps the composer at a mysterious distance: neither she herself nor the object that she directly produces—the score—is typically encountered by the audience during performance [1]. Although the composer is considered the “author” of the work, the most immediate fruit of her la-bour is taken to be curiously external to the work itself (ex-cept in the score’s heuristic role of teaching the performer how to mediate the work to the audience). The composer is a kind of shadow-puppeteer, the contortions of whose hands are valued as a means to the end of the projected shadow-image but not as aesthetic ends in themselves. It matters what the score looks like, but only insofar as its appearance affects its clarity in instructing the performer, who in turn delivers the work to the audience through the medium of sound. That the audience does not see the score in performance is assumed not to impoverish their experi-ence of the work, for a successful performance will have transmitted through sound everything essential about the

work. The underlying principle is that music exists within the singular modality of the auditory domain, and the score—while necessary as a vehicle for the creation or transmission of the work—is fundamentally distinct from the work itself: a subservient, pragmatic entity that is aes-thetically inessential. Gérard Grisey expressed such a con-ception by comparing the score to “the map” and musical sound as “the lie of the land” [2], as did Brian Ferneyhough in stating that the adequacy of musical notation—which occupies “a strange ontological position: a sign constella-tion referring directly to a further such constellation of a completely different perceptual order”—is determined by its efficacy as a method of specifying sounds [3]. Some authors have distinguished between “descriptive” notation, which conveys information about musical sound, and “pre-scriptive” notation, which conveys information about methods of sound production [4], but both notational con-cepts ultimately assume sound to be the essence and telos of the musical work, with the score serving a supporting, didactic role.

The putative ontological divide between score and work is inconsistent with the practices of some composers in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The shapes and symbols in scores such as Cornelius Cardew’s Treatise (1963-67) and George Crumb’s Makrokosmos (1972-79) are clearly artistic elements in and of themselves, not aes-thetically inert instructions for sound production. These practices find precedents in the works of much earlier com-posers such as Baude Cordier (1380-1440; Figures 1 & 2).

Figure 1. B. Cordier, Tout par compas suy composes.

Copyright: © 2018 Jason Noble. This is an open-access article distributed under the

terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 Unported, which permits

unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original author and source are credited.

TENOR'18 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Technologies for Music Notation and Representation

174

Figure 2. B. Cordier, Belle, Bonne, Sage.

Jason Freeman considers “concrete” scores such as

these to “visually depict programmatic elements in the mu-sic through novel graphic design” [1]. Their visual appear-ance conveys information, ideas, and aesthetic effects dif-ficult or impossible to infer from sound alone, and as such one could argue that an experience of these works that does not involve seeing the score is incomplete. They force us to either dismiss the visual elements as inessential to the musical work on the grounds that they do not reside in the auditory modality, or to adopt a multimodal concept of musical works that no longer assumes that everything es-sential is transmitted through sound. I would like to make a case for the latter position.

I contend that the score is not—or at least does not have to be—merely an elaborate sonic recipe, an externality in the service of the work proper. As Ferneyhough says, no-tation is “an explicit ideological vehicle (whether intended as such or not from the point of view of the composer)” [3] (pp. 2-3). The appearance of the score can be an essential artistic constituent of the work, an aesthetic deliverance in its own right, a symbiotic visual counterpart that can clar-ify, recontextualize, enrich, and reinforce the concepts pre-sented through musical sound. A parallel situation is seen in concrete poetry, in which the visual layout of the words makes a distinct aesthetic contribution that complements the poem’s linguistic meaning. A familiar example is “The Mouse’s Tale,” from Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Figure 3). In his piece Adventures Under-ground (1971-77), which sets this poem of Carroll’s, Da-vid del Tredici creates a similar “Augenmusik” effect in his score [5].

In his Oxford Music Online entry, Thurston Dart de-scribes Augenmusik (“Eye Music”) as “[m]usical notation with a symbolic meaning that is apparent to the eye but not to the ear,” and stipulates that “[s]ince its effects are de-rived from notation it is the concern of composers and per-formers rather than listeners” [6]. Dart goes on to

distinguish two simultaneous interpretations derived by performers of Augenmusik: one symbolic and the other “purely musical.” Similarly, David Kim-Boyle acknowl-edges that “graphic scores often have a visual appeal that goes beyond a purely musical function” [7]. These authors address the multimodal nature of such works by distin-guishing their musical functions from other functions. I want to offer another reading, interpreting the musical work as inherently multimodal. On this reading, works such as those listed above are not “purely” musical struc-tures onto which inessential signs from the visual modality are appended, but rather are musical structure that are mul-timodal in their very conception.

When the score’s visual appearance “becomes of pri-mary formal importance” and is invested with “aesthetic and musical significance” [7], the question of what in the work is “purely” musical and what is not becomes aca-demic. Also, as many have noted, the notion of musical “purity” is deeply suspect. Responding to Peter Kivy’s concept of “music alone,” Nicholas Cook states that “mu-sic never is ‘alone’ ... it is always received in a discursive context ... it is through the interaction of music and inter-preter, text and context, that meaning is constructed” [8]. Cook describes how musical meaning arises through inter-pretive mappings between musical and extramusical do-mains. I want to suggest that such mappings may also op-erate within musical works (conceived multimodally). Similar to mappings between musical gestures and physi-cal gestures, which invite what Arnie Cox describes as

Figure 3. L. Carroll, “The Mouse’s Tale” from Al-ice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865).


175

“mimetic motor imagery” and “mimetic motor action” as sources of embodied engagement in musical experi-ence [9], visual structures in musical notation and auditory structures in musical sound may also invite homologous mappings that yield satisfying ways to engage with the work. For musically literate musicians accustomed to score-reading, this is a truism: even after hearing a work performed, musicians often feel their understanding of a piece is incomplete until they have seen its score, as the score’s visual presentation of musical information vastly enriches their understanding of the musical work. Com-posers spend untold hours obsessing over the visual ap-pearance of their scores—even scores that are not “graph-ical” in the conventional sense—and there is little doubt that the experience of reading scores is often an aesthetic visual experience for them (distinct from and complemen-tary to aesthetic experience of hearing with the “mind’s ear”). Nevertheless, visual charms of notation are conven-tionally assumed not to belong to the music proper, per-haps at most providing extramusical decorative addenda.

Works of Augenmusik make more explicit than stand-ard musical notation the impetus to recognize the distinct and complementary contributions of different modalities as equally essential, to overcome the frontière imaginaire between score and work. My suggestion is that the modal divide between score and work is ideological and not on-tological, and that there may be good reasons to reconcep-tualize the musical work to include multimodal compo-nents. By offering visual elements that require little or no special training to understand (unlike conventional musi-cal scores, which require an idiosyncratic literacy), Au-genmusik scores make illuminating and enriching visual experiences accessible to nonmusicians and musicians alike, “stimulated by a desire to realize broader social and political ideals of engagement” [7]. Frequently these visual experiences reveal important conceptual and aesthetic as-pects of the work, as well as privileged insights into the work’s structures and functions that would be lost on many listeners (including many musicians) in “monomodal” lis-tening situations. Perhaps the satisfying act of recognizing relations between notation and sound may parallel the sat-isfaction of similar cross-domain mappings in concrete po-etry, word painting, and incidental music for film, theatre, and ballet. Perhaps the contextualizing visual complement provided by graphical scores may provide an entry point to audiences unfamiliar with contemporary music, and may thereby broaden the reach of our art.

Incentives such as these may have become apparent to contemporary composers, as many have begun to explore innovative, integrative, multimodal practices that unite visual elements of notation with the deployment of sounds in time. Such works frequently incorporate “liveness,” with score and performance co-evolve continuously in real-time [10], inviting a heightened sense of engagement in a responsive, real-time interaction [11]. In this kind of “live” context, dynamic relations between score and per-formance become a major source of aesthetic interest for composers, performers, and audiences alike: “[n]otation becomes a vehicle for expressing the uniqueness of each performance of a work rather than a document for captur-ing the commonalities of every performance of that work” [1]. In such scenarios it seems unintuitive to

conceive of the score as an antecedent or externality to the work: musical sound is neither conceived nor encountered as an isolated entity, and the symbiotic, unfolding interac-tion between notation and sound is a an aesthetic end in itself, not a mere means to the realization of a “purely” musical (qua sonic) work. In this spirit, my own artistic work has gravitated towards multimodal integration and diminished boundaries between score and work, as dis-cussed below.

2. GEOMETRICAL NOTATION I make frequent use of geometric, flowchart-like aleatoric notation which provides an intuitive and visually pleasing vehicle for musical expression. The use of geometrical forms in musical composition and notation has many prec-edents. As noted above, George Crumb made use of cir-cular and spiral forms in some of his scores. Iannis Xena-kis used geometrical forms as the basis for both architec-tural design and musical composition, in some cases using the very same forms for both purposes: a famous example is his translation of the contour lines from the Philips Pa-vilion, which he designed with architect Le Corbusier, into glissando lines in Metastaseis (1953-54). Barry Truax’s work Riverrun (1986), realized entirely with real-time granular synthesis, has no score in the traditional sense but deploys very brief sound events (“grains”) according to complex geometrical distribution that is revealed by spec-trographic analysis (Figure 4).

Figure 4. B. Truax, spectrograph of Riverrun (1986). Pro-duced with permission. Indeed, Truax’s compositional process involved what he called “tendency masks,” stochastic distributions of sonic parameters controlled with programmed geometrical shapes [12].

I find geometrical notation appealing for several rea-sons: it is elegant in its simplicity; it reveals the logic of some kinds of musical patterning in a straightforward, readily comprehensible way; and it supports mappings to a variety of cross-modal and extramusical domains, via the shared image-schemata of geometrical reasoning. My first experiments with geometrical notation followed from con-siderations of how to effectively notate the aleatoric de-ployment of defined sets of musical elements or values to performers. A standard solution is to do this with musical elements notated on a single staff with prescriptive textual instructions such as “play in any order” (e.g., Figure 5).


176

Figure 5. J. Noble, excerpt from The Sphinx and the Gar-den Gnome (2015).

But I found this kind of representation unsatisfactory because of the cognitive dissonance between the linear representation of elements on the staff and their non-linear deployment, and because of the reliance on textual instruc-tions to convey ideas that should be diagrammatically communicable. Furthermore, for readers conventional Western music notation (as well as English and most West-ern languages), there is a strong learned tendency to read from left to right, and as a result performers tend to unin-tentionally favour left-to-right orderings between consec-utive elements, skewing the distribution of the sounding result. Geometrical notation provides a more suitable vis-ual representation of the desired distribution, positioning each element at a vertex on a geometrical figure and using unidirectional or bidirectional arrows to indicate the pos-sible pathways (e.g., Figure 6).

Geometrical notation is versatile: the number and type(s) of elements in a given network may be chosen freely by the composer. In some cases the elements I have used are single notes or sound events, while in others they are longer sequences, such as melodies in the folksong pas-tiche in One Foot in the Past (2016; Figure 7).

Superposing multiple layers of carefully selected but indeterminately distributed elements creates a generative situation in which random coincidences of events produce emergent harmonic, rhythmic, and textural properties that come to temporary perceptual prominence and then dis-solve. The characteristics of these emergent properties de-pend greatly on the constituent elements that make up the musical layers—whether they are timbrally homogeneous or heterogeneous, whether or not they are structured met-rically or periodically, what potential intervallic relation-ships exist within their referential pitch structures (if any), etc. Different textural roles may be assigned to different

musical layers, with varying degrees of linearity (e.g. me-lodic content), periodicity, harmonic complexity, and so forth (e.g., Figure 8). It is also possible to alternate linear sections (using conventional notation or a close approxi-mation thereof) with distributional sections (using geomet-rical notation), and/or to superpose linear and distribu-tional sections in different orchestrational layers.

An attractive aspect of geometrical notation is that the formal organization of musical materials is not concealed beneath a linear realization (as is frequently the case in combinatorial music, for instance), but is rather laid bare on the surface of the score. Of course, any given perfor-mance takes a linear form as sound events are realized se-quentially in time, and these could theoretically be notated more-or-less conventionally. However, geometrical nota-tion makes clear that no particular realization is prioritized over any other: an indefinite number of potential combina-tions exists within the distributional networks, and a great deal of the fascination of the music comes from the coin-cidentally emergent properties of random samples of those combinations as they unfold indeterminately. Even view-ers not equipped with the musical literacy to make sense of the content of the musical elements can still appreciate the multiplicity of possible pathways through the net-works, as well as the visual beauty of simple geometrical forms.

Figure 6. J. Noble, excerpt from Shadow Prism (2015).

Figure 7. J. Noble, excerpt from One Foot in the Past (2016).


177

Although the above-listed examples are multimodal in conception (and likely to be experienced as such by per-formers), they do not yet directly address the problem ar-ticulated in the first section of this paper: how can graph-ical notation be incorporated into performance, making the artistic visual qualities and their meaningful relations with musical sound available to audiences? My first serious at-tempt to answer this question was in simple geometries (2017) for cello, electronics, illuminated glass harp, and video projection.1

3. SIMPLE GEOMETRIES (2017) simple geometries consists of seven musical layers (I – VII) organized approximately concentrically, through which the performer moves according to a bidirectional spiral pattern dictated by common elements between con-secutive layers (indicated in the score with large two-headed arrows connecting the common elements; see Fig-ure 9). The pitch content of the piece consists entirely of open strings and natural harmonics (which themselves fol-low a simple geometrical pattern dictated by simple nu-merical ratios), along with indeterminate pitches provided by idiophonic accessory instruments.

Layer I includes a singing bowl or very large crystal glass, layer II includes two large crystal glasses, layer III includes three medium crystal glasses, and layer IV in-cludes four small crystal glasses. In layers I–IV, the

1 A video recording of this piece may be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin-zdcgEjo

specified pitches and accessory instruments for each layer may be played in any order; as such, there are no arrows within the dotted rings delineating these layers. However, transitions between layers must take place by way of shared elements indicated with dashed boxes and large bi-directional arrows (a kind of “common-tone modulation”). The idiophonic instruments are physically arranged on a table in front of the cellist in a spiral pattern, with the sing-ing bowl (or very large crystal glass) in the centre. Each crystal glass is illuminated from below by LEDs activated by contact microphones when the glass vibrates.

Layers V–VII are executed only on the cello, and con-sist of cyclical ordered sequences containing 5 – 7 phrases, respectively, notated in ring patterns. The patterns are modelled on simple geometrical patterns: sinusoidal waves in V, sawtooth patterns in VI, and exponential expansion in VII. These same patterns provide models for suggested paths through the score, represented in the form diagram in the top left of the score. Durations and rhythmic pat-terns of elements are improvised within approximate ranges defined in the legend in the bottom left of the score, with the longest durations in layer I and the shortest in layer VII. Additionally, articulations, rest durations, bow placements, and contours are specified for the layers, and the performer may freely choose values within the given ranges for each of these parameters.

It is important to emphasize that the geometrical pat-terns in the score (spirals, concentric circles, polygons,

Figure 8. J. Noble, “5. Berceuse” from Bathurst Suite (2016).


178

simple waveforms) directly reflect the piece’s musical or-ganization. Subsequent pages of the score provide sample realizations of each layer in standard, linear notation, but these are heuristic devices only and are far less adept at representing the work’s musical logic. To make the mul-timodal conception of the piece explicit to the listener, an adapted version of the score (realized with MaxMSP/Jit-ter) is projected on a screen behind the performer (Figure 10).

Figure 10. J. Noble, stage layout of simple geome-tries (2017).

At the beginning of the performance, all seven layers may be seen, three-dimensionally organized so that layer VII is closest along the z axis and layer I is farthest away (Figure 11).

When the performer plays a given layer, he uses a foot switch to zoom to that layer in the projection. A second switch may be used to trigger playback of a pre-recorded or live-captured sound files for that layer. When a given layer is sounding in the electronics, its associated nota-tional layer moves in the projection: layers I – IV undulate

irregularly, and layers V – VII rotate in the direction the performer chooses to play (following the ring sequence ei-ther clockwise or counterclockwise).

There are many possible paths through the layers of the score (including the suggested routes form diagram, as noted above). Within each layer, there may be considera-ble variation as per the free choices of the performer within the specified musical values. When layers are superim-posed with the playback of sound files, the possibilities for variation are greatly multiplied as the chosen combina-tions, phase alignment, and (if live-captured recordings are used) the sonic content of the layers will also vary with each performance; the emergent properties of the music will vary commensurately. Although the specific

Figure 9. J. Noble, score of simple geometries (2017).

Figure 11. J. Noble, first projection image of simple geometries (2017).


179

configurations that emerge in each performance are sub-ject to tremendous indeterminate variation, harmonic co-herence is guaranteed by the derivation of all of the cello’s pitch material from open strings and natural harmonics, and transitory pulses and metres are guaranteed to emerge from the periodic rhythmic organization of layers V – VII. It is likely that sound alone would fail to convey the rela-tively simple, layered organization of the piece, as super-posing more than two or three layers at a time would likely overwhelm the listener’s ability to perceive them as dis-tinct strata (especially given the timbral and harmonic con-tinuity between them). But the visual appearance of the score, especially when animated by motion corresponding to the activation of layers, makes the musical organization much clearer. The sounds and the dynamic projected score are equally important to the aesthetic of the piece, and it is only when both modalities, and the analogies between them, are perceived that the work is complete.

4. CONCLUSION In this paper, I have argued for a multimodal conception of musical works that includes not only sound but also manifestations in other modalities (focusing here on the visual). This is consistent with practices such as Au-genmusik and word painting, as well as theories such as embodied cognition and cognitive semiotics. It is incon-sistent with the “music alone” ideology of formalism and “absolute” music. I believe that that ideology’s manifes-tation in the Western concert tradition, in which musical sound is isolated as much as possible from other sign struc-tures while audience members are expected to devote their undivided attention to the auditory modality, is a major contributing factor in the perennial alienation of popular audiences from contemporary music. Presenting audi-ences with multimodal experiences of works by integrat-ing accessible features of notation into performance may help engage broader audiences in contemporary music. Graphical scores—already so visually and symbolically meaningful for composers and performers—represent an opportunity to reimagine performance practice in ways that overcome the imaginary boundary between score and work. My piece simple geometries attempts to do this by integrating the geometrical conception at the heart of the piece into the layout of its score, the pitch content and ges-tures of its musical materials, the physical setup of its per-formance forces, and the animated projection of its score.

5. REFERENCES

[1] J. Freeman, “Extreme Sight-Reading, Mediated Expression, and Audience Participation: Real-Time Music Notation in Live Performance,” Computer Music Journal, vol. 32, no. 3, 2008.

[2] G. Grisey, “Tempus ex Machina: A composer’s reflections on musical time,” Contemporary Music Review, vol. 2, no. 1, 1987.

[3] B. Ferneyhough, Collected Writings. Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995.

[4] M. Kanno, “Prescriptive Notation: Limits and Challenges,” Contemporary Music Review, vol. 26, no. 2, 2007.

[5] F. J. Oteri, “The Alice Pieces of David del Tredici,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.daviddeltredici.com/alice/

[6] T. Dart, “Eye music (Ger. Augenmusik),” in Grove Music Online. [Online]. Available: http://www.ox-fordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/.

[7] D. Kim-Boyle, “Real-time Score Genration for Ex-tensible Open Forms,” Contemporary Music Review, vol. 29, no. 1, 2010.

[8] N. Cook, “Theorizing Musical Meaning,” Music The-ory Spectrum, vol. 23, no. 2, 2001.

[9] A. Cox, Music & Embodied Cognition: Listening, Moving, Feeling, & Thinking. Indiana University Press, 2016.

[10] C. Nash and A. Blackwell, “Flow of Creative Interac-tion with Digital Music Notations,” in K. Collins, B. Kapralos, and H. Tessler (Eds.): The Oxford Hand-book of Interactive Audio. Oxford University Press, 2014.

[11] P. Auslander, “Digital Liveness: A Historico-Philo-sophical Perspective,” PAJ: A Journal of Perfor-mance and Art, vol. 34, no. 3, 2012.

[12] B. Truax, “Composing with Real-Time Granular Sound,” Perspectives of New Music, vol. 28, no. 2, 1990.


180

01-TENOR2018_8_Skold 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. The Notation System 4. Case Study4.1 Introduction4.2 Participants4.3 Method4.4 First Notation Assignment and Feedback4.5 Modifications4.6 Second Assignment and Feedback4.7 Case Study Conclusions

5. Future Work 6. References

02-TENOR2018_6_Couprie 1. Introduction1.1 Schaeffer and the transcription of acousmatic music1.2 Why would we trancribe?

2. The analytical framework2.1 Representations2.2 Transcriptions2.3 The transcription space2.3.1 The graphical plane axis2.3.2 Background

2.4 Annotations2.4.1 Semiotic correspondences2.4.2 Links between sound and visual2.4.3 Synoptic transcriptions

3. Software3.1 Available technologies3.2 An example: EAnalysis3.2.1 From ideas to software3.2.2 The architecture of EAnalysis3.2.3 Modes and markers3.2.4 From events to filter

4. Conclusion 5. References

03-TENOR2018_31_Bell 1. Introduction 2. Major updates2.1 Go web2.2 Algorithmic composition/open form2.3 Client-side synchronization

3. Challenges in Production3.1 And the Sea3.2 SmartVox, the piece3.3 Le temps des nuages

4. Technical considerations4.1 Description of frequently faced problems4.1.1 Standby/sleep mode4.1.2 Other Breakdown factors

4.2 Measurements of timing accuracy4.2.1 Drift4.2.2 Local server4.2.3 Distant server4.2.4 Distant server – different networks (3G, 4G, Wifi...)4.2.5 Sync Module

4.3 Synchronization update

5. Going further5.1 Dialoghi Spezzati5.2 Pedagogy in Classroom5.3 Smartphones used as an instrument


04-TENOR2018_5_Bhagwati05-TENOR2018_27_Santini 1. Introduction 2. Background2.1 Graphic notation on paper2.2 Real-time scores and animated notation2.3 3-D and VR scores2.4 Augmented Reality2.5 AR and music

3. LINEAR3.1 Introduction3.2 Technical framework3.3 The AR app on iPhone3.3.1 Startup3.3.2 Creation of virtual objects - first three categories3.3.3 Creation of virtual objects - fourth category3.3.4 VR mode3.3.5 OSC communication with Max/MSP

3.4 Production of sound in Max/MSP3.5 The laptop player3.6 The perspective of the iPhone performer: graphic gestural 3D notation and virtual tangible scores3.7 The perspective of the other players3.7.1 Graphic animated notation3.7.2 Notational feedback

3.8 Compositional ecosystem3.9 Relation of the score with the audience and with the environment.

4. ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS 5. Conclusions and future work 6. References

06-TENOR2018_26_Goudard07-TENOR2018_24_Gironnay08-TENOR2018_9_Louzeiro 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. Development3.1 Notation Type3.2 Notation Interface Design3.2.1 Synchronized Attacks3.2.2 Motivic Exploration3.2.3 Standard Rhythmic Notation

3.3 Practice Tool

4. A Possible New Direction 5. Method 6. Results and discussion 7. Future Work and Conclusions 8. References

09-TENOR2018_23_Zagorac 1. Introduction 2. Distributed Music Composition and Performance Model2.1 Message-Oriented Middleware2.2 Reliable UDP Multicast2.3 Precise Network Time Synchronization2.4 SVG-based Score Representation2.5 Dynamic Notation View Design2.6 Alternating Pane Layout2.6.1 Time restrictions and allowances

3. ZScore Current State3.1 Time-space mapping and synchronization3.2 Score Authoring3.2.1 Hierarchical Layer Structure3.2.2 SVG Symbol library3.2.3 ZScore Tools JavaScript plugin

3.3 Distribution and scheduling engine3.4 Dynamic notation rendering3.5 User trials

4. Conclusions and Future Work 5. References

10-TENOR2018_16_OConnor11-TENOR2018_12_Foscarin 1. Introduction1.1 Evaluating a score1.2 Defining and measuring quality1.3 Our approach

2. the GioQoSo online interface2.1 Importing and displaying the score2.2 Showing/hiding quality annotations2.3 Interactions

3. Modeling Digitized Scores Quality3.1 The score content model3.2 The score engraving model3.3 Metadata

4. The taxonomy4.1 Score content issues4.1.1 Structural issues4.1.2 Music notation issues

4.2 Score engraving issues4.2.1 Staff parameter issues4.2.2 Staff layout issues


12-TENOR2018_20_Kosta 1. Introduction 2. Development of Expressive notation and Chopin's works 3. Synopsis of the Dataset 4. Score beat information4.1 Optimal reference audio choice4.2 Reference audio selection heuristic4.3 Evaluation of score beat positions

5. Loudness information 6. Recent applications of MazurkaBL 7. Future directions 8. References

13-TENOR2018_22_Asmar14-TENOR2018_18_Giraud 1. Introduction1.1 Music Annotation and Web Scores1.2 Who Needs to Annotate Music?1.3 Motivation and Contents

2. User perspective 3. Underlying technology3.1 Dezrann Components3.2 Corpus and Analysis Web Service

4. Availability and Roadmap4.1 Platform Availability and Roadmap4.2 Corpus Availability and Roadmap


15-TENOR2018_15_Gottfried 1. Introduction 2. Foundations 3. Working in Symbolist 4. Time and score performance 5. host environments 6. Discussion: Towards Embedded Scores 7. Conclusion and Perspectives 8. References

16-TENOR2018_25_Hunt 1. Introduction 2. Cognitive Dimensions Framework 3. Introduction to IGME 4. Dimensions of Music Notation 5. Visibility 6. Juxtaposability 7. Hard mental operations 8. Progressive Evaluation 9. Hidden dependencies 10. Conciseness / Diffuseness 11. Provisionality 12. Secondary notation 13. Consistency 14. Viscosity 15. Role Expressiveness 16. Premature Commitment 17. Error Proneness 18. Closeness of Mapping 19. Abstraction Management 20. Conclusion 21. References

17-TENOR2018_33_Agostini 1. Introduction1.1 The problem1.2 A proposed solution for Max and bach

2. Representation of pitches 3. Arithmetic3.1 Pitches and intervals3.2 Operations3.3 Comparisons3.4 Chromatic-diatonic representation

4. The bach implementation 5. Pitch spelling algorithms5.1 General outline of the atonal algorithm5.2 Detailed description of the atonal algorithm5.3 An example case5.4 Final considerations


18-TENOR2018_29_Hajdu19-TENOR2018_6_Ghisi 1. Introduction 2. Motivation and rationale 3. Tools for corpus-based composition3.1 Segmentation3.2 Analysis3.3 Database3.4 Interfaces

4. Tools for physical or geometrical modelling of music4.1 Pinball-like bouncing4.2 Gravitation4.3 Kaleidoscopes4.4 Wave terrain synthesis

5. Rule-based systems, graphs, and music as a game5.1 Cellular automata5.2 Swarm intelligence5.3 Graphs5.4 Videogames

6. Comparison with other software 7. Future work 8. References

20-TENOR2018_11_Merlier21-TENOR2018_17_Vickery22-TENOR2018_39_Noble23-TENOR2018_7_Kim-Boyle24-TENOR2018_3_Klinkenberg25-TENOR2018_28_Hope26-TENOR2018_13_Finbloom

Documents

REMOVING THE IMAGINARY BOUNDARY BETWEEN SCORE AND … · 2020. 4. 7. · symbols in scores such as Cornelius Cardew’s Treatise (1963-67) and George Crumb’s Makrokosmos (1972-79)