Manifold Electronic Realizations: Part XVII

    There are many precedents in music history regarding multiple versions of one piece of music. First of all, there is the case of different interpretations by different performers of a piece of music. Yes, it is the same score, but there are subtle differences in various parameters of the musical mechanics and phrasing. No two performers will ever perform the same piece the same way. In fact, there is no single performer who will perform the same piece the same way over time. There will always be differences in length, tempo, dynamics, articulations, phrasing, and even intonation. However, we know it is the same piece of music because of its most basic and inherent qualities, such as melody, harmony, and rhythm. 

Take Glenn Gould's renderings of Bach. They are so idiosyncratic that they may be considered Gould's pieces. This goes for conductors, such as von Karajan conducting Beethoven's Third Symphony versus Klemperer's interpretation: fast and brilliant versus slow with gravitas. 

Now, although conductors became a phenomenon in the 19th century, as well as soloists and their interpretations, this arena happens to be foundational to my thesis concerning multiple versions of a singular piece of music, harking back to the rise of conductors and performer stars of yesteryear, as a prelude to the case of multiple versions of a singular piece of music derived by computer, involving either aleatoric methods, algorithms, or simply combining multiple processing software that each tampers with the interpretation at large, resulting in multiple versions of one single piece of music. 

Theme and Variations began in the late Renaissance and Baroque periods as "divisions," passacaglia, chaconnes, and stock bass patterns became a new compositional technique and resource, as the Renaissance modes were used less while major/minor tonality was consequently used more, particularly in Italy and France. Tuning had become an issue as the modulatable 12-note chromatic scale was sought after, due to the crystallizing of triadic chord structures and progressions came to form an almost ubiquitous protocol among composers across Europe, thus precluding the modal paradigm from the earlier period-- dominated by horizontal melody, as in fugues and cantatas. Yet, theme and variations, as exemplified by the divisions of William Byrd, and eventually the works of Monteverdi, Handel, and Bach, of course, became a standard compositional technique up to the current day. Nevertheless, theme and variations are not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting the literal singular piece unaltered, as a whole, not its composed variations, which change rhythms, meter, character, et al.,  to begin as a departure point for this mini-manifesto. 

In my work, I have noticed that whether or not the transduced media is performed by live humans or a digital realization seems to make no difference; hence, the minutiae of differences and departures from the original are present in the sonic aspect of the singular score. The score, therefore, is singular. Unchanged. The rendered resultant, on the other hand, is always changed. Perhaps this argument is a philosophical one involving Beaudrillard's ideas of the "original" vs its simulacra and over time, the "Xerox copy effect" involving the constant degradation and artefacts of sounds and performance errors that will accrue. Herein is the crucial argument: at what point is the music representing the contained artefacts and errors the sole intent and responsibility of the composer? Or, are the added noise elements and structural differences the contributions of the performers, digital software, or other rendering options? 

If we use John Cage's 4'33" as an example of "added" artefacts of either intended or unintended noise gestures, audience coughs, piano stool sliding on the stage, etc., are these added sounds to be included in the "variations" or versions of the sonic resultant? Or, if these extra noise additions to the sonic rendering are part of the composition, then why not apply this aesthetic paradigm to the already numerous extant renderings of digital realizations? This is the eternal dialogue and feedback loop of history involving human creativity and technology. Why have just one digital (I would include analog here, or whatever audio capturing technology that appears in the future) rendering of a single work of music?  

Sever Tipei, composer, UIUC Champaign-Urbana, also suggests his music as a "black box" manifold architecture that involves the composer's disconnect from the outcome due to the algorithm's unpredictable nature, using Markov chains and other computational devices. Although I am not xeroxing his approach to this, I have become acutely aware that due to my own compositional druthers, I invariably have many versions of a single piece of music. The reasons for this involve tuning differences, lots of software, and the way the software operates. The software is not written by me. Do I include the software engineers in my composition? Do Finale, Logic Pro, and Entonal get to share sonic realization credit for my versions? 

Another aspect of this idea of numerous sonic versions of a singular piece of music has indirectly also been broached by Ferneyhough. His scores are so dense with contradictory instructions inherent within the music that performers will pick and choose different parameters to emphasize. The result: different sonic versions. This may be related to my query, yet I think my predicament is unique in that I am both deliberately wanting different tuning systems applied to a single piece of music, which will naturally lead to many versions. The other lies in the workings of the digital processing and the software itself. They all behave differently and lend different strengths and weaknesses, and if I am adept at programming these software, I will either surmount the idiosyncrasies or adapt them to my process; a sort of "willing" mistake process, or a permission slip for the software to "screw up" to achieve a particular result. 

For example, Entonal can NOT perform chords in its retuning environment. It is essentially monophonic. Should I go ahead and have Entonal retune a multi-stop for violin, one or two of the notes will be retuned, but the third note of the stop will invariably become a midi note-off error and will sound throughout the realization. This stuck note, many times, sounds quite surprising and is delightful. Sometimes I keep it, unexpectedly happy with the results. Many times I am annoyed and learned that I had to explode the chord into multiple lines in Finale and treat each note monophonically in Entonal in order to reassemble them in Logic. This extra work to the workflow is very annoying, but is essential to controlling the desired outcome. Is this an operator error? Software error? Did I forget to read the manual? Nevertheless, these are some of the background tasks I humbly bring before you. Some of my more interesting versions of a single piece involve errors made by software. Whether I thought this up on my own or not is irrelevant. These are matter-of-fact real-life problems that happen to digital composers and, like Cage, I choose to incorporate the unpredictable results in my numerous versions. 

Another area to be considered encompasses MIDI realizations and whether or not they are an acceptable format for digital currency. Many musicians claim not to appreciate MIDI realizations due to General MIDI's inferior audio qualities. Some composers still use MIDI, I among them, as a final version for a piece while debating that MIDI's inherent intrinsic qualities are highly unique and "lo-fi" as an aesthetic choice. 

Originally established as a computer music protocol in the 1980s, General Midi served as a functional file transfer medium for the internet as an immediately accessible synth for ad hoc auditioning, or listening, of music ideas over long-distance communication, or simply as an expedient method for informational exchanges. Now, 40 years later, I believe midi has a unique flavor all its own, and I use it as an option for my numerous versions of a singular piece. This MIDI standard is still Red Book, and therefore professional, even in today's market, and its quaint "older" nature gives MIDI a retro feel for listeners. Why throw out the baby with the bath water? For all we know midi may outlive all the synthesis models in existence today.