Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:16:19.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Evolution of Notational Innovations from the Mobile Score to the Screen Score

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2012

Lindsay Vickery*
Affiliation:
Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, Edith Cowan University, Mt Lawley, Western Australia

Abstract

This article examines the evolution of music notational practices from avant-garde-era experiments in ‘mobility’ to the advent of the digital ‘screen score’. It considers the varied goals of the composers who initiated these developments and the dissonance between these goals and the practical possibilities actually afforded by the paper score.

The advent of graphical computing is charted along with the consequent expansion of possibilities afforded by screening the score from a platform that also provides the potential for performer coordination, sound synthesis and transformation. The performative, interactive and formal implications of these possibilities are considered.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarseth, E.J. 1997. Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, D.R. 2007. Anthony Braxton: True Mathematics. Jazz Times (May). http://jazztimes.com/articles/18704-anthony-braxton-true-mathematics (accessed on 30 April 2012).Google Scholar
Barrett, G.D., Winter, M., Wulfson, H. 2007. Automatic Notation Generators. In:Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco: International Computer Music Association, 2530.Google Scholar
Beal, Amy C. 2007. An Interview with Earle Brown. Contemporary Music Review 26(3): 341356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulez, P. 1963. Sonate, Que me Veux-tu? Perspectives of New Music 1(2): 3244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulez, P. 1991. Stravinsky Remains. In Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55110.Google Scholar
Brougher, K. 2005. Visual Music Culture Visual Music: Synaesthesia in Art and Music Since 1900. New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Brown, A.R., Sorensen, A.C. 2009. Interacting with Generative Music through Live Coding. Contemporary Music Review 28(1): 1729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E. 1970. Panel Discussion: Notational Problems. In Barney Childs and Paul Landsky, eds, American Society of University Composers: Proceedings, 1970. Mineral Wells, TX: ASUC: 8–14.Google Scholar
Bush, V. 1945. As We May Think. Atlantic Monthly 176(1): 101108.Google Scholar
Cage, J. 1970. Form is Language. In R. Kostelanetz (ed.) John Cage. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cardew, C. 1961. Notation – Interpretation, etc. Tempo (new series) 58(3): 2133.Google Scholar
Casserley, L. 1998. A Digital Signal Processing Instrument for Imporvised Music. Journal of Electroacoustic Music 11: 2529.Google Scholar
Chołoniewski, M. 2001. Passage: Interactive Octet for Instruments and Computer. http://www.studiomch.art.pl.Google Scholar
Clay, A, Freeman, J. 2010. Preface: Virtual Scores and Real-Time Playing. Contemporary Music Review 29(1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coenen, A. 1994. Stockhausen's Paradigm: A Survey of His Theories. Perspectives of New Music 32(2): 200225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dack, J. 2005. The ‘Open’ From: Literature and Music. Paper presented at The Scambi Symposium, Goldsmith's College, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, G. 2001. Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life. New York: Brooklyn.Google Scholar
Didkovsky, N. 2004. Recent Compositions and Performance Instruments Realized in Java Music Specification Language. Paper presented at the International Computer Music Conference 2004.Google Scholar
Didkovsky, N., Hajdu, G. 2008. MaxScore: Music notation in Max/MSP. Paper presented at the International Computer Music Conference 2008.Google Scholar
Dubinets, E. 2007. Between Mobility and Stability: Earle Brown's Compositional Process. Contemporary Music Review 26(3): 409426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, U. 1989. The Open Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. 2008. Extreme Sight-reading, Mediated Expression and Audience Participation: Real-time Music Notation in Live Performance. Computer Music Journal 32: 2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J., Colella, A. 2010. Tools for Real-time Music Notation. Contemporary Music Review 29(1): 101113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gresser, C. 2007. Earle Brown's ‘Creative Ambituity’ and Ideas of Co-Creatorship in Selected Works. Contemporary Music Review 26(3): 377394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. 1975. Logic and Disorder. The Musical Times 116(1586): 329331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdu, G. 2004. Composition and Improvisation on the Net. Paper presented at the SMC'04 Conference Proceedings, IRCAM, Paris.Google Scholar
Hanoch-Roe, G. 2003. Musical Space and Architectural Time. International Review of Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 34(2): 145160.Google Scholar
Haubenstock-Ramati, R. 1976. Notation: Material and Form. In B. Boretz and E.T. Cone (eds) Perspectives on Notation and Performance. New York: Norton, 96101.Google Scholar
Holzer, D. 2010. A Brief History of Optical Synthesis. http://www.umatic.nl/tonewheels_historical.html. Accessed on 18 April 2012.Google Scholar
Hsu, W. 2005. Using Timbre in a Computer-Based Improvisation System. In Proceedings fo the ICMC. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Kim-Boyle, D. 2005. Musical Score Generation in Valse. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME05), Vancouver, BC, Canada .Google Scholar
Kim-Boyle, D. 2006. Real-time Generation of Open-Form Scores. In Digital Arts Week Symposiumi '06. Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Zurich .Google Scholar
Kim-Boyle, D. 2010. Real-time Score Generation for Extensible Open Forms. Contemporary Music Review 29(1): 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G.E. 2000. Too Many Notes: Computers, Complexity and Culture in Voyager. Leonardo Music Journal 10: 3339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, F. 2010. Õdaiko, A Real Time Score Generator Based on Rhythm. Presentation given at Sound and Music Computing. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
McClelland, C., Alcorn, M. 2008. Exploring New Composer/Performer Interactions Using Real-Time Notation. In International Computer Music Conference '08. Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Manovich, L. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McElheran, B. 1965. Preparing Stockhausen's Momente. Perspectives of New Music 4(1): 3338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, T.H. 1967. Getting It Out of Our System. In George Schechter, ed., Information Retrieval: A Critical View. Washington, DC: Thompson, 191210.Google Scholar
Pasler, J. 2007. Writing through Music: Essays on Music, Culture, and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, R.C., Yen, L. 1995. A Note on the Stockhausen Problem. Journal of Combinatorial Theory 76(1): 110.Google Scholar
Robbe-Grillet, A. 1963. Pour un nouveau roman. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Selz, P. 1966. Directions in Kinetic Sculpture. Berkeley, CA: University Art Museum.Google Scholar
Stockhausen, K. 1954. Klavierstück XI. Vienna: Universal Edition.Google Scholar
Welsh, J.P. 1994. Open Form and Earle Brown's Modules I and II (1967). Perspectives of New Music 32(1): 254290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Gerhard E. 2004. The Real Time-Score: The Missing-Link in Computer-Music Performance. In Sound and Music Computing '04. IRCAM, Paris.Google Scholar
Xenakis, I. 1959. Duel. Paris: Éditions Salabert.Google Scholar
Yaffé, J. 2007. An Interview with Composer Earle Brown. Contemporary Music Review 26(3): 289310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Žižek, S. 2000. The Art of the Ridiculous Sublime. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar