Recently, I have been doing a bit of research into the great Greek/French composer Iannis Xenakis (1922-2001) and have fallen in love with the sounds and methods he used in the mid 20th century. One of the most useful inventions of Xenakis’ that I have found is the UPIC (Unité Polyagogique Informatique du CEMAMu) created in Paris in 1977.

The original device was a large board of light sensors connected to a computer system. This board was used to directly input graphics into the computer so that they could be synthesized into sound. Using a light pen, the composer draws anything from the level of an individual waveform to a whole musical composition and can even set the machine up for immediate playback.

One of the more wonderful things about this type of composition is its accessibility. I don’t know if any of you have attempted to read Xenakis’ “Formalized Music,” but it gets pretty involved in the math that he used (Xenakis was also an accomplished architect). UPIC brings the sounds of Xenakis to a level that anyone can work with. In fact, the UPIC was used to reach out to young children and get them interested in musical creativity. Anyone that can draw can get a meaningful result from this graphic system. Even the simplest pictures can be translated into interesting sounds.

While the large scale UPIC table is not readily available to most of us, there have been several attempts to create software that accomplishes the same tasks. What I have been using, and has been working very well for me so far, is the program HighC created by Dr. Thomas Baudel. Dr. Baudel has done the leg work in creating software that includes many of the synthesis ideas of Xenakis while giving us a friendly user interface that is as easy for a kindergartener to use as it is for a college student.

The interface for HighC is a lot like the Paint accessory that comes on a PC, and waveforms can be chosen from a menu and color coded according to the composer’s preference. Time is a variable that can be a little confusing to get right with this program, since it is set to conventional meters and beats per minute. I did, however, find it fairly easy to set the timescale to seconds, which makes more sense when working with free sounds over larger timescales. The samples on the website offer some good examples of what the software can do, but are not very involved as far as compositional ideas or structure. Of course, the deeper you get into the sounds and software, the more intellectually gratifying the results can become.

A cool effect of working with graphics to create sound is the possible acquisition of slight synesthesia. When you can draw a picture of a mountain, tree, or river and have it translated into sound, it can be possible to “hear” the sounds of the objects you see every day. Not that everyone will necessarily hear what they see, but it is pretty cool that people can be trained to connect sight and sound in such a different way.

The original piece created graphically with UPIC was Xenakis’ “Mycenae Alpha” (1978). I have posted the link for your listening/viewing pleasure. Enjoy!

Mycenae Alpha on YouTube

 

 

Hi everyone.

I want to ask you something.
Are you a composer? Then how do you compose?
Are you not a composer? Then how do you think all the composers in the world compose?

If you have a few minutes to spare, I would like to ask you to leave your response in the comment section below.
I am very interested in knowing how you compose (or how you think composers compose) because every composer has her/his own way and each can be unique.

To be fair, I will share my composing method first.

First of all, I know that many of my composer and musician friends probably think that all I do, in order to compose, is to drink beer while watching Star Trek episodes on TV, and by end of the week I have a piece of music composed.

I am sorry to break the news, but that is not how it is done. Not even close (although this method helps when I am trying to come up with a title for a piece).

The following is the typical compositional process I go through:

First, I think about a musical idea. I mean I really think about it—melodic idea, rhythmic idea, instrumentation, chord progression, harmony, whatever.

It usually happens when I am driving, walking, and reading textbooks (therefore I usually do not remember what I read). I think about what to write whenever I have a chance to.

I have heard people (composers of course) saying, “we should compose everyday,” and I agree.

But I do not think we should spend hours pounding the keys on a piano, or wasting ink on staff paper everyday. “Thinking” itself is a very important part of composing. In fact, I would say that 1/3 of my composing time is used for just “thinking,” (and 2/3 for actual writing, editing, maybe rehearsing, and then fixing). I often have a stream of ideas bouncing around in my head. Sometimes it is easy, but some other times it is very difficult to isolate and construct the “good idea(s).” Once I think I have a good idea (or ideas), I let it sink in or float around my mind, and see if it sticks with me. If I, the composer, cannot remember what it was, it probably lacks character or power to stay with (or even reach) the audience. If people leave the concert without remembering even a part of the piece, it is not a good piece of music, in my opinion (although sometimes the ones that stick with you are not necessarily good ones). Therefore, I try to gage the “character” and “power” of the idea before I write it down. A Sort of screening, I guess.

Once I think I have a good (“strong” enough to pass the screening) idea or two to begin with, I start the actual writing part. I would say I use paper and the computer (Finale) equally for sketching to visualize what I have been hearing in my head, and, of course, to hear what it really sounds like. Even if it seemed (sounded) like a good idea in my head, I cannot know for sure if it really is good until I get to hear it out loud. I either try it on my guitar or Finale depending on my mood, and the nature of the piece I am going to write. I will play around with the idea for a while until I shape it in the way I really like, or as close as I can get to what I heard in my head originally. If the idea turns out not as good as I thought it would be, or I cannot develop anything out of it, I try to go back to the very beginning of the process, “The Thinking,” and try to come up with something better.

I suppose some of you may have been shocked to see the word guitar instead of piano.

I am aware that the most common belief, or stereotype, is that, “a real composer write with a piano (on staff paper), and the ones who do not should change their ways.” I often see that some of those who write using a piano push the idea on the ones who do not.

I respectfully disagree. Moreover, honestly, I would say, “who cares how it is done as long as it works.”

To me, the piano is, as a compositional tool, just a huge wooden box with a bunch of keys that make too much noise, and as a result I forget what it was I originally had in my mind. My lacking of piano skills does not help, but truthfully, I can visualize my music through guitar so much better, or should I say it comes out naturally like it is an extension of my body and mind. Melody, harmony, rhythm, and so on, I can grasp whatever musical idea I have so much better on guitar. Perhaps, it is the only way I can actually materialize my idea to its full potential as a form of music. It is most likely because I was a guitarist first and then became a composer.

Anyways, all I am saying is that the choice of instrument (as a compositional device) should be up to the composer. Marimba, harp, vibraphone, banjo, etc. – as long as it is a multiphonic instrument, one should be allowed to pick whatever s/he feels most natural with.  One may argue that the piano can cover a wider range than guitar. Yes, that is true, but (1) I have a bass guitar that can cover the low range that guitar cannot, and (2) I do not like writing music that goes too high anymore because it hurts my ears. If you only know how to play the instruments that can play a note a time (without using an extended technique) such as flute, trumpet, saxophone, and so on, don’t worry, there are such things called notation programs like Finale, as I mentioned before. The program will play as many notes as you want at the same time.

There is so much more I can say about “compositional devices” but it would take up another blog or two, so I will leave it there and let’s have someone else tackle that subject.

So, after I am done with trying and sketching, I start notating the music on my computer by using Finale. At this point, I may or may not have a clear idea how every part of the piece sounds like, but if I succeeded this far, it is just a matter of time. I may change or add things as I go. If I am not sure about the change or new ideas, I try them on my guitar or play around with them on Finale; again it depends on my mood or the nature of the piece. This part of the process usually goes very fast. And I spend extended amounts of time for editing—notation, dynamics, articulations, margins, spaces, etc. One thing all the composers can agree is that this is a “never ending story.” You can fix one thing, then you find another. You can adjust something, then something else looks funny. You can bring the music into rehearsal, then you realize that the transposition was wrong or the notes are unplayable for the particular instrument. These are some examples of this never-ending editing process. At some point (usually it is called THE DEAD LINE) we have to call it quits and hope for the best. You can always revise your music later if you want to.

This is pretty much how I compose.

Whether it was something you expected to see or something completely off, I hope you enjoyed reading about my daily activities. And I also hope that you will be more accepting toward non-piano-using composers, especially the ones who use guitar, and the ones from Japan.

 

 

 

 

V.S.

 

 

Relating to the previous post about music notation, one must write music based on the chosen notation by hand or by computer. Writing by hand and writing by music notation software has been a debate for quite some time.

Writing music by hand has been used since perhaps before the Renaissance period, and many great composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, and many more have written by hand. Throughout most of the history of music, composing by hand was the norm for composers. Then during the post World War II era, many composers experimented with electronic music. Although electronic music was made through splices, loops, and other techniques, the outlines that were used by composer s were written by hand.

30 years ago, there was a new method for writing music, music notation software such as Sibelius and Finale. The purpose for both of these programs were to facilitate the process of composing much faster as well as making professional-looking scores than by hand.

Last year, David Maslanka, who judged last year’s Honors Competition, suggested in one of his comments that everyone should get away from their computer and try to write by hand. At the time, I was not sure how to approach writing music by hand since I started composing using Finale 2006 during my high school years. So I did some research: (before I go any further, this blog is not intended to show any favoritism towards a specific method of composing but rather it is intended to give you an idea of the benefits and cons of both methods).

Composing by hand

There are many benefits to composing by hand. One of them is flexibility. Although you can not control how your staves look, you can add any marking just the way you want it, such as adding aleatoric boxes, customizing time signatures, omitting barlines…anything really! In addition, Sibelius/Finale contain a lot of tools that you can use to write music that can attempt to make the same markings as the ones done by hand.

One benefit, in my opinion, to composing by hand is the lack of distractions to writing. Sibelius and Finale are amazing in so many levels, but there are too many options for the composer to choose, and sometimes they make composing much more complicated than it should. By hand, the composer can focus a lot more on only the ACTUAL composing part of the process. As far as how to hear your music, you can either play your music on a piano, play it on your instrument (if possible), or you can give it to a musician who would be willing to check your music out.

One of the cons for this method is the editing process. Since you are writing in pencil, you will be erasing literally all the time. In fact, time is a big problem when writing by hand. When comparing Sibelius/Finale to hand, it could take about 10 minutes or less to write 10 measures on finale where it could take about 20 minutes, or more to write 10 measures by hand.

Composing using Sibelius/Finale

One of the benefits of using music notation software is the large assessment of tools that a composer can use. They are quite accessible and easy to use. In addition, they are a great way to make music scores look professional (as long as you know what you are doing). You can also change the size of the paper, score, everything in the music with a couple clicks. In addition, you can erase and edit in a short amount of time (even though it still takes forever to edit).

The main problem with music notation software is the playback. I can imagine that many of you reading this are thinking “But that’s the best part of Finale! I do not need to play any instruments. I don’t need to listen to a band. I don’t even need to think! I just sit back and enjoy the sweet sounds of video game music right in my ears.” I can not emphasis this fact any more: the playback will disorient the natural sounds and capabilities of the instrument, therefore the composer will assume that if the particular motive sounds good on the computer, then it will sound amazing in person. In other words, it’s not real!

In addition, every composer here at Michigan State University will agree with me when I say that MIDI playback does not sound good at all. MIDI, along with other sound libraries, can deceive your ears by making music sound either disturbing, or somewhat decent. The point is that these sound libraries, such as GPO4 and COMB2, try to recreate the actual sounds of a live ensemble to help the user hear how his/her music will sound in person, yet even if they sound exactly like an authentic Saxophone, it will never match a live instrument.

Another problem are the tools used in these programs. I might be contradicting myself here, but the available tools on Finale/Sibelius are amazing: convenient and easy, but it is very easy for someone to get distracted by these tools and not pay attention to the realistic results to the real musicians. That is why so many young composers’ sound so fragmented. You have so many options to work with, along with playback, that when you hear a motive that sounds so epic, there is a chance that you will use that motive regardless of what else is going on in the piece.

To sum up, both methods are great for different purposes. I recommend composers to start writing by hand, and then when you are about 2/3s or finished with the piece, add your music onto a music notation program in order to make your composition look like a professional product.

 

Have you ever thought about western notation as a component of music composition? What’s going on as this series of shapes, lines and descriptive text is placed on the specialized matrix of lines? Several themes are suggested by this idea, but the one for consideration here is quite simple. Notation gives a composer extensive control over massive media forces. Interesting because no other performance medium supports a system by which the author (composer) has such detailed control. Computers allow even higher levels of control in multiple media types and multimedia creation platforms. Notation software allows the power of the system straight to the medium of production (by passing the performer), a midi file being a simple example.

That connections between composers and computers often run deeper than notation software is of no surprise. If notation is understood as media control, then the control offered by a computer is a natural extension. This explains my own interest in multimedia arts I think. With so many mediums to control, why would I limit myself to just the noise part of a project?

© 2012 Michigan State University Music Composition Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha