Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:15:48.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future is Graphic: Animated notation for contemporary practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2020

Cat Hope
Cat Hope*
Affiliation:
Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
*
Email: cat.hope@monash.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing number of musicians are recognising the importance of re-thinking notation and its capacity to support contemporary practice. New music is increasingly more collaborative and polystylistic, engaging a greater range of sounds from both acoustic and electronic instruments. Contemporary compositional approaches combine composition, improvisation, found sounds, production and multimedia elements, but common practice music notation has not evolved to reflect these developments. While traditional notations remain the most effective way to communicate information about tempered harmony and the subdivision of metre for acoustic instruments, graphic and animated notations may provide an opportunity for the representation and communication of electronic music. If there is a future for notating electronic music, the micro-tonality, interactivity, non-linear structures, improvisation, aleatoricism and lack of conventional rhythmic structures that are features of it will not be facilitated by common practice notation. This article proposes that graphic and animated notations do have this capacity to serve electronic music, and music that combines electronic and acoustic instruments, as they enable increased input from performers from any musical style, reflect the collaborative practices that are a signpost of current music practice. This article examines some of the ways digitally rendered graphic and animated notations can represent contemporary electronic music-making and foster collaboration between musicians and composers of different musical genres, integrating electronic and acoustic practices.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 25 , Issue 2: Time in Electroacoustic Music , August 2020 , pp. 187 - 197
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2020

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

REFERENCES

Armstrong, W. and Cole, A. 2014. Twitterphonicon [Music Composition]. https://vimeo.com/58595632 (accessed 16 November 2019).Google Scholar
Bhagwati, S. 2013. Notational Perspective and Comprovisation. In de Assis, P, Brooks, W. and Coessens, K (eds.) Sound & Score: Essays on Sound, Score and Notation. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 165–77.Google Scholar
Cardew, C. 1972. Scratch Music. London: Latimer New Dimensions. Google Scholar
Coessens, K. 2013a. Exploring Musical Integrity and Experimentation. In de Assis, P, Brooks, W. and Coessens, K (eds.) Sound & Score: Essays on Sound, Score and Notation. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 61–7.Google Scholar
Coessens, K. 2013b. The Score on Shifting Grounds. In de Assis, P, Brooks, W. and Coessens, K (eds.) Sound & Score: Essays on Sound, Score and Notation. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 123–9.Google Scholar
Couprie, P. 2004. Graphical Representation: An Analytical and Publication Tool for Electroacoustic Music. Organised Sound 9(1): 109–13.Google Scholar
Couprie, P. 2019. iAnalyse 5: Le développement d’un logiciel pour la musicologie numérique. Paper presented at the conference Journées d’informatique musicale, Bayonne, France, May.Google Scholar
Cox, C. 2011. Beyond Representation and Signification: Toward a Sonic Materialism. Journal of Visual Culture 10(2): 145–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. 2013. What I Say and What I Do: The Role of Composers Own Performances of Their Scores in Answering Our Research Questions About their Works and How We Should Interpret Them. In de Assis, P, Brooks, W. and Coessens, K (eds.) Sound & Score: Essays on Sound, Score and Notation. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 12–32.Google Scholar
El Gamal, A. 2012. The Evolution of the Music Industry in the Post-internet Era. BA thesis, http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/532/ (accessed 21 May 2018).Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2016. Crossing Cultural Boundaries Through Technology? In Music, Electronic Media and Culture. Abingdon: Routledge, 125–47.Google Scholar
Fleisher, R. 2008. The Future of Copyright. www.techdirt.com/articles/20080609/1950311357.shtml (accessed 19 May 2018).Google Scholar
Fober, D., Gouilloux, G., Orlarey, Y. and Letz, S. 2015. Distributing Music Scores to Mobile Platforms and to the Internet Using Inscore. 12th Sound and Music Computing Conference. Maynooth, Ireland, July, 229–33.Google Scholar
Hansen, B. 2012. Song Reader. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Hope, C. 2017. New Scores for Electronic Music: The Possibilities of Animated Notation. Computer Music Journal 4(3): 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, C. and Marchetti, L. 2018. The Last Days of Reality. For tam tam, bass flute and partition concrete [Music composition]. Doi: 10.4225/03/5af6bdc02f2c3 [animated score].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, C., Vickery, L., Wyatt, A. and James, S. 2015. The Decibel ScorePlayer – A Digital Tool for Reading Graphic notation. TENOR 2015: International Conference on Technologies for Music Notation and Representation. Sorbonne, Paris, 58–69.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, S. 2012. A New Digital Dark Age? Collaborative Web Tools, Social Media and Long-term Preservation. World Archaeology 44(4): 553–70.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. E. 1996. Improvised Music after 1950: Afrological and Eurological Perspectives. Black Music Research Journal 16(1): 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, T. 2011. Algorithms as Scores: Coding Live Music. Leonardo Music Journal 21: 19–23.Google Scholar
Morris, L. D. ‘Butch’. 2006. Conduction® Is. Contemporary Music Review 25(5–6): 533–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shatz, A. 2018. The World of Cecil Taylor. New York Review of Books. www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/05/16/the-world-of-cecil-taylor/ (accessed 18 May 2018)Google Scholar
Vickery, L., Devenish, L., James, S. and Hope, C. 2017. Expanded Percussion Notation in Recent Works by Cat Hope, Stuart James and Lindsay Vickery. Contemporary Music Review 36(1–2): 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyatt, A., Hope, C., Vickery, L. and James, S. 2013. Animated Music Notation on the iPad. In Proceeding of the International Computer Music Conference 2013. Perth, Western Australia, 201–7.Google Scholar