music for solo trumpet and electronics: a repertoire study

Music for Solo Trumpet and Electronics: A Repertoire Study

by

Michael Edwin Barth

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts

Graduate Department of Music University of Toronto

© Copyright by Michael Barth, 2011

ii

Music for Solo Trumpet and Electronics: A Repertoire Study

Michael Barth

Doctor of Musical Arts

Graduate Department of Music

University of Toronto

2011

Abstract

This dissertation examines the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics through a study of the

genre as a whole and discussions of four compositions that represent its main stylistic

approaches. An obscure but fascinating genre, current research in this area is limited to

discussions of a few of its compositions in other dissertations and lecture recitals. By

investigating this music, this dissertation will contribute to an area that has so far seen little

research while promoting new repertoire that greatly expands the musical possibilities of solo

trumpet performance.

Based on the List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and Electronics compiled by the author,

several aspects of this repertoire are described in Chapter Two, including its development from

1965 to 2009 and the relative popularity of its different compositional approaches. The primarily

academic background of this repertoire’s composers is discussed as well as the diverse

nationalities they represent. The relative obscurity of this repertoire is suggested by the number

of compositions for solo trumpet and electronics that have been published and recorded.

iii

A discussion of the aesthetic, qualitative and practical aspects of the repertoire is presented in

Chapter Three. Based on interviews with leading performers of this repertoire and the

composers of the pieces examined in this dissertation, this music is discussed from the

perspective of musicians who have significant experience in this field. Their interviews

illuminate several important issues that may not be apparent to musicians who are unfamiliar

with this repertoire.

Chapters Four through Seven discuss four representative compositions from the List. An

overview of each piece is given, along with biographical information about its composer, a

description of its electronic components, discussion of relevant performance techniques, and

formal analysis of the composition. Conclusions based on this investigation and suggestions for

future research are suggested in Chapter Eight.

iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the University of Toronto and its Graduate Department of Music for their

support of the DMA program. Thank you also to my supervisor, Dr. Jeffrey Reynolds, and the

other members of my advisory committee, Dr. Gillian MacKay and Dr. Cameron Walter, for

their invaluable assistance in preparing this dissertation.

Most of all I would like to thank my wife Lisa for her extraordinary support and patience.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................iv

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................v

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ix

List of Appendices .....................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1 Introduction, Definition and Methods..........................................................................1

1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Definition ........................................................................................................................3

1.3 Methods ..........................................................................................................................3

Chapter 2 Overview of the Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics.....................................8

2.1 Types of Electronic Accompaniment ................................................................................8

2.2 Composers......................................................................................................................11

2.3 Publishing and Recording ...............................................................................................14

Chapter 3 The Aesthetic, Qualitative and Practical Aspects of the Repertoire, Based on Performer and Composer Interviews.....................................................................................18

Chapter 4 Ida, My Dear for trumpet and tape by Peter Hatch.....................................................28

4.1 Overview........................................................................................................................28

4.2 Biography......................................................................................................................29

4.3 Electronic Component, Setup and Synchronization ........................................................31

4.4 Performance Techniques................................................................................................34

4.5 Analysis.........................................................................................................................36

Chapter 5 Modes of Interference for Trumpet and Live Electronics by Agostino Di Scipio........50

5.1 Overview........................................................................................................................50

5.2 Biography......................................................................................................................52

vi

5.3 Computer Processes.......................................................................................................56

5.4 Technical Setup .............................................................................................................60

5.5 Performance Techniques................................................................................................63

5.6 Analysis.........................................................................................................................69

Chapter 6 Ricercare Una Melodia for Trumpet and Tape Delay by Jonathan Harvey ................72

6.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................72

6.2 Biography......................................................................................................................73

6.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization............................................................................77

6.3.1 Synchronization ...................................................................................................79

6.4 Extended Techniques.....................................................................................................79

6.5 Analysis.........................................................................................................................83

Chapter 7 Extensions for Trumpet and Multi-track Tape by David Cope ...................................95

7.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................95

7.2 Biography......................................................................................................................96

7.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization..........................................................................100

7.3.1 Synchronization .................................................................................................101

7.4 Extended Techniques...................................................................................................102

7.5 Analysis.......................................................................................................................106

Chapter 8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................120

Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................123

Appendices .............................................................................................................................127

Appendix A – List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and Electronics ...............................127

Appendix B – Performer Biographies .................................................................................194

B.1 - Stephen Altoft.....................................................................................................194

B.2 – Marco Blaauw....................................................................................................195

B.3 - Jonathan Impett...................................................................................................196

vii

Appendix C – Performer Interview Transcripts...................................................................199

C.1 - Transcript of interview with Stephen Altoft. Interview questions answered by email. ...............................................................................................................199

C.2 - Transcript of telephone interview with Marco Blaauw. .......................................202

C.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Impett. .....................................210

Appendix D – Composer Interview Transcripts ..................................................................217

D.1 - Transcript of interview with Peter Hatch. Interview questions answered by email. ...............................................................................................................217

D.2 - Transcript of interview with Agostino di Scipio. Interview questions answered by email. ..........................................................................................................220

D.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Harvey. ....................................230

D.4 - Transcript of interview with David Cope. Interview questions answered by email. ...............................................................................................................235

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics by Country p. 13

Table 2: Publishing Companies Represented on the List p. 15

Table 3: Articulations in the tape part during the introduction of Ida, My Dear p. 33

ix

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 36-37 p. 35

Fig. 2 Form Diagram for Ida, My Dear p. 36 Fig. 3 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 4-9 p. 38

Fig. 4 Ida motive a p. 39 Fig. 5 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 38-47 p. 40

Fig. 6 Hatch, Ida, My Dear mm. 34-38 p. 41 Fig. 7 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 39-42 p. 41

Fig. 8 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 43-48 p. 42 Fig. 9 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 54-57 p. 43



Fig. 14 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 104-110 p. 46 Fig. 15 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 146 and 150 p. 47


Fig. 18 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 188-192 p. 49 Fig. 19 System Interactions in Modes p. 51

Fig. 20 Modes of Interference technical setup p. 61 Fig. 21 Modes of Interference Graphical User Interface p. 67

Fig. 22 Modes of Interference No. 1 Form Diagram p. 70 Fig. 23 Ricercare Una Melodia Circuit Diagram p. 78

Fig. 24 Ricercare Una Melodia Form Diagram p. 84 Fig. 25 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia mm. 1-4 p. 84

Fig. 26 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, mm. 10-12 p. 85 Fig. 27 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, m. 34 p. 87

Fig. 28 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive a p. 90 Fig. 29 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 1-2, motive b p. 90

Fig. 30 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive b altered p. 90

x

Fig. 31 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive b further expanded p. 91 Fig. 32 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive c p. 91

Fig. 33 Harvey Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 2-3, motive a variant p. 92 Fig. 34 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, motive d p. 92

Fig. 35 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 3, F# major chord; trill p. 93 Fig. 36 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, variation of motive a p. 93

Fig. 37 Cope, Extensions, mm. 18-20 (trumpets 1 and 2). Syllables p. 104 Fig. 38 Cope, Extension, mm. 9-11 (trumpets 1 and 2). “F.N.” and “F.N. Gliss” p. 105

Fig. 39 Extensions Form Diagram p. 107 Fig. 40 Matrix for Tone Row ‘A’ p. 110

Fig. 41 Cope, Extensions, mm. 24-26 (trumpet 6). Pitch bends p. 113 Fig. 42 Matrix for Tone Row ‘B’ p. 115

Fig. 43 Matrix for Tone Row ‘C’ p. 116

xi

List of Appendices

Appendix A – List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and Electronics ...........................p. 127

Appendix B – Performer Biographies .............................................................................p. 194

B.1 - Stephen Altoft.................................................................................................p. 194

B.2 - Marco Blaauw.................................................................................................p. 195

B.3 - Jonathan Impett...............................................................................................p. 196

Appendix C – Performer Interview Transcripts...............................................................p. 199

C.1 - Transcript of interview with Stephen Altoft. Interview questions answered by email. ...........................................................................................................p. 199

C.2 - Transcript of telephone interview with Marco Blaauw. ...................................p. 202

C.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Impett. .................................p. 210

Appendix D – Composer Interview Transcripts ..............................................................p. 217

D.1 - Transcript of interview with Peter Hatch. Interview questions answered by email. ...........................................................................................................p. 217

D.2 - Transcript of interview with Agostino di Scipio. Interview questions answered by email. ......................................................................................................p. 220

D.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Harvey. ................................p. 230

D.4 - Transcript of interview with David Cope. Interview questions answered by email. ...........................................................................................................p. 235

1

Chapter 1

Introduction, Definition and Methods

1.1 Introduction

The evolution of the trumpet is marked by technological innovations that have profoundly

influenced its design, musical function and repertoire. The modern trumpet’s distant ancestors

were made from naturally occurring hollow bodies such as animal horns, bones, shells and plant

stems, which being of limited musical potential were used primarily as signaling instruments in

ceremonial and military settings.1 The trumpet continued to serve a functional role with little

melodic capacity for most of its history, even for several centuries (if not millennia) following

the metallurgical advances of the Bronze Age during which trumpets began to be made of metal,

allowing them to be constructed in different sizes and shapes. It was not until the baroque era

that the musical potential offered by metallic construction was fully realized as the clarino

technique of playing in the trumpet’s upper register was developed, permitting the trumpet to be

played melodically and with an aesthetically pleasing tone. This allowed the trumpet to finally

gain acceptance as an artistically important musical instrument and to begin developing a

repertoire of significant solo and ensemble music.2

Although the flexibility offered by metal construction eventually brought the trumpet to a point

where it could be used in art music, its basic shape of a gradually expanding tube was not much

different in the baroque era than it was in antiquity. The baroque trumpet remained limited to the

notes of the harmonic series, and although it could be used to play melodically in the upper

register, it remained incapable of being played chromatically in the low and middle registers.

This deficiency was first remedied through experiments with keyed trumpets, the most

successful being those of Anton Weidinger for whom Joseph Haydn and Johann Nepomuk

1 Philip Bate, The Trumpet and Trombone (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1972), p. 84. 2 Edward Tarr, The Trumpet, trans. S.E. Plank and Edward Tarr (London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1988), p. 85.

2

Hummel wrote the great classical concertos of the trumpet’s repertoire.3 However, the

development of the valve trumpet in the 19th century was an even more important innovation that

gave the trumpet a fully chromatic compass and sufficient agility to play chromatically in any

register.

The development of the valve trumpet opened up a new world of musical possibilities for the

instrument, making it capable of expressive performance in a wide variety of genres and styles.

The adaptability and flexibility of the trumpet is still growing as new technologies and

construction techniques continue to improve the modern trumpet while instrument makers and

musicians strive for perfection in design and performance. However, these continuing

refinements of the instrument and its playing techniques have not offered musically

revolutionary advantages as the development of clarino technique or the invention of the valve

had done. Rather, recent significant expansions in the trumpet’s musical potential have

developed separately from the instrument as innovations in electronic music have not only

created new ways for composers to create music, but also new performance possibilities for

acoustic musicians in terms of enhancing and accompanying their performance. Combining the

trumpet with electronics has created a remarkable compositional genre which allows the trumpet

to be paired with an ever-expanding palette of electroacoustic sounds, as well as giving it even

more musical flexibility as its fundamental characteristics (such as timbre, pitch, attack, and

duration) may be altered by electronic processes.

The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the extraordinary new repertoire for solo trumpet

and electronics. Although it has grown in popularity over the last fifty years, this music remains

relatively unknown and unstudied. Little has been done to examine this repertoire or many of its

significant compositions, and academic research in this area has been limited to a few

dissertations and lecture recitals that discuss a small number of individual compositions within

the overall context of contemporary trumpet music. This dissertation explores the repertoire for

solo trumpet and electronics as a whole while providing detailed accounts of four significant

compositions that represent the main compositional and technological approaches within the

genre. By studying these representative compositions and discussing the repertoire’s historical,

3 Tarr, 150.

3

aesthetic and practical aspects, this dissertation contributes valuable information about

fascinating and previously unexplored music, and in so doing promotes an understanding and

appreciation of a new repertoire that expands the musical horizons of the trumpet.

1.2 Definition

For the purposes of this dissertation, the phrase “trumpet and electronics” refers to any sort of

music for solo trumpet that includes an electronic component. This covers a wide range of music

involving electroacoustic composition, live electronic manipulation and accompaniment, and

recording.

1.3 Methods

The starting point for the research presented in this dissertation is the List of Compositions for

Solo Trumpet and Electronics (Appendix A). Referred to from here on as the List, this is a

compilation of repertoire that resulted from preliminary research during the course Research in

Performance (Mus 4899) at the University of Toronto which involved investigating the existing

repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics, with the primary goal of discovering several

compositions from this genre. Initial research was based on score materials found in the

University of Toronto’s music library, and was expanded by searching for information about this

repertoire on the Internet. By entering the search terms “trumpet and tape,” “trumpet and

electronics” and “trumpet and live electronics” into the Google search engine, links were found

to websites for composers, performers, publishers, libraries, and music information centres from

several countries. A particularly useful resource was Folkmar Hein’s International

Documentation of Electroacoustic Music, which contains information on thousands of

electroacoustic compositions from around the world. It is found online and in its 1996 print

edition from Pfau Verlag in Saarbrücken, Germany. These searches yielded a substantial

amount of information about the repertoire, resulting in a list of 200 works for solo trumpet (or

related instruments such as cornet or flugelhorn). It includes information about the composers

and their nationalities, the pieces’ titles, dates of composition and durations, whether or not these

4

compositions have been published or recorded, and any other relevant information.

However, these search methods were also subject to certain limitations, such as language

(internet searches were carried out in English, French, German, and Italian, leaving gaps in other

languages with which the author is unfamiliar), and whether or not a composer and his/her

composition(s) had a presence on the internet. Also, it was not always possible to find complete

information relating to each work on the List, and in these cases unknown areas were left blank.

Nonetheless, the substantial amount of information provided by the List provides the basic

material necessary for an examination of the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics while

providing useful information for performers interested in this music. This information is

summarized in Chapter Two, where several aspects of the repertoire are examined including the

different types of composition, the composers, and the published scores and recordings of this

music. In addition to the practical information offered by the List itself, this synopsis provides a

broad view of the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics as a whole and insight into its

development since 1965.

Supplementing the information offered in Chapter Two is a discussion of the aesthetic,

qualitative and practical aspects of this repertoire from the perspectives of prominent performers

and composers of this music. Chapter Three contains a discussion of these aspects that draws

primarily on interviews with three performers (Marco Blaauw, Stephen Altoft and Jonathan

Impett), world-class musicians who have made music for solo trumpet and electronics a

significant part of their personal repertoires. In addition, the composers of the pieces that are

examined in Chapters Four through Seven were interviewed about their music and thoughts on

electronic composition, further adding to this discussion. The perspectives of these musicians

gives a unique view of a repertoire that illuminates a number of issues that may not be apparent

to performers without a great deal of experience in this field.

Each of the performers and composers were asked fifteen questions regarding their practices and

opinions regarding music with electronics (see Appendices C and D). They were given the

option of responding to these questions in a written email questionnaire, or answering the same

questions verbally in a telephone conversation. Two of the performers (Blaauw and Impett) and

one of the composers (Jonathan Harvey) preferred to answer the questions verbally, while the

remaining performer (Altoft) and the other three composers (Agostino di Scipio, Peter Hatch and

5

David Cope) chose to answer the questions via email. Using two different methods of

communication presented the possibility of varying quality in the responses depending on the

method of communication. Written responses to the interview questions permit greater

opportunity for contemplation before responding and allow for more reflective and focused

answers, but may provide more limited information than verbal responses. On the other hand,

verbal responses allow the interviewer to explore the respondents’ answers in greater detail and

ask for clarification of confusing statements.4 This suggests that a significant difference between

these two approaches would be in the verbosity and richness of the participants' responses, with

verbal communications yielding lengthier and more elaborate answers than the written

communications. While this ended up being true for some of the interviews, this wasn't always

the case – see di Scipio's exceptionally detailed written answers in Appendix D.

Attempts to minimize the inherent differences between the written and verbal interviews were

made by addressing the same questions in both the telephone conversations and email

correspondences. Additionally, the interview subjects were given the opportunity to read the

questions in advance, allowing them to reflect on their responses prior to answering the

questions, regardless of whether their statements were verbal or written. Finally, the interviews

were not intended to generate “data” for use in analysis, rather personal accounts based on the

experiences of the respondents. Although the quality of the narratives portrayed by the

interviewees’ responses may depend on the manner in which they were interviewed, valuable

information can be drawn from these accounts whether they were delivered verbally or in

writing. Ultimately, the decision to allow the participants the choice of responding in either

verbal or written communications was intended to ensure participation as much as possible.

Since some people are more comfortable with speaking than writing and vice versa, and a small

number of specific interview participants was required, it was imperative that the participants be

as comfortable as possible in the interview process, making it more likely that they would

respond positively to an interview invitation.

Chapters Four through Seven present detailed accounts of four representative compositions from

4 Jocelyn Handy and Kirsty Ross, “Using Written Accounts in Qualitative Research,” South Pacific Journal of Psychology 16, no.1 (2005), http://spjp.massey.ac.nz/issues/2005-v16/v16-handy.pdf (accessed April 13, 2011).

6

the List. It became apparent during initial research that electronics have been used in a variety of

ways to accompany and enhance solo trumpet performance. The majority of the pieces found

were compositions for solo trumpet and fixed media5, while pieces for trumpet and live

electronics appeared less frequently, and even less common were pieces for trumpet and tape

loop or delay, and trumpet accompanied by multi-track tape recordings of pre-recorded trumpet

performances. Some works also combined different types of composition, for example music for

trumpet, tape, and live electronics. The pairing of trumpet with electronics in these different

ways gives rise to a number of performance considerations that are not encountered under

traditional musical circumstances, particularly in terms of ensemble playing and technological

preparation. The compositions chosen for this study represent the different styles of composition

from the List and address most of the performance considerations presented in this repertoire.

Ida, My Dear for trumpet and tape by Peter Hatch (Chapter Four)

Modes of Interference for trumpet and live electronics by Agostino di Scipio (Chapter

Five)

Ricercare Una Melodia for trumpet and tape delay by Jonathan Harvey (Chapter Six)

Extensions for trumpet and multi-track tape by David Cope (Chapter Seven)

These pieces are examined in order to illuminate the musical, technical and contextual issues that

arise in their performance. These issues are addressed for each composition by providing a

formal analysis of the work, discussing the playing techniques required, describing the set up and

synchronization of the electronic components, and providing an overview of the composition's

history and context within the repertoire. Biographical information is also given for each

composer, which is further supplemented by interviews with the composers about their careers

and compositions (contained in Appendix D). This not only provides valuable insight into the

compositions themselves, but also into how these pieces contribute to the overall repertoire for

solo trumpet and electronics and electroacoustic music in general.

5 “Fixed media” refers to recording tape, compact disc or computer sound files on which the composer includes the pre-recorded electronic component of the composition.

7

In order to provide a study that is relevant to performers interested in this music, the pieces that

were selected represent the main types of composition within this genre while meeting several

criteria that make them interesting and important contributions to the repertoire. One of the most

important attributes shared by these pieces is that they expand the musical capabilities of the solo

trumpet beyond its usual boundaries. Each of these pieces approaches this concept in a different

way, creating music that is not simply for solo trumpet accompanied by unusual sounds

(although this is sometimes the case), but rather music that endeavors to enhance the trumpet as a

musical instrument. These pieces alter and expand musical elements such as tone, range,

dynamics, technique, theatricality, ensemble playing, and even the way the trumpet is played,

and in so doing they allow the trumpet to become part of a larger musical experience that

originates from the characteristics of the trumpet itself while remaining in the context of solo

performance.

There are also several practical aspects that were taken into consideration in selecting these

pieces, most of which stem from the condition that they would be accessible to interested

performers. One aspect of accessibility is that these pieces have scores and parts that are readily

available to the public, and each of the selected pieces can be obtained from libraries, publishers

or from the composers themselves. In addition, these pieces have been professionally recorded,

providing valuable resources for those interested in learning this music.

While none of these pieces is particularly easy to play and each of them has specific

requirements with which many musicians may not be familiar, they are still accessible in terms

of their technological and musical demands. Although the technological requirements differ for

each of the selected pieces, the composers have given clear directions on how to handle these

issues, making it possible for performers with access to the necessary audio and/or recording

equipment to perform these pieces. In terms of musical demands, these compositions present a

number of challenges that make these pieces demanding while remaining playable for advanced

trumpet players. They each create interesting and effective musical statements, and lend

themselves well to recital programs.

8

Chapter 2

Overview of the Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics

This chapter provides an overview of the information contained within the List (Appendix A).

Several aspects of the music represented by the List are discussed, providing information

regarding the different types of compositions, their composers, and whether or not these pieces

have been published or recorded. This examination reveals the technologies used in these

compositions and the trends that correspond with technological developments from 1965 to

2009, and illuminates the academic background of much of the repertoire and its relative

obscurity within the context of published classical music.

2.1 Types of Electronic Accompaniment

There are several different types of music on the List for solo trumpet and electronics. The most

common is music for trumpet with fixed media electronics, and of the two-hundred compositions

on the List, one-hundred and eleven are for that configuration. These compositions combine

trumpet performance with pre-recorded electronic music that was created by the composer. Most

(one-hundred and two) of these compositions were written for trumpet and tape, although the

term “tape” appears to refer to a broader set of media than audio recording tape. Many of the

earlier compositions (especially those written during the 1960s and 70s) were likely produced

used magnetic recording tape, and later on in the 1980s and 90s several other compositions were

likely produced using digital audio tape (eg. Ida, My Dear by Peter Hatch from 1995). However,

this term is also applied to more recent compositions that were created well after both magnetic

and digital audio tape became obsolete technologies. Other fixed media are described in four

compositions which use compact disc, pre-recorded synthesizer, and computer sound files, and

the remaining five compositions that have been included in this category have been more

ambiguously described as being for trumpet and “synth sounds”, “electronic sounds” or

“electroacoustic sounds”.

9

However, regardless of whether or not the term “tape” accurately describes the format of these

fixed media compositions, it often it has little to do with the way in which the electronic sounds

of the accompaniment were created. Such is the case with Dexter Morrill's Studies for Trumpet

and Computer, composed in 1974 - an early example of a composition in which the

accompaniment consists of computer-generated sounds, which were transferred to audio

recording tape for performance purposes. Other compositions would have been produced using

whatever technology the composer had available, which may or may not have included use of

audio recording tape.

In addition to providing a medium for electronic composition, tape is used as a bridge between

recorded and live performance in the four compositions from the List for trumpet and multitrack

tape. Composed as early as 1973 and as late as 1993, these are essentially trumpet ensemble

pieces that require the soloist to pre-record a number of accompanying trumpet parts onto

individual tape tracks which are played back during performance. These pieces function

similarly to fixed-media pieces in that the accompanying part does not change once it has been

recorded. However, they are also closely related to the world of acoustic music as the

accompanying tracks are not subjected to electronic manipulation once they have been recorded.

Therefore it could be argued that these pieces do not belong in the category of music for trumpet

and electronics. However, a significant electronic element is introduced through the recording of

the ensemble trumpet parts, and since either the composers of these pieces have indicated that

they may be performed as music for trumpet and tape, or the performers of these pieces have

approached these compositions in this way, they merit consideration as music for trumpet and

electronics.

Tape has also been used to create electronic effects in real-time, and five of the compositions

from the List (all written during the 1970s and 1980s) are for trumpet with tape loop or delay.

Both of these tape effects are created in essentially the same way with reel-to-reel tape recorders:

a melody is recorded by a “recording” machine and played back through a separate “playback”

machine with a specified distance/delay time between the two recorders. The musical signal is

delayed (echoed) by virtue of the distance between the recording and playback machines, and

multiple delays can be accomplished by returning the signal from the playback machine to new

tracks on the recording machine. A looping effect is created in a similar manner, although the

signal from the playback machine returns to the same track on which the melody is recorded,

10

allowing the melody to continue to cycle between the two tape recorders and grow indefinitely.

In addition to creating a loop or delay effect, tape recorders can be used to create other effects,

such as playing the music back at different speeds (also affecting pitch and timbre), and playing

it in reverse. These tape loop effects have since been replaced by less cumbersome methods

through modern electronic equipment and computers. For example, Jonathan Harvey's Ricercare

Una Melodia for trumpet and tape delay is now available with software that allows the delay

effect to be accomplished by computer processing.

The use of tape recorders in the 1970s and 80s to create real-time electronic effects foreshadows

the increasing use of live electronics from the late 1970s to the present. The second most

common style on the List, music for trumpet and live electronics comprises forty-one of its

compositions. The term “live electronics” is used here to include any type of music that features

electronic manipulation of the trumpet's sound in real time (excluding tape loops). This covers a

wide range of electronic effects that can vary from simple amplification to complex computer

operations. The increasing popularity of this type of composition is the most significant

developmental trend suggested by the List, as the number of compositions for trumpet with live

electronics grew from one written in 1979 (Herman Rechberger’s ES) to nine in the 1980s,

twenty-two in the 1990s and twenty-seven from 2000-2009.6

The gradually rising popularity of music for trumpet and live electronics as suggested by the List

is undoubtedly attributable to the continually decreasing costs and increasing availability and

sophistication of digital technology, especially with regard to computers and software. Eleven of

these pieces specify computer sound processing, which is accomplished through software such as

MAX/MSP, Pure Data, or Kyma. One of the pieces with live electronics (Steven Winteregg's

Eastwind Variations) uses MIDI (music instrument digital interface) technology, which may

include computer processing, although this is not specified. The remaining compositions with

live electronics do not specify what type of electronic processing is used. Several of these likely

also use computer sound processing, while others use stand-alone effects such as amplification

(eg. Refrain by Zack Browning), delay (eg. Trumpet Capriccio by Charles Eakin and The

6 This figure includes music for trumpet and any combination that includes live electronics, such as live electronics alone or live electronics combined other accompaniment such as fixed media, synthesizer and/or video.

11

Transistor Radio of St. Narcissus by Tim Souster), and reverb (eg. Épigone by Bernard

Carlosema).

Another type of live electronic accompaniment is accomplished with electronic instruments, as

in Marcel Baars' Ballade for trumpet with Yamaha HX 1 electronic organ, Miklós Sugár’s

Fanfare for trumpet and synthesizer and Meg Bowles' two compositions for trumpet and

synthesizer (although the synthesizer part has been pre-recorded for performance in Bowles’

compositions). There are also two compositions which combine trumpet with electronic

instruments and other electronic accompaniments: David Dramm's Chain Curve for double bell

trumpet, Hammond organ, tape, and live electronics, and John Watts' Elegy to Chimney – in

Memoriam for trumpet, synthesizer and tape. These are the only compositions on the List for

trumpet accompanied by electronic instruments (except for Merrill Ellis' Episode for trumpet

with unknown electronic instruments), which would suggest that electronic instruments have not

become popular accompanying alternatives to the piano.

The remaining compositions on the List use combinations of electronic accompaniments, such as

fixed media and live electronics, and fixed media or live electronics with video. There is one

piece (Metallics by Yan Maresz) that can be performed with either fixed media or live

electronics, and there are ten compositions with unspecified or unexplained electronic

accompaniments.

2.2 Composers

The majority of the compositions from the List are by composers who are well-grounded in

academia. Of the 164 composers represented on the List, eighty-five are (or have been)

professors at universities or conservatories, three were university students when they composed

their works, and of the sixty-three freelance composers, eight hold doctorate degrees in

composition while several others hold master's degrees. That many of these pieces have been

composed in academia would not be surprising to David Cope (composer of two of the List's

pieces - Extensions and Bright Angel), who wrote that “in America, at least, the colleges and

12

universities have replaced the courts, church, and patrons of earlier times, offering the composer

his only realistic terms for physical survival.”7 While this may be a debatable point, especially

by those composers who are earning a living outside of academia, the academic backgrounds of

the majority of the List's composers suggests that music for trumpet and electronics is more

readily found in academic environments such as universities and conservatories. The

professional activities of eight of the composers are unknown, and one of the compositions

(Emguux) is by Marco Blaauw, who is professionally active as a trumpeter but not as a

composer. However, it is not surprising that Blaauw has written a composition in this genre

given his background both as a performer with electronics and as an improviser.

Most of the composers found on the List wrote only one piece for solo trumpet and electronics.

Of the twenty-two composers who did write more than one of these pieces, fifteen of them wrote

two compositions, five of them wrote three compositions, two of them wrote four compositions,

and one (Roger Dannenberg) wrote six compositions. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the more

prolific composers in this genre have either been trumpet players themselves (such as Tittle,

Sermilä, and Dannenberg), or have had close associations with trumpet players (such as

Karlheinz Stockhausen with his son, Markus). In total, thirteen of the composers from the List

are known to be trumpet players as well as composers.

The following table shows the countries represented by the composers on the List and the

numbers of compositions associated with them, showing that music for trumpet and electronics

has been composed all over the world. It also suggests possible limitations in search methods

used with regard to music composed in non-English speaking countries, as the majority of

compositions from the List (one-hundred and four) are from countries where English is the

primary language (USA, Canada, England, Ireland, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand).

7 David Cope, New Directions in Music (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1971), p. 6.

13

Table 1: Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics by Country

North America

USA: 67

Canada: 8

Central and South America

Mexico: 1

Argentina: 2

Europe and United Kingdom

England: 21

Ireland: 2

Scotland: 2

Germany: 19

The Netherlands: 9

Belgium: 3

France: 8

Italy: 15

Spain: 1

Switzerland: 2

Austria: 4

Greece: 1

Poland: 2

14

Hungary: 3

Czech Republic: 2

Sweden: 6

Norway: 2

Finland: 7

Russia: 1

Oceania

Australia: 1

New Zealand: 3

Asia

Korea: 1

Japan: 2

Unknown: 3

2.3 Publishing and Recording

The majority of the compositions from the List have not been published, with eighty-two having

been published and one-hundred and three remaining unpublished (the status of fifteen of the

compositions is unknown in this regard). Of the compositions that were published, eleven of

them were released by the composers' own publishing companies, including Meg Bowles'

Kumatone Records, Christopher Fox's Fox Edition, Steve Kornicki's Fragmented View Music,

James Mobberly's Cautious Music, Dexter Morrill's Chenango Valley Press, and Karlheinz

Stockhausen's Stockhausen Verlag. Very few (nine) of the other sixty publishing companies

15

(which includes institutions such as IRCAM and the national music information centres) released

more than one composition for trumpet and electronics, and of those that did the highest numbers

were published by the Canadian Music Centre (five) and Seesaw Music (whose catalogue is now

owned by the Subito Music Corporation), also with five. These figures suggest that music for

trumpet and electronics remains a relatively obscure genre, as over half of the compositions from

the List are either unpublished or of unknown publication status, while those that have been

published have either been released by the composers themselves or only rarely by other

publishing companies. The publishing companies represented on the List and the number of

pieces for trumpet and electronics released by each is shown below.

Table 2: Publishing Companies Represented on the List

American Composers Alliance: 1

Blue Bison Music: 1

BMG-Ricordi: 1

Editions BMG: 1

Boosey and Hawkes: 1

Carl Fischer: 1

Catena Press: 1

Claude Benny Press: 2

Donemus: 3

DMA Music: 1

Durand: 1

Editions Wilhelm Hansen: 1

Faber: 2

Frog Peak Music: 1

Jasemusiikki: 3

J.M. Fuzeau: 1

16

Lantro Music: 1

Merion: 1

Manduca: 3

Musik Fabrik: 1

N.Y. Composers Facsimile Editions: 1

Novello: 1

OdB Editions: 1

Pasquina Publications: 1

Pizzicatto Verlag Helvetia: 1

Seesaw: 5

Shawnee Press: 1

Shelan: 1

Sounz: 1

Wai-te-ata Press: 1

Tons: 2

Tre Media: 1

IRCAM: 1

Canadian Music Centre: 5

Budapest Music Information Centre: 1

British Music Information Centre: 2

Swedish Music Information Centre: 3

Norway Music Information Centre: 1

Finland Music Information Centre: 2

Given the obscurity of this genre suggested by the publication figures, it is not surprising that

more than half of these compositions have not been recorded. Of the seventy-nine that have

17

been recorded, fifty-nine have been featured in professional commercial recordings, and twenty

exist as live or archival recordings.

It is difficult to say with any certainty why this repertoire remains relatively unknown with few

publications and recordings. There are undoubtedly several contributing factors, one of which

being that it falls within the context of contemporary music which itself tends to be relatively

unpopular among performers and audiences alike. On a more practical level, however, music

involving electronics takes more effort to produce and perform. From the perspective of the

publisher it is certainly a larger task to produce an electronic component in addition to sheet

music, although with the continuingly increasing ease and decreasing costs of compact disc

production it is becoming much more common to find scores packaged with an accompanying

compact disc or CD-ROM. From the perspective of the performer it may be less attractive to

invest the time required to learn a piece of music that is not only musically challenging but also

requires unusual technological requirements. Finally, it may simply be because it is still a very

young genre that has not had much time to establish itself among the standard trumpet repertoire.

18

Chapter 3

The Aesthetic, Qualitative and Practical Aspects of the

Repertoire, Based on Performer and Composer Interviews

Three prominent performers of music for trumpet and electronics were interviewed in order to

obtain a perspective on the repertoire from musicians who have a great deal of experience in this

field. The musicians who participated in the interviews (Stephen Altoft, Marco Blaauw, and

Jonathan Impett) include several compositions for solo trumpet and electronics in their personal

repertoires, and are unique among the trumpet community as innovators who are not only

influencing the development of new trumpet repertoire, but also the continued evolution of the

trumpet itself (see Appendix B for brief biographies of the interview subjects). Their interviews

illuminate several important issues that may not be apparent to trumpeters who do not have a

great deal of experience in this field.

The interviews consisted of fifteen questions regarding the performers' opinions and practices

involving music for solo trumpet and electronics. Their answers (see Appendix C) provide the

basis for a discussion of several aesthetic, qualitative and practical aspects of this repertoire, and

were used to create a descriptive commentary on these issues. Information was also drawn from

interviews with the composers of the pieces examined in this dissertation, especially with regard

to the qualitative aspects of this repertoire. Unless indicated with footnotes, all quotations in this

chapter are taken directly from the interviews (see Appendix C for interview transcripts). Issues

that are discussed include the instrumental nature of electronic music and its different

relationships with acoustic musicians, the challenges presented by electronic composition and the

potential difficulties of combining it with acoustic performance, the possibilities offered by

electronics to extend the sonic characteristics and musical environments of acoustic instruments,

practical issues that must be considered in the preparation and performance of these kinds of

pieces, the benefits of researching and discovering obscure repertoire, and the context of music

for solo trumpet and electronics within the overall trumpet repertoire.

The first question each performer was asked was “What do you like about performing music for

19

trumpet and electronics?” Altoft's answer (“Not being alone on stage! It is more interesting than

playing solo trumpet! The different sound worlds one moves in is simply very liberating, and the

processing of my sound into something very different is cool!”) contains several implications for

performance of this repertoire. His first statement refers to the relationship between solo

performers and electronics, even though soloists with electronics are often physically alone on

stage. In his answer to the same question, Marco Blaauw pointed out that the electronic

component “is to be treated as an independent instrument.” Whether or not this instrument lends

a physical presence to the performance area (perhaps through a sound projectionist or visible

electronic equipment), it still provides the soloist with musical support that does not exist in

unaccompanied performance.

The instrumental nature of electronically created and manipulated music is considerably different

from that of acoustic music, especially regarding its relationship with acoustic performers. In the

case of music for soloist with fixed-media electronics (e.g. “trumpet and tape”), this relationship

is “one-way” as the soloist may react musically to the electronic part, while the electronic part

does not (and can not) react to the soloist's performance. This provides challenges to the soloist

with regard to coordination and expression, as he or she must fit musical aspects such as tempo,

rubato, dynamics, and intonation into parameters defined by the electronic part. Depending on

the degree of coordination desired by the composer, this may leave little room for flexibility with

regard to these criteria. However, this also helps ensure that the composer's intentions are

fulfilled without being significantly affected by interpretation. Even though interpretation is an

important element in the successful performance of any composition that allows the performer to

display his or her personality and musicianship, it also has the potential of diluting or altering the

composer's ideas. This was a concern of French composer and electronic music pioneer Edgard

Varèse, expressed in his following remarks from a 1939 lecture:

We composers are forced to use, in the realization of our works, instruments that have not changed for two centuries. . . Personally, for my conceptions, I need an entirely new medium of expression: a sound-producing machine (not a sound re-producing one). . . Whatever I write, whatever my message, it will reach the listener unadulterated by "interpretation." It will work something like this: after a composer has set down his score on paper by means of a new graphic, similar in principle to a seismographic or oscillographic notation, he will then, with the collaboration of a sound engineer, transfer the score directly to this electric machine.

20

After that anyone will be able to press a button to release the music exactly as the composer wrote it.8

The acoustic part of a piece for performer with fixed electronic media is still subject to a certain

degree of interpretation. However, in this case the soloist is in a sense performing alongside the

composer who has provided a part of the composition that precisely reflects his or her musical

ideas, thereby influencing the performer's interpretation of the acoustic component of the work.

On the other hand, the electronic “instrument” with which the soloist performs may be

equipment that manipulates the performance in real-time, which Blaauw appreciates both “as a

partner to play with” and “as offering a larger range of sounds on (the) trumpet.” Altoft also

enjoys this situation: “I prefer working with live electronics where either I have some artistic

control or can have interpretation leverage and/or can communicate with the performer who is on

the laptop: it creates more of a duo with electronics.” In this case performance relies on

interaction between acoustic and electronic elements to create the sounding results of a

composition. Rather than one-way communication between a performer and fixed electronic

media, the performer interacts with the electronic accompaniment on a fundamental level in

order to create the overall musical output. Electronic manipulation of the performance's acoustic

properties fosters a uniquely deep interaction that goes beyond what is possible between acoustic

performers. While an acoustic ensemble performance does rely on communication between the

participating musicians in order to achieve a successful sense of ensemble, their interaction does

not go as far as directly transforming and extending the sounds made by each other.

In addition to using electronics to extend what he considers the “spatial” characteristics of

trumpet performance (i.e. “the kind of sound you can make, or the range of colours”), Impett is

also interested in “temporal” extensions of the trumpet and “extending the structural capabilities

of what the performer does.” After finding that the way many composers were working with

sound processing to be “quite limiting” and using electronics as an “effects box”, Impett

developed his meta-trumpet with the idea that it would “somehow integrate the instrument

8 Peter Manning, Electronic and Computer Music (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=2042 (accessed November 7, 2010).

21

structurally into the way music is generated.” Wanting to move beyond the idea of simply

“controlling effects,” Impett developed an approach that allows him to “transform that

fundamental relationship” between musician and music as the actions involved in performance

influence the structure of the composition itself. In this way he uses technology to create an

integral relationship between performance and composition, as the interaction between the

soloist and the electronic component of the music not only transforms the musician's sound, but

also the outcome of the composition itself.

The treatment of electronics as an “effects box” appears to lead to a potential flaw in electronic

music, described by Blaauw and Impett as the possibility for electronic elements to come off as

“cheap tricks” or “cheesy” effects. Impett feels that the “grossness of the way these effects are

just added” can create a tasteless element in the music. Blaauw further discusses this point in the

context of live performance: “a big danger of using electronics, especially with sound

processing, is that the effect of electronics can become cheap tricks, and if you play them loud

enough it is sort of an easy effect on the audience. They don't have to participate so actively,

they don't have to listen so actively, they can just lay back and be overwhelmed.”

The issue of quality is important for performers and composers alike, and while a discussion of

what constitutes quality in music is beyond the purview of this study, it is a factor that must be

weighed by performers as they select repertoire and by composers as they create new works and

use new musical languages. The possibility of using electronics as an “easy effect” rather than

treating it seriously as another instrument may be the reason Jonathan Harvey feels “it is very

easy to make bad electronics.” Agostino Di Scipio elaborates further on this idea, asking “how

many works for “instrument and electronics” have finely, competently crafted instrumental parts

and pretty banal electronics, mostly embellishing (or “setting a different context to”) the solo

instrument with “sound effects?” Di Scipio feels there is a “huge imbalance in terms of the

knowledge put at work” between electronic and acoustic composition, further adding “I don't

think the beauty or structural properties of the final sounding results may justify that imbalance.

Aesthetics is never a good excuse.” Citing the importance of developing a strong fluency and

technical mastery in electronic composition, he feels that successful composing (electronic or

otherwise) is “not a question of how refined or innovative is your writing: it is a question of how

good is your control of technological resources... as relative to the sounding result.”

22

The nature of electronics, described by Peter Hatch as “technically very challenging,” presents

significant difficulties to those who wish to develop a certain level of competence in electronic

composition. Adding to this complex nature is the rapid pace of technological development,

which Blaauw describes as “constantly changing” so that composers “have to be renewing all the

time” in order to keep up-to-date with new technologies. Feeling that it is “very difficult for

composers to get a good grip on that instrument,” Blaauw supports Di Scipio's contention that

technological proficiency is essential for successful electronic composition as “composers that

are really good now with electronics are people that are occupied all the time with the computer,

and composing and working with electronics at the computer, just non-stop updating, willing to

play with it, willing to experiment, that is compose and throw away.”

For Di Scipio, a composer's level of “ecriture” or “mastery of electronics” reflects “the degree of

freedom” they have as a composer. However, the quality of a composition does not necessarily

depend on the degree to which technology has advanced. Blaauw feels that “to find really good

quality in the use of electronics, to reach very good aesthetic quality ... just needs a very good

composer”. Citing Stockhausen as such a composer, Blaauw points to his Gesang der Junglinge,

which, although it was composed in 1956 using early electroacoustic techniques such as

manually cutting and splicing tape, is “constructed in such an ingenious way that it will survive

the time”, and that even though “we have much better equipment nowadays, much better means

and knowledge, that piece is still one of the biggest examples for good quality electronic music.”

Although the complexity of electronic composition poses daunting challenges to composers, the

possibilities it offers are virtually endless, as electronic music is not limited in terms of register,

volume, articulation, timbre, or intonation. Thus it is not surprising that Altoft feels music for

trumpet and electronics is “more interesting than solo trumpet,” further expressing that it

provides “more to listen to” than acoustic trumpet performance. His statement that “the different

sound worlds one moves in is simply very liberating” is also logical, as electronics can

potentially provide any sound the composer is capable of imagining. Although acoustic

accompaniment by piano, orchestra, or other ensemble can provide excellent collaborative

music, the flexibility of electronic music provides an accessibility that is liberating for the

performer or composer who wishes to move beyond the possibilities offered by acoustic

instrumental accompaniment.

23

Far beyond being able to provide interesting “sound effects” or unusual contexts for instrumental

performance, the use of electronics provides the potential to extend nearly every aspect of

performance. In addition to the possibilities it offers by extending the sounds a composer or

performer is capable of creating, it can also alter the characteristics of the environment in which

the performance takes place. Multi-channel electronic music in particular is able to extend the

perceptual characteristics of a performance space by surrounding the listener with sound, rather

than having the music come from one location, usually in front of the audience. This can create

an extraordinary effect for the listener who may perceive sound as a physically moving entity,

not bound by the location of the performer. Again referring to Stockhausen, Blaauw discusses

this situation in compositions such as Aries which require octophonic diffusion of the electronic

parts, and how “the sound traveling, the melodies traveling from left to right, front to back, etc.

... is a very different and unique experience.”

However, compositions that require extensive multi-channel diffusion also present practical

difficulties, such as finding suitable performance spaces, and Blaauw has found that a number of

problems can arise in presenting these pieces that prevent an optimal performance situation. He

notes that “concert halls are not built for music like that. People can't sit in the middle, the

performer can't be in the ideal position, and the height of the hall is often a difficulty. So it is

very, very difficult to find the ideal circumstances for great electronic music.” Harvey agrees

with this, mentioning this type of music “does cut down what venues one can use,” although he

also feels that this is a “trivial” problem.

Aside from procuring an appropriate venue there are other practical considerations that arise in

the performance of music with electronics. One of the most important of these is the set-up and

execution of the electronic component(s) of the composition. This can be a time consuming and

difficult task, especially for people who do not specialize in electronics. Blaauw mentioned this

difficulty as he elaborated on his comment that the electronic component is to be treated as

another instrument, saying that “to get a really good grip and control on the (electronic) material

you have to practice as much as (you) would practice the trumpet.” Finding that he does not

have enough time to become proficient with electronic equipment, Blaauw regularly relies on

specialists to take care of the electronic component of the performance, leaving him occupied

only with the trumpet. Altoft echoes this statement, noting that “mostly there is a technician

there or composer running the programmes or at least sitting at the mixing desk.” However, he

24

has found that over time he has come to know some basics regarding music technology such as

mixing desks, foot pedals, and microphones. He has also become familiar with some computer

procedures and different software patches, noting that he does not do any computer programming

and that he still feels a “novice” with the technological components of these works, emphasizing

that “I have to put most of the energy into learning the notes I have to play.”

As a composer as well as performer Impett has done a great deal of work to learn about

electronic music technology, including learning how to do computer programming, mostly using

C++, Swarm (from the Santa Fe institute), and MAX. He also learned about sensing technology

during his Ph.D. studies on interactive composition systems. However, he admits that he “never

really got a hold of the hardware side of things,” and he gets other people to take care of the

technological parts when he is performing with live electronics. Just as Blaauw and Altoft noted

that they have to concentrate mostly on learning the trumpet parts of these pieces, Impett says “I

have never found anything in technology as difficult as playing the trumpet, frankly. Playing the

trumpet is just so difficult anything else pales by comparison!”

An additional challenge in this repertoire comes from finding a good balance between the soloist

and the electronics. Reiterating the need to work with someone else, Blaauw mentions that “you

always need a pair of ears in the concert hall ... because it is never possible to tell what the

balance is like,” regardless of whether it is with live electronics or pre-recorded electronic

accompaniment. Feeling that he can not find an appropriate balance on his own, even in a small

hall, Blaauw says that it is “really difficult to get a great sound,” and “a great sound is necessary

to give the piece what it deserves.” Further difficulties may arise with the electronic equipment

itself, with Blaauw noting that “it is very difficult to find the best equipment. Usually we have to

do concessions, like the loudspeakers are not the best, or the microphone is not the best, and I

often find the performance is as good as the weakest part. If one cable or microphone, or even

one plug is not one-hundred percent good, then the performance depends very much on that

weak part. I often find that concert organizers are not really willing to invest the maximum in

electronic equipment; they often find it too expensive.” Finances are often a significant deciding

factor in the forces used in a concert, and Altoft further notes that “there is more effort, outlay

and equipment involved, and sometimes the financial means are not there in order to put such a

concert on.”

25

In addition to overcoming these practical difficulties, performers are often required to expand

their own musical abilities in learning and performing these pieces. One aspect of this is the

development and refinement of the sense of ensemble with electronics. This may require the

development of new techniques and skills, some of which mentioned by Altoft include “playing

with a stopwatch, interpreting graphic scores, playing with foot pedals, and learning about their

response timings.” In a more general sense, however, performers are often challenged by the

many unique approaches composers take in creating these pieces. Within the larger genre of

contemporary music for trumpet, music for trumpet and electronics is part of a repertoire in

which the trumpet's possibilities are constantly expanded by the imaginations and innovations of

modern composers. As Blaauw noted in his interview when asked if he has had to learn any new

techniques or skills in order to perform these kinds of pieces, he mentioned “this happens in

every piece; it is not typical for electronic music. Because I am specializing in contemporary

music, every time I play a new piece by a composer I have to/get to speak the language of the

composer, and that is adjusting my playing all the time.” Thus each new piece provides a new

opportunity for the performer to grow, and as Altoft noted “learning every piece brings me

further as a musician.”

Learning the “languages” of different composers has helped performers like Blaauw and Altoft

develop significant relationships not only with composers, but also with the repertoire itself. The

relationship between the performer and the repertoire they choose is also an important issue for

Impett, who feels that by having to find out about music for oneself, whether through research or

working with composers, the performer is able to take a greater degree of “ownership” of the

repertoire than is the often case with more standard, “institutionalized” repertoire.9 This allows

the performer to “play it as if it is from yourself” and “as if it is your music,” rather than

following the formalized nature of standard repertoire and “imitating what has already been

agreed to as being suitable.”10 Finding that “in a conventional sort of recital situation it is almost

as if the performer is kind of a third party,” Impett feels that while a performer may present an

“honest” representation of the music, it is not “their music” and “it is not quite from the soul in

9 Roeland Hazendonk, Liner Notes, Ladder of Escape 7, Jonathan Impett, perf., Attacca Babel compact disc 9476 DDD, 1993. 10 Hazendonk, Liner Notes from Ladder of Escape 7.

26

the same way.” Developing a close relationship with or “taking ownership” of the repertoire is

an important issue for the performance of any style of music. However, it is especially apparent

in a genre such as solo trumpet and electronics which has not been subject to widespread scrutiny

or the development of standard performance practices, and Impett has found that his approach to

music for trumpet with electronics has helped him move beyond this “conventional”

performance approach in developing a more personal relationship with the music he performs.

Impett's interest in discovering music for himself reaches beyond the repertoire for trumpet and

electronics to include not only other contemporary trumpet music but also baroque and classical

music, and for each of the interview subjects music for trumpet and electronics remains part of a

larger musical context in which they are involved. For Impett, technology has become part of his

general musical concept, feeling that “the overall state of music has changed, (and) if you are

going to come to grips with that you have to get a handle on the technological side of things.”

For Blaauw, although he has performed several pieces for trumpet and electronics, he does not

consider them to constitute a major part of his repertoire or to have been a defining factor in his

career. While he feels they help his interests of continually “trying to extend the trumpet,” he

approaches them as part of the overall contemporary repertoire he enjoys performing. For Altoft,

music for trumpet and electronics is integrated with his interest in microtonal music, and he

includes several compositions for microtonal trumpet and electronics in his repertoire.

All of the trumpeters interviewed have spent considerable effort developing their abilities and

enhancing their instruments to allow them to participate in the ever-expanding languages of

contemporary trumpet music. Furthermore, their research, collaboration with composers, and

determination to extend the trumpet as an instrument have contributed to the discovery and

development of new music for trumpet, enriching the trumpet's repertoire and providing new

means of expression for trumpet players. In addition to being innovators, they also provide

examples of musicians who have found their voice through the discovery and performance of

various styles of music. Finding one's voice as a musician is a significant accomplishment which

requires not only dedication to overcoming the challenges of learning and mastering an

instrument, but also developing an awareness of its repertoire and place within the greater

context of musical styles and history. Although it is a recent addition to the trumpet repertoire,

music for solo trumpet and electronics provides a new component in the overall picture of the

27

trumpet that is important for all trumpeters with an interest in exploring the trumpet's place in

music.

28

Chapter 4

Ida, My Dear for trumpet and tape by Peter Hatch

4.1 Overview

Peter Hatch wrote Ida, My Dear in May, 1995. It was commissioned with assistance from the

Ontario Arts Council by Guy Few, a virtuoso trumpeter, pianist, and singer who is on faculty

along with Hatch at Wilfrid Laurier University. Written for trumpet and tape, Ida, My Dear

combines solo trumpet performance not only with a range of electronically manipulated and

generated sounds, but also with theater through the use of spoken word both by the performer

and on tape. This allows the solo trumpeter's performance to be extended in two key ways: by

combining and blending the trumpet with a variety of taped sounds, and by expanding the role of

the soloist to trumpeter/actor as he/she must also deliver spoken lines, both alone and in dialogue

with the voice on tape. Ida, My Dear is a composition that goes beyond the usual concert

practice by blending theatricality and musicality into a unique performance experience.

Ida, My Dear was inspired by two sources: Gertrude Stein's 1937 novelette Ida and Thelonious

Monk's jazz composition Ruby, My Dear. In his programme note for the score, Hatch describes

the “melancholic mood” of the piece as being derived from “Monk's purposely 'awkward' style

of playing and from the anti-heroic 'heroine' of Stein's story, who does very little but 'manages to

fill her day'”. He further describes the interaction of the trumpet and tape and of the live and

spoken voices as being “intended to create a musical character as mysterious and enigmatic as

Stein's Ida.”

Throughout the composition quotations are taken from both Ida and Ruby, My Dear. Excerpts

from Ida (the 1937 novelette, not Stein's 1941 novel of the same title) are spoken both by the

soloist and on tape by Waterloo mezzo-soprano Anne-Marie Donovan, whose “beautiful

29

delivery” of the text influenced the direction of the piece.11 The quotations from Ruby, My Dear

are played on piano in the tape part. In an email communication with the author, Hatch

mentioned that he played some of the piano parts on tape while a small portion of the music was

sampled from Monk's playing, although he could not recall from which recording. In addition to

the spoken voice and piano, Ida, My Dear utilizes several other natural, unmodified sounds as

well as a variety of electroacoustic and electronic sounds that effectively extend its acoustic

qualities.

Ida, My Dear is published by the Canadian Music Centre, which also holds two recordings of the

work.

4.2 Biography

Peter Hatch is a composer, concert organizer, and teacher, and is currently professor of

composition at Wilfrid Laurier University’s Faculty of Music, where he began teaching in 1985.

Born in Toronto in 1957, Hatch’s early university studies focused on bassoon performance

before he changed his major to composition. He received B.Mus. and M.Mus. degrees from the

University of Toronto and a DMA from the University of British Columbia. His works have

been featured in several music festivals and have gained recognition through composer

competitions held by CBC radio, the Winnipeg New Music Festival, and Vancouver New Music.

In addition to his compositional work, Hatch has served as the artistic director of new music

ensembles and festivals such as the 1989 ‘5th Stream’ festival and the 1995 ‘Coming Together’

festival, and in 1985 he founded NUMUS concerts, a Waterloo based new music organization.

Hatch’s background in electroacoustic composition includes working at Simon Fraser

University’s electronic music studio from 1983-84 and becoming director of the Electroacoustic

Music Studio at Wilfrid Laurier University in 1987. However, in an interview with the author he

described himself as having composed electroacoustic music only “occasionally” and does not

consider himself an electronic composer. Nonetheless, he finds great value in electroacoustic

11 Peter Hatch, interview with Larry Lake, Two New Hours, CBC radio, date unknown. Canadian Music Centre cd AR2601, CentreStreams, www.musiccentre.ca (acc. Aug. 18, 2010).

30

processes, and in the same interview he described the combination of electroacoustic and

acoustic sounds as “a great way of extending the acoustic sound, allowing for it to be listened to

differently”. Especially interested in works that attempt to blend acoustic and electroacoustic

sounds, he further describes electronics as being able to enhance the sense of “nuance and

complexity as well as refinement” in the sounds produced by classical and post-classical

composers and performers.

Hatch’s compositions span a wide range of genres including orchestral music (he was composer

in residence for the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony from 1999-2003), chamber music,

instrumental theater, and sound installations. For a long time he has been especially interested in

musical theater, incorporating theatrical elements such as spoken word and movements into his

solo and chamber works. This interest has grown from extending traditional performance

practices and from collaborating with artists from other disciplines, including director David

Murray Scott, architect Dereck Revington, and choreographers David Earle and Bill James.12

One of Hatch’s recurring motivations has been the writing of Gertrude Stein, an influential

American author who spent much of her life in Paris where she associated with several avant-

garde writers and artists such as Matisse, Picasso, and Hemingway. Her writing has played an

important role in several of Hatch's compositions besides Ida, My Dear, including his full-

evening instrumental theater piece Mounting Picasso and his short opera Asks Alice. He has

been especially interested in Stein’s use of syntax and its effects on the perception of time.

While attending the 34th Ferienkurse für Neue Musik at Darmstadt, Germany in 1988 he

delivered a lecture entitled “A talk about time. And syntax in music.” in which he examined his

musical aesthetic and his interest in Stein’s grammatical structures. In his lecture he discussed

Stein’s use of syntax to control the sense of time, and how her use of repetition and variation in

her phrase structures would meet or not meet grammatical expectations, creating a sense of time

which “seemed to be always happening in the now.” He further described her time as “musical

time”, inspiring him to think about the use of syntax, repetition, and expectation as fundamental

aspects of his musical composition.

12 Peter Hatch, Biography, http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/biography.php (accessed August 18, 2010).

31

In his lecture Hatch described repetition as an important aspect of time and an essential element

in the development of expectation, focusing on the way “repetition, especially varied repetition

allows the listener to hear, to feel, to experience a sound event from different angles…Each

varied repetition sheds a different light on the event”. Varied repetition is an important aspect of

Ida, My Dear, in which the melodic lines consist primarily of varied repetitions of a brief motive.

Exact repetition is also used prominently in Ida, My Dear, with the tape's static ostinato of the

vocalized “Dear Ida” contrasting with the forward motion of the melody. Stein’s influence on

Hatch’s work thus extends beyond an attempt to capture the emotional atmosphere of her

writing, and provides uniquely direct structural parallels between her writing style and his

compositional technique.

4.3 Electronic Component, Setup and Synchronization

The electronic component of Ida, My Dear, consists of a prerecorded tape part, originally

prepared using DAT tape and now available on CD from the Canadian Music Centre. The

material on the tape part is composed of a variety of acoustic, electronic, and electroacoustically

altered sounds. In composing this piece, Hatch was particularly concerned with balancing the

musical, theatrical, and electronic components of the work, wanting the “effect to be of an

acoustic piece that was enhanced by the electroacoustic elements, rather than the voice and

trumpet being part of an el-ac piece”13. It is not surprising, then, that the tape part contains a

great deal of natural acoustic sounds, with some subtle electroacoustic treatment and spare use of

electronically generated sounds. This allows the electronic and acoustic components of Ida, My

Dear to blend with each other, extending the acoustic properties of the music.

The most important components of the tape part are the piano playing and the spoken texts, as

these refer to the main inspirations of the composition: Thelonious Monk's jazz piece Ruby, My

Dear and Gertrude Stein's novelette Ida. These components are often presented in their natural

acoustic states, although they are also subject to some subtle electroacoustic treatment. For

example, the first note of the piece is a G played in the piano's low register, which is then

13 Peter Hatch, interview with Michael Barth, August 13, 2010.

32

extended for the next twenty-four measures of the composition. Another example is the looping

of the spoken phrase “Dear Ida”, providing a vocalized ostinato in several sections of the piece.

Another important acoustic component of the tape part is the trumpet playing, which often

harmonizes with the trumpet soloist, allowing the live and recorded trumpet sounds to blend with

each other. Other unaltered sounds in the tape part include human breath and consonant sounds,

and television sounds. In contrast to the tape's acoustic and electroacoustically altered content

are sounds that have been electronically generated, likely by a synthesizer, as is suggested by the

indication “synth” in the first measure of the score.

An important part of performing this piece is attaining a proper balance between the trumpet and

tape parts. Hatch prefers a natural sounding balance, noting that “the best productions of this

piece have featured performers who have taken some care in the setup of the audio diffusion

system (monitors) and levels, such that it does not sound over amplified, but almost

unamplified.”14 Hatch includes a detailed list of technical requirements along with the score, the

most important elements of which include a DAT player (or CD player), a vocal microphone, a

mixer, two high quality speakers and a monitor so the performer can adequately hear the tape

part. It is very helpful to have a sound technician set up this equipment, and having a sound

projectionist is especially useful to adjust the volume of the vocal microphone and the tape

playback in order to achieve a proper balance between all the parts.

Perhaps the most important aspect of performing this piece is the coordination between the

soloist and the tape part. Performing with a prerecorded electronic accompaniment often

presents significant challenges in ensemble playing, as the tape part, although acting as the

“other performer”, can not react to any fluctuations in the soloist's tempo, pitch, or volume.

Thus it is especially important that the soloist is not only able to perform their part consistently

and accurately, but also knows the tape part as thoroughly as the solo part so that he/she can

develop a good sense of ensemble.

Hatch has notated some elements of the tape part alongside the trumpet part in the score,

providing information that will allow the trumpeter to follow important cues from the tape.

14 Peter Hatch, interview with Michael Barth, August 13, 2010.

33

However, there are several points at which it is still difficult to coordinate with the tape, as the

tape cues provide either insufficient or slightly inaccurate information for the soloist. This is the

case in the beginning of the piece, where the soloist must play from measures four to twenty-four

with no clear indication regarding the coordination between the trumpet and tape parts.

Fortunately this is not a major problem for most of the section as the tape part consists primarily

of long tones, and no rhythmic information is included in the score for the tape part, making

precise coordination unnecessary. However, it is difficult for the trumpet soloist arrive at the end

of this section together with the tape part leading into letter A. One solution to this problem

could be for the performer to use a visual metronome to keep time during this section. Another

option would be for the soloist to play without concern for the tempo, as long as he/she is

prepared to hold the last note (the written D natural the bar before A) for however long it takes

for the tape part to reach letter A. Another option (and probably the best option, in the author's

opinion) would be to listen to the tape part and pay attention to when the G played by the

trumpet in the tape part is rearticulated, and write that into the score. The following table

displays the measure numbers and the beats on which this G is articulated, and should provide an

effective guide for this section.

Table 3: Articulations in the tape part during the introduction of Ida, My Dear

Measure Number Beat on which trumpet 'G' is rearticulated 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 4 8 9 1 10 2 11 3 12 3

34

13 3 14 3 15 3 16 4 17 18 1 19 1 20 1, 4 21 3 22 3 23 4 24

There are a few small errors and discrepancies in the score that can make ensemble playing

inaccurate or difficult, and again the best way to prepare for this is to be thoroughly acquainted

with the tape part through listening and practice. One such discrepancy occurs at m. 73 (the first

measure of E), where the trumpet part in the tape score comes in slightly earlier than indicated.

Here the soloist may wish to shorten the time between the first and second beats of this measure

in order to stay together with the trumpet on tape. The only other significant error in the score is

the notation at H (m. 115) indicating the voice on tape speaking “When she was one...” This

spoken excerpt actually begins four bars earlier, in m. 111. There are some other small errors in

the notation of the tape part in the score, but these are very minor and inconsequential to

maintaining coordination between the trumpet and tape.

4.4 Performance Techniques

No unusual trumpet techniques are required in Ida, My Dear, with the exception of the use of

quarter-tones in mm. 36-37.

35

Figure 1. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 36-37

36 37

Although many trumpet players are not accustomed to playing quarter tones, these notes can be

played using a combination of alternate fingerings and extended valve slides. The C quarter-flat

can be played using the second and third valves with the third valve slide extended, and the B

quarter-flat can be played using the first and third valves with the third valve slide extended. The

performer will have to experiment to determine how far the third valve slide will have to be

extended to obtain a true quarter tone.

However, in addition to playing the trumpet, the soloist is required to speak written excerpts

from Gertrude Stein's Ida, which will require some consideration by the trumpeter to perform

this aspect of the piece effectively. In a discussion with Larry Lake during a broadcast of the

CBC radio program Two New Hours, Hatch described this as an important part of the

composition, expecting that the performer would pay close attention to the theatrical delivery as

well as to the trumpet part. In an interview with the author, Hatch also suggested that it can be

quite useful getting some theatre coaching on the spoken text, and that although “many

performers think they can just "speak naturally" (or, worse, will try to "act") - it is a difficult text

to deliver well and needs both coaching and practice”. It would also be helpful for the performer

to listen to Anne-Marie Donovan's delivery of the spoken lines in the tape part in order to get a

sense of an interpretation of the text that is approved of by the composer.

36

4.5 Analysis

Ida, My Dear consists of several distinct musical sections combined with spoken excerpts from

Gertrude Stein's novelette Ida to create a uniquely theatrical composition. Composed for

trumpet and tape, Ida, My Dear uses a combination of natural and electronically generated

sounds to evoke a variety of musical characteristics. References are also made to Thelonious

Monk's Ruby, My Dear as the composition moves between jazz and classical styles. Despite its

eclectic mix of ideas, however, Ida, My Dear maintains a sense of continuity throughout the

composition by the development and repetition of musical motives and the theatricality of the

spoken excerpts. The form is outlined below, giving letters to each of the main sections of the

work.

Figure 2. Form Diagram for Ida, My Dear

A (mm. 1-24)

trumpet: establishment of motive a tape: introduction of whole-tone interval; broken group of notes mirroring trumpet melody; pedal G

B (mm. 25-48) excerpt from Ida spoken by soloist in mm. 25-32 and on tape in mm. 33-44 trumpet: motive a expanded and varied tape: “breath and consonant” sounds; electronic pitch cluster in upper register; variation of motive a in bass mm. 38-48

Spoken Excerpt – soloist speaks, followed by voice on tape leading into “Dear Ida” ostinato C (mm. 49-84)

trumpet: development of motive a; development of whole-tone interval tape: “jazz ensemble” setting

- walking bass, freely improvised - piano chords from Ruby, My Dear - trumpet harmonizes with solo melody - “Dear Ida” spoken ostinato throughout

Spoken Excerpt – soloist speaks over “breath” sounds on tape, television sounds fade in on tape part toward end D (mm. 85-139)

excerpt from Ida spoken on tape from mm. 111-139

37

trumpet: further development of motive a; other material from section A tape: television sounds until m. 128; piano excerpts from Ruby, My Dear; pedal C throughout section

Spoken Excerpt – brief spoken excerpt on tape leading into “Dear Ida” ostinato E (mm. 140-165)

trumpet: harmon-muted long tones - harmonizes and blends with tape part tape: spoken “Dear Ida” ostinato as in section B; harmon-muted trumpet long-tones on F, F♯, G

Spoken Excerpt – excerpt from Ida spoken on tape B' (mm. 166-201)

trumpet: similar to section B, but with some alterations tape: identical to section B (mm. 49-84)

Spoken Excerpt – soloist and voice on tape alternate speaking brief passages; electronic long tones on tape on pitches C, B, B♭

Ida, My Dear opens with a G in the tape part played in the piano's low register, cueing the soloist

to speak the first excerpt from Stein's Ida: “Ida is her name.” This low G is sustained throughout

the first section (section A), which lasts from mm. 1-24 and is where most of the composition's

melodic and harmonic concepts are introduced. The tape part in section A consists of three

elements: a shaker-like sound that provides a non-rhythmic background sound, a sustained chord

on the notes G and F, and a broken-up group of notes that grows one note at a time from two

notes at the beginning of the piece to seven notes by measure fifteen. The G/F chord and the

broken-up group of notes are closely related to the trumpet melody, which consists of a phrase

which expands and repeats from mm. 4-24 and provides the primary motivic material for the

composition.

The sustained G/F chord uses a mixture of timbres derived from piano, trumpet, and electronic

sounds. These timbres provide important structural and perceptual links in the composition as

the trumpet sound (performing a repeated sustained 'G') closely approximates the soloist's

timbre, while the piano sound is suggestive of one of Hatch's main inspirations for this work –

the piano playing of Thelonious Monk. The electronic synthesizer tones, on the other hand,

38

provide an artificial foil to these acoustic instrumental sounds, adding an ethereal quality to the

composition. This chord also has harmonic significance both by foreshadowing the importance

of the whole-tone interval, and by establishing the first notes of the trumpet entry in the fourth

measure of the piece.

The solo trumpet focuses on the note G (written A for B♭ trumpet) in mm. 4-9, using the

neighbouring F to emphasize the interval of a whole tone in the sixth and seventh measures.

Although this G is sustained in mm. 4-8, it is rhythmically articulated in mm. 8-9, using random

combinations of note-lengths suggested by the composer, which may be a way of signaling the

end of this melodic idea.


4 5 6

7 8 9

The trumpet continues in m. 10 with a melodic fragment that is repeated and gradually elongated

as new notes are added to the end of each repetition from mm. 10-24. The growth of this melody

is mirrored by a group of notes played by the piano in the tape part. Beginning with just two

notes in the second measure (F and G), this group of notes grows one note at a time until

measure fifteen, at which point it includes all seven notes played by the trumpet in this section

(F, G, B, B♭, A, C♯, C♮). These notes are added to the group in the same order as in the

melody from the solo trumpet part.

39

15 16 17

The note-by-note growth of the trumpet melody and the group of notes in the piano part on tape

is reminiscent of Hatch's compositional approach in his marimba solo Lagtime, which he

discussed in his 1988 lecture A talk about time. And syntax in music. In Lagtime, the music

begins with a trill on two notes, which expands to a group of three notes, and keeps expanding

one note at a time until a group of five notes is being played, and each time a note is added to

each group it “seems to slow down”.15 The similarity of this approach suggests the same attempt

to manipulate the listener's perception of time, creating “a sense of time being dragged out”, a

concept which has grown directly from his interest in Gertrude Stein's use of syntax and

repetition to control the sense of time in her writing.16

The melodic fragment in the solo trumpet grows to become an important motive (motive a)

which is frequently altered and repeated throughout the composition. Although this motive

continues to be expanded through the end of section A, its configuration in mm. 15-17 is most

closely related to its later transformations. Additionally, it is followed in mm. 17-18 by

rearticulations of the written B (sounding A on B♭ trumpet) similarly to mm. 8-9, possibly

indicating the completion of this motive. This fragment contains melodic characteristics that

permeate much of the composition with its structure of an ascending interval and three

chromatically descending notes.

Figure 4. Ida motive a

motive a

15 Peter Hatch, “A talk about time. And syntax in music.” The 34th Ferienkurse fur Neue Musik, Darmstadt, Germany, summer 1988, http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/textDetails.php?writ=13 (accessed 18 August, 2010). 16 Hatch, “A talk about time. And syntax in music.”

ascending

interval

chromatic descent

40

The last note played by the solo trumpet in section A is a C in m. 24, which provides a melodic

link to the next section (B), which begins in m. 25 with a C one octave higher in the tape part.

This C is an electronically generated pitch, and it is sustained through m. 41. It is the top voice

of a cluster of tones which are gradually added one at a time until a dense chord consisting of the

pitches E, F, G, A♭, A, B, and C is achieved by m. 40 and fades out in m. 41. Other electronic

pitches are added in the bass register beginning in m. 38. Possessing a somewhat vocal quality,

these notes refer to the chromatic content of motive a through a slow chromatic ascent in mm.

38-41, followed by a descent utilizing both semitones and whole tones in mm. 41-45, using

staggered perfect fifths in mm. 43-45 (note: the bass pitches indicated in the score do not reflect

precisely the notes played on tape; the following figure shows the notes as they sound on tape).


The trumpet begins playing in section B at the pickup to m. 34. It is preceded by spoken

excerpts from Ida, spoken first by the soloist beginning in m. 28 and then by the voice on tape in

m. 33, which continues speaking until m. 44. The first trumpet entrance in section B is a

simplified version of motive a, played at a different transposition and with only one pickup note.

It is followed by another alteration of motive a in which the descending semitones are expanded

into quarter-tones.

38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47

41

Figure 6. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear mm. 34-38

The melodic material which follows in mm. 38-48 is quite different from motive a, although the

brief statements presented here do possess some similarities to it. Each of the three statements in

mm. 38-42 begins with an ascending interval, followed by an expansion of the descending

chromatic notes of motive a, either by inverting the interval of a minor second to a major seventh

or by increasing it to a major second.


The sustained G (written A) in mm. 43-44 is approached by its upper and lower chromatic

neighbours, suggesting the chromatic content of motive a, and the three eighth notes leading into

m. 45 are reminiscent of the ascending interval from motive a.

34 35 36

37 38

39 40 41 42

42


The tape part in section B also contains breath and consonant sounds, providing sounds that are

unusual yet familiar and unmistakably human. These sounds continue beyond the end of section

B and through the next spoken excerpt from Ida, which is performed by the soloist shortly after

the last note of section B fades out and continued by the voice on tape. These spoken excerpts

provide a transition between section B and the next section (C), and the last two words of this

excerpt (“Dear Ida”) repeat in a continuous loop beginning in m. 49, forming a vocalized

ostinato that lasts throughout section C.

Section C lasts from mm. 49-84 and is characterized by a jazz feel created in the tape part, which

gives the impression of a small jazz ensemble accompanying the soloist. In addition to the “Dear

Ida” ostinato, the tape part consists of a jazz-style walking bass line, chordal piano interjections,

and trumpet harmonies. The opening note is an electroacoustically altered sound playing a C,

however the harmony throughout this section is unclear as the bass line (which is not notated)

does not suggest an obvious harmony, and was freely improvised on the recording.17 The piano

chords, however, were taken from Monk's Ruby, My Dear. Specifically, the chords in which the

top note is an F moving to F♯ (mm. 52, 58, 59-60) are from the A♭7 and E♭7+9 chords on

beats two through four of the last measure of the 'B' section (m. 24) in Ruby, My Dear; the

chords whose top note is A (mm. 63, 67, 76, 83) come from the G minor chord on the second

17 Peter Hatch, email message to author, July 13, 2010.

43 44

45 46 47 48

43

half of beat two of m. 3 in the 'A' section; the chords whose top note is F♯ (mm. 63-64, 66, 81)

come from the B♭+7 chord on beat four of the last measure (m. 8) in the 'A' section; and the

chords whose top note is D♯ (mm. 71-72, 78, 79) come from the E♭7b9 chord on the third beat

of the fifth measure in the 'A' section of Ruby, My Dear.

The solo trumpet part in section C sounds like an improvised jazz solo. However, it is made up

of phrases that are closely related to motive a. The first solo phrase in this section appears in m.

54, and it begins with an ascending interval of a minor third, followed by a descending chromatic

line beginning a major third below. It is harmonized in parallel major thirds by another trumpet

in the tape part, and is repeated in m. 56, transposed up a whole tone. This phrase occurs again

in m. 61 in the same transposition as m. 54, although this time the solo and tape parts are

exchanged.


In m. 64 the solo trumpet begins using a harmon mute, and again its melodic material is based on

motive a. The first variation of motive a begins with three eighth-note pickups to m. 65,

presenting an ornamented version of the ascending interval of motive a, and following the

chromatic descent the motive is extended through the first two beats of m.66. A similar

54 55 56 57

44

approach is taken with the three eighth-note pickups to m. 67, and the descending chromatic

quarter notes in mm. 68-69 allude to the chromatic content of motive a.


After a rapid “bebop” style outburst in m. 70 (which itself refers to motive a with its chromatic

groupings), the whole tone interval is emphasized in m. 71, here expanded into a major ninth

between C and B♭.


64 65 66

67 68 69

70 71

45

Three descending chromatic quarter notes (again referring to motive a) lead into a restatement of

the phrase from m. 54 in m. 73, which in this case is lengthened with two sets of chromatic

eighth-note triplets before beginning a chromatically ascending line from mm. 75-78, leading

into a restatement of the descending major ninth interval between C and B♭, which is repeated

two more times between mm. 80-83.


Following section C is another spoken excerpt from Ida. This excerpt is spoken by the soloist,

accompanied by subtle breathing sounds in the tape part. “Television sounds” including white

noise and voices from various television programs appear in the tape part toward the end of this

spoken excerpt. The next section (D) begins shortly after the spoken excerpt is concluded, and

lasts from mm. 85-139. The television sounds that began during the spoken excerpt continue

intermittently throughout this section until m. 128. References to Monk's Ruby, My Dear are

also present in this section, as an excerpt from the second through third measures of Ruby, My

Dear appear in mm. 86-89, and again in mm. 103-106. Cues given in the tape part in mm. 90,

92, and 94 also refer to excerpts from Ruby, My Dear. Here the F♭ to E♭ cues come from the

fifth and sixth measures of the A section of Ruby, My Dear, where an E♭7b9 chord moves to an

A♭△ chord and then to a C minor chord. Although cues are not given in the score, these figures

also occur in measures 98 and 110.

However, despite the references to Ruby, My Dear, this section does not have a jazz swing feel.

Rather, it is played with straight eighth-notes in 5/8 meter. In addition to the television sounds

73 74 75

76 77 78 79

46

and piano chords from Ruby, My Dear, the tape part includes a pedal C throughout the entire

section, providing a harmonic basis for the section while articulating the 5/8 meter. Another

spoken excerpt from Ida occurs on the tape part, beginning in m. 111 (not m. 115 as indicated in

the score) and lasting until the end of section D in m. 139. Interestingly, even though the spoken

excerpt is clearly audible in m. 111, it fades out periodically between mm. 111-120, blending in

with the rest of the tape part and becoming lost in the overall texture.

The solo trumpet part in section D is lyrical and legato, and again it draws on material from

earlier in the composition. The opening phrase in m. 95 recalls the melodic material from m. 42-

43 of section B, extending it through m. 103.


The melody from mm. 104-110 is based on motive a, and following a fragment of the melody

from mm. 95-99 in mm. 112-113, motive a continues to form the basis for the melody in mm.

114-126.


95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

104 105 106 107 108 109 110

47

The melody from the pickup to 127 through m. 136 again recalls the first melody from section D

before it comes to a close in m. 139. The music fades out by m. 138, leaving the voice on tape

speaking an excerpt from Ida. Similar to the spoken excerpt preceding section C, the last two

words of this Ida excerpt are “Dear Ida”, which again are looped to form a spoken ostinato that

lasts throughout the next section (E).

Section E lasts from mm. 140-165, and aside from the “Dear Ida” ostinato, the only other

material included in the tape part are two harmon-muted trumpets playing long notes on F, F♯,

and G, often overlapping each other to create sustained intervals of a minor second. Although

these notes are not functioning melodically in this section, their separation by the interval of a

semitone recalls the chromatic content of motive a. These sustained notes are joined by the

trumpet soloist, also playing sustained tones with a harmon mute in order to blend in with the

tape part. The solo trumpet part stays quite close to the notes of the tape trumpet parts near the

beginning and end of this section with sustained F's in mm. 142-145 and F♯, F, and E in mm.

155-164. However, in the middle of this section from mm. 146-154 it also plays intervals that

are further away from the chromatic pitches in the tape part. This generates a sense of harmonic

ambiguity by simultaneously creating two intervals that are similar in size but have different

harmonic qualities. For example, the D in the solo trumpet part in m. 146 makes major and

minor thirds with the F♯ and F in the tape part, and the D♭ in the solo trumpet in m. 150 makes

perfect and diminished fifths with the G and F♯ in the taped trumpet parts.

Figure 15. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 146 and 150

146 150

solo:

tape:

48

The last notes of section E fade out in m. 165, leading into the next spoken excerpt from Ida,

which is performed entirely by the voice on tape. This spoken excerpt is followed by section B',

which is very similar to section B. Although the spoken excerpt from Ida preceding section B'

does not end with the phrase “Dear Ida”, the “Dear Ida” ostinato begins immediately after the

excerpt is finished, along with the electroacoustically altered C leading into the section. The

tape part in section B' is identical to the tape part in section B, and the solo trumpet part is very

similar. The differences in the trumpet part in section B' include adding the harmon mute earlier

in the section in m. 175, followed by new melodic material in mm. 176-177. The phrase

beginning in m. 178 is identical to the analogous phrase in section B, although it is expanded

through m. 180 with chromatic content from motive a.


The major-ninth motive is transposed down a perfect fourth from section B, as in B' it occurs in

mm. 183-186 between the notes G and F.


178 179 180

183 184 185 186

49

The chromatic content of motive a is referred to only vaguely in mm. 188-189 as some of the

semitone intervals are expanded to major sevenths, leading to the return of the major ninth

motive in its original transposition (C to B♭) in mm. 191-198.


Section B' ends at m. 201 with a new reference to Ruby, My Dear, the ascending chromatic run

leading to the C on beat one of m. 5 of Ruby, My Dear. This C provides a link to the

electronically generated C that occurs in the final section of Ida, My Dear.

The final section of Ida, My Dear consists of a spoken “dialogue” between the soloist and the

voice on tape, with the two voices taking turns speaking brief excerpts from Ida. There is also a

musical component to this section as high-pitched electronic tones are played on tape, including

the pitches C, B, and B♭, which occasionally overlap as the sustained G, F♯, and F had done in

section E. Again this refers to the three chromatic pitches of motive a, and these tones fade out

on a B shortly before the last excerpts from Ida are spoken.

188 189 190 191 192

Maj. 7th Maj. 7th C-B♭motive

50

Chapter 5

Modes of Interference for Trumpet and Live Electronics

by Agostino Di Scipio

5.1 Overview

Agostino Di Scipio composed Modes of Interference no. 1 in 2005-06. It was commissioned by

ZKM Karlsruhe: the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie (Centre for Art and Media), a

cultural institution that is dedicated to exploring new media and developments in information

technology. It was composed at ZKM and at Di Scipio’s independent studio, and is dedicated to

Marco Blaauw, a leading performer of contemporary music for solo trumpet. It is one of three

pieces in a series of works titled Modes of Interference, each of which combines audio feedback

with instruments and live electronics in an interactive system. Modes of Interference No.1 may

be performed with trumpet of any intonation or flugelhorn, while Modes No. 2 was written for

saxophone and live electronics, and Modes No.3 was written for electric guitars, amplifiers, and

live electronics. Di Scipio has noted that other composers have experimented with similar

approaches, including Alvin Lucier and the Italian composer Michelangelo Lupone in his 1999

composition Gran Cassa for bass drum and feedback system.

Di Scipio describes Modes as a “composed dynamical system”. Unlike traditional compositions

which describe what sounds are to be used and how they are to be created and projected, Modes

consists of an interactive system in which the naturally occurring sounds of an audio feedback

loop are manipulated by the performer and Di Scipio’s Pure Data software patch, resulting in

music. While different musical elements (pitch, rhythm, timbre, dynamics, etc.) are created as a

result of this process, these characteristics are dependent on a number of variables, such as the

equipment being used and the performance space. Therefore, although the performance of

Modes depends on using Di Scipio’s sound-transforming procedures and following his score,

different performances will inevitably differ depending on these factors.

Modes is based on an audio feedback loop created between two miniature microphones (one

deep inside the trumpet’s bell and the other on the edge of the bell) and two loudspeakers. The

51

feedback loop is created as a result of using a very high gain on the microphones, resulting in

feedback sounds (also called “Larsen tones”). These sounds are used in Modes as the main

sound source, and they are altered by the trumpet and computer as they intrude upon the

feedback system.

The trumpet interferes with the feedback loop in several ways, the most important of which is

through valve action, which changes the length of the trumpet and alters the resonant

characteristics of the environment immediately surrounding the microphone. It also acts to

introduce noises into the overall system, such as percussive and breath effects. Both of these

actions affect the resonant characteristics of the feedback loop, altering the Larsen tones. The

computer acts to regulate the sound system, keeping it under control and preventing the feedback

sounds from growing too strong and overwhelming the system while also transforming and

extending all the sounds produced in the system. The overall system is also subject to sounds

emanating from the performance environment.

Di Scipio has included the following diagram in his score, illustrating the interactions between

the various components of the feedback system in Modes.

Figure 19. System Interactions in Modes

high feedback gain (Larsen tones)

environment (room)

trumpet: variable resonances and noises

microphone inside trumpet speakers

computer: adaptive feedback gain and sound transformations

52

5.2 Biography

Agostino Di Scipio is an Italian composer and sound artist whose works include compositions

for instrumentalists and electronics as well as sound installations. His music often features

unconventional ways of creating and processing sound while focusing on the phenomena of

noise and turbulence, and many of his compositions explore the possibilities of live sonic

interactions between performers, machines, and environments. Di Scipio's work has gained

international attention, and has been featured in academic and experimental venues as well as at

several international festivals. He has been widely active in academic circles, holding

professorships and residencies at universities, conferences, festivals, galleries, and museums, and

is a prolific writer and editor with contributions to numerous international journals and

conferences. His writings on issues concerning the methods and history of musical technologies

and their social, cultural, and cognitive implications have had a significant impact on many

artists and researchers, and his research has been mentioned and quoted in many international

scientific and technological publications.18

Born in Naples in 1962, Di Scipio first approached music as a self-taught musician, playing

electric guitar in high school while experimenting with programmable synthesizers and studying

computer programming. Following studies in languages, literature, and theatre theory at the

Istituto Universitario Orientale in Naples, he studied composition and electronic music in

L'Aquila with Michelangelo Lupone, Giancarlo Bizzi, and Mauro Cardi, and computer music at

the University of Padova's Centro di Sonologia Computazionale. Di Scipio's early studies in

electronic music focused on learning as much as possible about computer music technique and

digital signal processing. He also explored algorithmic composition, with the goal of learning

how to formalize musical gestures in writing for both musical instruments and electronics.19

This was a period of broad exploration into sonic materials which eventually led to him to

“microcomposition” through his studies of granular, textural, and noisy materials, and his focus

18 Agostino Di Scipio, Bio, http://xoomer.virgilio.it/adiscipi/bio.htm (accessed July 22, 2010). 19 Federico Placidi, “A conversation with Agostino Di Scipio,” trans. Valeria Grillo, Unidentified Sound Object, posted June 13, 2010, http://usoproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/conversation-with-agostino-di-scipio.html (accessed July 22, 2010).

53

on the “finest temporal scales of sound” was founded on his idea that microcomposition could

allow musical gestures to occur on larger time scales.20 In exploring these concepts he

developed new synthesis techniques based on the mathematics of nonlinear dynamic systems (as

found in 'chaos theory'), which provided him with sound materials for his studio compositions.21

However, Di Scipio also wanted to compose music involving live electronics, and although he

spent a great deal of time as a student in the 1980s developing software for real-time synthesis

and processing, it was not until the mid-1990s that he seriously considered live computer music

performance.22 Di Scipio has taken an unorthodox approach to composing with real-time

electroacoustic components. As opposed to the predominant view that certain “accidental”

electroacoustic sounds (such as ambient noise or feedback) represented problems - the unwanted

by-products of mistakes in performance - he saw them as resources to be controlled and

manipulated in live electroacoustic situations. Dissatisfied with the idea that technologies exist

to neutrally convey musical sounds, “as if their tools and signals were not part of the musical

experience,” he felt they could be studied and turned into sources of music.23

He also came to realize that the performance space itself was integral to the performance of

electroacoustic music, and by incorporating the performance space into his compositional

processes he could utilize any sources of noise and risk as the composition progressed. Rather

than creating abstract electronic processes that ignore the performance space in an attempt to

present an “ideal” model of a musical concept, he found that by implementing interactive

processes between electroacoustic equipment (i.e. microphones) and the environment, he could

use and control the inevitably resulting “flaws” in a self-regulating sounding system. By using

ambient noise and the idiosyncrasies of electroacoustic equipment as sound sources, Di Scipio

could design what he described as “a kind of living sound organism in contact with the

20 Placidi, “A Conversation With Agostino Di Scipio.”


22 Christine Anderson, “Dynamic Networks of Sonic Interactions: An Interview with Agostino Di Scipio,” Computer Music Journal 29 no.3 (2005): 14, http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/journal.xqy?uri=/15315169.


54

surrounding space, one that grasps in that space the energy necessary to stabilize itself, grow and

change.”24

One of Di Scipio's interests lies in the social and cultural ramifications of interactions between

people and technology, and paradoxically he explored this interaction on a practical level in one

of his first real-time electroacoustic pieces by creating a performance situation that eliminated

any planned interaction between the performer and the signal-processing computer. His 7 Small

Variations on the Cold (1994) for trumpet and digital signal processing featured an

improvisatory trumpet part which was completely independent of the computer's signal

processing transformations, which themselves ran on their own schedule, independent of the

trumpet part. Wanting to see if any residual interaction would still occur between the performer

and the electronics, Di Scipio noticed that the trumpet player still had a tendency to interact with

the electronic component of the composition. He found similar results as he repeated the

experiment with his Four Variations on the Rhythm of the Wind (1995) for double-bass recorder

and digital signal processing, and he concluded that this residual interaction was a result of

auditory perception and a sense of timing and coordination with the sound and how it traveled

through the room.25

From there Di Scipio went on to explore ways of creating networks of sonic interactions, rather

than avoiding them. He began to explore how instrumental sounds would affect computer

processes, how computer processes would affect instrumental sounds, how sounds interacted

with the performance space, and how those interactions would affect instrumental reactions and

computer processes. In developing these ideas he moved away from situations in which sound

comprises the “raw material” to be processed and projected into space and time, to a situation

where sound becomes the “vehicle of information” transferred between human and machine

components in an interactive network.26

24 Placidi, “A Conversation With Agostino Di Scipio.” 25 Anderson, “Dynamic Networks,” 15. 26 Di Scipio, “Using PD for Live Interactions in Sound. An Exploratory Approach,” Linux Audio Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany, April 28, 2006, http://xoomer.virgilio.it/adiscipi/DiScipio.LAC06.pdf (accessed July 22, 2010).

55

This is the concept that underlies his “Audible Ecosystemics” project (2002-05), which includes

a variety of concert pieces and sound installations of live electronic solo works. Mostly based on

audio feedback between microphones and loudspeakers, mediated by signal processing software,

these are live electronic solo works that utilize this deliberately generated feedback or

background noise to explore the existing sound characteristics of a given room. More recent

works, including his series of works titled Modes of Interference, are an extension of that project.

These compositions are based on the concept of regulating feedback between speakers and

microphones not only with signal processing software, but also through human performers and

instruments. By playing an instrument and intruding into the feedback loop between the

microphone and speakers, performers are able to interfere with it in ways unique to their

instrument. In his Modes of Interference for trumpet and electronics, the placement of a

miniature microphone deep inside the trumpet's bell has the effect of placing it in a tiny “room”:

the area it occupies in the trumpet's bell. Thus the composition not only explores the sound

characteristics of the performance space, but also the sound characteristics of the trumpet itself.

This also allows the trumpet player to alter the resonant characteristics of the immediate

environment surrounding the microphone by performing actions on the trumpet such as blowing

into it or pressing down the valves, making the trumpet performance “the source for variations in

the signal processing”.27

Di Scipio is concerned with developing a “desirable and honest relationship to the technology we

live in,”28 and by creating sonic interactions such as those in his Modes of Interference, he is

addressing his philosophical concepts regarding relationships between people and technology,

and the social impact of music and art. The interactive relationships between composers,

performers, technologies and the spaces within which they exist are representative of broader

issues of people's relationships with technology. He feels that it is important for artists to know

the technology they are working with “at least well enough to bend it to our purposes”, rather

than simply accepting it and “enjoying the commodities with which it provides us.”29

27 Di Scipio, “Using PD.” 28 Anderson, “Dynamic Networks,” 23. 29 Anderson, “Dynamic Networks,” 23.

56

5.3 Computer Processes

As has been discussed in the Overview, Modes of Interference is a “composed dynamical

system” in which the performer and electronic components interact with each other, using sounds

arising in an audio feedback loop between the microphones and speakers as the medium for

communication. Given the simplicity of operating the digital signal processing software and the

sophisticated design of Di Scipio's PD patch, the performer needs very little understanding of the

signal processing methods in order to create a successful performance of Modes. However,

beyond the basic signal processing procedures described in the section Playing Techniques

(especially in regard to the adaptive scaling of the input sound through AmpScaler), a broader

understanding of the computer-controlled operations will give the performer a significantly

greater depth of understanding of the concept behind Modes and the interactive possibilities it

provides.

Digital signal processing begins in Modes when the sounds resulting from an audio feedback

loop between the microphones and speakers are input into the computer and converted to digital

signals. There are two input signals: the signal from microphone two (on the edge of the

trumpet's bell), which is not processed and is sent directly to the computer output, and the signal

from microphone one (deep inside the trumpet's bell), which is used both as a source for sound

processing and to create a control signal that affects the processing procedures within the system.

This control signal is called AmpScaler, and its primary function is to regulate the overall volume

of sound in the system so that feedback sounds (Larsen tones) may be produced in the audio

feedback loop without becoming so strong that they overwhelm the system. There is also a

complement signal called MemScaler which performs other signal processing functions, and

whose value is the inverse of AmpScaler.

AmpScaler is formed when the input from microphone one undergoes a series of transformations

that result in a low frequency signal whose value varies inversely and exponentially to the

strength of the input signal.30 Therefore when the input sound gets louder, the value for

30 Di Scipio, “Using PD.”

57

AmpScaler becomes smaller, and when the input gets softer, the value for AmpScaler becomes

larger. One of the procedures affected by AmpScaler is a “Dynamical Low-pass Filtering”

process, which controls the range of frequencies of the input signal. This process begins as the

input signal is sent to a low-pass filter, which allows low frequency signals to pass through while

cutting off high frequency signals. The frequency cut-off for the low-pass filter ranges from

5000 to 20,000 Hz, and it varies according to the value from AmpScaler, such that when the

input volume is strong (driving the value for AmpScaler down), higher frequencies will be

filtered out, and when the input volume is weak (driving AmpScaler up), higher frequencies will

be allowed through. Therefore this process determines the timbre of the feedback sounds, as

stronger inputs will have a narrower range of frequencies, and weaker inputs will have a wider

range of frequencies. It also allows a greater chance for high-pitch Larsen tones to arise when

the input is soft, and a smaller probability that they will occur when the input is loud. This

system ensures that Larsen tones can occur in a wide range of frequencies, and that very high

frequencies will be dampened before they can become too loud and unpleasant for the listener.31

After passing through the low-pass filter, the amplitude of the input signal is also adjusted by

AmpScaler so that strong sounds (with a narrowed range of frequencies) will be made softer, and

vice-versa. By having AmpScaler control both the volume and frequencies of the input signals, a

perceptive link is created between the range of frequencies (timbre) and volume of the Larsen

tones.32 The coordination between these two mechanisms creates a self-gating mechanism that

can adapt to the continually changing input volume.

Following processing by the low-pass filter and amplitude adjustment, the signal is amplified by

a value called inputGain, which is set by the performer in the Graphical User Interface (GUI).

The value for inputGain must be set at a large enough value to allow audio feedback to occur.

However, AmpScaler reduces the output volume as input volume increases, so the audio

feedback loop will never grow to the point of producing overwhelming distorted sounds. Rather,

the feedback loop will be continually adjusted in an adaptive balancing between the input and

output, allowing for the production of Larsen tones, kept at a fairly constant and controlled

31 Di Scipio, “Using PD”. 32 Di Scipio, “Using PD”.

58

volume.33 After amplification by inputGain the signal is sent both to the output to be converted

to a sound signal and to the input of another processing procedure that involves granular

resampling.

Granular resampling is a process by which sound is “granularized” into tiny pieces (“grains”). In

Modes, this process occurs in a cascading sequence of three granularization procedures that feed

into each other: the output from the first granularization is the input into the second

granularization, and the output from the second granularization is the input into the third. The

result from each level of granularization also proceeds to the overall output, so that the resulting

sound from all three stages is part of the overall output signal. The output, therefore, consists not

only of Larsen tones, but also of three layers of granulated and resampled material.34

Prior to entering the sequence of granularizations, the signal is again altered by AmpScaler, so

that strong sounds will not be made too loud from the processing itself, overpowering the rest of

the input. Granular resampling is accomplished by writing the resampled grains of sound into a

piece of memory called a “wavetable” of a given length, and scanning them according to

dynamically controlled variables. That is, the input signal is broken down into small pieces

which are stored in a given length of memory, and then scanned through at a specified speed to

read off samples with a certain size and pitch. The wavetable lengths are eight seconds, four

seconds, and two seconds (subpatches gr8, gr4, and gr2, respectively), and the signal passes

through them in that order.

The speed at which the wavetables are scanned is driven by MemScaler, whose value is the

inverse complement of AmpScaler, so that when the input volume is strong, the value for

MemScaler is high, and vice-versa. As the value for MemScaler gets higher, the scan speed for

the wavetables increases, and when MemScaler gets lower, the scan speed gets slower. The

result of this is that soft sounds will cause the resampling process to focus on only a few grains

of sounds, resulting in prolonged granular textures, while louder sounds will lead to a faster and

33 Di Scipio, “Using PD”. 34 Agostino Di Scipio, Description of the Digital Signal-Processing Method (Italy, Di Scipio, 2006), CD-Rom.

59

wider resampling and granulation of the wavetable material, resulting in “a more articulated and

gestural musical output”.35

While the other resampling parameters of pitch and grain size are partially affected by the

MemScaler control signal, they are primarily controlled by automated operations within the

system. These parameters have unison values at the beginning of the piece, and are adjusted

exponentially during the course of the piece, causing the grains to become finer while their pitch

becomes higher over the first half of the piece, and returning to unison over the second half of

the piece. This process has the most radical effects in gr2, intermediate effects in gr4, and the

most subtle effects in gr8.36 This process has a total time span of approximately eight minutes

(four minutes in the first half of the piece, and four minutes in the second half), which imposes a

sense of timing to the performance. However, there is still a significant degree of flexibility in

that regard, and with the fermata passages the overall duration of Modes is approximately ten

minutes.

The overall processing procedure is subject to a short delay (latency) imposed within the system.

This can lead to problems if transient Larsen tones develop quickly, as this may cause the signal

to peak and get distorted for a few moments before the self-gating mechanism driven by

AmpScaler is able to dampen the feedback sounds. However, this strategy is still preferable to

using other dynamic processing methods involving compressors or limiters, as these methods

would require much larger amplification levels and would make the development of Larsen tones

less likely.37 It is also advantageous as it allows Larsen tones to develop more slowly that would

otherwise be the case, and “short peaks that may occur in the audio feedback loop may elicit

particular room responses that would otherwise not be elicited”, thus providing a wider variety of

sounds.38 A short delay in the self-gating mechanism also gives the performer more control over

the process, as he/she can handle the development of peaking Larsen sounds by operating the

35 Di Scipio, “Using PD”. 36 Di Scipio, Description. 37 Di Scipio, “Using PD”. 38 Di Scipio, “Using PD”.

60

valves, creating extra noises, or moving the instrument further from the speakers. Further

latency will also be introduced into the system by the computer operating system, which will

vary depending on the operating system and computer configuration being used. However, for

the above reasons, this latency is acceptable “within reasonable limits” as a “contributing

element to the system dynamics”.39

5.4 Technical Setup

The electronic setup for Modes of Interference requires several pieces of sound equipment and a

computer running Di Scipio's Pure Data software patch. The required audio equipment includes

two miniature microphones (often referred to as lavalier microphones), a mixer with at least four

inputs, two speakers, and any cables and power adapters needed to connect and power the

equipment. The audio equipment, computer, and trumpet are connected as shown in Di Scipio's

diagram, which he includes in his score for Modes. One of the microphones is to be placed

deeply into the trumpet's bell (but before the turn of the bell bow), and the other is placed on the

edge of the trumpet's bell. Both microphones can be held in place with tape.

39 Di Scipio, “Using PD”.

61

Figure 20. Modes of Interference technical setup40

There are a few things to consider when making the audio connections that are not apparent from

Di Scipio's diagram. One is that many computers (especially laptop computers) will have only a

minimal audio interface, often consisting of one sound input and one or two sound outputs

(generally one headphone jack and/or one line-out jack), usually through one-eighth inch mini-

jacks. However, the technical setup in Modes requires two inputs and two outputs from the

computer. This can be solved by using a USB audio interface to connect the mixer to the

computer. Most computers have at least one USB port, and audio interfaces with any number of

sound inputs and outputs can connect to the computer through these ports. USB audio interfaces

range from very basic with few inputs and outputs to elaborate interfaces with numerous inputs

and outputs as well as several other features. A simple interface would be sufficient for the

requirements in Modes, and fairly inexpensive interfaces do exist with the minimum number of

inputs and outputs (e.g. the Behringer UCA-202 with two inputs, two outputs, headphone

monitor jack, and optical output jack).

Another technical difficulty may arise when connecting the microphones to the mixer. Di Scipio

notes in the Technical Setup section included with the score that the microphones tested by the

composer include the DPA 4060 and 4061, as well as the Beyerdynamic MCE5 and MCE55.

40 Agostino Di Scipio, Modes of Interference No. 1 (Italy: Di Scipio, 2006).

62

However, regardless of the microphone used by the performer, it will have to be connected to the

mixer, which may require an adapter to make the connection and a power supply to power the

microphone. There is a wide variety of connection styles for lavalier microphones, and while

they generally require power to operate, they may have different requirements in this regard.

The performer or/and audio technician will have to determine what extra equipment may be

necessary to make the microphones connect properly in the overall setup.

Another detail regarding the audio connections that may not be obvious from Di Scipio’s

diagram is the routing of the signal from the microphone input through the aux sends and into the

computer. The purpose of this routing is to send the signal from the microphones to the Pure

Data patch before it is returned to the mixer and output to the speakers. This is possible if the

mixer is capable of sending the signal from the microphones to the aux sends pre-fader. This

means the microphone signals are sent from the mixer through the aux sends to the computer

separately from the mixer’s main output. The alternative to a pre-fader aux send is a post-fader

aux send, which splits the signal from the input (the microphone) and sends it simultaneously

through the aux send and the mixer’s main output. However, many small mixers only have post-

fader aux sends, which would have negative consequences in Modes of Interference as part of

the signal in the feedback loop would not be modulated by the Pure Data software, creating an

overwhelming feedback sound. An alternative configuration that the author has successfully

used with a small mixer (Behringer’s Xenyx X1204USB) is to use the set-up described in Di

Scipio’s diagram, but instead of sending the microphone input signal through the aux sends it is

sent through the mixer’s Alt 3-4 channels to the computer, which keeps it completely separate

from the mixer’s main outputs. The rest of the connections are as shown in Di Scipio’s diagram.

One of the main electronic requirements for Modes is a computer running Di Scipio's Pure Data

patch. Pure Data is a real-time graphical programming language originally developed by Miller

Puckette. It is freely available and widely compatible with most computer operating systems,

and is available on a CD ROM supplied by the composer, along with the necessary patch as well

as the score and technical documentation. The computational requirements for running this

software are quite light by current (2010) standards. The patch was prototyped and tested on

laptop computers running the Windows XP operating system with Centrino or Pentium IV

processors at 500Mhz, Linux with a Pentium III processor at 600Mhz, and Macintosh OSX with

a G5 dual 2Ghz processor.

63

Di Scipio mentions in his technical setup notes that Modes is intended to be performed with

“frontal stereo diffusion”, i.e. two speakers facing the audience. However, he also notes that if

multiple pairs of speakers are available, they can be placed around the audience and used to

reproduce the sounds coming from the front pair of speakers. In order to precisely coordinate the

extra speakers with the front speakers, the sounds coming from the extra speakers should be

delayed by a time directly proportional to the distance from the front stereo pair, where delay

time (in seconds) is equal to the distance (in meters) divided by 344. Either way, only the front

speakers should be involved in the audio feedback loop in performance.

5.5 Performance Techniques

The trumpet is used in a very unconventional way in Modes of Interference. Rather than

producing sound by amplifying vibrations from the performer’s lips, the trumpet is used

primarily as a mediating device in the feedback loop between the microphones and the speakers.

The few sounds it does produce are subtle noises that come from handling the instrument and

blowing into it without allowing the lips to vibrate. However, although the trumpet is not being

played in its usual way, the playing techniques in Modes will be familiar to any trumpet player.

The most important trumpet technique in Modes is the operation of the valves. The sound source

for this composition is the feedback loop between the microphones in the trumpet’s bell and the

speakers, and the sounds that result from this loop (Larsen tones) are directly affected by the

acoustic properties of the environment surrounding the microphones. Since operating the

trumpet’s valves causes the trumpet's tube length to change, thereby affecting its resonant

qualities, valve action has a direct influence on the pitch, volume, and overall quality of the

Larsen tones.41

Di Scipio notes in his instructions accompanying the score that every valve combination on the

trumpet should, in theory, result in a different Larsen tone. However, as a result of any number

of acoustic and technical circumstances beyond the performer's control, different valve

41 Agostino Di Scipio, Modes.

64

combinations may result in Larsen tones with the same pitch. In addition, some valve

combinations will be more effective at producing Larsen tones, while others will not allow them

to occur at all. It is also possible that certain valve combinations may have varying degrees of

effectiveness in producing Larsen tones at different points in the composition, depending on the

sounds circulating in the feedback loop and any changes in position between the microphones

and the speakers. Therefore the player will have to be flexible in his/her choices of valve

combinations throughout the duration of the piece, listening carefully to the sounds being created

and reacting accordingly.

The score for Modes is graphically and verbally notated, indicating how many valves may be

used at any point in the composition and how often they should be moved. Di Scipio indicates in

his instructions that the “fundamental piston position (no piston depressed)” is the “default”

valve combination for generating Larsen tones. It can be used at any point in the performance,

and should be checked during rehearsal to ensure that it does allow Larsen tones to form. Aside

from the fundamental valve position (labeled “FUND” in the score), other valve combinations

are indicated by the number of pistons that may be used, with “1” indicating that one valve may

be used at a time, “2” indicating that one or two valves may be used, and “3” indicating that one,

two or three valves may be used. If the performer is playing a trumpet that has more than three

valves, the extra valve(s) may be operated at any time during the performance, following the

approach given in the score. In addition to the number of valves indicated, the letter “H”

indicates that the valves should only be pressed halfway down, and “F” indicates that the valves

should be pressed down fully. The valves are also occasionally used to play trills, and Di Scipio

notes that they should be played only with “Larsen-effective” valve combinations. Any number

of valves may be used to play the trill, and they only need to be pressed down far enough to have

an audible effect on the feedback loop.

In the first part of the score the valve combinations used are at the discretion of the performer,

and the score simply indicates the number of valves to be used and how far down they should be

pressed (e.g. “2.H”, meaning any combination of one or two valves pressed down halfway). In

the second part of the score, however, the valve combinations are meant to follow the fingering

pattern from a passage of existing trumpet music, which may be of any style and from any time

in history. The number of valves that may be used is indicated in the same manner as in the first

half of the work, although here the indicated valve combination is preceded by the letter “M”

65

(e.g. “M2.H”, meaning any combination of one or two valves from a musical excerpt where one

or two valves are used at a time). However, it is only the pattern of valve combinations that is

relevant in this part of the composition. All other aspects from the musical excerpt such as

rhythm, tempo, dynamics, mutes, ornamentation, and pauses should be ignored.

Throughout the score the “rhythm” of the valve changes is indicated by a minimum rate of

change. Thus an indication such as 3.F[< 2”] indicates that any combination of one, two, or

three fully depressed valves may be used, and must be changed every two seconds or less.

Different valve combinations and durations are used for each of the composition’s thirty-two

time-windows, which last ten, twenty, or thirty seconds each. Since there is no indication in the

score precisely how many valve changes there are in each time window, it might be a good idea

for the performer to predetermine how many valve changes will take place and when they will

occur. This will help the performer keep track of where he/she is in the composition and when to

move between time windows.

In addition to normal valve operation, other playing techniques are employed to introduce sounds

into the feedback loop. One of these techniques is the use of “valve clicks”, in which the

trumpet’s valves are pressed and/or released in such a manner as to create audible clicking

noises. Although valves are typically operated with a minimum of excess noise in normal

trumpet playing and in much of Modes, this technique is used to affect the resonances of the

feedback loop, altering the Larsen tones while being transformed into textural and/or rhythmic

materials. The performer may wish to partially unscrew the valve caps, creating brighter click

sounds to emphasize the effect. This technique is performed in conjunction with the prescribed

valve action, emphasizing the valve changes at any given point in the composition.

Other techniques that create rhythmic and textural effects are mouthpiece “taps” and “scratches”.

These techniques are employed in the “fermata” windows (numbers four, eight, twelve, twenty,

twenty-four, and twenty-eight), following specified rhythms. Di Scipio indicates that

mouthpiece taps should be accomplished by gently tapping on the edges of the cup of the

mouthpiece, partially covering the cup. The sound generated by this effect will have a clear

pitch, depending on the tube length. Mouthpiece scratches are accomplished by one or more

fingers scratching hard against the edges of the cup of the mouthpiece, creating an intermittent

noise with a pitch that is less defined, but still related to the tube length.

66

There are also several playing techniques that require the performer to blow into the trumpet.

However, this is done differently than in normal trumpet playing, as the lips should not vibrate or

even press against the cup of the mouthpiece. Di Scipio also notes that it will sometimes be

necessary to keep the lips away from the mouthpiece completely. The notation “Breath”

indicates breathing sounds, performed by blowing into the trumpet with minimal air pressure,

with the lips separated. The notation “Whistle” indicates “whistling sounds, random very high

pitches” that may be accomplished in either of two ways: blowing into the trumpet with strong

air pressure through tensed lips, or blowing in or out with variable air pressure while pressing the

upper teeth against the lower lip. “Tongue slap” indicates single hard tongue strikes against the

teeth and palate while blowing out. The lips should be kept up to one centimeter away from the

mouthpiece for this technique, and it may occasionally may be replaced by “tongue clicks”, in

which the tongue “clicks” against the palate. The notation “Pulse Tongue” is similar to regular

tonguing, with short sequences of rhythmic tongue slaps against the upper lip and/or teeth. It

should be done as fast as possible, while either blowing or not blowing and keeping the lips away

from the mouthpiece. Double and triple tonguing is also indicated by “TK” or “TKT”, which

also may be performed while blowing in or out, or not blowing at all. The performer should

choose the one that he/she can do the fastest.

Di Scipio also indicates that the trumpet’s water key should never be emptied during

performance so that the sound from water drops building up inside the trumpet can enter the

audio feedback loop. In addition, he also suggests that the performer experiment with different

positions relative to the speakers. Small changes in position of both the instrument and the

performer’s body will affect the length of the audio feedback loop, as well as the “acoustical

shadows” and resonances in the environment surrounding the instrument. This allows the

performer to “play with” with the feedback loop, allowing the opportunity to create different

Larsen tones from the same valve combinations.

In addition to the trumpet playing techniques required in Modes, the performer (or perhaps a

sound technician) must also operate the sound processing software during the performance.

Fortunately, Di Scipio has designed his Pure Data software patch to be very user friendly and

easy to operate, so that it is possible for the performer to operate the sound processing system in

preparation for and during the performance. The computer is operated during performance

through a graphical user interface (GUI), an image of which is shown below.

67

Figure 21. Modes of Interference Graphical User Interface42

The operations required to run the PD patch for Modes involves setting the performance

parameters, starting the sound transformation processes, and ending the sound transformation

processes. These actions all involve the top-most icons in the GUI. The only performance

parameter that needs to be set is the “inputGain”, whose default level (0) must be replaced with a

value high enough to allow the feedback loop to generate a Larsen tone that does not fluctuate

significantly. This must be tested in rehearsal with the valves in the fundamental position and

with the performer standing in the same position where he/she will be performing. This value

may change depending on the acoustic and technical characteristics of the performance space.

To start the performance, “StartProcess” is clicked, followed by “FadeIn/Out” for time window

zero. This starts the software processes, and trumpet performance can begin at this point.

42 Di Scipio, Modes.

68

“Part1” is then clicked to start the audio processing for Part One of Modes, and “Part2” is clicked

after window sixteen to begin Part Two. “FadeIn/Out” is clicked again after window thirty-two,

causing the sound to fade out over the next few seconds. The icons “proc1”, “proc2”, and

“proc3” are also active during performance, and they are responsible for three different sound

transforming procedures. However, they do not need to be operated during performance,

although they may be used during rehearsal to activate or deactivate these transformation

procedures.

Also indicated in the GUI are two timers: one that indicates the total time elapsed since the

beginning of the performance, and one that indicates how much time has passed in either Part

One or Part Two. There are also two sliders that constantly move during performance which

reflect the current volume of the input sound. The one on the right (“memscaler”) is directly

proportional to the input volume, while the left one (“ampscaler”) is inversely proportional. The

left slider represents the adaptive adjustment of the input sounds relative to their strength. This

action results in the strengthening of weak input sounds while weakening strong input sounds.

This affects the overall output of Larsen tones and the signal-processing transformations as the

output becomes weaker when the amount and density of sound material recirculating in the

feedback loop gets larger, and vice-versa. If the input sound becomes very loud, the left slider

will move closer to the bottom, entering the red, and the output will become so weak that it

almost disappears. This can be avoided by minimizing loud sounds (especially with regard to

breathing and tonguing sounds), or temporarily refraining from adding any sound at all to the

feedback loop. If the Larsen tones are peaking, the performer may move to a valve combination

that is less effective at generating Larsen tones, or move further from the speaker to weaken the

feedback loop.

The playing techniques used in Modes and the performer's interactions with the sound processing

software provide the opportunity to develop the “human” components of nuance, musicality and

expression in this composition. However, these actions should generally be undertaken in a

subtle, controlled manner. Di Scipio notes in his score instructions that, because the microphone

is inside the trumpet’s bell, the amplification gain is always very strong, and that every “tiny

event of sound inside the trumpet will be largely boosted”. The performer must be careful not to

play too loudly, especially with the tonguing and blowing techniques, as these will generate very

loud sounds, even when performed softly.

69

The score does contain a number of dynamic indications, which are relative to the particular

playing techniques. They do not indicate the volume of the overall sound, however, as this is

controlled by the interactions between the feedback loop and computer processes. The indicated

dynamics should be played on the gentle side, as Di Scipio indicates that ppp should be

performed “as pianissimo as possible”, and mf and f should be played as “almost mezzoforte and

almost forte”. There are also crescendi notated on the bottom lines of the score. However, these

only indicate the overall increases in volume resulting from the network of interactions as the

piece progresses, rather than indicating an increase in the strength of the performer’s actions.

5.6 Analysis

The score for Modes of Interference consists of thirty-two “time windows” of varying lengths,

plus one introductory window (“#0” in the score). The piece is divided into two parts which are

identical in every respect except for the valve action employed in each part (as well as a few very

small differences to be discussed later), and both parts are divided into four subsections which

each consist of three time windows. The three time windows in each of the subsections have

lengths of ten, twenty, and thirty seconds (although not necessarily in that order), making each of

the subsections one minute in length. The subsections are separated from each other by single

time windows which feature percussive mouthpiece effects. These windows are marked with a

fermata and last from just under four seconds to just under ten seconds. The score is graphically

notated with verbal instructions throughout, indicating playing techniques and timings. A form

diagram is given below. It describes just one part of the composition, but is the same for both

parts one and two (except for time window #0, which occurs only at the beginning of the piece).

70

Figure 22. Modes of Interference No. 1 Form Diagram

Time Window Duration Playing techniques 0 (fermata) Process starts, Larsen tone fades in 1/17 30” - Silent valve action begins, and lasts through the 2/18 20” composition unless otherwise indicated. 3/19 10” 4/20 < 10” - Mouthpiece taps/scratches 5/21 30” 6/22 10” - Valve clicks 7/23 20” - Breath sounds 8/24 < 6” - Mouthpiece taps/scratches 9/25 10” - Valve clicks 10/26 20” - Valve clicks, breath sounds, and whistle 11/27 30” - Valve clicks, breath sounds, and tongue slaps 12/28 < 4” - Mouthpiece taps/scratches 13/39 10” - Valve clicks, breath, whistle, pulse tongue 14/30 20” - Valve clicks, breath, whistle, tongue slaps 15/31 30” - Valve clicks, breath, whistle, tongue slaps, pulse tongue (also tk or tkt) 16/32 fermata - One long-lasting Larsen tone, fade out in #32

The main trumpet playing technique in Modes is the operation of the valves as described in the

section Playing Techniques, and it is the valve action that provides the main difference between

the first and second parts of the composition. In Part One, the notation indicates the number of

valves that may be used and how far they can be pressed at any given time, although the actual

valve combinations and rates at which they are changed (within minimum rates of change) are at

the discretion of the performer. In Part Two, however, while the number of valves that can be

used and how far they can be pressed is still indicated, the valve combinations must come from a

passage of existing trumpet music, which may be of any style and from any time in history. It is

only the pattern of valve combinations that is important in Part Two; the pitches that result from

these combinations have nothing to do with the musical excerpts that are used, and the original

71

tempi must be ignored and replaced with the rates of change indicated in the score. Dynamics,

ornamentations, pauses, and mutes from the selected musical excerpts must also be ignored.

There are three other small differences between Part One and Part Two. The first difference is

that the percussive mouthpiece effects in the “fermata” windows in Part One (windows four,

eight and twelve) consist of “mouthpiece taps”, while the complementary windows in Part Two

(windows twenty, twenty-four, and twenty-eight) utilize “mouthpiece scratches”, with a few

mouthpiece taps in windows twenty-four and twenty-eight. The second difference is that some

of the valve changes are of slightly shorter durations in Part Two, such as in window seventeen

where the minimum rate of change is “less than six seconds”, whereas the minimum rate of

change in the complementary window in Part One (window one) is “less than eight seconds”.

The third difference is that the valve combination used in the last measure of Part One (window

sixteen) may be any combination except the “fundamental” (i.e. no valves pressed down), while

the valve combination in the final measure of Part Two (window thirty-two) may be either the

fundamental valve combination or the same valve combination as window sixteen. Overall these

are very minor differences. However, they do create a small qualitative difference between the

sound gestures between Parts One and Two.

It can be seen in the above form diagram that the number of playing actions increases in each

successive subsection of the piece, resulting in an increase in the density of gestures as each part

progresses. However, other musical parameters such as timbre and pitch are controlled by the

computer, altering these characteristics in a predictable manner to contribute to the shape of the

composition. Through automated control of certain processing variables (which will not be

described here – see Computer operations for more detail), the range of pitches and timbres of

Larsen tones gradually expand over Part One leading to the widest range of pitches and timbres

in window sixteen, and contract again over Part Two until unison Larsen tones are achieved

window thirty-two. Thus Modes has an ‘arc’ shape with respect to the computer transformations

of its main sound source, while human-performed musical gestures increase over the duration of

each part.

72

Chapter 6

Ricercare Una Melodia for Trumpet and Tape Delay

by Jonathan Harvey

6.1 Overview

Ricercare una Melodia was composed in 1984. A ricercare is a type of composition that was

especially prominent in the late Renaissance and early Baroque eras, and Harvey elaborates on

its usage in his Programme Note as meaning “‘to seek’, and in musical usage it signifies a fugal,

often rather strict movement. Here, a five-part canon is obtained by means of a tape-delay

system, and when the ‘sought-after’ melody is ‘found’, the canon is by progressive augmentation

and at the interval of the octave.”43

Ricercare una Melodia was commissioned by the Park Lane Group, an organization based in

London, England, for Jonathan Impett (trumpet), and John Whiting (sound projection), who

premiered the work at the Purcell Room of the Southbank Centre in London, on January 10,

1985. A trumpet player, composer, and researcher, Jonathan Impett has premiered several other

solo pieces by composers including Luciano Berio, Michael Finnissy, and Giacinto Scelsi, and

his interest in music for trumpet and electronics has led to his development of a computer-

extended “meta-trumpet”, a system which couples the trumpet with computers for computer-

based performance and composition. John Whiting is a sound designer, projectionist, producer,

collaborator, and teacher who has developed an international reputation through his work with

dozens of high-profile orchestras, conductors, composers, chamber ensembles, and soloists.

In addition to its setting for trumpet, Ricercare una Melodia exists in versions for flute, oboe,

cello, and trombone, and each of these versions is published by Faber Music. It has been

recorded on trumpet by Jonathan Impett (Ladder of Escape Nr. 7: Trumpet; Attacca 9476) and

Philippe Ranallo (Jonathan Harvey: Wheel of Emptiness; Cypres CYP 5604). The trumpet

43 Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, (London: Faber Music Ltd., 1992).

73

version has also been recorded on viola by Christoph Desjardins (Alto/Multiples; Aeon AEO

981). The flute version has been recorded by Manuel Zurria (Repeat!; Die Schachtel DSZC1),

the oboe version has been recorded by Piet van Bockstal (Jonathan Harvey: Wheel of Emptiness;

Cypres CYP 5604), and the version for cello has been recorded by Benjamin Carat (L’Oeuvre

pour Violoncelle de Jonathan Harvey; Assai 222 242) and Frances-Marie Uitti (Jonathan Harvey:

Cello Concerto; Etcetera KTC 1148).

This is one of very few compositions for trumpet and tape delay. Other compositions in this

genre include Echo (1979) by Ross Harris, Echo III (1978) by Roger Smalley, Bright Angel

(1972) by David Cope, and Épigone (1986) by Bernard Carlosema. Ricercare una Melodia is

exemplary among these compositions for its thorough exploitation of tape delay technology to

expand the voice of the trumpet well beyond what normally possible. It takes full advantage of

the possibilities offered by the tape delay system as it creates a variety of textures and colours,

especially in the second half of the piece as the half-speed tape setting progressively broadens

the trumpet’s voice and transposes it far beyond the trumpet’s lowest registers.

6.2 Biography

Jonathan Harvey is one of the world’s leading composers. Born in 1939 in Warwickshire,

England, Harvey was involved in music at an early age as a chorister at St. Michael’s college in

Tenbury Wells. He was encouraged by his father (an amateur pianist and composer) to write his

own compositions, and he went on to study music at St. John’s College in Cambridge. Harvey

completed his Ph.D. at Glasgow University in 1964 while working as a cellist with the BBC

Scottish Orchestra, and received his Mus.D. from Cambridge University in 1972. Some of

Harvey’s early influences were Béla Bartók and Benjamin Britten, and on Britten’s advice he

studied privately with Erwin Stein and Hans Keller, Austrian refugees living in London whose

knowledge of the Second Viennese School made a great impression on him. Harvey studied

Schoenberg’s work in great depth, laying the foundation for the development of his own

compositional language.

74

Harvey studied serialism through the 1960s, culminating in a Harkness Fellowship at Princeton

University where he studied with Milton Babbitt in 1969-70. However, he did not subscribe

completely to the serialist approach, and although he wrote his own serial compositions, they

differed in technique from those of Schoenberg and Webern.44 Searching for a sense of

structural depth in his experimentation with serialism in his own compositions, Harvey’s

dissatisfaction with the results led to his composition becoming “more free” as he sought out a

balance between formal rigor and freedom.45 Nonetheless he remained intrigued by its essence,

and encouraged by Keller to remember the importance of spontaneity and freedom in music,

Harvey followed his own path beyond serialism in developing his approach to atonality.

Fascinated by the symmetrical structures of the serialist composers, Harvey became a proponent

of a “musical revolution” in which “the bass moves to the middle”.46 Rejecting the traditional

approach of building harmony on a figured bass, he was interested in symmetrical harmonic

structures that reflect each other from either side of a central axis. By freeing his composition

from conventionally rooted harmony, Harvey developed a style that allows the music to move

flexibly through space while providing the sense of structural depth he had been looking for in

atonal music, as these symmetrical mirroring structures centre around an axial middle where

musical relationships converge. This is clearly observable in Ricercare una Melodia, in which

the third line of the treble clef serves as the axis around which the harmony is built.

Harvey felt this was an important step in moving away from an antiquated harmonic system

toward a new mode of expression. It was also a natural extension of Schoenberg’s serial

concept, articulated in his response to Swedenborg’s description of heaven in Balzac’s

Seraphita: “The unity of musical space demands an absolute and unitary perception. In this

44 Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival, Jonathan Harvey in Conversation, http://www.hcmf.co.uk/HCMF-Composer-in-Residence-Jonathan-Harvey-in-conversation (accessed March 21, 2010). 45 Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival, Jonathan Harvey. 46 Jonathan Harvey, “Reflection after Composition,” Tempo, New Series 140 (March 1982): 2, http://www.jstor.org/stable/944831 (accessed 23 March 2010).

75

space…there is no absolute down, no right or left, no forward or backward.”47 Although Harvey

felt Schoenberg did not completely achieve his vision, Webern continued to develop this sense of

omnidirectionality as he extended the use of symmetry to every musical aspect of his

compositional approach. Rejecting the motion and direction of tonality in favor of the

motionless static of atonality, Webern’s approach was an important development for Harvey that

mirrored his spiritual ideals of “being” as opposed to the worldly goals of “becoming”:

“Certainly here all directions are equal, the listener is not traveling down a road to a climactic destination, he is crisscrossing a field, covering it to complete satisfaction. It is knowledge, not action.”48

Much as Schoenberg had equated his vision of music with heaven, Webern also related his atonal

techniques to the world of spirituality. Webern’s sense of “floating feelings” in connection with

axially symmetrical music was an important connection for Harvey, for whom atonality is “a

musical language which is highly ordered, and yet which floats above the seething world of tonal

becoming” and in which “we have a representation of this spirit world potentially more direct

and precise than was possible in the tonal era.”49

Concurrent with Harvey’s concern with the atonal practices of the Second Viennese School and

the musical/spiritual connections they evoked was his interest in the writings of Austrian

philosopher Rudolf Steiner. Steiner’s outlook on the future of music proved to be influential on

Harvey, and in 1923 (around the same time as Schoenberg was developing his method), he

described the future of music as being ready to move

“toward spiritualization, and involve a recognition of the special character of the individual tone. Today we relate the individual tone to harmony or melody in order that, together with other tones, it may reveal the mystery of music. In the future we will no longer recognize the individual tone solely in relation to other tones, which is to say according to its planal dimension, but apprehend it in depth;

47 Schoenberg, Arnold, Style and Idea: The Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg, ed. Leonard Stein, trans. Leo Black (London: Faber, 1951), 223. 48 Jonathan Harvey, “The Composer's View: Atonality,” The Musical Times 121 No. 1653 (Nov., 1980): 699, http://www.jstor.org/stable/963776, accessed 23 March 2010. 49 Harvey, “The Composer’s View,” 699.

76

penetrate into it and discover therein its affinity for hidden neighbouring tones. And we will learn to feel the following: If we immerse ourselves in the tone it reveals three, five or more tones; the single tone expands into a melody and harmony leading straight into the world of spirit.”50

His increased awareness of the importance of the individual note had significant implications for

Harvey’s approach to composition. An interest in the music of Karlheinz Stockhausen (on

whom he published a monograph in 1975) and exposure to electroacoustic techniques during his

time at Princeton encouraged Harvey to begin exploring the “special character of the individual

tone” through electroacoustic manipulation. An invitation from Pierre Boulez to work at

IRCAM (Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique), where he has since

completed eight works, allowed him to delve more deeply into the possibilities offered by

electroacoustic composition. He investigated the functionality of the harmonic series, and

through electronic manipulation he found it could become an important source of musical

material. He also explored the depth of the individual tone through emphasis, an aspect he

examines thoroughly in Ricercare una Melodia, especially in the second half of the composition

by stretching out the melody (particularly emphasizing the note ‘A’), gradually decreasing its

tempo and bringing it to the low register through the progressive augmentation of the half-speed

tape loop.

Harvey’s experiments with electroacoustic music have increasingly favored live electronic

manipulation as a means of exploring the characteristics of sound and the possibilities offered by

different musical instruments, and since the mid-1990s he has been using computer manipulation

to explore harmonic structures in what he calls “the new Pythagoreanism”.51 He published two

books in 1999 on spirituality and inspiration respectively, and his compositions in numerous

idioms, both acoustic and electroacoustic, have earned him international acclaim and numerous

accolades including major awards, honorary doctorates, professorships, and fellowships. He is

currently an honorary professor at the University of Sussex, and in May 2009 – May 2010 his

50 Harvey, “Reflection After Composition,” 3. 51 Arnold Whittall, “Harvey, Jonathan.” In Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed March 20 2010).

77

standing in the international music community was honored with many dedicated concerts, new

recordings, festival focuses and composer portraits.

6.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization

The electronic component of Ricercare una Melodia consists of two four-track tape recorders

and a reverberation unit. Other necessary equipment includes a microphone and two or four

loudspeakers. The operation of the tape recorders is described in Harvey’s Performance

Instructions:52

The tape-recorders should be set up to a tape-delay of three seconds. The trumpet has a microphone which records onto Track 1 of Tape-recorder (TR) 1. When the signal has traveled to TR 2 (3 seconds later) the signal should be split: sent to Loudspeaker 1, and folded back to TR 1 to be recorded on Track 2. Track 2’s signal now travels to TR 2 (3 seconds later) and is again split: to Loudspeaker 2 and to TR 1 to be recorded on Track 3. Track 3’s signal is treated likewise: split to Loudspeaker 3 and TR 1’s Track 4. Track 4 is simply sent from TR 2 to Loudspeaker 4. Consecutive tracks should not be connected to consecutive speakers, but arranged in one of the following patterns:

I III or I III II IV, etc. Or, in stereo, I+III/II+IV

II IV

Harvey has also indicated that 0.9 seconds of reverb should be added to the recording of Track 1

only, which will automatically be lengthened for the remaining tracks. A useful Circuit Diagram

has also been included in the score to aid with the set-up of the tape recorders.

52 Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, (London: Faber Music Ltd., 1992).

78

Figure 23. Ricercare Una Melodia Circuit Diagram53

Harvey has indicated that a “sound-projectionist should adjust the various levels to keep an equal

balance between the sound sources. Where the live trumpet is silent, the playback levels may be

momentarily increased.”54 The sound projectionist is also responsible for controlling the levels

of the channels in mm. 34-46 where “fader play” is indicated in the score, fading out the

playback completely in m. 47, changing Tape recorder 2 to half-speed setting, and fading up the

microphone and each of the channels following the directions in the score from m. 47 onward.

Another method of performing the piece, which is advocated by Harvey, and in fact “the most

often used”55, is to make a four-track recording of the delayed lines in a studio, and perform with

the playback of the recording. As mentioned in the Performance Instructions, a stereo recording

would also be acceptable, with Tracks 1 and 3 on one channel and Tracks 2 and 4 on the other.

This is the easiest way of handling the electronic component of this piece, as the operation at

performance time simply involves starting the playback of the recording at the right time. It also

53 Harvey, Ricercare. 54 Harvey, Ricercare. 55 Harvey, Ricercare.

79

gives the trumpeter a consistent playback which will never change from practice to performance.

It is also in many ways “safer” than setting up the tape recorders for live playback, as any

playing errors that occur during live performance will not be repeated, which would be

especially obvious during the section of progressive augmentation toward the end of the piece.

6.3.1 Synchronization

Regardless of whether a live tape recorder setup or a pre-recorded performance is used,

synchronization in this piece is almost completely dependent on a steady tempo by the

performer. In a live recording situation, synchronization between the performer and the tape

playback will take care of itself if the performer maintains a steady tempo, which will allow the

playback to remain consistent and accurate. Any tempo deviations will have dramatic

consequences, as these differences would be magnified through the repeated playback of the

tape-loop generated canon, especially when the second tape recorder is set to half speed. Tempo

variations in live performance would be less of an issue when playing with a pre-recorded

performance, but every effort should be made both in the recording studio and in live

performance to maintain a steady tempo to allow the voices of the canon to line up correctly.

Harvey has also included staves beneath the solo trumpet part to aid with coordination. In the

first part of the score, up to the m. 47, only two staves have been included beneath the solo

trumpet part, and from m. 56 onward all the tape-delay has been notated.

6.4 Extended Techniques

Extended techniques are used in Ricercare una Melodia to create interesting timbral effects and

include flutter tonguing, half-valve technique, and muting. Although trumpet players are usually

accustomed to using mutes, and their use is not generally considered an extended technique, the

muting effects in this piece are especially elaborate and require significant planning and

consideration. Flutter tonguing and half-valve technique are also fairly common procedures,

especially for trumpeters who have played jazz or other twentieth-century classical compositions.

80

There are four instances in which the flutter-tonguing is required: measures 20, 23-24, 29, and on

the first line of the last page (line ten of the unmetered section). Only the first of these four

instances explicitly gives a flutter-tonguing indication (flz.), along with tremolo signs (slashes

through the stem of the note). The other three occurrences simply give the tremolo signs. The

highest note requiring the flutter-tongue effect is a C♯ on the third space of the staff, which is

fortunate, as flutter tonguing often becomes much more difficult in the upper register. There are

some performers who are not able to create the flutter-tongue effect, and they may compromise

by creating a growl effect, which is accomplished by ‘growling’ or humming while playing. It

creates a somewhat different texture than the flutter-tongue effect, but is an effective substitute if

the flutter-tongue is not possible.

Half-valve technique is not difficult for trumpeters to accomplish, and it is only called for twice

in this composition: m. 13-14 (on a B♭) and line eleven of the unmetered section (on a C♯). It

is accomplished by pressing the trumpet’s valves about half-way down, partially blocking the

flow of the air through the valve section. This creates a slightly muffled, nasal tone, and the

timbre and pitch can be quite variable depending on how many valves are pressed and to what

degree. The performer will have to experiment with these factors to find a timbre they like while

still being in tune.

Different mutes and muting techniques are used extensively throughout the composition. The

first use of a mute occurs from mm. 38-46 with a melo-wah mute – an unusual mute that is rarely

required in classical music. The Humes and Berg Manufacturing Company makes a melo-wah

mute, and it is fairly easy to find, especially in online music stores. It gives the trumpet a soft,

mellow tone, and has an opening in the end that can be covered by the trumpeter’s hand. Its use

is notated with ‘+’ and ‘o’ symbols, indicating ‘closed’ and ‘open’, respectively, and moving

between these open and closed sounds creates its characteristic ‘wah’ effect. Measures 38-46

contain precise indications regarding when mute should be closed or open, and the performer

must cover and uncover the end of the mute according to the notated rhythms to create a

rhythmically undulating timbre.

A variable mute effect is also called for in m. 47. Here the notation indicates “hand over bell”,

and the trumpet’s tone is dampened by using the hand to cover the bell of the trumpet when

indicated by a ‘+’ sign. This can cause intonation problems, as covering the bell with the hand

81

significantly lowers the trumpet’s pitch. However, there is little that can be done to alleviate this

problem other than using the lips to raise the muted pitches. Fortunately the rapid speed of these

passages helps prevent these inherent intonation difficulties from being very obvious.

The next muted passage follows immediately in mm. 47-53. Here the trumpet player uses a

straight mute, and must insert and remove it during very brief rests or while playing. This is a

challenging effect to achieve, as it is difficult to insert and remove the mute so quickly,

especially in technically demanding passages such as this one. This is the first set of difficult

mute changes in this composition, and the performer will have to carefully plan their mute

changes and become comfortable with this sort of technique while learning the music.

Intonation may also be an issue here as straight mutes tend to make the trumpet’s pitch go sharp,

and it will be impossible to adjust the trumpet’s tuning slide each time the mute is inserted or

removed. Aside from using the lips to keep the pitch from going too sharp, the performer may

play the sustained high A’s with the third valve to help keep the pitch in tune on that note.

The straight mute remains in the trumpet following the cadenza, and it remains in until the fourth

full line of the unmetered section. However, here the trumpet player must switch from the

straight mute to a harmon mute during a quarter-rest before continuing. It is very difficult to

remove one mute and insert another mute in the space of one second as is given here, and some

planning will have to be done by the performer to accomplish this maneuver. One possible way

of doing this is by preparing the mutes at the end of line one, when the trumpet player has four

beats to get ready. During this rest the player can remove the straight mute and pick up the

harmon mute so that he or she is holding both mutes in one hand. This is a precarious move and

it is easy to drop the mutes in this position, especially if the performer does not have very large

hands. The player would then hold the straight mute loosely inside the trumpet bell, with the

harmon mute away from the bell, leaving the trumpet player in a good position when it is time to

change mutes in line four. However, with the left hand occupied holding mutes, it will be

difficult to extend the third valve slide to lower the pitch of the C♯’s, which will otherwise be

extremely sharp. Since there are several E♭’s in the preceding music which require the third

valve slide to remain closed, the only time the left hand will be free to extend the third valve

slide is in the two-beat rest immediately before the C♯ on line four. It will be necessary for the

82

third valve slide to be held firmly in place and yet remain mobile, so that it will not slide out on

its own when playing the E♭’s, but may still easily be extended for the C♯.

Another strategy is to have the harmon and/or the straight mutes firmly attached to a stand in

such a way that the player can position the bell of the trumpet over the mutes and avoid having to

pick one or both of them up altogether. If both mutes are attached to a stand this would allow the

trumpet player to hold the instrument with both hands, making it possible to use the first and

third valve slides to adjust intonation as necessary. However, this may also make rapid mute

changes more awkward. Ultimately it will be up to the performer to experiment with different

mute options and determine what works best for them.

Shortly after this quick mute change another variable mute effect is required at the end of line

five, and again on line six. Here the harmon mute must be removed and inserted according to the

rhythm notated above the staff. A variable harmon mute effect also occurs on lines seven and

eight, however this time the mute remains in the trumpet, and an open/closed effect is created by

covering the end of the harmon mute when indicated with a ‘+’ sign. During a fermata in the

middle of line nine, the harmon mute is removed and replaced with a straight mute. The straight

mute is inserted and removed while playing, only this time the rhythm of inserting and removing

the mute is at the discretion of the performer (with a few exceptions), as the notation indicates

“create variety by moving it slightly out at times.”56

The last note of line twelve has the simple mute indication “in”, and since the straight mute was

used most recently, one would likely continue to use it at this point. However, the ‘+’ and ‘o’

indications later on indicate an open/closed effect. Although this can be done by inserting and

removing the straight mute, the ‘+’ sign occurs after the straight mute has already been inserted.

This might lead the performer to use a variable-timbre mute such as the harmon or melo-wah

mute, which can be ‘closed’ after the mute has been inserted. This was done by Philippe Ranallo

on the recording Wheel of Emptiness, who used a harmon mute to good effect. However,

Jonathan Impett, for whom the piece was composed, used a straight mute at this point on his

recording Ladder of Escape Nr. 7: Trumpet.

56 Harvey, Ricercare.

83

6.5 Analysis

This composition is constructed of two large sections (referred to here as A and B) that are

separated by a cadenza. Section A runs from mm. 1-46, and features a five-part canon created by

a tape delay system in which every note played by the trumpet is repeated four times at three

second intervals. This makes the solo trumpet an equal voice within a larger setting as the

melody is layered into a complex tangle of notes, expanding the texture and harmony of the

music far beyond what is normally possible in solo performance. It also gives the composition a

subtle, organic character, as each musical statement overlaps with the music that precedes and

follows it, creating gradual changes in rhythm, tonality, and texture. The cadenza occurs from

mm. 47-53, and is performed without the tape recorders running, providing a short break from

the canon.

Section B runs from m. 54 to the end of the piece, and is distinguished from A by the progressive

augmentation of its canon. Progressive augmentation occurs as successive repetitions of the

melody are played back at half-speed, so that each entrance in the canon is one octave lower and

at half the tempo of the preceding entrance. This brings the voices of the canon well below the

normal range of the trumpet, and the low, elongated pitches gradually expand the texture and

register of the music. This gives section B a significantly different character from section A, as

the lower ranges and slower tempos of the canonic repetitions allow the solo trumpet to remain

prominent in the texture.

The pitch content is generally centred around the pitches B♭ and A, and symmetrical tonalities

with different tonal centres are frequently used above and below the third line of the treble clef.

This is consistent with Harvey’s interest in symmetrical structures that reflect each other from

either side of a central axis, as discussed in his Biography. A form diagram showing the main

sections and their pitch centres is given below.

84

Figure 24. Ricercare Una Melodia Form Diagram

A mm. 1-46

a: mm. 1-16 – symmetrical bitonality introduced: B♭whole-tone scale above the third line of the staff, A whole-tone scale below transition: mm. 17-28 – diminished bitonality: B♭above the third line of the staff, A below the third line b: mm. 29 -37 – octatonic bitonality: A is emphasized as tonal centre toward the end of the section c: mm. 38-46 – single octatonic tonality in A

Cadenza mm. 47-53

transition: m. 47 – octatonic, whole-tone, and diminished bitonalities; in B♭above the third line of the staff, in A below the third line mm. 48-53: octatonic scale in A

B mm. 54-end

mm. 54-63 – octatonic, A emphasized as tonal centre m. 62-end – several lines of unmetered material in which different motives are explored, tonal centre mostly A

The first section of the piece opens with a pseudo-metrical phrase in mm. 1-4, in which the

location of the beats within each measure is given by a dotted line and the rhythm of the notes

within each beat is at the discretion of the performer. This allows the soloist an opportunity to

cultivate a “seeking” quality to the music as they search out the rhythm of this ricercare.

Figure 25. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia mm. 1-4

85

While the rhythm mm. 1-3 is determined by the performer, it is clear that each of the notes

should have the same duration and attack. This creates a canon in which the texture is quite

even, although the crescendi and decrescendi will cause some of the notes to stand out more than

others.

The pitch content of these opening measures appears to be chromatic. However, this

chromaticism is actually the result of combining of two different whole-tone scales. The whole-

tone scale starting on B♭ is used above the third line of the staff, and the whole-tone scale

starting on A is used below the third line. This introduces two concepts central to this

composition: the use of a symmetrical bitonality in which two different symmetrical scales are

used above and below the third line of the staff, and the notes B♭and A as contrasting harmonic

and structural elements. Throughout this piece there often seems to be a ‘conflict’ between these

two pitches, as if they are fighting for control of the tonal centre. The opening phrase ends with

a rapid flourish of staccato grace notes ending on an accented F♯, a note that later has an

important function in its relationship to the notes B♭and A.

From mm. 5-14 the whole-tone bitonality introduced in the first four measures continues,

although now the music consists of precisely notated rhythms. These measures consist of long

notes with durations of four-and-a-half to five-and-a-half beats, immediately followed and/or

preceded by rapid arpeggiated figures of 16th notes, 32nd notes, and 16th note triplets.

Figure 26. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, mm. 10-12

The tape loop’s canonic repetition allows the long notes to layer on top of each other, creating

subtly shifting chords surrounded by staccato outbursts. Although there are a few moments in

10 11 12

86

which three-note chords occur, the pacing of the tape loop makes them very short lived, and two-

note chords are prominent. These consist of C♯/ D♯ in mm. 7-10, D♯/A in mm. 10-12, and

B♭/A in mm. 13-15. These chords emphasize the whole-tone sonority of this section with the

whole-tone between C♯ and D♯, the tritone between D♯ and A (a characteristic interval of the

whole-tone scale), and the whole-tone scale ‘roots’ (or tonal centres) B♭ and A. The rapid

arpeggiated figures continue to employ the whole-tone bitonality introduced at the beginning of

the piece, although the wide-interval leaps across the staff temper the whole-tone effect. The last

long note of this section is a B♭, played in mm. 13-14 using half-valve technique and molto

vibrato, giving this note an unusual tone quality and emphasizing it as an important structural

note.

This section draws to a close in mm. 15-16 with material that recalls the first four measures of

the composition. However, while the rhythmic notation is similar to mm. 1-4, an important

difference exists in that the locations of the beats of mm. 15-16 are not indicated. Even more

significant is that the whole-tone bitonality breaks down in m. 16, first with the “white note”

flourish of grace notes and then with the C♯ at the end of the measure. These notes serve to lead away from the whole-tone bitonality of mm. 1-16 and into the transitional section of mm.

17-28.

Some significant changes occur in mm. 17-28. Although the overall chromatic tonality

continues in this section, the whole-tone bitonality of mm. 1-15 is no longer being used to

produce this result. The notes above the third line of the treble clef are B♭C♯ E G B♮, and the

notes below the third line are (D♭D E E♯) A C D♯ F♯ A♭(the notes in brackets are the

flutter-tongued 32nd notes in mm. 19-20, which serve as chromatic upper neighbors to the C on

the second half of beat one of m. 20). A new symmetrical bitonality is introduced as the notes

above the third line of the treble clef (with the exception of the B♮) form the diminished chord

B♭ C♯ E G, while the notes below the third line (with the exception of the A♭) form a

different diminished chord: A C D♯ F♯. Interestingly, the ‘exception’ notes (B♮ and A♭) are

the highest and lowest notes of this section, providing a chromatic foil to the diminished sonority

at the outer edges of the register. The chromatic 32nd notes in mm. 19-20 further dilute the

diminished quality of this section. However, the use of diminished chord tones does provide an

87

effective transition to the octatonic bitonality of the next section. This section closes on a

repeated and sustained F♯, which begins in m. 22 and continues on through m. 28, remaining

the only pitch sounding for the last two measures of this section.

In m. 29 the F♯ leads into a series of ascending scales that gradually increase in both speed and

range. The increase in speed is accomplished by decreasing the length of the notes from 16th-

note triplets in m. 29 to 16th-note septuplets in m. 32, and finally to 32nd-notes in m. 33. The

regular ascending motion of the scales imparts an orderly texture that gradually grows denser as

the note lengths shorten.

A new symmetrical bitonality is established here as one octatonic scale is used above the third

line of the staff and another is used below it. The scale above the third line is: B♭C D♭E♭E♮

F♯ G A and the scale below the third line is: A B C D E♭F F♯ A♭. This distinction is based

on the precedent of the symmetrical bitonality established earlier in the composition. However,

it could also be argued that both octatonic scales have A as the tonal centre, with the upper scale

being: A B♭C D♭E♭E♮ F♯ G. In either case it is clear that different octatonic scales are

used above and below the third line of the staff, even though the tonal centre(s) is ambiguous for

the first part of this section.

The tonal centre is established as A by the end of m. 33, as the octatonic scale from above the

third line of the staff is repeated with A as its tonal centre (A B♭C D♭ E♭ E♮ F♯ G), along

with sustained A’s in mm. 34-38.

Figure 27. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, m. 34

34

88

At this point a new element is introduced into the canon as the composer has indicated “fader

play in rapid succession across channels.” This composition calls for four individually amplified

audio channels (one for each voice of the canon besides the soloist), and the playback volume of

each of these channels is controlled at a mixing console by a fader. Thus the volume of each

channel will increase and decrease according to the manipulation of the faders by the sound

projectionist, and the rate at which the volume changes should be quite rapid from m. 34 to the

end of this section in m. 38.

In m. 38 the final canonic repetition of the ascending scale passage occurs as the next section

begins with a soft, lyrical character. The octatonic scale in A from mm. 34-38 is used

exclusively in this section, and the single octatonic tonality is confirmed in m. 41 with a G♮ on

the second line of the staff. Here the ‘melo-wah’ mute is used to give the trumpet a mellow tone

colour that can change from ‘open’ (indicated by ‘o’ and accomplished by playing normally) to

‘closed’ (indicated by ‘+’ and accomplished by covering the end of the mute with the hand). The

open/closed mute effect follows a carefully notated rhythm, and the canon multiplies the effect to

create a soft, undulating tone colour. The “fader play” slows down from mm. 38-46, sometimes

“touching zero”, further contributing to the soft timbre of this section. The canon is faded out

completely over the first two beats of m. 47, bringing A to a close.

The cadenza begins in m. 47 after the canon of section A has faded out. During the cadenza the

tape recorders are stopped and the playback machine is set to half-speed to prepare it for the

second major section of the piece. In addition to giving the cadenza a practical function, turning

the tape recorders off allows for a brief period of unaccompanied solo performance, providing an

effective break between the two major sections of the piece.

The first part of the cadenza is a single unmetered measure (m. 47) that consists of three rapid

ascending figures followed by a B♮. These statements feature progressively larger intervals as

they recall the symmetrical bitonality from earlier in this composition. The first figure uses the

alternating whole-tones and semi-tones of the octatonic scale (although it may simply be an

excerpt of an octatonic scale beginning on A), while the second employs whole-tone scales, and

the third uses consecutive minor thirds. The B♮ is a major third away from the note that

precedes it (G♮), making it a natural continuation of the expanding intervals of the preceding

89

figures. It also recalls the B♮ from measures 16, 19, and 22. As was the case earlier in the piece,

these figures are divided at the third line of the staff with B♭as the tonal centre above the third

line, and A as the tonal centre below the third line. A variable mute effect is also used here, this

time created by covering the bell of the trumpet with the hand when indicated by a ‘+’ sign.

The second part of the cadenza in mm. 48-53 firmly reestablishes the octatonic tonality with A as

the tonal centre. It consists of rapid ascending octatonic scales beginning on A, alternating with

sustained A’s above the staff. A variable mute effect is again employed as the performer must

insert and remove a straight mute several times over these five measures, causing the trumpet’s

tone colour to change while playing.

The second major section of the composition begins at m. 54, at which point the tape recorders

are turned back on and the canon resumes. With the playback tape recorder now set to half-

speed, the progressive augmentation of the canon begins as each repetition of the melody occurs

at half the tempo and one octave lower than the preceding statement. Thus the first repetition of

the melody is at half the tempo and one octave lower than the original melody, the second

repetition is at one quarter the tempo and two octaves lower, the third repetition is one eighth the

tempo and three octaves lower, and the fourth (and final) repetition is one sixteenth the tempo

and four octaves lower.

This is the section of the composition which Harvey refers to in his Programme Note as being

where the “‘sought after’ melody is ‘found’”57. It begins with a melody based on the notes of the

octatonic scale, again with A as the tonal centre (A B♭C C♯ D♯ E F♯ G), which provides the

main tonality for the rest of the composition. The note A is especially emphasized at the

beginning of this section with several long notes in three octaves. This allows these long A’s to

remain present throughout the rest of the composition, as they lengthen and descend in range to

form a sustained bass voice through the progressive augmentation of the canon.

As in the beginning of the piece, the music is in 3/4 time with a tempo of ♩= 60. However, the

music only remains metered until the end of m. 61, at which point it becomes unmetered for the

remainder of the composition. This unmetered section begins with a motive that refers to the

57 Harvey, Ricercare.

90

octatonic bitonality of mm. 29-33 as its notes belong to the scale used below the third line in that

section: A B C D E♭F F♯ G♯.

Figure 28. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive a

motive a

The unmetered section is made up primarily of brief motives that reoccur and are frequently

altered, and the absence of a meter allows these motives to exist without any metrically implied

accent. It also gives the motives greater rhythmic flexibility, as is illustrated in motive b, which

contains a single eighth note in a phrase that otherwise has the pulse of a quarter note:

Figure 29. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 1-2, motive b

motive b:

This rhythmic flexibility is further illustrated by the following variation of motive b, which

contains an additional eighth note:

Figure 30. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive b altered

motive b, altered:

91

Both versions of motive b emphasize the interval of a perfect fourth. However, the altered

version of motive b ends on an A, rather than on a B♭, highlighting the relationship between

these two notes.

Motive a reappears unchanged at the end of the first full line of the unmetered section (referred

to from now on as ‘line one’), and is followed on line two by another variation of motive b,

whose intervals are expanded to emphasize a perfect fifth between F♯ and C♯, and then a

major sixth between F♮ and D♮. The motive has also been rhythmically extended and is

considerably longer than its first two appearances:

Figure 31. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive b further expanded

motive b further expanded

This expanded version of motive b leads into the first appearance of motive c, which has an

angular melody and features dotted rhythms:

Figure 32. Jonathan Harvey,Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive c

motive c:

92

This motive occurs three times in a row. The first and third time it ends on an F♯, and the

second time it ends on a C♯, foreshadowing the F♯ chord of motive d. Especially interesting is

the accenting of the B♭, especially considering its rhythmically weak position. This further

asserts it as an important note, and this is stressed further in the variant of motive a following the

three statements of motive c:

Figure 33. Jonathan Harvey Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 2-3, motive a variant

The final motive of the unmetered section follows this on line four, outlining a chord in F♯

major:

Figure 34. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, motive a

motive d:

Here the F♯, which has been occasionally emphasized throughout the composition, takes on a

significant harmonic role as the root of the chord, and the A♯ lends it a major quality. This is

followed immediately by a variation that includes grace notes before the C♯ and F♯, and has a

particularly interesting end with the trill between B♭and A. The trill between the B♭ and A is

one of the most significant juxtapositions of these two notes in the composition, as the trill

between these two notes obscures the tonality of the F♯ chord by giving it both a major and

93

minor quality. It is important to note, however, that the F♯, C♯, A, and B♭ all belong within

the octatonic scale in A that is the basis of this section’s tonality.

Figure 35. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 3, F# major chord followed by trill

This is followed after a brief pause by an elaborate variation of motive a on line five, in which

the last three quarter notes are ornamented with chromatic neighboring tones which again

emphasize the juxtaposition between A and B♭.

Figure 36. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, Elaborate variation of motive a

The end of this phrase again employs a changing mute effect as the harmon mute is inserted and

removed from the bell of the trumpet according to the notated rhythm. This adds a rhythmic

change in tone colour, and occurs frequently throughout the remainder of the composition. This

is the point at which the fourth voice of the canon makes its first entrance, with an A two octaves

and a minor third below middle C.

This is followed by a restatement of motive b, which again uses a chromatic neighboring tone on

the last beat while employing a changing harmon mute effect. Motive b is then expanded to a

perfect fifth (as it was in line two) before leading into a fanfare-like passage over the next two

lines that features arpeggios in E major. The E major tonality is interrupted by three A♯’s in

lines seven and eight, and after a ‘precipitoso’ descending arpeggio returns to an A♮ lower

94

register. The A♮ is repeated before an ascending glissando on the harmonic series in A. Motives

a, b, and c are then restated in succession in lines nine and ten before another ‘wild’ ascending

glissando (this time without precise pitches) at the end of line ten.

Another variation of motive a appears in line eleven, this time emphasizing B♭, and a

restatement of motive d in its original form appears at the end of this line. This is followed in

line twelve by an ‘impetuous’ passage of 32nd-notes which begins with brief three- and four-note

statements which are followed by a longer chromatic passage that leads to the highest note the

performer can play.

Motive d begins again at the end of line twelve, but it is cut short in line thirteen by a

rhythmically diminished version of motive d which, as in line four, uses both the B♭ and A, and

after a brief grace-note passage leads into a trill between B♭ and A to end the piece. This

suggests that the overall tonality of the piece is never really settled between these two notes.

Interestingly, the composer has indicated that the last note of the trill is a B♭, and although by

this point it would be too quiet to make much of a harmonic impact, it seems to be an appropriate

conclusion to the piece as it also began on a B♭.

Overall these motives appear to follow a pattern that repeats two times in the unmetered section.

The general shape of the pattern suggested by the motives is:

a-b a-c a-d || a-b a-c a-d

A more precise description of the motivic pattern is:

a-b-b a-b-c-c-c a-d-d || a-b-b (fanfare) a-b-c-c a-d-(rapid “impetuous” outburst)-d-d

Thus a sense of cohesiveness is created in the second main section of Ricercare una Melodia as

the subtle consistency of the motivic pattern tempers the apparent freedom suggested by the

absence of meter and the gradual stretching of the solo line.

95

Chapter 7

Extensions for Trumpet and Multi-track Tape by David Cope

7.1 Overview

David Cope composed Extensions in 1973, and it was originally published by the Seesaw Music

Corporation, whose catalogue was later acquired by the Subito Music Corporation in 2006. It

was written for solo trumpet and tape, with a tape part that consists of eight separate trumpet

ensemble tracks that must be recorded by the performer, who also plays gong. It is not indicated

which key of trumpet this piece is composed for, although its range would be suitable for

trumpet in B♭ or C. There is a recording of it posted on Cope's website

(http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/extensions.htm) which is performed using a B♭ trumpet.

Cope categorizes this piece in his “post-tonal” cycle, which is one of the three categories in

which he classifies his compositions (the other two categories are his “Navajo” and

“algorithmic” cycles). The post-tonal qualities of Extensions are manifested in Cope's uses of

serialism, non-serial chromaticism, and symmetrical tonalities (especially octatonic sonorities).

These harmonic concepts are combined with instrumental, percussive, and vocal effects to

achieve a “collage of sound” in which solo statements are combined with sound masses and tone

clusters in a wide range of timbres, textures, and dynamics.58

Extensions was written at the request of Robert Levy, a trumpeter, conductor, and composer who

has been “a leading proponent for contemporary music over the past thirty years”.59 Levy

includes it in his “current recording projects” (as of 2003) on his personal website, and featured

Extensions in a review of new music for brass players in his article “Music in Manuscript”

appearing in the journal The Brass World in 1973. He described it in this article as “very

58 Robert Levy, “Music in Manuscript,” The Brass World 8, No. 2 (1973): 104. 59 Robert Levy, Robert Levy: Performer, http://www.robertlevymusic.com/performer.htm (accessed 14 July 2010).

96

effective” and suitable for “the serious trumpet soloist looking for an experimental or avant-

garde composition.”

Extensions is one of very few compositions for trumpet and pre-recorded tape. Other

compositions in this style include Equale II and Theme II by David Rowland, Cirrus by Lois

Vierk, Three Travelling Tunes by Jon Deak, and Laminae by George Heussenstamm. Extensions

is exemplary among these compositions for its expansion of the trumpet's sonic capabilities

through its complex layering of various traditional and non-traditional trumpet sounds. This

allows Extensions to be more than simply a piece for trumpet and pre-recorded trumpet

ensemble, and Cope's extensive use of trumpet-generated sound effects approaches the sonically

manipulated qualities of electroacoustic music without actual electroacoustic treatment of the

sound.

7.2 Biography

David Cope has had a distinguished and prolific career as a composer and university professor,

and his innovative work has brought him international recognition in the fields of composition,

computer science, and artificial intelligence and creativity. He is Dickerson Emeriti Professor at

the University of Southern California Santa Cruz, and prior to his appointment at UCSC in 1977

he held teaching positions at the Miami University of Ohio, the Cleveland Institute of Music,

California Lutheran College and Kansas State College. He is also Honorary Professor of

Computer Science at Xiamen University in China, and teaches regularly in the annual Workshop

in Algorithmic Computer Music at UCSC.

Born in San Francisco in 1941, Cope's early musical experiences included studying piano (which

led to an extensive performing career) and cello. He went on to study composition, completing

degrees at Arizona State University and the University of Southern California, studying with

George Perle, Halsey Stevens, Ingolf Dahl, and Grant Fletcher. He has since become a widely

published and performed composer, with over seventy published compositions and thousands of

performances in the US and abroad. His compositional output includes thirteen symphonies, ten

string quartets, and nine piano sonatas, and his work has appeared in numerous recordings,

including several complete albums of his own works which range from large ensembles to

97

soloists with electronic and computer generated tape. Cope has received numerous awards for

his compositions, including two National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships, fifteen ASCAP

standard Panel Awards, Composers' Forum (New York City) recital award, Houston Composers

Symposium Award, and numerous university grants.60

In a composer profile published in the American Record Guide in May, 1982, Steven Mamula

described Cope's music as being

marked by tension, achieved through sharply dissonant, sustained tonal clusters, sporadic and impulsive phrasing, and wide skips in the linear movement. His textures are transparent, though not always sparse, and rhythms seem to fall at extremes: either subtle and almost not pulsating, or fiercely aggressive with frequent juxtapositions of both.61

This assessment is consistent with Cope's style in Extensions, which also includes some of the

characteristic elements from his compositional language of “unconventional techniques

including unconventional manners of playing, prepared instruments or those he invented himself,

microtonal scales (e.g. his 33-note system of just intonation), atonality and polyrhythms”.62

Cope is also a prolific writer on contemporary music and computer music technology. His New

Directions in Music is now in its seventh edition, and his Techniques of the Contemporary

Composer and New Music Notation are standard reference materials.63 His writings on computer

music technology include the books Computers and Musical Style, Experiments in Musical

Intelligence, The Algorithmic Composer, Virtual Music, and Computer Models of Intelligence,

which describe his program Experiments in Musical Intelligence (EMI, pronounced Emmy),

composition software he began developing in 1981.

60 David Cope, Biography, http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/biography.htm (accessed 5 July, 2010). 61 Mamula, Stephen. "Selected American composers: a profile and analysis," American Record Guide 45 (May 1982): 2. 62 Dale Cockrell, "Cope, David." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed July 6, 2010). 63 Cope, Biography.

98

Cope was a pioneer in the field of electronic music, and one of the foremost academic authorities

on the experimental compositions of the 1960s.64 One of his achievements in this field included

developing a notable electronic music studio at the Miami University of Ohio in the mid-1970s,

and touring the country with demonstrations of synthesizer technology. However, arguably his

most significant (and controversial) achievement resulted from his research into computer

composition and the subsequent development of EMI.

Spurred on by a case of composer's block in 1980, Cope began studying computer programming

and artificial intelligence with the goal of developing a computer program that could aid in

composition by acting as an extension of the composer's mind. The result was EMI, which

developed into sophisticated compositional software that was capable of composing music in the

styles of several composers. The first performance of EMI's compositions occurred at the

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign in 1987. Written in the style of J.S. Bach, EMI's

pieces were so convincing that those who heard them, including classical music scholars, were

unable to identify them as computer generated.65 Cope's continued development of EMI gave it

the ability to compose in the styles of many other composers, and several recordings of EMI's

compositions are now available which include music in the styles of Mozart, Chopin, Brahms,

Joplin, Bartók, Prokefiev, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, and Cope.

EMI's compositions are based on the idea of recombinance, that is recombining existing music

into new logical successions. Cope believes that recombinancy appears everywhere as “a natural

evolutionary and creative process”, and by exploiting this concept EMI is able to capture the

essence of a composer's language.66 However, EMI's success with this approach has raised

several questions and generated controversy regarding the nature of creativity, and several

musicians, composers and scholars have been challenged by EMI's apparent intrusion into a

realm that they feel has no place for computers. Cope's demonstrations through EMI that the

64 Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph of the Cyborg Composer,” Miller McCune, 22 February 2010, http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/ (accessed 8 April 2010). 65 Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.” 66 David Cope, Experiments in Musical Intelligence, http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/experiments (accessed 5 July, 2010).

99

great classical composers were simply “clever mathematical manipulators of notes” have been

unsettling for many who feel that EMI is incapable of replicating the “soul” they feel is present

in creative human endeavors.67 However, Cope ultimately views the computer as a tool with

which composers can extend their minds, and the music composed with their algorithms are “just

as much ours as the music created by the greatest of our personal human inspirations.”68

Despite the music community's skepticism, however, Cope's work has been praised by scientists

in the fields of artificial intelligence and artificial creativity. EMI's principles of recombination

and pattern recognition have been adapted by architects and stock traders, and his work was

highlighted in the late 1990s in the New York Times among other publications. The importance

of his work was recognized by Eleanor Selfridge-Field, senior researcher at Stanford University's

Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities, acknowledging that Cope “has

revealed a lot of essential elements of musical style, and the definition of musical works and of

individual contributions to the evolution of music, that simply have not been made evident by

any other process. That really is an important contribution to our understanding of music,

revealing some things that are really worth knowing.”69

Cope has since moved on from EMI, and in the mid 1990s he began developing a new kind of

composition software. Wanting to move beyond the re-creative abilities of EMI, whose

development had taken up so much of his time he felt it had “cheated him out of years of

productivity as a composer”, Cope wanted to develop a program that had its own “personality”

and would be able to create original music.70 The result was Emily Howell, an interactive

program that creates new compositions through musical and language communication between

the composer and the computer, using EMI's compositions as its source material. Emily

Howell's first album, From Darkness, Light, was released on Centaur records (CRC 3023) in

May 2010.

67 Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.” 68 David Cope, Experiments. 69 Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.” 70 Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.”

100

Although Emily Howell has received much of the same criticism as EMI, Cope believes there is

a strong future for computer assisted composition. By not being susceptible to human

preoccupations and preconceptions, he feels computers are able to expand the bounds of human

creativity and provide a significant enhancement to the creative process. Of course, having been

developed after he wrote Extensions, his work in artificial creativity has little direct relation to

this composition. However, it does show the unique direction in which he began to take his

composition a few years after Extensions was completed.

7.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization

The electronic component of Extensions consists of a recording of eight trumpet parts, recorded

by the soloist and used as the accompaniment during performance. In his performance notes for

the score, Cope indicates that the accompaniment should be diffused in a quadraphonic setup,

with tracks one and two in speaker one, tracks three and four in speaker two, tracks five and six

in speaker three, and tracks seven and eight in speaker four, although he does not indicate a

precise orientation for the speakers. Alternatively, he suggests that Extensions may also be

performed with the trumpet ensemble and gong parts performed live (or with gongs on tape),

with the soloist in the centre of the hall and the ensemble trumpeters located around the

audience.

Since Extensions does not include any electronic manipulation other than recording the

accompanying trumpet parts, it could be argued that describing it as a piece for “trumpet and

electronics” is an erroneous categorization that would necessarily extend to any piece of music

involving performance with a recorded accompaniment, regardless of the nature of the recorded

material. Just as Milton Babbitt asserted that a recording of a Tchaikovsky symphony is actually

a work of electronic music,71 a performance of a trumpeter playing along with a recording of all

the parts of any trumpet ensemble piece (as has been done by performers such as Wynton

Marsalis on his recordings of several classical compositions) might be considered music for

trumpet and electronics. However, a significant difference still exists between works like

71 Paul Griffiths, A Concise History of Modern Music: from Debussy to Boulez (Great Britain: Thames and Hudson, 1978), 169.

101

Extensions and other trumpet ensemble pieces, in that Extensions was composed with the

intention of possibly performing alongside recorded ensemble parts, while this intention does not

exist in purely acoustic ensemble works. It is this intention that makes Extensions fit into the

realm of electronically enhanced music, despite being composed of unaltered acoustic elements.

Cope describes the practical advantages of performing with recorded ensemble parts in his book

New Music Composition:

The advantage ... is in increased performance potential (rare to have five tubas available to perform tuba quintets, but easy to have one tubist perform five separate parts onto tape) and economics (ten professional trumpets would indeed require substantial financial backing). An added benefit is the performer's ability to hear himself perform and thus learn more about his musical interpretations.72

However, preparing a recording of eight trumpet tracks is described by Robert Levy as “quite a

project ... With the work just shy of twelve minutes in length, this is no small task.”73 In addition

to a significant amount of time spent learning eight ensemble parts plus the solo part, a great deal

of time would also need to be spent recording the ninety-plus minutes of music for the eight

ensemble tracks, which could lead to considerable expense, especially in a professional recording

studio. Therefore regardless of whether this piece is performed with a live ensemble or with a

recording, it will require a much greater commitment of time and resources than is usually

needed to perform a solo piece, or even other types of solo pieces with electronics. Nonetheless,

the extra effort required to prepare this piece will result in a performance that truly extends the

trumpet as a solo instrument while creating a uniquely effective musical experience.

7.3.1 Synchronization

There are two components in Extensions that require accurate synchronization: the recording of

the ensemble trumpets, and the performance of the solo part with the ensemble tape.

Synchronization may be achieved in the preparation of the tape part by playing along with a click

72 David Cope, New Music Composition (New York: Schirmer Books, 1977), 188. 73 Robert Levy, “Music in Manuscript,” The Brass World 8, No. 2 (1973): 104.

102

track or visual metronome in order to maintain a steady tempo and rhythmic accuracy, and

ensemble intonation can be maintained by listening to each track as it is recorded. Performing

the solo part along with the tape requires the soloist to know the tape part well, so that he or she

can develop a strong sense of ensemble with the accompaniment. This should be a relatively

straightforward task, especially if the tape is prepared with close attention to rhythm and

intonation.

7.4 Extended Techniques

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Extensions is the frequent use of extended

techniques, creating a variety of sound effects and timbres which are often overlapped and

juxtaposed to create a range of unusual textures. These techniques include several instrumental

effects which range from relatively common procedures such as the “kiss off” and “rip up”, to

more obscure effects like slapping the palm of the hand on the open bore of the mouthpiece to

elicit a “popping” sound from the instrument. There are also several non-trumpet techniques

used in Extensions, including vocalizations like singing and whispering, and percussive sounds

from the gong. These techniques are combined with traditional trumpet playing to create an

array of sounds which are layered in the eight ensemble parts to create a unique expansion of the

trumpet's sonic characteristics.

Extensions begins with a chord in which a “kiss off” is performed in each of the ensemble parts.

This effect is created by making a rapid descending glissando after striking the note, and is often

accomplished with half-valve technique. This effect occurs frequently throughout the

composition, as does the “rip up” effect, which is performed similarly to the “kiss off” but with

an ascending glissando. While these effects are not particularly difficult to accomplish and are

relatively common techniques (especially for players with a jazz background), it is important that

they be played convincingly and musically. Generally, this is accomplished by blowing through

the “kiss off” or “rip up” with lots of air, maintaining a full sound throughout the glissando.

Cope has also indicated in his Instructions for the score that the “kiss offs” and “rip ups” should

be performed “as far as possible”, and evenly over the entire durations of the notes, which have

been precisely notated in each case.

103

Other extended trumpet techniques include note bends, buzzing on the mouthpiece alone, flutter

tonguing, pedal tones, “sucks” (i.e. vibrating the lips while inhaling through the trumpet), and

inserting and removing a mute while playing. While none of these are particularly uncommon

techniques, in Extensions they are often performed in combination, adding a new dimension to

the unusual sounds they already generate. For example, many of the note bends occur while the

player inserts and/or removes a mute, as happens in mm. 25-38 and 45-52 in the ensemble

trumpets, and the mute is rapidly moved in and out of the bell while playing a pedal G# in the

solo trumpet in mm. 62-63. The mouthpiece is played into a cup mute in mm. 26-36 in the solo

trumpet, as well as being played in the pedal register (indicated as “lowest possible sound”)

while flutter tonguing in mm. 32-34 in the solo trumpet.

The opening chord is followed by several measures in which the ensemble trumpets perform

“palm slaps”, labelled “P.S.” This effect is accomplished by slapping the open bore of the

mouthpiece (while it is still inserted in the trumpet) with the palm of the hand, creating

percussive “popping” sounds with pitches that correspond to the trumpet's seven valve

combinations. While the palm slaps are notated without specific pitch, Cope has indicated in his

Instructions that the performer may “change fingering to alter pitch slightly”, although he does

not specify whether the fingerings should change during the course of each individual line, or if

different fingerings should be used consistently in the individual ensemble parts. He has,

however, clearly notated several complex rhythms for the “palm slaps”, which, when performed

simultaneously by several trumpets, create a dense rhythmic texture of popping sounds. It is

very important when performing this effect not to strike the mouthpiece too hard, as applying too

much force will cause the mouthpiece to become stuck in the trumpet.

In addition to generating percussive sounds from the trumpet, Cope has included the use of a

gong in Extensions, interspersing it throughout the composition. He has indicated in his

Instructions that the performer should use the largest gong or tam-tam available, and has

indicated the use of five different types of beaters: a large wood hammer, a large soft mallet, a

metal beater (triangle beater), hard rubber mallets, and a metal bar. Fortunately, Cope has given

clear instructions in the score for how the gong should be played, detailing where and how the

gong should be struck and which beaters should be used. In addition to being struck, the gong is

also to be used as a resonator for the trumpet's sound in m. 83, where Cope advises the performer

to “play directly into (the) gong” and “experiment to find the place for best ring off”.

104

Other non-trumpet effects are created in Extensions through different types of vocalizations.

Several different vocal sounds occur throughout the composition, with whispered syllables being

the most often used. These syllables consist of a consonant followed by a vowel with a

diacritical mark indicating its pronunciation: the macron ( ¯ ) which indicates a long vowel

sound, and the breve ( ˘ ) which indicates a short vowel sound. There is no strict meaning to the

syllables; they are what Cope describes as “emotives”.74

Figure 37. David Cope, Extensions, mm. 18-20 (trumpets 1 and 2). Syllables.

These syllables follow carefully notated (and often complex) rhythms, providing an interesting

textural effect, especially when layered in several parts. They are generally whispered at a forte

dynamic level (as in a stage whisper so that they will be sufficiently audible), although they are

also spoken out loud in m. 106 during a particularly loud and chaotic passage which also features

yells on the syllables “Ah”, “Eh”, and “Go”.

The performer(s) is also required to sing sustained pitches in the ensemble parts in mm. 52-56.

Using the syllable “ah”, the sung pitches provide an alternative to the trumpet timbre while

maintaining harmonic and textural continuity with the surrounding measures. These sung

pitches range from F in the treble clef to the D a major sixth higher. These pitches will fit

comfortably in the vocal range of most female performers, however they will be in the falsetto

range for most male performers.

74 David Cope, interview with Michael Barth, July 22, 2010.

18 19 20

105

Cope also makes frequent use of aleatoric passages in Extensions, which do not necessarily

involve unconventional manners of playing the trumpet, but do involve unconventional manners

of reading music. The most frequently occurring aleatoric passages are the “F.N.” passages, in

which F.N. stands for “Fast” and “Not Even”. These passages consist of a small group of

(usually) five notes, which are initially to be played in the order shown, and then in any order for

the remainder of the passage as indicated by the wavy line. These notes do not have notated

rhythms, but are to be played as fast as possible, except when 'slow' is indicated. They are also

subject to accelerations and decelerations as indicated by “accel.” and “rit.”, which refers

specifically to the note speed of the “F.N.” passages, rather than the tempo of the composition.

These groups of notes also move by “glissando” according to the notation “F.N. Gliss”, in which

the groups of notes move in the direction indicated while maintaining their interval relationships.

Figure 38. David Cope, Extension, mm. 9-11 (trumpets 1 and 2). “F.N.” and “F.N. Gliss”

Other aleatoric passages are the rapid indeterminate runs of notes that occur in mm. 65-66 and

several times in the solo cadenza (mm. 82-102). In m. 65 a “fast run” is indicated in which as

many notes as possible are to be played in the duration given, following the shape of the line

drawn on the staff while avoiding tonal scales. A similar indication is given in the cadenza in m.

93, although here the player is humming through the trumpet while playing. In both of these

cases the performer, although he or she will be avoiding tonal scales, will be playing scale-like

passages consisting of relatively small intervals. However, in m. 97 the player must again play

as many notes as possible in the indicated duration, but must play them “not at all scale like”,

indicating that the player should use wider intervals, creating an angular, arpeggiated passage.

9 10 11

106

7.5 Analysis

Extensions follows a modified sonata form including an introduction, exposition with two theme

groups, development, cadenza, and coda. Given the significant harmonic and formal differences

between this composition and the traditional sonata, however, labeling this piece as a “sonata”

provides an approximation that is used here for practical purposes only. Alternatively, this piece

might be described as a binary form with an introduction, cadenza, and coda, where the ‘A’

section would take the place of the exposition and the ‘B’ section would take the place of the

development.

As Extensions is largely atonal, it can not be related to sonata form on a tonal level, and its lack

of a recapitulation causes it to differ significantly from traditional sonata form. However, the

clearly identifiable theme groups in mm. 9-38 and their subsequent exploration in mm. 39-81

parallel the exposition and development sections of a sonata, and the absence of a distinct

recapitulation is not without precedence in sonata form. This is similar to the “Type 2” sonatas

described in Hepokoski and Darcy’s Elements of Sonata Theory, which, although they describe a

classical model of sonata form, provide a convenient parallel to the form in Extensions.

Hepokoski and Darcy describe “Type 2” sonatas as “double rotational” (or binary) structures

which “do not have recapitulations at all, in the strictest sense of the term.”75 Rather, the second

“rotations” in these forms contain “developmental spaces” that explore the primary thematic and

transitional material or their episodic substitutes, “grafted onto tonal resolutions” that contain

secondary thematic and closing material.76 Although Extensions does not follow this model

precisely (and can not due to its lack of “tonal resolutions”), this Sonata type provides a suitable

template on which to base this analysis. A form diagram describing the major sections and their

contents is shown below.

75 Hepokoski, James and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types and Deviations in the Late-18th-Century Sonata (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 354. 76 Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements, 354.

107

Figure 39. Extensions Form Diagram

Introduction (mm. 1-8) “Penetrating” ensemble: octatonic opening chord followed by percussive palm slaps on mouthpiece Exposition (mm. 9-38) “Flowing” - First Theme Group (mm. 9-18) ensemble: chromatic “F.N.” passages, “tear-offs” in chromatic pairs outlining octatonic tonality solo: twelve-tone row A - Transition (mm. 18-19) ensemble: whispered syllables - Second Theme Group (mm. 20-38) ensemble: long notes - octatonic sonority solo: whispered syllables, mouthpiece buzzes Development (mm. 39-82) “With Contrast” (mm. 39-55) - explores some of the elements of both theme groups of the exposition in brief segments, including mouthpiece buzzes, gong strikes, whispered syllables, chromatic pairs, and octatonic tonality “Slow Buildup” (mm. 55-82) - develops twelve-tone rows interspersed with textural elements from the exposition (gong strikes, pedal tones, whispered syllables, F.N. passages) while gradually building in intensity toward the climax of the piece Cadenza (mm. 83-102) “Slight Rubato” solo: further exploration of twelve-tone rows Development 2 (compressed restatement) (mm. 103-108) “Tight Masses” solo and ensemble: statements of most of the composition’s musical elements in rapid succession Coda (mm. 109-118) “Gentle” ensemble: long notes occurring in chromatic pairs, neither fully chromatic nor octatonic

108

The introduction of Extensions (mm. 1-8), labeled “Penetrating”, begins with a fortissimo chord

in the ensemble trumpets. This chord consists of the notes B♭, C♯, G, C, A, and F♯ in

trumpets two, three, four, five, seven, and eight respectively, while trumpets one and six play “as

high as possible.” The notes in this chord form the harmonic and melodic basis for much of the

composition, consisting of three chromatic note pairs (G/F♯, B♭/A, and C♯/C) that form two

diminished triads (G-B♭-C♯ and F♯-A-C) and comprise most of the notes of an octatonic

scale. Several different note-lengths are employed for each note of the chord, ranging from a

triplet-eighth-note in trumpet eight to a double-dotted quarter-note in trumpet six, giving the

opening chord an uneven quality.

The notes marked “as high as possible” in trumpets one and six present an interesting harmonic

aspect to this chord. These notes will vary according to the limits of the performer’s upper

register, and can potentially add an extraordinary dimension to the composition. However, if all

of the ensemble parts are recorded by the same trumpet player, it is logical that the “highest note

possible” will always be the same. Another approach to these notes might be to play the highest

note that the performer considers reasonable, an approach that would allow the performer to

complement or enhance the harmonic texture. In the case of the opening chord, the performer

might simply choose to play two different high notes to add variety to the harmony and avoid

overpowering the rest of the chord. They may also choose to play a note that is already being

played in one of the other trumpet parts in a higher octave, or expand the chord by playing an E

or E♭, turning the diminished triads into full diminished chords and completing the octatonic

sonority suggested by the other trumpet voices.

The music following the opening chord is played in the ensemble trumpets and consists of “palm

slaps” alternating with single notes played normally. Over the next six measures the “palm

slaps”, described in the section on extended techniques, are performed with different rhythms for

each ensemble trumpet, creating a dense percussive texture across the ensemble. However, some

of the palm slaps are marked sf, meaning “extra hard slap”, allowing them to occasionally stand

out from the texture.

Single notes are interspersed among the palm slaps beginning in m. 2. They are to be played

loudly (marked sffz), and are followed immediately by either a downward “kiss off” or an

upward “rip”. Many of these notes are notated as distinct pitches, although several of them are

109

to be played “as high as possible”. These interjections occur infrequently at first, with only two

of them in each of measures 2 and 3, and they occur more frequently as the palm slaps disappear

during the next five bars. By the eighth measure the palm slaps have disappeared completely

and the music is comprised solely of notes played on the trumpet. Each of the ensemble

trumpets plays a small group of one to four pitches, and although they are not ordered in a

particular pattern, most of the twelve chromatic pitches are played between mm. 2 – 8 (the only

note missing is D♯). This section finishes at the end of m. 8 as the ensemble trumpets converge

on a G, which crescendos to fff at the beginning of m. 9.

The exposition begins in m. 9, and the first theme group occurs in mm. 9-18. Labeled

“Flowing”, it opens with a loud gong strike (marked sffz) in the solo trumpet, as the G from the

previous measure in the ensemble trumpets ends abruptly at the beginning of the bar. Here the

ensemble trumpets create a new texture as they take cup mutes and begin playing chromatic

“F.N.” passages which are also described in the section on extended techniques. In mm. 9-10

each ensemble trumpet plays five chromatic pitches encompassing a major third (except trumpet

six which plays four pitches encompassing a minor third), and the entire chromatic scale is

covered by the ensemble trumpets.

The flowing chromatic texture created by the ensemble trumpets is contrasted by the solo

trumpet’s fff entrance in m. 11. Marked “viciously”, each note in the solo trumpet part is to be

played “very short and harsh” is it moves through a twelve-tone row. This is the first twelve-

tone row of the composition, and is referred to here as “row A”: E F♯ G F C B D C♯ E♭ B♭

A A♭.

110

Figure 40. Matrix for Tone Row ‘A’

Matrix for Row A

I0 I2 I3 I1 I8 I7 I10 I9 I11 I6 I5 I4

P0 E F♯ G F C B D C♯ E♭ B♭ A A♭ R0

P10 D E F D♯ A♯ A C B C♯ A♭ G G♭ R10

P9 C♯ D♯ E D A A♭ B B♭ C G F♯ F R9

P11 D♯ F F♯ E B B♭ C♯ C D A A♭ G R11

P4 G♯ A♯ B A E E♭ G♭ F G D D♭ C R4

P5 A B C B♭ F E G G♭ A♭ E♭ D C♯ R5

P2 F♯ G♯ A G D D♭ E D♯ F C B B♭ R2

P3 G A A♯ G♯ E♭ D F E F♯ C♯ C B R3

P1 F G A♭ F♯ C♯ C E♭ D E B B♭ A R1

P6 B♭ C C♯ B F♯ F A♭ G A E D♯ D R6

P7 B C♯ D C G G♭ A A♭ B♭ F E E♭ R7

P8 C D D♯ C♯ G♯ G B♭ A B F♯ F E R8

RI0 RI2 RI3 RI1 RI8 RI7 RI10 RI9 RI11 RI6 RI5 RI4

This row contains three segments which are bound together chromatically: the first four notes

encompass all of the semitones between E and G, the next five notes encompass the semitones

between B and E♭, and the last three notes are A♭, A, and B♭. The three segments are

separated by wider intervals: a perfect fourth (or fifth) between the last note of the first segment

and the first note of the second segment, and another perfect fourth (or fifth) between the last

111

note of the second segment and the first note of the third segment. The chromatic content of the

row is often melodically expanded into wider intervals such as major and minor ninths, and

major sevenths.

This row is played over mm. 11-13, with the last two notes of the row repeated in m. 14. The

row begins again in m.15, but this time some liberties are taken with the organization of the row,

reversing the orders of the B and C in m. 15 and the C♯ and D in m. 16, as well as skipping the

ninth through the eleventh notes of the row (E♭, B♭, A) before ending the row in m. 17. This

treatment of the row is consistent with Cope’s philosophy of serial composition, expressed in his

text New Music Composition: “…it would seem that the pantonal or atonal process must be

maintained throughout a given composition for it to have any consistent validity; however …

constant chromaticism is as directionless as constant diatonicism.”77

The chromatic murmuring of the ensemble trumpets changes occasionally in this section, and the

first change occurs in m. 11 with a “slight rit.” (which refers to the note speed and not the overall

tempo) as the range of the ensemble notes contracts to a perfect fourth between C♯ and F♯.

The change in register is accomplished by an “F.N. Gliss”, in which the groups of notes move in

the indicated direction while maintaining their internal interval relationships. The range of the

chromatic F.N. groups gradually expands again over the next four measures as the group of notes

played by trumpet two ascends to encompass B♭ in m. 12, the group of notes in trumpet one

ascends to B♮ in m. 14, and the group of notes played by trumpet eight descends to include C♮ in

m. 15. After a crescendo to ff in m. 16 the fast notes diminuendo, ritard, and glissando down to a

perfect fifth between A and E by m. 17, eventually easing away from the tone completely by the

beginning of m. 18 as they fade into “key clicks only and tongue trill”.

The fast chromatic notes are interrupted by two “tear offs” in m. 12 on the notes A♭ and G,

which are made by a rapid crescendo to fff while the cup mute is temporarily removed from the

trumpet’s bell. Other “tear offs” occur in chromatic pairs following this, with G/F♯ and B♭/A

in m. 14, and E/D♯, C♯/C, and G/F♯ in m. 15. The notes from mm. 14-15 form two

diminished chords (G-B♭-C♯-E and F♯-A-C-D♯), which together form an octatonic scale

77 Cope, David, New Music Composition (New York: Schirmer Books, 1977), 14.

112

(C-C♯-D♯-E-F♯-G-A-B♭), and with the exception of the E and D♯, are the same as the

notes of the opening chord of the composition.

The first theme group is followed by a transition in mm. 18-19 in which all of the ensemble parts

perform whispered syllables, using different syllables and rhythms in each part. The use of

whispered syllables is discussed in the section on extended techniques, and here they provide an

unexpected and interesting texture.

The second theme group of the exposition lasts from mm. 20-38, and begins with the dotted

eighth-note in trumpet five at the end of the m. 20. The ensemble trumpets use whisper mutes in

this section, inserting and removing the mutes as indicated by the ‘+’ (muted) and ‘o’ (open)

indications. The use of whisper mutes (i.e. practice mutes or other styles of mutes which greatly

dampen the trumpet’s sound) aids in the creation of this section’s soft dynamic level, which

varies from pp to mp from mm. 20-35 with an overall indication of sempre piano “unless

otherwise noted” with f interjections when the mute is removed.

The pitch content of mm. 20-28 consists of chromatic note pairs arranged in major sevenths.

These are the same chromatic pairs that appeared earlier in the composition, comprising the

notes of the same octatonic scale that has been used up to this point. These notes are held for

seven or more beats, beginning and ending at different times in each of the ensemble trumpet

parts. They are played with soft accents, resulting in a shifting, unstable texture, even though the

notes do not change over these nine measures. The octatonic sonority begins to destabilize in

mm. 25-28 as the notes are played with “slow and even” bends, causing their pitch to slightly

rise or fall, depending on the shape of the line beneath the note. These pitch bends are

emphasized as the mute is removed and the dynamic is temporarily increased to f before the mute

is replaced.

113

Figure 41. David Cope, Extensions, mm. 24-26 (trumpet 6). Pitch bends.

The octatonic tonality is destabilized further beginning in m. 29 as the pitches begin to move by

half-steps. These pitch changes are emphasized with “pop” notes, in which the mute is quickly

removed and replaced while playing “very harsh accents” and then “immediately soft”. The

intensity of this section increases during mm. 28-36 as the tonality becomes increasingly

chromatic, the dynamic level grows stronger, and the note lengths decrease. This section reaches

a climax in mm. 37-38 with a fff chord cluster across the entire ensemble (including the solo

trumpet), encompassing each of the chromatic pitches from E in the fourth space of the staff to

the C above it.

While the ensemble trumpets provide a sustained harmonic background from mm. 20-38, the

solo trumpet performs contrasting material which consists of whispered syllables (similar to

those in mm. 18-19) and staccato mouthpiece buzzes. An unusual effect is called for as the

performer is required to buzz the mouthpiece into a cup mute when indicated with a ‘+’ sign.

The notation here does not indicate exact pitches for the mouthpiece buzzes; instead the

performer follows the general contour of the notated line, allowing for considerable flexibility

regarding the pitches used. Another interesting effect called for in this section is buzzing the

lowest sound possible on the mouthpiece while flutter tonguing.

Following the fff chord in m. 38, the first section of the development, labeled “With Contrast”,

begins in m. 39 and lasts until m. 60. It is not explicitly stated which elements of this section are

to be contrasted with each other. However, the composer may be referring to this section’s

several segments of one to five measures which contain contrasting musical and textural

elements. It is through these brief phrases that the music of the exposition is developed, as its

musical ideas are expanded and juxtaposed against each other.

24 25 26

114

The first segment of the development begins in the solo part with a brief statement buzzed on the

mouthpiece in m. 39, followed by a flurry of mouthpiece buzzes of several different rhythms and

pitches in the ensemble in m. 40. This outburst of buzzes gradually dissipates over the following

two measures.

The next segment begins with a gong strike in the solo trumpet on the beat before m. 43. Gong

strikes follow on different beats of m. 43 in each of the ensemble parts before the solo trumpet

begins the next segment with a long muted B♮ in m. 44. Similar sustained tones are played in

the first, fourth, fifth and seventh ensemble trumpets in mm. 44-46, occurring within a semitone

of the B♮ as two of them play B♮ while the other two play C and A♯. These long notes of six

or more beats are also muted and include note bends which move by a quarter-tone or semi-tone

either toward or away from the B♮ while the mute is temporarily removed.

The next segment begins as the ensemble trumpets move from sustained tones to rhythmic

whispered syllables in mm. 47-49, while trumpets two, three, six and eight play the gong, either

swirling a metal beater around the rim or softly rapping a metal beater near the rim. Another

segment of long notes begins in the solo trumpet in m. 50, again with a long B♮ followed by long

notes in the first, fourth, fifth and seventh ensemble trumpets. This time the texture is slightly

expanded by playing within a whole tone of the B♮, as two ensemble trumpets play B♮ and the

other two play C♯ and A♮. As in mm. 44-46, the notes bend either toward or away from the B♮

while temporarily removing the mute. The B♮ is reemphasized in the next segment as trumpets 3

and 6 sing a B♮ in mm. 52 and 53. The rest of the ensemble trumpet parts also begin singing in

m. 54, creating a chord from chromatic pairs of notes which comprise an octatonic scale, this

time a semitone away from the earlier octatonic tonality: C♯ D E F G G♯ A♯ B. The sung

octatonic chord lasts through m. 55 and two beats into m. 56, with each voice dropping out one

at a time as the first theme group of the development ends.

The second part of the development begins as the solo trumpet plays a new twelve-tone row (row

‘B’), starting on beat four of m. 55. This row is different from row A, but does have a significant

relationship with it as row B is made up of four chromatic trichords which are identical to the

first three notes of the retrograde and retrograde inversions of row A. As was the case with row

115

A in the exposition, row B is presented in an angular fashion, containing several major sevenths

and minor ninths.

Figure 42. Matrix for Tone Row ‘B’

Matrix for Row B

I0 I1 I2 I5 I4 I3 I11 I10 I9 I8 I7 I6

P0 B C C♯ E E♭ D B♭ A G♯ G F♯ F R0

P11 B♭ B C E♭ D D♭ A A♭ G G♭ F E R11

P10 A B♭ B D C♯ C A♭ G F♯ F E E♭ R10

P7 F♯ G A♭ B B♭ A F E D♯ D D♭ C R7

P8 G G♯ A C B A♯ F♯ F E E♭ D D♭ R8

P9 G♯ A A♯ C♯ C B G F♯ F E D♯ D R9

P1 C C♯ D F E E♭ B B♭ A G♯ G F♯ R1

P2 C♯ D D♯ G♭ F E C B B♭ A A♭ G R2

P3 D D♯ E G G♭ F D♭ C B B♭ A A♭ R3

P4 E♭ E F G♯ G F♯ D C♯ C B B♭ A R4

P5 E F F♯ A A♭ G D♯ D C♯ C B B♭ R5

P6 F F♯ G B♭ A G♯ E D♯ D C♯ C B R6


Row B ends in m. 60, at which point the “slow buildup” begins. This lasts from mm. 60-81,

leading to the climax of the composition. The focus here is on the serial aspect of the piece with

116

several tone rows presented in conjunction with textural effects. The row played by the solo

trumpet in mm. 55-60 is extended as trumpet 1 continues its last note (F) before it begins playing

P4 of row B. This statement in trumpet 1 uses the same wide intervals (but not the same

rhythms) as the statement of the original row in the solo trumpet in mm. 55-60. Another new

twelve-tone row (row ‘C’) also begins in m. 60 in trumpet 5, and lasts until the A♭ on beat two

of m. 65 (although it is extended with two notes from outside the row: B and D♯).

Figure 43. Matrix for Tone Row ‘C’ Matrix for Row C

I0 I10 I9 I8 I5 I4 I3 I2 I1 I11 I6 I7

P0 C♯ B A♯ A F♯ F E D♯ D C G G♯ R0

P2 D♯ C♯ C B G♯ G F♯ F E D A A♯ R2

P3 E D C♯ C A G♯ G F♯ F E♭ B♭ B R3

P4 F D♯ D C♯ B♭ A A♭ G F♯ E B C R4

P7 A♭ G♭ F E C♯ C B B♭ A G D E♭ R7

P8 A G F♯ F D C♯ C B B♭ A♭ D♯ E R8

P9 B♭ G♯ G F♯ E♭ D C♯ C B A E F R9

P10 B A G♯ G E D♯ D C♯ C B♭ F F♯ R10

P11 C A♯ A G♯ F E D♯ D C♯ B F♯ G R11

P1 D C B B♭ G F♯ F E D♯ C♯ A♭ A R1

P6 G F E E♭ C B B♭ A G♯ F♯ C♯ D R6

P5 F♯ E E♭ D B B♭ A G♯ G F C D♭ R5


117

This row has some similarities to row A as it also contains three segments of notes which are

comparable in size and pitch content to the three segments of row A.

In m. 65 trumpets 3 and 7 take over the final notes of the phrases played by trumpets 1 and 5 (A♮

in trumpets 1/3 and D♯ in trumpets 5/7), and during mm. 65-67 they proceed to play P4 of row

B together, sharing the notes of the row between the two parts. P4 of row B begins again in m.

68 in trumpet 7, and again this row is shared between trumpets 3 and 7 in mm. 68-69. However,

this statement of the row differs slightly from its original version as some of the notes are

rearranged: the second trichord of the row (F G♯ G) is inserted within the first trichord of the

row (D♯ E F), which itself is out of order as the F precedes the E. The third trichord (D C♯ C)

is also out of order as the C precedes the C♯. The fourth trichord remains intact. P4 of row B

begins again in m. 70, with the first note (D♯) played by trumpet 7, and the rest of the row

played by the solo trumpet in a rapid flourish.

Twelve-tone rows are not used in mm. 71-73. However, the essence of row B is preserved with

chromatic three-note fragments in the solo, third, and seventh trumpets. Examples of this

include G♯-G-F♯ and D♯-E-F in trumpet 3, B-A-A♯ in trumpet 7, and C♯-B-B♭ and B-

B♭-A in the solo trumpet.

Twelve-tone rows occur again in m. 73-77 in trumpets 1 and 3, and these trumpet parts use

similar rhythms and intervals as trumpet 1 plays P4 of row B and trumpet 3 plays row C.

Trumpet 5 plays three-note fragments in mm. 74, 75, and 77 which are similar in structure to the

opening three notes of the rows begun by trumpets 1 and 3 in m. 73. Trumpet 7 provides

harmonic support from mm. 73-77, playing the last four notes of RI5 of row C twice in

succession in the low register.

In addition to the serial content of mm. 60-77, several textural effects are created by the trumpet

parts that are not playing twelve-tone rows. These include gong strikes, rhythmically whispered

syllables, sucking sounds, fast passages of indeterminate notes, pedal tones, and chromatic

“F.N.” passages.

During this part of the development the dynamic gradually builds from pp in m. 60 to fff in m.

70, with the indication “as loud as possible”. To this strong dynamic is added an increase in

118

density, speed, and register as each of the trumpet parts perform “F.N.” groups beginning in

m.77 that gradually accelerate and glissando upward through the first three beats of m. 79,

leading to the climax of the composition in mm. 79-81. At this point the solo, first, third, fifth,

and seventh trumpets are playing different notes in different rhythms, and the five notes used

(F♯ G♯ A B C) suggest a third octatonic tonality, the only other possible octatonic tonality that

has not yet been used in this piece. The other trumpets (2, 4, 6, and 8) are each playing different

rhythms on the gong, and as each ensemble part is playing at full volume these measures are the

loudest of the composition. This development closes at the end of m. 81 as is punctuated by a fff

gong strike in m. 82 by the solo trumpet before it plays a sustained B in m. 83, leading into the

cadenza.

The cadenza lasts from mm. 83-102, with a total duration of 1’30”. It is to be performed with

“slight rubato”, however, if the soloist is performing with a recording of the ensemble parts, the

cadenza must fit within the time frame of the recording. The sustained B from m. 83 provides

the first note of I7 of row A, which is played through the third beat of m. 86. This is followed in

mm. 87-92 by short statements that begin with either a major or minor seventh, alternating with

flutter-tongued pedal tones. A rapid scale passage follows in mm. 93-94 in which “recognizable

scales” are to be avoided while following the general shape of the line. The passage following

this in m. 95-96 consists of the second through twelfth notes of row A and the sixth through

eleventh notes of I7 of row A, while the last three notes of this passage do not belong to any of

the previous rows.

Measures 97-102 consist of rapid indeterminate passages, which are to be played as fast as

possible and with as many notes as possible, not using specific pitches but following the general

stem length and “not at all scale like”. These outbursts are punctuated by sf staccato notes, the

first five of which are the eighth through twelfth notes of I2 of row A, building to “kiss off” notes

in the upper register at the end of the cadenza in m. 102.

Following the cadenza, many of the musical and textural elements of the composition come

together in rapid succession in mm. 103-108, similar to their presentation in the development but

in a more compressed fashion. Chromatic pairs occur in major sevenths in m. 103 (although here

they do not suggest an octatonic tonality as was the case earlier in the composition) and as minor

seconds in m. 105 (where they do outline an octatonic scale). Gong strikes occur in mm. 104,

119

105, and 108, whispered syllables occur in m. 104, pedal tones are played in m. 104, yells and

mouthpiece palm slaps in m. 106, mouthpiece buzzes in mm. 106 and 107, and “F.N.” groups in

mm. 106-108.

The coda, marked “Gentle”, provides a calm and contrasting ending in mm. 109-118. The

dynamic here is quite soft (ppp to mp), and except for the fifth trumpet, each part plays one

sustained note. However, the collection of notes does not suggest a particular tonality, and most

of the notes of the chromatic scale (except F♯ and B♭) are used in this section. Ensemble parts

are gradually added from mm. 109-113 until all of the ensemble trumpets are playing, and

gradually removed from mm. 115-118 as the long notes fade to ppp. The piece ends with a

gentle gong strike in the solo trumpet in m. 118, which is allowed to ring until it stops on its

own.

120

Chapter 8

Conclusions

Although the four compositions examined in this dissertation represent the main compositional

styles contained in the List, they only represent these categories in a very broad sense. Within

each subgenre, especially those involving fixed media and live electronics, there is a tremendous

diversity of compositional styles and concepts that vary greatly among the composers and time

periods in which they were written. This variety of music has developed as music technology

has evolved, and illustrates how the flexibility of electronic music technology has allowed

composers to find unique compositional voices using the technology they have had available.

Thus further avenues for research involving this repertoire could be to examine these subgenres

in more detail (for example the repertoire for trumpet and fixed media electronics), the time

periods during which they were written (for example music for trumpet and live electronics from

2000-2010), or characteristic musical elements present in the repertoire (for example the use of

electronic delay).

Advances in electronic music technology are of significant concern to electronic composers, and

as Blaauw pointed out in his interview “the electronics world is constantly changing, so you have

to be renewing all the time.” This is undoubtedly a challenging aspect of this music, but an

important one that allows composers to continually refine and expand their compositional

language. It also has had significant effects on the trajectory of the repertoire as new

technologies have expanded the possibilities available to electronic composers over time. This is

demonstrated by the increasing popularity of music for trumpet and live electronics as

represented in the List, which grew considerably from the 1980s onward. It may also be

apparent in the increasing sophistication of the repertoire for fixed media electronics, and it

would be interesting if this were to be researched as a quantifiable aspect of this music.

Based on the information presented in the List, it would appear that music for trumpet and live

electronics will continue growing in popularity. This is relevant to the continued evolution of the

121

trumpet as live electronics provide a direct way to expand the characteristic qualities of the

instrument, a possibility that has been seized upon by the forward-thinking musicians

interviewed for this dissertation. However, it also appears likely that music with fixed media

electronics, the most common type on the List, will remain a significant part of this repertoire.

The ability to create electronic music, especially with computer music software, has advanced

very rapidly and to a degree that allows composers to create electronic music virtually

unimpeded by technical obstacles. It can also be performed with relatively simple technological

requirements, making it more accessible to performers.

Advances in music technology and the coinciding developments in electronic music styles and

concepts might imply that older electronic compositional methods have become redundant.

Indeed, it would seem highly unlikely that a composer would go to the trouble of manually

cutting and splicing audiotape when the same effect could be achieved more precisely and in a

fraction of the time using computer software. However, this doesn’t lessen the validity of

compositions like Harvey’s Ricercare una Melodia or Cope’s Extensions that use technologies

that are antiquated by modern standards. Although the methods used by Harvey and Cope were

dictated by the technology they had available, the pieces they composed would be just as

interesting had they been conceived using modern technology. Additionally, while it is unlikely

that modern composers would be interested in using audiotape to realize their compositions,

pieces like Harvey’s and Cope’s provide an important step in the development of the repertoire

by creating a style that could still be used and expanded upon today. For example, tape speed or

the physical number of tracks available would no longer be limiting factors in pieces involving

looping of musical material. Similarly, music with multitrack accompaniment would no longer

be limited by the number of tape tracks available, allowing for pieces with any number of

accompanying parts.

Although the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics has so far remained relatively obscure

and unstudied, there seems to be significant promise for its future. One reason for this is that

advances in technology not only improve the ways in which this music can be created, but also

how it can be distributed. The Internet has made it very easy to contact composers and obtain

performance materials. For example, it is quite simple (and free) to download the Pure Data

software and contact Agostino Di Scipio to obtain the score and software patch for his Modes of

Interference. This holds significance not only for the ease by which music can be sought out and

122

distributed, but also for the relationships between composers and performers. As it becomes

easier for composers to share their music directly with musicians it also becomes easier for them

to communicate and share ideas with each other. This is a significant issue for music of any

genre, but appears particularly important for this repertoire as more than half of the music from

the List was either unpublished or published directly by the composers who wrote it.

The continued growth and acceptance of this repertoire is dependent on composers continuing to

create this music and performers being willing to perform it. The performance and promotion of

this music by influential performers and teachers will continue to bring it to a wider audience and

a broader base of musicians who are interested in expanding their repertoire in new directions. It

is also encouraging that many universities have electroacoustic music studios and include

electronic composition as significant parts of their programs, and as young composers and

performers interact with each other the creativity and strength of this repertoire will continue to

grow. Finally, it is the hope of the author that the information contained in this dissertation will

be of value and will encourage the exploration of a remarkable new repertoire by musicians who

are interested in expanding their horizons as performers.

123

Bibliography Books Bate, Philip. The Trumpet and Trombone. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1972. Cope, David. New Directions in Music. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1971. Cope, David. New Music Composition. New York: Schirmer Books, 1977. Griffiths, Paul. A Concise History or Modern Music: from Debussy to Boulez. Great Britain:

Thames and Hudson, 1978. Hein, Folkmar and Thomas Seelig. International Documentation of Electroacoustic Music.

Germany: Pfauverlag, 1996. Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types and Deviations

in the Late-18th-Century Sonata. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Manning, Peter. Electronic and Computer Music. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=2042. Also available in print form. Schoenberg, Arnold. Style and Idea: The Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg. Edited by

Leonard Stein. Translated by Leo Black. London: Faber, 1951. Tarr, Edward. The Trumpet. Translated by S.E. Plank and Edward Tarr. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1988. Articles in Journals and Periodicals Anderson, Christine. “Dynamic Networks of Sonic Interactions: An Interview with Agostino Di

Scipio.” Computer Music Journal 29 no.3 (October 2005): 11-28. http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/journal.xqy?uri=/15315169.

Blitstein, Ryan. “Triumph of the Cyborg Composer.” Miller McCune, 22 February 2010.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/ (accessed 8 April 2010).

Handy, Jocelyn, and Kirsty Ross. “Using Written Accounts in Qualitative Research.” South

Pacific Journal of Psychology 16, no.1 (2005): 40-47, http://spjp.massey.ac.nz/issues/2005-v16/v16-handy.pdf (accessed April 13, 2011).

124

Harvey, Jonathan. “Reflection after Composition.” Tempo, New Series 140 (March 1982): 2-4, http://www.jstor.org/stable/944831 (accessed 23 March 2010).

Harvey, Jonathan. “The Composer's View: Atonality.” The Musical Times 121, no. 1653

(November 1980): 699-700, http://www.jstor.org/stable/963776 (accessed 23 March 2010).

Levy, Robert. “Music in Manuscript.” The Brass World 8, No. 2 (1973): 103-108. Mamula, Stephen. "Selected American composers: a profile and analysis." American Record

Guide 45 (May 1982): 2. Other Papers Di Scipio, Agostino. Description of the Digital Signal-Processing Methods. Italy: Di Scipio,

2006. CD-Rom. Di Scipio, Agostino. “Using PD for Live Interactions in Sound. An Exploratory Approach.” 4th

International Linux Audio Conference. Karlsruhe, Germany. April 28, 2006. http://lac.zkm.de/2006/presentations/lac2006_agostino_di_scipio.pdf (accessed July 22, 2010).

Hatch, Peter. “A Talk About Time. And Syntax in Music.” The 34th Ferienkurse fur Neue Musik. Darmstadt, Germany. Summer, 1988. http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/textDetails.php?writ=13 (accessed 18 August, 2010). Websites and Web-based Resources Cockrell, Dale. "Cope, David." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed July 6, 2010). Cope, David. David Cope. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/biography.htm (accessed July 6,

2010). Cope, David. Experiments in Musical Intelligence.

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/experiments (accessed 5 July, 2010). Di Scipio, Agostino. Bio. http://xoomer.virgilio.it/adiscipi/bio.htm (accessed July 22, 2010). Duo Contour. Stephen. http://www.duocontour.org/steve_page.htm (accessed April 13, 2011). Hatch, Peter. Biography. http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/biography.php (accessed August 18,

2010).

125

Hein, F., T. Seelig, G. Föllmer, R. Frank, L. Karbowska and S. Daemnig. The International Documentation of Electroacoustic Music. http://www.emdoku.de/EMIntro-E.html (accessed July 2, 2010).

Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival. Jonathan Harvey in Conversation.

http://www.hcmf.co.uk/HCMF-Composer-in-Residence-Jonathan-Harvey-in-conversation (accessed 21 March 2010).

Impett, Jonathan. Biography. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett (accessed March 15, 2010). Impett, Jonathan. Metatrumpet. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/research/metatrumpet (accessed March 15, 2010). Levy, Robert. Robert Levy: Performer, http://www.robertlevymusic.com/performer.htm

(accessed July 6, 2010). Placidi, Federico. “A conversation with Agostino Di Scipio,” trans. Valeria Grillo. Unidentified

Sound Object, posted June 13, 2010. http://usoproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/conversation-with-agostino-di-scipio.html (accessed July 22, 2010).

Whittall, Arnold. "Harvey, Jonathan." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed 20 March 2010). Music Scores Cope, David. Extensions. New York City, Seesaw Music Corp: 1976. Di Scipio, Agostino. Modes of Interference. Italy, Di Scipio: 2006. Harvey, Jonathan. Ricercare una Melodia. London, Faber Music: 1992. Hatch, Peter. Ida, My Dear. Canada, Canadian Music Centre: 1995. Interviews Altoft, Stephen. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. June 24, 2010. Blaauw, Marco. Interview with Michael Barth. Recording. August 21 and 22, 2010. Cope, David. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. July 22, 2010. Di Scipio, Agostino. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. August 27, 2010.

126

Harvey, Jonathan. Interview with Michael Barth. Recording. June 27, 2010. Hatch, Peter. Interview with Larry Lake. Two New Hours. CBC radio, date unknown. Canadian

Music Centre compact disc AR2601. CentreStreams, www.musiccentre.ca (accessed Aug. 18, 2010).

Hatch, Peter. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. August 13, 2010. Impett, Jonathan. Interview with Michael Barth. Recording. September 16, 2010. Liner Notes from Recordings Hazendonk, Roeland. Liner Notes. Ladder of Escape 7. Jonathan Impett, perf. Attacca Babel

compact disc 9476 DDD, 1993.

127

Appendices

Appendix A – List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and Electronics

Composer Ammann, Benno Title Refrain Lointain Date 1979 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 6:26 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality Belgium Composer Anderson, T.J. Title Sunstar Date 1984 Type Trumpet and cassette recorder Duration 10’ Publisher N.Y. Composers’ Facsimile Edition, 1984 Score/Parts availability www.composers.com; http://tjandersonmusic.com Recording Other First performance by Richard Burkart (trumpet) and Peter Tender

(electronics) in May, 1994. Dedicated to Dizzy Gillespie. Nationality USA

128

Composer Aust, Renard Title How to Cry Date 2005 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 10’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.amyhorvey.com Recording Live recording, Amy Horvey, April 2004, Rotterdam, NL Other Written for Amy Horvey Nationality Germany Composer Baars, Marcel Title Ballade Date 1989 Type Trumpet or Flugelhorn and Electronic Organ (Yamaha HX 1) Duration 9’ Publisher Donemus Score/Parts availability www.donemus.nl, UofT Library M 184 B12B3 1991 Recording Other Nationality The Netherlands Composer Backman, Catharina Title Aviatris Date 1998 Type Trumpet and Tape Duration 15’ Publisher Tons Score/Parts availability www.mic.se Recording Other Nationality Sweden

129

Composer Badings, Henk Title Chaconne Date 1965 Type Trumpet and electronic sound Duration 12’ Publisher Donemus Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 B2C4 Recording Other Nationality The Netherlands Composer Bain, Reginald Title Sins of the Past Date 1998 Type Trumpet and digital signal processing computer Duration 8’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/, [email protected] Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Bain, Reginald Title The Seventh Trumpet Date 1988 Type Flugelhorn and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/, [email protected] Recording Other Nationality USA

130

Composer Behrman, David Title Leapday Night Date 1983/86 Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics Duration 32:37 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording David Behrman with Ben Neill, Lovely LDC 1042 Other www.dbehrman.net Nationality USA Composer Behrman, David Title Unforeseen Events Date 1990’s Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics Duration 37:52 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording David Behrman with Ben Neill, XI 105CD Other www.dbehrman.net Nationality USA Composer Ben-Tal, Oded Title Still Life Date Type Trumpet with tape and live electronics (Pure Data software) Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording Other ccrma.stanford.edu/~oded; written for Steven Altoft and his microtonal

trumpet; www.microtonaltrumpet.com; http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/faculty/staff/cv.php?staffnum=668

Nationality Israel, studied for DMA in composition at Stanford in USA

131

Composer Blaauw, Marco Title Emguux Date Type Piccolo trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.marcoblaauw.com Recording mp3 available at www.marcoblaauw.com/en/listen Other Performed by Marco Blaauw Nationality The Netherlands Composer Bousted, Donald Title Slide Date 2002 Type 24-division trumpet, cd, and video projection Duration 20’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.donaldbousted.co.uk Recording the end of the beginning – Microtonal Projects 002/3, 2007, Stephen

Altoft, trumpet Other written for Stephen Altoft, www.microtonaltrumpet.com,

www.microtonalprojects.co.uk Nationality England Composer Bowles, Meg Title Night Sun Journey Date 1996 Type Trumpet and pre-recorded synthesizer Duration Publisher Kumatone Records Score/Parts availability PO Box 97, New Fairfield CT, 06812, USA; [email protected] Recording Meg Bowles/David Bilger - From the Dark Earth; Kumatone K-0387 Other Written for David Bilger; www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/9702pric.pdf Nationality USA

132

Composer Bowles, Meg Title Places Where Rivers Meet Date 1997 Type Trumpet and pre-recorded synthesizer Duration Publisher Kumatone Records Score/Parts availability PO Box 97, New Fairfield CT, 06812, USA; [email protected] Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Briggs, Taylor Title 2008 Date Trumpet and Tape Type 6’30” Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.societyofcomposers.org/user/taylorbriggs.html Recording http://www.societyofcomposers.org/user/taylorbriggs.html Other Nationality USA Composer Browning, Zack Title Refrain Date Type Solo trumpet with optional amplification Duration Publisher Manduca Score/Parts availability www.manducamusic.com/solotrumpet.htm Recording Other www.zackbrowning.com Nationality USA

133

Composer Bryan, Chris Title Dialogue Date 2006 Type 19-division trumpet and computer Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected], cmbryan.com Recording Other written for Stephen Altoft Nationality Born in USA, settled in England Composer Bryan, Chris Title Repetition and Spontaneity Date 2007 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected], cmbryan.com Recording Other involves eighth-tone writing Nationality Born in USA, settled in England Composer Buchwald, Magdalena Title Claritas Date 1996 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality Poland

134

Composer Calí Title Concerto for Trumpet and Tape Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Ivano Ascari – Nuove Musiche per Tromba, Sonica Studios AZ 4758,

distributed by Ivano Ascari, Via Asiago, 3 1-38068 Rovereto TN, Italy (+39) 0464 423233, fax (+39) 0464 432200

Other http://www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/9899recentprograms.pdf (page5); performed by Ivano Ascari, professor of trumpet at Riva del Garda State Conservatory of Music, Italy ([email protected], [email protected])

Nationality Composer Cangemi, Gianluca Title La notte dei mutamente Date 2002 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/gianlucacangemi/catalogo.html Recording Other Nationality Italy Composer Cangemi, Gianluca Title Occhifoschi Date 2002 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 8’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/gianlucacangemi/catalogo.html Recording Ivano Ascari - Nuove Musiche per Tromba Vol. 4 Other Nationality Italy

135

Composer Cangemi, Gianluca Title Not Final! Date 2002 Type Trumpet and synth sounds Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/gianlucacangemi/catalogo.html Recording Other Nationality Italy Composer Carloséma, Bernard Title Épigone Date 1986 Type C Trumpet with Tape loop and reverb Duration 3’30” Publisher J.M. Fuzeau Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M298 C294E62 Recording Other Nationality France Composer Caviani, Ron Title A and O? Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher DMA music Score/Parts availability www.dmamusic.org/tromba Recording Other Nationality USA

136

Composer Ceely, Robert Title Hypallage Date 1990 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 10’ Publisher American Composers Alliance Score/Parts availability http://composers.com/?q=node/1369&PHPSESSID=

670ed820a609de50dba7a148b733c Recording Other www.ceelymusic.com Nationality USA Composer Centazzo, Andrea Title Visita al cimitero degli ebrei Date 1985 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.andreacentazzo.com Recording Other Nationality Italy Composer Chapman, Basil Title Impressions for Solo trumpet and tape Date 1975 Type Trumpet and tape (also uses flugelhorn) Duration 6’20” Publisher Pasquina Publishing Score/Parts availability http://www.skipwagner.net/pasquina/ Recording Other Nationality Born in South Africa, settled in USA

137

Composer Chasalow, Eric Title Out of Joint Date 1994 Type Trumpet and cd Duration 5’20” Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.ericchasalow.com Recording Eric Chasalow: Left to his Own Devices (New World Records 80601);

UofT CD 14805 Other Nationality USA Composer Clarke, Michael Title Cascade Date Type Trumpet and live computer processing Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.hud.ac.uk/mh/music_technology/research/john-michael-

clarke.php, [email protected] Recording Other Written for Stephen Altoft Nationality England Composer Clarke, Michael Title Prism Date 1998 Type Trumpet and octophonic tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.hud.ac.uk/mh/music_technology/research/john-michael-

clarke.php , [email protected] Recording Other Written for Stephen Altoft Nationality England

138

Composer Clendenen, Bob Title Music From Planet Trumpet: No. 4 Date 2004 Type Trumpet and “numerous electronics” Duration 5’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://music.calarts.edu/~bobc/bobspage.html Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Clendenen, Bob Title Music From Planet Trumpet: No. 5 Date 2003 Type Flugelhorn, cd playback and electronics Duration 3’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://music.calarts.edu/~bobc/bobspage.html Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Coccioli, Lamberto Title Antidotes: Red-earth Date 1997 Type Natural trumpet, tape and live electronics Duration 8:00 Publisher composer Score/Parts availability on composer’s website Recording available on request Other www.lambertococcioli.com; written for Gabriele Cassone Nationality Italy

139

Composer Cooman, Carson Title Reclimbing Mayflower Hill Date 2003 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 3’ Publisher Musik Fabrik Score/Parts availability www.classicalmusicnow.com/carsoneng.htm#works Recording sample on order website Other www.carsoncooman.com Nationality USA Composer Connolly, Justin Title Tesserae D, opus 15d Date 1971 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 14’ Publisher Novello Score/Parts availability Chester Novello hire library

(http://www.chesternovello.com/default.aspx?TabId= 2432&State_3041=2&workId_3041=9444#)

Recording Other justinconnolly.com Nationality England Composer Cope, David Title Bright Angel Date 1972 Type Trumpet and Tape loop Duration 10’ Publisher Seesaw Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 C66 Recording Other http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/ Nationality USA

140

Composer Cope, David Title Extensions Date 1973 Type Trumpet and Multi-track Tape (tape prepared by trumpet player, and

gong played by trumpet player) Duration 12’ Publisher Seesaw Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 C66E9 1976 Recording mp3 available at ftp://arts.ucsc.edu/pub/cope/extensions.mp3 Other tape prepared by performer; http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/ Nationality USA Composer Crocker Title Untitled Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Premiere performance by Scott Macomber at San Francisco

conservatory of music in 1997 Nationality Composer Dambrain, Cédric Title in Memoriam F. Romitelli Date 2005 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.cedricdambrain.net Recording Other Nationality Belgium

141

Composer Dannenberg, Roger Title Assuming that you want to dump data from module 1 Date 1989 Type Trumpet, computer, and animation Duration 8’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/ Recording Other Performances by composer Nationality USA Composer Dannenberg, Roger Title Feedback Date 2005 Type Trumpet and computer Duration 8’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/ Recording Other Performances by composer Nationality USA Composer Dannenberg, Roger Title In Transit Date 1997 Type Trumpet, electronics, computer animation Duration 8’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/ Recording Other interactive computer animation by Scott Draves -

www.draves.org/bomb Nationality USA

142

Composer Dannenberg, Roger Title Nitely News (solo trumpet version) Date 1993 Type Trumpet, electronics, computer animation Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/ Recording Other Performances by composer Nationality USA Composer Dannenberg, Roger Title Resound! Fanfares for Trumpet and Computer Date 2002 Type Trumpet and computer Duration 10’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/ Recording Neal Berntsen on Trumpet Voices, www.nealberntsen.com Other Seven fanfares to be performed individually or in combination Nationality USA Composer Dannenberg, Roger Title The Words Are Simple Date 1995 Type Trumpet, computer, and animation Duration 8’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/ Recording Other Performances by composer Nationality USA

143

Composer Dashow, James Title Morfologie Date 1993 Type Trumpet and computer Duration Publisher BMG-Ricordi Score/Parts availability Recording Mauro Maur - James Dashow and Thomas DeLio, Neuma CD 450-90;

Mauro Maur – La Tromba, Intermezzo Media Other www.jamesdashow.net Nationality Italy Composer Deak, Jon Title Three Traveling Tunes Date 1975 Type Trumpet and multitrack tape Duration 7’30” Publisher Carl Fischer Score/Parts availability www.carlfischer.com Recording Other five trumpets may replace tape Nationality USA Composer Deniozos, Anargyros Title Kagel Collage Date 1987 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 18:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality Greece

144

Composer Diemente, Edward Title Something Else Date 1970 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Seesaw Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT Library M87 D53S6 Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Dion, André Title Étude for trumpet and tape Date 1998 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected]; http://www.sonmire.org/ Recording Other http://narbonnaise.com/upload/media/img/

Panorama%20cult%202007.pdf; won the Prix Sacem in 1997 Nationality France Composer Dion, André Title Organique Date 1997 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability See above Recording Other Won the Prix Sacem in 1998 Nationality France

145

Composer Di Scipio, Agostino Title Hy Lur Date 1987 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 12:50 Publisher Score/Parts availability Withdrawn Recording Other http://xoomer.alice.it/adiscipi/ Nationality Italy Composer Di Scipio, Agostino Title Modes of Interference n.1 Date 2005/06 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 10’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/adiscipi/ Recording Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 5/2007 Other Written for Marco Blaauw Nationality Italy Composer Di Scipio, Agostino Title 7 piccole variazioni sul freddo (7 short varations on the cold) Date 1994/95 Type Trumpet blows and hisses, live signal processing Duration 4’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/adiscipi/ Recording Ars Electronica 95 ORF (http://oe1.orf.at/20685.html) Other Nationality Italy

146

Composer Dodge, Charles Title Extensions Date 1973 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 8’ Publisher Frog Peak Music Score/Parts availability Frog Peak Music (Lebanon, N.H.) Recording Thomas Stevens – Trumpet (Crystal Records CD 665) Other Nationality USA Composer Dramm, David Title Chain Curve Date 2007 Type Double bell trumpet, Hammond organ, tape, live electronics Duration 20’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.daviddramm.com, [email protected] Recording appears on cd for Trumpet and Electronics by ZKM/Wergo Other written for Marco Blaauw; www.daviddramm.com;

www.myspace.com/daviddramm Nationality Born in USA, settled in The Netherlands Composer Drouin, Geoffroy Title Crispy Grain Date 2003 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher IRCAM Score/Parts availability http://mediatheque.ircam.fr/ (IRCAM’s media library in Paris) Recording Other geoffroydrouin.com Nationality France

147

Composer Durant, David Title Choragus Revisited Date 2005 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording Peter Wood, trumpet: Commanding Statements: Chamber Music for

Trumpet (MSR 1203) Other http://sites.google.com/site/usadepartmentofmusic/faculty/dr-david-

durant Nationality USA Composer Eakin, Charles with Britton Theurer Title Trumpet Capriccio for trumpet with electronic delay (“Here, There,

and Beyond”) Date 1990 Type Trumpet with electronic delay Duration 12’ Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording cd “Fantasia” Capstone B000009JEN Other Nationality USA Composer Ellis, Merrill Title Episode Date 1966 Type Trumpet and electronic instruments Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/EE/fel37.html Nationality USA

148

Composer Elmsly, John Title Triptych Date 1985 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 10’ Publisher Sounz Score/Parts availability www.sounz.org.nz Recording cd “Points in a changing circle” Atoll ACD 299 Other Nationality New Zealand Composer Emmerson, Simon Title Windbreak Date 1985 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 11:50 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/humanities/departments-

staff/staff/simon-emmerson.jsp Nationality England Composer Ercklentz, Sabine Title 4 Kompositionen für Trompete und Computer Date 2005 Type Trumpet and computer Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.aroom.org/NL/SabineErcklentz.htm Nationality Germany

149

Composer Ernst, David Title Exit Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Shawnee press, currently unavailable from publisher Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording Jack Logan – “New Music for Trumpet”, Orion, 1972, online at

http://trumpet.sdsu.edu/m345/mp3/exit.mp3 Other http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/demusic/ Nationality USA Composer Everett, Steve (Emory University) Title Blow Back Date 2002 Type Trumpet and interactive electronics (Kyma computer system) Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording audio sample www.steveeverett.org Other ITG composition competition winner (2002 and 2005) Nationality USA Composer Faragó, Béla Title …sub galli cantum Date 1991 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 12:30 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Zsolt Nagy Major, trumpet, Hungaroton HCD 31624 Other Nationality Hungary

150

Composer Festa, Fabrizio Title Take the Wind Date 2004 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 19’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://fabriziofesta.com (but NOT www.fabriziofesta.com) Recording Other Written for Ivano Ascari Nationality Italy Composer Fongaard, Bjørn Title Concerto, op. 131 #13 Date 1976 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 11:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality Norway Composer Fox, Christopher Title Alarmed and Dangerous Date 1996 Type Trumpet and Tape; Brass ensemble and tape Duration 35’ Publisher Fox Edition Score/Parts availability www.foxedition.co.uk Recording BBC recording available from Fox Other Suite of four works which may be performed separately

1. Sonar 5’ Trumpet and tape 2. Klaxonik 9’ Trumpet and tape 3. Insecurity 5’ Trumpet and tape 4. A map of heaven 16’ brass ensemble and tape - article: Northern Light by Ian Pace The Musical Times, Vol. 139, No. 1863 (Summer, 1998), pp. 33-44 (in JSTOR pp. 40-41)

Nationality England

151

Composer Fulkerson, James Title Stone Date 2004 Type Trumpet, tape, live electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Fulkerson is a member of “The Barton Workshop”;

www.bartonworkshop.org Recording James Fulkerson: Wood, Stone, Desert; fmr s191;

http://www.secureonlineshopping.biz/sound323/ products.asp?recnumber=2427

Other part of suite “Wood, Stone, Desert”, other movements with trombone Nationality Born in USA, settled in The Netherlands Composer Gagneux, Renaud Title Malkuth II Date 1977 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality France Composer Gibson, Richard Title Free Flight Date 1977 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording Other Nationality Canada

152

Composer Globokar, Vinko Title “New Piece” Date in progress Type Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Being composed for concert program “Dialogues: concert for trumpet

and electronic music” with William Forman, trumpet, and Andre Bartetzki, electronics (www.bartetzki.de).

Nationality France Composer Goddaer, Norbert Title Grooves Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Lantro music Score/Parts availability http://www.lantromusic.be/index.php?page=Catalogue Recording Other www.norbertgoddaer.be Nationality Belgium Composer Goebbels, Heiner Title Nachtstück II Date 2002 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other www.heinergoebbels.com Nationality Germany

153

Composer Göritz, Daniel Title DecaDance II Date 1998 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.daniel-goeritz.de/ Recording Other Nationality Germany Composer Goto, Suguro Title Temps Tressé II Date 2000 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 11:13 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://suguru.goto.free.fr/Contents/SuguruGoto-e.html Nationality Japan Composer Gottschalk, Arthur Title The Fountains Date 2000 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.ruf.rice.edu/~gottsch/functional, [email protected] Recording Other Nationality USA

154

Composer Green, Adam Title Flit Date 2002 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 7:04 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording ARiADA 2003 Other http://www.ariada.uea.ac.uk/; improvisation, MAX/MSP Nationality England Composer Hannay, Roger Title Sphinx Date 1973 Type Trumpet or Flugelhorn and tape Duration 8’ Publisher Seesaw Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 H36S6 1979 Recording Architecture in Sound vol. 2, Lens Records Other Nationality USA Composer Harris, Ross Title Echo Date 1979 Type Trumpet and tape delay Duration 10’ Publisher 1988 music editions no. 22, wai-te-ata press Score/Parts availability www.sounz.org.nz, UofT M87 H365E3 1988 Recording “Points in a changing circle” Atoll ACD 299 Other http://www.rossharris.co.nz/ Nationality New Zealand

155

Composer Harrison, Bryn Title Mantra Date 1997 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 12’ Publisher Contemporary Voices (BMIC) Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording Other written for Stephen Altoft; www.brynharrison.com Nationality England Composer Harvey, Jonathan Title Other Presences Date 2006 Type Trumpet and electronics Duration 9-10’ Publisher Score/Parts availability www.vivosvoco.com Recording Markus Stockhausen on “Other Presences” – Sargasso SCD28075,

http://www.crotchet.co.uk/SCD28057.html?id=GQENYmny Other Commissioned by the Cheltenham International Festival, supported by

the Cheltenham Festival Society FP: 6.7.06: Cheltenham International Festival, Pittville Pump Room, Cheltenham. Composed for Markus Stockhausen.

Nationality England Composer Harvey, Jonathan Title Ricercare una Melodia Date 1984 Type Trumpet with tape delay system Duration 6’ Publisher Faber Score/Parts availability several on-line music stores, UofT M87 H38R5 1992 Recording Jonathan Harvey: Wheel of Emptiness; UofT cd 46913 Other tape delay – 4 channels; using 1/2 speed and 1/4 speed with octave

changes Nationality England

156

Composer Hatch, Peter Title Ida, My Dear Date 1995 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 14’ Publisher Canadian Music Centre (CMC) Score/Parts availability CMC Recording CMC AR2093 Other Commissioned by Guy Few through the Ontario Arts Council Nationality Canada Composer Hellermann, William Title Passages 13 Date 1970/71 Type Bb Trumpet and tape Duration 25’ Publisher Merion Score/Parts availability For hire from Presser music publishers (www.presser.com), UofT M

87 H43P3 1981 Recording Gerard Schwarz: The New Trumpet, H 71275 Nonesuch. Toronto Ref.

Lib. LP 2563 Other: http://www.soundart.org/whllrmnn.html

Other http://www.soundart.org/whllrmnn.html Nationality USA Composer Heussenstamm, George Title Laminae Date 1974 Type Trumpet (Bb doubling on piccolo) and tape Duration 11’ Publisher Seesaw Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 H48L3 Recording Other Nationality USA

157

Composer Heyduck, Nikolaus Title FAQ Date 2005 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.nikolaus-heyduck.de Recording Other Premiered by Lutz Mandler Nationality Germany Composer Heyduck, Nikolaus Title Schwellenspannung Date 1997 Type Trumpet, tape, and live electronics Duration 12’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.nikolaus-heyduck.de Recording Other Nationality Germany Composer Heyduck, Nikolaus Title Solo für Alphorn Date 1985 Type Alphorn and live electronics Duration 9’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.nikolaus-heyduck.de Recording Lutz Mandler: Atemwege (Breath Paths), Cadenza 800 876 Other Premiered by German trumpeter Malte Burba Nationality Germany

158

Composer Hiatt, Kevin Title Skanda Date Type Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://kevinhiattmusic.com/ Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Impett, Jonathan Title Mirror-Rite Date 1993 Type Metatrumpet and live electronics Duration 24:38 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Ladder of Escape #7, Attacca 9476 Other mostly improvised using metatrumpet,

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett, Prix Ars Electronica

Nationality England Composer Impett, Jonathan Title Shells Date 1988 Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics Duration 10:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett Nationality England

159

Composer Israel, Brian Title Dance Variations Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Marice Stith plays Contemporary Literature for Trumpet, Golden Crest

Recital Series RE-7068 Other Mentioned in review article by Conrad Cummings Computer Music

Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 88-88 Published by: The MIT Press. Also mentioned in “Trumpetmaster” forum: http://www.trumpetmaster.com/vb/146/metallics-maresz-25458-2.html

Nationality USA Composer Jackson, Hanley Title Aesop’s Trumpeter Date 1983 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~hjackson/ Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Jacobs, Kenneth Title Through the Hourglass Date 1990 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 17’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://web.utk.edu/~comp/kennethjacobs.shtml Recording Electro-acoustic music by Kenneth Jacobs, Opus One cd 153; UofT cd

17691 Other Nationality USA

160

Composer Johnsson, Stefan Title Onoma Date 2007 Type Trumpet and Computer Duration 5’ Publisher Tons Score/Parts availability www.mic.se (ID-number GB 4642) Recording Other http://www.stefanjohnsson.webb.se/ Nationality Sweden Composer Kaipainen, Jouni Title Altaforte, op. 18 Date 1982 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 11:26 Publisher Edition Wilhelm Hansen Score/Parts availability www.fimic.fi Recording Jouki Harjanne: Total Trumpet; Jase CD 0015 Other Nationality Finland Composer Kargel, Ines Title Inschrift Date Premier Nov. 2000 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.sonicatelier.net Recording Other Based on poem “Inschrift” by Erich Fried Nationality Austria

161

Composer Kargel, Ines Title Monogramm/Sonograph Date premier Feb. 1999 Type Trumpet, live electronics, and moving computer graphics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.sonicatelier.net Recording Other Computer graphics by Muhammad Zauner Nationality Austria Composer Knussen, Oliver Title Spiritual Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability possibly through Fred Hill (Australia) – [email protected] Recording Other Written for Fred Hill Nationality Scotland Composer Koenders, Michel Title Helmet and Sling (Helm en Slinger) Date 2001/02 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 13’30” Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://home.planet.nl/~michelk/, [email protected] Recording Excerpt on composer’s website Other One of three pieces in his “Armamentscycle” for solo instrument and

computer; written for Marco Blaauw Nationality The Netherlands

162

Composer Koepf, Siegfried Title Konzentriert Musizieren (Freizeit) Date 1998 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 25:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Axel Dörner, texture, 2001 Other http://www.aconnect.de/friends/editions/index.html Nationality Germany Composer Kornicki, Steve Title Passages Through Harmonic Realms Date 1992 Type Trumpet and electronic sounds Duration Publisher Composer (Fragmented View Music) Score/Parts availability www.stevekornicki.com Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Kretz, Johannes Title Niemandslandverschmelzung, op.41 Date 1990 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 16’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.johanneskretz.com Recording Other Nationality Austria

163

Composer Kyriakides, Yannis Title Dog Song (Cerebrus serenades Orpheus) Date 2006 Type Double bell trumpet and tape Duration 15’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.kyriakides.com Recording excerpt on www.kyriakides.com Other written for Marco Blaauw Nationality Born in Cyprus, settled in The Netherlands Composer Latham, Mark Title Auf dem Wasser zu spielen Date 1993 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality England Composer LeBaron, Anne Title Way of Light Date 2006 Type trumpet, tape, and video Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.annelebaron.com/, [email protected], www.tfront.com Recording Other commissioned by ITG Nationality USA

164

Composer Leclerc, Martin Title À l’horizon du silence Date 2001/02 Type Amplified trumpet and tape Duration 17’ Publisher electrocd.com Score/Parts availability Performance score at www.electrocd.com/en/partitions/8003 Recording “Horizons du silence” empreintes DIGITALes IMED 0786 Other Nationality Canada Composer Lewin-Richter, Andrés Title Secuencia VI Date 1983 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 14:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.dtic.upf.edu/~alewin/ Nationality Spain Composer Lloyd, Mike Title Air Pressure Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.mikelloyd.se Recording excerpt at www.mikelloyd.se/music.htm Other Nationality Sweden

165

Composer Maintz, Maximilian Title au.tism 3 Date 2005 Type Trumpet and electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.hfm-berlin.de/Maximilian_Maintz.html Nationality Germany Composer Malik, Wittwulf Y Title International Hymn of the Frogs Date 1995 Type Prepared trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Mentioned as part of a program presented on March 26, 2008 in

Hamburg, Germany, performed by Hannes Wienert. However, it is not mentioned on Malik’s website www.wittwulf-y-malik.com

Nationality Germany Composer Maresz, Yan Title Metallics Date 1995 Type Trumpet with live electronics, or trumpet and tape Duration 11’ Publisher Durand Score/Parts availability DURAN 03725 www.di-arezzo.co.uk Recording "Yan Maresz: Metallics, Eclipse, Entrelac..." Accord 4767200 Other www.yanmaresz.com Nationality France

166

Composer Maros, Miklos Title Manipulation 5 Date 1984 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 6’30” Publisher Swedish Music Information Centre Score/Parts availability www.mic.se Recording Jarmo Sermilä: At Bizarre Exits; Jasemusiikki Jase CD 0017 Other www.mmaros.com Nationality Born in Hungary, settled in Sweden Composer Maske, Daniel Title Trumpets Date 1997 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 7’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording Other www.myspace.com/danmaske, danielmaske.com Nationality USA Composer Matamoros, Gustavo Title Re: Jon Date 1998 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Blue Bison Music Score/Parts availability www.bluebisonmusic.com Recording Jon Nelson – Gran Calavera Electrica Other For trumpet solo or mixed ensemble with tape Nationality Venezuela, lives in USA

167

Composer Matre, Orjan Title Logitech® Noise Date 2004 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 4’30” Publisher Music Information Centre Norway Score/Parts availability www.mic.no, [email protected] Recording sound clip at www.orjanmatre.no/logitech_noise.mp3 Other There is also a longer version (7') for trumpet and brass band Nationality Norway Composer Mclean, Jordan Title Astrochemical Radiation Date Type Trumpet and electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.fireofspace.com Recording Other This two movement piece is one of three finalists the American

Modern Ensemble composition competition (2008). Nationality USA Composer Menon, Carlo Alberto Title Magnétique Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality Italy

168

Composer Meyer, Piet Title metA…INteraktion Nr. 4 Date 2007 Type Trumpet and electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Recording Other Teaching associate of Andre Bartetzki ([email protected]) at the

Technical University of Berlin Nationality Germany Composer Mobberley, James Title Icarus Wept Date 1994-98 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 18’ Publisher Cautious Music (Composer) Score/Parts availability http://conservatory.umkc.edu/faculty/facultydetail.asp?Faculty_ID=11,

[email protected] Recording Keith Benjamin; comes with score Other There is also a version for trumpet, organ and tape Nationality USA Composer Moretto, Nelly Title Composición No. 13: in memoriam J.C. Paz Date 1972 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality Argentina

169

Composer Morrill, Dexter Title Studies for trumpet and computer Date 1975 Type Trumpet and computer generated sounds (sounds on tape) Duration 8’ Publisher Chenango Valley Score/Parts availability [email protected], UofT M87 M67S8 Recording Dexter Morrill: Music for Trumpets, Capstone Records CPS 8657;

UofT cd 35922 Other Nationality USA Composer Morrill, Dexter Title Sketches for Invisible Man Date 1988 Type Trumpet and computer music system Duration Publisher Chenango Valley Score/Parts availability www.dextermorrill.com Recording Other Nationality USA

Composer Morrill, Dexter Title The NEXT Trumpet Date 1993 Type Trumpet and computer music system Duration Publisher Chenango Valley Score/Parts availability www.dextermorrill.com Recording Other Nationality USA

170

Composer Neill, Ben Title 678 Streams Date 1993 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 16:25 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Ben Neill, New Tone records nt 6730 Other www.benneill.com Nationality USA Composer Neuwirth, Olga Title Addio…sognando Date 2009 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other www.olganeuwirth.com; written for the 200th Anniversary of Joseph

Haydn’s death Nationality Austria Composer Nuorvala, Juhani Title Concertino Date 1998/2001, trumpet and tape version 2004 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 8’ Publisher Finnish Music Information Centre (FIMIC) (#18972) Score/Parts availability www.fimic.fi Recording Other transcribed from the material of his clarinet concerto Nationality Finland

171

Composer Oehring, Helmut Title Philipp Date 1997/2001 (originally for trombone, trumpet version made in 2001) Type Trumpet and live electronics (or trumpet solo) Duration 12’ Publisher Boosey and Hawkes Score/Parts availability www.helmutoehring.de (download from website) Recording Uwe Dierksen (trombone): Darmstadt 2000 Internationale Ferienkurse

für Neue Musik, Col Legno WWE 1CD 20056, www.col-legno.de Other For performances with live-electronics, a pitchbender is used which

simultaneously produces a sound, pitched at various intervals below or above the played note, according to the distance and angle of the trumpet in relation to the light sensor.

Nationality Germany Composer Ott, Joseph Title Chroma IV Date 1975 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 6’ Publisher Claude Benny press Score/Parts availability claudebennypress.com Recording Sample on website Other Score available on website Nationality USA Composer Ott, Joseph Title Three Little Pieces Date 1978 Type Trumpet and Tape Duration 8’ Publisher Claude Benny Press Score/Parts availability claudebennypress.com Recording Other Nationality USA

172

Composer Park, Tae Hong Title t0 Date 2000 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.tulane.edu/~park, [email protected] Recording Other Nationality Born in Austria, lives in USA Composer Park, Tae Hong Title t1 Date 2001 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.tulane.edu/~park, [email protected] Recording Peter Wood, trumpet: Commanding Statements: Chamber Music for

Trumpet (MSR 1203) Other Nationality Born in Austria, lives in USA Composer Pena, Luis Title Klangspiegel Date 2002 Type quarter-tone trumpet (in C), tam-tam, and 4-track tape Duration 23' Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://icem.folkwang-hochschule.de/~pena/index_start.html,

[email protected] Recording Other Nationality Born in Portugal, lives in Germany

173

Composer Petrarca, Stefano Title In mezzo a questa steppa mediterranea Date 1990 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.s-petrarca.com/ Nationality Italy Composer Pintér, Gyula Title Lázadó Angyal (Grumbled Angel) Date 1997 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 5’ Publisher Budapest Music Centre Score/Parts availability http://info.bmc.hu Recording Pintér: Les Cloches de Flammes Roses, Hungarotron HCD 32438 Other Nationality Hungary Composer Polansky, Larry Title Always cut off the baseline Date 1995 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://music.dartmouth.edu/~larry/ Nationality USA

174

Composer Pounds, Michael Title Cry Out Date 1999 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 9’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.bsu.edu/web/mspounds/ Recording mp3 available on composer website Other Nationality USA Composer Powell, Andrew Title Plasmogeny II Date 1999 Type Trumpet, live electronics and tape Duration 10’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability possibly through Bluestone Arts, of which Powell is Artistic Director:

www.bluestonearts.org.uk Recording John Wallace - Stockhausen: Michael’s Farewell (Deux-Elles DXL

1039) Other Nationality England Composer Power, Karen Title Ducks and Chickens Date 2008 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 8’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.mic.ul.ie/music/Karen%20Power%27s%20Homepage.htm Recording Other Written for Amy Horvey Nationality Ireland

175

Composer Rechberger, Herman Title ES Date 1979 Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics Duration 9:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other www.sonopt.pp.fi Nationality Finland Composer Rimmer, John Title Seaswell Date 1979 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 13’ Publisher Catena Press Score/Parts availability www.sounz.org.nz, UofT M87 M67S8 Recording Grant Cooper and Concord Brass: Points in a Changing Circle; Atoll

ACD 299 Other Nationality New Zealand Composer Risher, Tim Title Fanfare and Flourishes Date 1986 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Manduca Score/Parts availability www.manducamusic.com/solotrumpet.htm Recording Other www.timrisher.com Nationality USA

176

Composer Rodriguez, Ana Maria Title últimas flores en forma de trompeta Date 1998 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 13:54 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://mugi.hfmt-hamburg.de/Rodriguez/ Nationality Argentina Composer Ronchetti, Lucia Title Deserti (Deserts) Date 1993 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 10’ Publisher Editions BMG Score/Parts availability Recording Mauro Maur: La Tromba, Intermezzo Media Other www.luciaronchetti.com Nationality Italy Composer Roquin, Louis Title Ricercare II Date 1977 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other Nationality France

177

Composer Rosenboom, David Title Music for Unstable Circuits Date 1968 (+drums 1984, +trumpet 2004) Type Trumpet and tape (and drums) Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://music.calarts.edu/~david/index.html Recording Daniel Rosenboom: Bloodier, Mean Son; Nine Winds Records NWCD

0238, 2005 Other Nationality USA Composer Rosenboom, David Title Zones of Coherence Date 2003 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 14:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://adagio.calarts.edu/~david/ Nationality USA Composer Rowland, David Title Equale II Date 1993 Type Trumpet and multitrack tape Duration 10’ Publisher Donemus Score/Parts availability www.donemus.nl, UofT M457.4 R72E7 1995 Recording Other Written for Marco Blaauw Nationality Born in England (1939), died in the Netherlands (2007)

178

Composer Rudy, Paul Title …and every island and mountain were moved out of their place… Date 1998 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 11’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.paulrudy.com Recording Society of Composers, Inc. “Inspirations”, Capstone 8690 Other with piano resonance Nationality USA Composer Ruzicka, Rudolf Title Bucina Date 1988 Type Trumpet and electroacoustic sounds Duration 9’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.musica.cz/ruzicka/, [email protected] Recording Other http://imeb-archive.icst.net/get_file.php?id=276&file=index.html Nationality Czech Republic Composer Sandoval, Carlos Title Qu Trompa Date 2007 Type Trumpet, water, saliva, and tape Duration 20’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.carlos-sandoval.de Recording Paul Hübner on www.carlos-sandoval.de Other Uses controlled improvisation, some body gestures and contemporary

music written score. Three movements. Nationality Mexico

179

Composer Schultheis, Bernd Title 3plus Date 2004 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 11’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.bernd-schultheis.de Recording Rajesh Mehta, trumpet and Bernd Schultheis, electronics – studio

recording on www.bernd-schultheis.de Other Nationality Germany Composer Schulz, B. Allen Title Essay for Trumpet and Tape Date 1995 Type Bb trumpet and tape Duration 9’30” Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.allenschulz.net Recording Other www.ram-nyc.org Nationality USA Composer Sermilä, Jarmo Title But I Didn’t Know it was Spring Date 1995 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 10’ Publisher Jasemusiikki Score/Parts availability www.saunalahti.fi/~jase1/, [email protected] Recording Pasi Pirinen: Heptade, JASE CD 0033 Other Sermilä has also written several works for improvising soloists and

pre-recorded electronics Nationality Finland

180

Composer Sermilä, Jarmo Title Contemplation 1 Date 1976 Type Flugelhorn and tape Duration 11’ Publisher Jasemusiikki Score/Parts availability www.saunalahti.fi/~jase1/, [email protected] Recording Jarmo Sermilä: JASE CD 0017 ([email protected]) Other Nationality Finland Composer Sermilä, Jarmo Title Final Conclusion Date 1994 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 7’ Publisher Jasemusikki Score/Parts availability www.saunalahti.fi/~jase1/, [email protected], UofT M298 S388F5

1994, cd 31281 Recording Jouko Harjanne: Total Trumpet, JASE CD 0015 Other Tape sounds derived from brass instruments Nationality Finland Composer Sermilä, Jarmo Title Sahara Moods Date 2005 Type Flugelhorn and tape Duration 8’ Publisher Finnish Composers’ Society 60 years Oct. 11 2005 Score/Parts availability www.fimic.fi (#19768) Recording Other Nationality Finland

181

Composer Shimazu, Takehito Title Requiem I Date 1981 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 15:26 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www2.educ.fukushima-u.ac.jp/~shimazu/ENG-PAGE/myprofile-

e.html Nationality Japan Composer Sköld, Mattias Title Mikkophony Date 2005 Type Trumpet and Computer Duration 6’ Publisher Tons Score/Parts availability www.mic.se (ID number GB 5524) Recording Other http://www.mattiasskold.com/ Nationality Sweden Composer Smalley, Roger Title Echo III Date 1978 Type Trumpet with tape delay Duration 13’ Publisher Faber Score/Parts availability www.fabermusic.co.uk (part 50585 6); UofT M87 S57E4 1980 Recording Stockhausen: Michael’s Farewell; Deux-Elles DXL 1039 Other www.rogersmalley.com Nationality Australia

182

Composer Smethurst, Coryn R.R. Title Porton Down Date 2000 Type Trumpet and tape Duration less than one minute Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording Other written for Stephen Altoft Nationality England Composer Snyder Title Horse – A Remix for Trumpet and Tape Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other performed by Delbert Bowers at Ohio University (Athens) in 2003,

http://www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/programs/RecentPrograms0203.pdf Nationality Composer Solare, Juan María Title Collar Date 2001 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 5’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.juanmariasolare.com Recording Other This piece is the third part of a trilogy:

I: Perlas Esparcidas (Scattered Pearls) for solo trumpet II: Engarces (Threads) for electronic sound III: Collar (Necklace) for trumpet and tape Collar is a superimposition of the first two movements, with the solo trumpet and electronic sound played together. However, the first two movements are still intended to be performable on their own. There are also versions for alto flute, english horn, and basset horn.

Nationality Born in Argentina, settled in Germany

183

Composer Souster, Tim Title The Transistor Radio of St. Narcissus Date 1982-83 Type Flugelhorn, live electronics and tape Duration 24’ Publisher OdB editions Score/Parts availability www.sara.uea.ac.uk Recording John Wallace – Stockhausen: Michael’s Farewell, Deux-Elles DXL

1039 Other More info about Souster’s work can be obtained from his widow,

Penelope Souster: Penny Souster OdB editions 37 Windsor Rd Cambridge CB4 3JJ United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)1223 351995

Email: [email protected] Nationality England Composer Spassov, Bojidar Title Fiato Continuo IV Date 2002 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 12’ Publisher Tre media Score/Parts availability www.tremediamusicedition.com, UofT M298 s646F54 (in bindery) Recording Fiato Continuo, ZKM WER 20602 (Marco Blaauw, trumpet) Other Nationality Russia Composer Spoerri, Bruno Title Krebsgänge für Meeresschnecken und andere Trompeten Date 1997 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other www.computerjazz.ch Nationality Switzerland

184

Composer Stanko, Tomasz Title Serial I Date 1985 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 12:25 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording Other www.tomaszstanko.com Nationality Poland Composer Stefani, Ewan Title Interior Voice Date 1996 Type Bb trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/es/, [email protected] Recording Other Written for Stephen Altoft Nationality England Composer Stockhausen, Karlheinz Title Aries Date 1977 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 15’ Publisher Stockhausen Verlag Score/Parts availability www.stockhausensociety.org; UofT M87 S76S5o Recording Aries, Kavierstück XIII (Stockhausen: 33); UofT cd 21686 Other Nationality Germany

185

Composer Stockhausen, Karlheinz Title Pietà Date 1990 Type Flugelhorn and tape Duration 17’ Publisher Stockhausen Verlag Score/Parts availability www.stockhausensociety.org; UofT M1613.3 S82695L53 1995 Recording Eingang und Formel (Stockhausen 43); UofT CD 21704-05; Marco

Blaauw: Blaauw Other Nationality Germany Composer Stockhausen, Karlheinz Title Trompete aus Orchester Finalisten Date 1995-6 Type Trumpet and octophonic tape projection Duration 4’30” Publisher Stockhausen Verlag Score/Parts availability www.stockhausensociety.org; UofT M 298 S851546 1999 Recording Stockhausen: 52, UofT cd 34407 or 34412 Other part of a series involving many orchestral instruments Nationality Germany Composer Stollery, Pete Title Planar Date 2006 Type Trumpet and digital sound (computer sound files) Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Score and soundfiles (mp3) online at

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~wae006/petestollery.com/ Recording Other Nationality Scotland

186

Composer Sugár, Miklós Title Fanfare Date 1994 Type Trumpet and synthesizer (Yamaha rev 5) Duration 8:26 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording György Geiger, trumpet, Hungaroton HCD 31624 Other http://www.artisjus.hu/sugarmiklos/index.html Nationality Hungary Composer Tadini, Michele Title Notturna Date 1997 Type Trumpet, 8 channel tape and live electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Recording Other http://www.milanomusica.org/autori/micheletadini.html Nationality Italy Composer Tamminga, Jorrit Title Schizo Date 2001 Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics Duration 12:00 Publisher Score/Parts availability Recording composer’s website Other www.jorrittamminga.nl Nationality The Netherlands

187

Composer Theurer, Britton Title Ryoko Date Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/music/directory/index.cfm,

[email protected] Recording Other Nationality USA Composer Thomas, Jo Title Red Games Date 2001 Type Trumpet and electroacoustic sound Duration 14’30” Publisher New Voices (BMIC) Score/Parts availability www.bmic.co.uk; [email protected] Recording Other written for Stephen Altoft; http://jothomascomposer.blogspot.com/ Nationality England Composer Tittle, Steve Title Available Light Date Type Trumpet or Flugelhorn and tape Duration 24’ Publisher CMC Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca (recording available, no information on CMC

website about score availability) Recording Steve Tittle: CMC AR 2378 Other Nationality Canada

188

Composer Tittle, Steve Title Good Golly, Miss Kali Date 1980, rev. 1990 Type Trumpet and Tape Duration 9’ Publisher CMC Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca Recording Other Nationality Canada Composer Tittle, Steve Title Intellectual Dancing (One) Date 1983 Type Trumpet or flugelhorn and tape Duration 6’30” Publisher CMC Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca Recording Other Nationality Canada Composer Tittle, Steve Title Salvation Dharma Band Date 1981 Type Flugelhorn or cornet and tape Duration 9’ Publisher CMC Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca Recording Steve Tittle: CMC AR 2383 Other Nationality Canada

189

Composer Uduman, Sohrab Title Ausruf Date 2007 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 10’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/mu/staff/sohrab.htm,

[email protected] Recording excerpt at http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/mu/staff/

sohrabudumancompositions01.htm Other first performance at St. Pauls, Huddersfield in October 2007 Nationality England Composer Vercoe, Barry Lloyd Title Dialogue Date 1968 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 4’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability http://web.media.mit.edu/~bv/, [email protected] Recording Other Nationality Born in New Zealand, settled in USA Composer Vierk, Lois V. Title Cirrus Date 1987 Type Trumpet and Multitrack tape (six trumpets) Duration 19’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability [email protected] Recording “Simoom” UofT CD 16644 Other Nationality USA

190

Composer Vostrak, Zbynek Title The Gentle Ties Which Bind Date 1977 Type Trumpet and Tape Duration 10’ Publisher Score/Parts availability Possibly through www.musica.cz (Czech music information centre),

although this composition is not listed in their catalogue. Recording Other http://www.musica.cz/skladatele/vostrak-zbynek.html Nationality Czech Republic Composer Walshe, Jennifer Title Split Date 1997 Type Trumpet and tape Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.cmc.ie (Contemporary Music Centre in Ireland) Recording Other Withdrawn Nationality Ireland Composer Watts, John Title Elegy to Chimney – in Memoriam Date 1972 Type Bb trumpet, synthesizer, and tape Duration Publisher Score/Parts availability contained in the “John Watts Papers” in the Music Division of the New

York Public Library for the Performing Arts (http://www.nypl.org/research/lpa/mus/pdf/MusWatts.pdf)

Recording Other http://ariamusic.org/JohnWatts.html Nationality USA

191

Composer Widorski, Kurt Georg Title Freakhouse Date 2006 Type Trumpet and electronics Duration 3’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.komposition.ch Recording Other Written for the animated film “Freakhouse”. Nationality Switzerland Composer Wiesner, Dietmar Title Sjanka 1 Date Type Trumpet, tape cues and live electronics Duration Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Recording Other World Premiere on Nov. 28, 2008 by Sava Stoianov of the Ensemble

Moderne at the Hamburger Klangwerktage – Festival for Young Contemporary Music in Hamburg, Germany.

Nationality Germany Composer Wind, Chris Title Paintings One Date Type Flugelhorn and tape Duration 6’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability www.chriswind.com Recording CMC ND 64 Other Improvised music over pre-recorded electronic accompaniment. Part of

a series of “Paintings” for various instruments and tape. Recorded by Steven Crowe.

Nationality Canada

192

Composer Winteregg, Steven Title Eastwind Variations Date 2002 Type Trumpet in C and MIDI Duration 9’ Publisher Manduca Score/Parts availability www.manducamusic.com/SoloTrumpet.htm Recording Alan Siebert: Stargazer, Equilibrium CD 83 Other Written for Alan Siebert; First Prize winner in 2002 International

Trumpet Guild Composition Competition. http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/winteregg/

Nationality USA Composer Yim, Jongwoo Title Dispersion Fluide Date 2002 Type Trumpet and live electronics Duration 9’ Publisher Composer Score/Parts availability Through composer at Hanyang University in Seoul Recording Other http://www.hanyang.ac.kr/english/About%20HYU/indexA7.html Nationality Korea Composer Zanettovich, Daniele Title Aire sobre una melodia Antigua: per Tromba e frequenza Date 2003 Type Trumpet and frequency, frequency on tape (explained in the score, in

Italian) Duration Publisher Pizzicato Verlag Helvetia Score/Parts availability available for download from www.freehandmusic.com Recording Other incorporates piccolo trumpet Nationality Italy

193

Composer Zwedberg, Tommy Title Face the Music Date 1977 Type Trumpet and tape Duration 10’ Publisher Swedish Music Information Centre Score/Parts availability www.mic.se Recording Other Nationality Sweden

194

Appendix B – Performer Biographies

One of the characteristics of music involving electronics that makes it appealing to composers

and performers alike is that it allows music to be extended in several ways beyond what is

normally possible in acoustic settings. Therefore it is not surprising that the performers

interviewed are interested in this repertoire as each of them is committed to extending the

trumpet in unique ways. Although there are several extended techniques that allow the trumpet

to stretch beyond its usual musical capabilities, each of these performers has worked to improve

upon the trumpet itself to further widen the musical language available to them. It follows

naturally that these instrumental extensions are complemented with electronics in much of these

performers' repertoire, allowing for even greater expansion of their musical environments. The

three performers are discussed individually below, detailing some brief biographical information

as well as their unique approaches to extending the musical capabilities of the trumpet.

B.1 - Stephen Altoft

Currently based in Freiburg, Germany, Stephen Altoft is an English trumpet player who has been

very active in the creation of new trumpet repertoire and the development of the trumpet's

possibilities as a microtonal instrument. He studied trumpet performance at the University of

Huddersfield where he obtained bachelor's and master's degrees and won the Ricordi Prize for

contemporary performance. He furthered his education through private study with Markus

Stockhausen in Cologne and William Forman in Berlin, two of the foremost interpreters of

modern trumpet repertoire. He is a member of the new music group ensemble chronophonie,

and with Lee Ferguson has formed the trumpet and percussion group duo Contour. He

frequently performs music for trumpet and electronics, and his repertoire list (as of 2006)

includes eighteen compositions for trumpet with tape and/or live electronics, fifteen of which

were written for him.78

78 Duo Contour, Stephen, http://www.duocontour.org/steve_page.htm (accessed April 13, 2011).

195

One of Altoft's main interests is the performance of microtonal music and the development of

microtonal techniques for trumpet. In 2001/02 he served as a consultant for the Centre of New

Musical Instruments in London where he was responsible for learning and commenting on a

prototype microtonal trumpet. He later collaborated with instrument makers Johannes Radeke

and Siegmar Fischer in Freiburg in the development of a rotary valve mechanism to enable the

conversion of his existing trumpets into microtonal instruments, resulting in a nineteen-division

trumpet in Bb and a quarter-tone trumpet in C. He has also, along with composer Donald

Bousted, created the website The Microtonal Trumpet (www.microtonaltrumpet.com) which

offers a range of free resources for playing the trumpet in a variety of microtonal tunings,

including playing techniques, fingering charts, descriptions of quarter-tone and nineteen-division

trumpet conversion kits, history of microtonal trumpet music, audio and video podcasts of

microtonal examples, and an extensive repertoire list.

While microtonal trumpet performance is not a new concept, especially with regard to the use of

quarter-tones, Altoft's expansion of microtonal trumpet performance to include eighth-tones

(forty-eight division scales) and nineteen-division scales exhibits a commitment to extending the

harmonic possibilities of the trumpet. In addition, his contribution to the development of

conversion kits which enable standard trumpets to become microtonal instruments at a relatively

low cost shows his desire to make microtonal performance more accessible to interested

musicians. He has also had several compositions written for him for microtonal trumpet with

electronics, further expanding the possibilities of microtonal music for trumpet.

B.2 – Marco Blaauw

Marco Blaauw is a trumpeter from The Netherlands who has an international solo career and is a

member of the ensemble musikFabrik in Cologne. Interested in the continued development of

the trumpet's technique and repertoire, Blaauw frequently works in close collaboration with both

established and younger composers to create new works for trumpet. Many pieces have been

written for him or inspired by his playing by composers such as Peter Eötvös, Rebecca Saunders,

Richard Ayres, Agostino Di Scipio and Isabel Mundry. Having worked closely with Karlheinz

Stockhausen beginning in 1998, Blaauw is an authority on Stockhausen's trumpet music and has

196

premiered solo roles in scenes of the opera cycle Licht.

Blaauw's interest in extending the trumpet led to the development of his self-designed double

bell trumpet, built by Dieter Gärtner of Gärtner and Thul in Düren, Germany. In addition to the

three standard valves, his instrument has a fourth valve for playing quarter-tones and a fifth valve

for changing between the instrument's two bells. This allows for a wide range of interesting and

unique effects such as very rapid mute-changes, gradual changes between muted and unmuted

sounds, tremolo on any pitch in the trumpet's register, and variations in tonal colour as the two

bells are made of different materials.

Although Blaauw's double bell trumpet is not without precedent (see Bobby Shew's “Shewhorn”

and other custom-designed instruments), Blaauw's development of his double bell trumpet and

the several pieces commissioned for it display a commitment to expanding the sonic

characteristics of the trumpet. This commitment is further manifested in his performance of

music for trumpet and electronics, and is part of his desire to increase the range of colours on the

trumpet: “I've always been looking to getting a bigger range, not only in tone/register, but also in

sound. So for me it was quite logical to start using electronics at some point.”79

B.3 - Jonathan Impett

Dr. Jonathan Impett is a trumpeter and composer from England, and is currently a Senior

Lecturer in the music department at the University of East Anglia where he has worked since

September, 2000. He studied at Goldsmith's College, the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis and City

University, London, and completed his Ph.D. at Cambridge University where his research

focused on the relationship between composition and performance in the context of new

technologies, and working with complex dynamical systems models for interactive music. His

compositions are closely related to his research, making extensive use of improvisation, real-time

79 Marco Blaauw, interview with Michael Barth, August 21 and 22, 2010.

197

composition and sound-processing, and interactive techniques.80

Impett has a wide range of performance interests which extend from early music performance

practices to performing new works for trumpet. In addition to premiering works by composers

such as Luciano Berio, Michael Finnissy, Jonathan Harvey, and Giacinto Scelsi (as well as his

own works), Impett also plays baroque trumpet and cornetto and is a member of the Amsterdam

Baroque Orchestra and The Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century.

Impett has combined his performance, composition, and research interests in the development of

his “meta-trumpet”, a computer-extended instrument that uses computer processing of several

aspects of trumpet performance to create new compositions. The meta-trumpet uses

characteristics that occur naturally in trumpet performance (including pitch, volume, physical

position, direction and speed of movement, inclination, hand pressure, breath pressure, valve

position, and various switches) to activate computer controlled procedures which trigger MIDI

events and other computer functions. This incorporates virtually every physical aspect of

trumpet playing with computer processes, allowing for a close and dynamic relationship between

the performer, instrument, and the musical material created through the computer.81 It is an

effective and intuitive approach that combines trumpet performance with computer processing

without compromising the integrity of the trumpet as an instrument or forcing the performer to

learn new performance techniques as most of the actions used are already used in conventional

performing.

Impett's compositions for meta-trumpet have no pre-set score or musical material. Rather, the

composition is created through rules that are derived from the notes themselves and implemented

by computer controlled processes. This allows Impett to extend not only the sonic characteristics

of the trumpet but also the relationship between the performer and the music itself by structurally

integrating the instrument into the compositional process. He views most extensions of

instruments as “spatial” in that they extend the kind of sound they can make in terms of colour or

80 Jonathan Impett, Biography, http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett (accessed March 15, 2010). 81 Jonathan Impett, Metatrumpet, http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/research/metatrumpet (accessed March 15, 2010).

198

pitch, however, his approach also fulfills his interest in what he describes as a “temporal”

extension of the music that extends the performer's actions into the structure of the music itself.82

Impett has created several works for meta-trumpet, and his composition Mirror-Rite for meta-

trumpet and computer was awarded the Prix Ars Electronica in 1994.

82 Jonathan Impett, interview with Michael Barth, September 16, 2010.

199

Appendix C – Performer Interview Transcripts

C.1 - Transcript of interview with Stephen Altoft. Interview questions answered by email.

24 June 2010

1. What do you like about performing music for trumpet and electronics?

Not being alone on stage! It is more interesting than playing solo trumpet! The different sound

worlds one moves in is simply very liberating, and the processing of my sound into something

very different is cool!

2. What are some difficulties you encounter when preparing and performing these pieces that

you don’t find in purely acoustic works?

Playing with fixed media (tapes/CDs) and not with a human being you can communicate with is

a challenge - knowing the electronics very well and anticipating what is going to happen next. I

prefer working with live electronics where either I have some artistic control or can have

interpretation leverage and/or can communicate with the performer who is on the laptop: it

creates more of a duo with electronics.

3. Have you had to learn any new techniques or skills in order to perform these kinds of pieces?

Yes. Playing with a stop watch, interpreting graphic scores (tp and el part). Playing with foot

pedals, and learning about their response timings.

200

4. Do you follow a particular method when learning a new piece for trumpet with electronics?

No, there is no method for learning, each piece is different, regardless of the genre.

5. Have you found that you have to know much about music technology and electroacoustic

principles in order to effectively perform these pieces?

Not necessarily no, but one learns more each time- about software responses, how to play with

microphones- which of course improves the performance.

6. Have you found that learning these kinds of pieces has increased your knowledge of music

technology?

Yes, practical knowledge, but I am still quite limited as I did not study this at university.

7. Have you had to acquire and learn to use any equipment that a trumpeter might not normally

use?

Foot pedals, playing pd and max patches, but no programming! One comes to know basics-

working with mixing desks, microphones, but I still feel a novice as I have to put most of the

energy into learning the notes I have to play. Mostly there is always a technician there or

composer there running the programmes or at least sitting at the mixing desk.

8. Do you have any favorite electronic equipment that you like to use in performance?

Not especially. I mostly work with a laptop which is either under my control or a technicians.

We have used a Mark of the Unicorn interface in order for the footpedal to work - it was small

and transportable.

201

9. Who are some of your favorite composers for trumpet and electronics?

I don’t really believe there are composers who write more than one piece for this as a genre - the

genre could be instruments and electronics. Michael Clarke has written 3 pieces (two for

trumpet and el, one for tp, perc and electronics for our duo, duo Contour) and that was a long

collaboration - something I like. Jonathan Harvey wrote a second piece a few years ago for

Markus Stockhausen, but it is just loops.

10. Do you have any favorite compositions in this genre?

Ricecare una Melodia by Jonathan Harvey - I played it with a multi-track tape machine first, and

then with Michael Clarke’s max/msp version which is much more flexible of course. It was also

the first piece in the genre I played! But I like all of the pieces in my repertoire!

11. How have learning and performing these compositions affected your career as a trumpet

player?

Learning every piece brings me further as a musician. Having programmes with electronics

enabled me and duo Contour to play at some festivals that don’t programme solely acoustic

music. I have also made some good friends (composers!) through this work.

12. Do they make up a significant proportion of your current repertoire?

Yes. My current project (actually during the last 9 years I think) is the microtonal trumpet

project:

www.microtonaltrumpet.com

202

There are pieces for both quarter-tone trumpet and 19-division trumpet with electronics (fixed,

pd and max pieces) and also with film. There is a Repertoire list on the site.

13. Are you familiar with Ricercare Una Melodia by Jonathan Harvey, Ida, My Dear by Peter

Hatch, Modes of Interference by Agostino di Scipio, and/or Extensions by David Cope, and if so

do you have any advice regarding their preparation and performance?

Harvey- see above. The Cope I have heard about. The others not.

14. Do you find audiences react differently to pieces involving electronic elements than purely

acoustic pieces?

I guess so, there is more to listen to and maybe electronic music is not so far away from pop

music, that they find it accessible. Or they find it exciting because technology is involved.

15. Do you have any further comments regarding the preparation, performance, and aesthetics

of this genre of music?

There is more effort, outlay and equipment involved, and sometimes the financial means are not

there in order to put such a concert on.

C.2 - Transcript of telephone interview with Marco Blaauw.

21 and 22 August, 2010


I think electronic music, or the electronic equipment that we have available, that is actually since

the Second World War, is to be treated as an independent instrument. So I enjoy it as much as I

203

enjoy playing with a pianist or trombonist or ensemble or even orchestra. And second I see the

electronics also as offering me a larger range of sounds on my trumpet. So that’s two different

ways of using electronics, I think. It’s using it as a partner to play with but also especially sound

processing or live electronics that you control yourself. It’s like an extra range of colours for the

trumpet. So I’ve always been looking to get a bigger range, not only in tone/register, but also in

sound. So for me it was quite logical to start using electronics at some point. I think in the year

2000 I started investing in electronic equipment. I did a lot of experimenting there. But then I

also developed my double-bell trumpet, so I got a bit stuck with my double bell trumpet. Also

what I discovered in using electronics is it’s like using a new instrument, and to get a really good

control and grip on the material you have to practice as much as I would practice the trumpet, so

I just didn’t have the time available. So when I work up a performance I always have specialists

working with me with that do the electronics, and I am just occupied with the trumpet.

2. Do you have any favorite electronic equipment that you like to use in performance?

Not anymore, no. The equipment I bought in 2000 looks terribly old now. So it’s not of any use

anymore. I don’t do any live processing myself. I sometimes get software patches from

composers but usually I work with people. An example is a composer here from Cyprus, studied

in London, lives in Holland now. His name is Yannis Kyriakides, and we’ve worked a lot

together. He uses live software and works with samples all the time, and I quite like that. We

improvise a lot – actually we have a cd out. It’s made from selections of improvisations we did

in Karsruhe at ZKM. We recorded a piece for trumpet and electronics by Yannis and in the

evenings used the studio for improvisations and recorded a cd of it. It’s called Play Robot

Dream. The piece Yannis wrote for trumpet and electronics is called the Dog Song.


you don’t find in purely acoustic works?

There are different things to tell there. First of all I think the electronics is like a musical

instrument and you have to practice as much as you would on your own instrument, so it’s a time

204

thing - how much time do you really have available. And the electronics world is constantly

changing, so you have to be renewing all the time. This I think is one of the biggest difficulties.

When I get to work with music software, for me it’s incredibly complicated. So it’s big hurdle

for me. So I prefer to delegate that to another person. Also I think it’s nice to work with another

person, to have a duo/partner. The other problem is that when you play with electronics, or with

a tape, like prerecorded electronic music, you always need a pair of ears in the concert hall, so

you can never really be on your own, because it’s never possible to tell what the balance is like.

I have many pieces for trumpet and electronics, but I can’t do it on my own, even if I play in a

small hall. It’s really difficult to get a great sound, and I think a great sound is necessary to give

the piece what it deserves. The third thing I would mention is that it’s very difficult to find the

best equipment. Usually we have to do concessions, like the loudspeakers are not the best, or the

microphone is not the best, and I often find that the performance is as good as the weakest part.

If one cable or one microphone, or even one plug is not 100% good, then the performance

depends very much on this weak part. I often find that concert organizers are not really willing

to invest the maximum in electronic equipment; they often find it too expensive. The fourth

thing is with music by Stockhausen which uses 8 channels, or even that of Yannis which is

quadraphonic. Concert halls are not built for music like that. People can’t sit ideally in the

middle, the performer can’t be in the ideal position, and the height of the hall is often a difficulty.

So it’s very, very difficult to find the ideal circumstances for great electronic music.


That happens in every piece; it is not typical for electronic music. Because I’m specializing in

contemporary music, every time I play a new piece by a composer I have to/get to speak the

language of this composer, and that is adjusting my playing all the time. A very good example is

with Agostino Di Scipio. The first time we met I was ready to play for him and show him what I

do on the trumpet, and I was a bit annoyed when he didn’t show any interest at all because he

had such a clear idea about the music he wanted to compose. And it took me very, very long to

get used to his work, and I had to work really hard to satisfy him. Working with feedback, for

me I needed to do really minimal actions on the trumpet and touching the trumpet in a very, very

delicate way, knowing exactly how much air you sent through the trumpet, how you make a half-

205

valve movement, and really underestimated that, because the piece lives with those small

changes in the instrument. So that is an example where I needed a lot of time to adjust myself to

the piece.

4a. Do you have any advice regarding Di Scipio’s piece?

I needed an extra person again in the hall. This was a piece he made for me to perform easily on

my own, he said, but I just didn’t manage to find the right kind of balance between all the inputs

of the microphones and the outputs, and I got totally frustrated with the occupation with the

electronics. But if you like it I’m sure you’ll manage, but for me it got too much. And also I

needed a person, because you get so occupied with the graphics and making great sounds, that

it’s easy to forget about the musical line and what it does for the audience. So it’s great to have

somebody you can rely on in the hall who gives you feedback on what he heard and liked/didn’t

like. Every performance sounded completely different, and sometimes even the effects just

wouldn’t come up because the Larsen tone wouldn’t work properly, and there I needed technical

support. I really like the piece. It sounds fantastic.


It’s completely different for every piece. Actually for the trumpet playing there is one thing that

occurred to me when I heard other trumpeters play. I’ve played with electronics for a long time,

I think in the 1990s I started, and it was very primitive compared to what we have now. So I

gradually grew into it, and what I automatically do when I have a microphone on the trumpet, I

change my style of playing and give a lot less of the ‘big’ sound quality that you would give in

an orchestra or big ensemble piece or even as a soloist with an orchestra. You have a lot more

input, a lot more support for a bigger sound. When you play with close micing you have to

allow the electronics to make a big part of your sound, and it’s not always easy to let it go. On

the other hand, it’s really nice playing with close micing – you can play really soft and with a lot

of details you normally wouldn’t even think of.

206



See answers to questions two and three.


technology?

See answers to questions two and three.


use?

See answer to question two.

9. Who are some of your favorite composers for trumpet and electronics?

I think my favorite composers are the composers that really occupy themselves with the

instrument. I’ve had many pieces written for me, or the double bell trumpet that I use or for

other instruments, and when you get the piece you soon notice whether this composer is really

informed and knows about the trumpet, knows about specific qualities of the trumpet or not.

And may favorite composers are composers that I’ve managed to work long-term with,

composers who really get to know my playing, who really get to know the instrument, who are

almost able to sing and perform the piece before I get it. Often in the MusikFabrik you get a

score presented and the composer has no idea how to perform it, or even what it sounds like, and

those pieces are usually the most difficult to perform, to reach high quality. So favorite

composers for me are people who really occupy themselves with the instrument, and when you

write for trumpet and electronics it means you have a very, very complicated instrumentation.

So I think the amount of composers who really can cope with this are very small. And many

207

composers solve this by ‘pre-producing’, by making a tape, and I think that is probably an easy

way of dealing with electronics that often works well too.

10. Do you have any favorite compositions in the genre?

I do perform a lot of Stockhausen’s repertoire, and he was a master of electronics, and he worked

so much with trumpet he knew the instrument so well, and he insisted on doing lots of rehearsals

with the interpreters, so I spent a lot of time with him rehearsing, so I can really say I know his

language very well now. So obviously I like to perform that a lot. And I like to work with

Yannis Kyriakides. I actually worked a lot with Isabel Mundry on a piece for trumpet and

electronics, but then the piece never came. Instead we had a piece for four trumpets and a piece

for solo trumpet, but the electronic stuff she only used in a sound installation that she presented

once in Berlin. I know that Olga Neuwirth presented a piece for trumpet and four-track tape,

that’s actually very accessible, very easy to play. There will be a cd out soon with four new

pieces for trumpet and electronics, and I really enjoyed working with all the composers - David

Dramm, Agostino Di Scipio, Yannis Kyriakides, and Michel Könders, a Dutch composer. Great

pieces, lots of fun.

11. Do they make up a significant proportion of your current repertoire?

No, I don’t think so. I think I have more pieces for trumpet alone, trumpet and chamber music,

trumpet and ensemble, trumpet and orchestra. I do perform a lot with trumpet and electronics,

but it’s not the majority of my repertoire.

12. Have learning and performing these compositions affected your career as a trumpet player?

No, I don’t think so. I don’t know what is the biggest effect on my career. I just try to choose

the repertoire that I like most, and projects come up, and projects sometimes don’t happen, I

don’t know what the biggest effect is on my career.

208

13. Are you familiar with Ricercare una Melodia by Jonathan Harvey, Ida, My Dear by Peter

Hatch, and/or Extensions by David Cope?

I performed Ricercare una Melodia in January at a festival in Berlin. We tried to see if it would

make sense to make a version for double-belled trumpet, but that didn’t really work. I found in

performance and rehearsals a lot depended on the way the delay came back in the room, the

timing of that, the volume. The quality of the playback was quite essential for the performance.

I didn’t occupy myself with the electronics, this time the experimental studio of SWR, they are

specialized in live electronics, took care of the electronics. They didn’t even let me come close

to the computer!

Cope? No.

Hatch? No.


acoustic pieces?

I think it’s definitely a different experience to be surrounded by sound. Especially when you

have a piece like Aries by Stockhausen, for example, there is no way you can listen to that music

at home. You need the eight-track system to really experience the piece. When you hear the

eight tracks ideally surrounding the hall, you hear the sound traveling, the melodies traveling

from left to right, front to back, etc. That is definitely a unique experience. It is difficult for

example if you program a concert to start with a piece with electronics and then go to an acoustic

piece, that doesn’t seem to work, so apparently there is a big effect on the audience. Usually the

average volume of a piece with electronics is higher than an acoustic piece, so yes I do think it’s

a different effect.

A big danger of using electronics, especially with sound processing, is that the effect of

electronics can become cheap tricks, and if you play them loud enough it is sort of an easy effect

on the audience. They don’t have to participate so actively, they don’t have to listen so actively,

they can just lay back and be overwhelmed. The effect can be so overwhelming that the

audience feels offended and walks out. Especially when I heard Stockhausen’s Pieta, it has very

209

low frequencies that are sustained, and people just got crazy because it was so loud! And some

people take it as one path, and other people are offended by it and they walk out. That is fine

too; it’s good that they have a choice.

15. Do you have any further comments regarding the preparation, performance, and

particularly the aesthetics of this genre of music?

Yes, that is a big issue. As I mentioned electronics can also be an easy, cheesy, cheap effect, and

that often is very clear because those pieces often don’t survive the time. To find really good

quality in the use of electronics, to reach very good esthetic quality, I think just needs a very

good composer. One of the most famous pieces for electronic music is Gesang der Junglinge,

from 1956, and it is made with such old fashioned techniques, just tape machines, copying,

cutting and pasting, but that piece is constructed in such an ingenious way that it will survive the

time. Although we have much better equipment nowadays, much better means and knowledge,

that piece is still one of the biggest examples for good quality electronic music. A lot of stuff

that I hear, because I’ve visited a lot of contemporary music festivals and heard a lot of

electronic stuff, is just made quickly and you can throw it away quickly. It’s very hard to make

an electronic piece that survives the time, I think. And electronic equipment is still a very young

instrument and developing so fast, so it is very difficult for composers to get a good grip on that

instrument. So I think composers that are really good now with electronics are people that are

occupied all the time with the computer, and composing and working with electronics at the

computer, just non-stop updating, willing to change, willing to play with it, willing to

experiment, that is compose and throw away. I know from Yannis he works incredibly quickly,

and is also willing to compose something and then throw it away immediately. Creating a lot of

material, to be able to select the best bits of it. It is interesting to see what will happen in the

future of electronics.

210

C.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Impett.

16 September 2010


What I'm interested in is extending not just the sonic language of the instrument, or the sort of

“performative” repertoire, but also the kind of relationship you can have with the stuff of the

music. The instrument I developed (the metatrumpet), the idea was that it shouldn't just be a sort

of 'controller', a special effects box, but that you actually somehow integrate the instrument

structurally into the way music is generated. Extending the kind of musical action is what is of

interest to me. And when I started doing this a lot of people were using effects, processors,

controllers, pedals and stuff like that, but basically you're just controlling effects then. It doesn't

change the relationship with the nature of the stuff. And I think what technology does is allow

you to transform that fundamental relationship. Most extensions of instruments are, in

conceptual terms, spatial in that they extend the kind of sound you can make, or the range of

colours or something like that. But I'm equally interested in what I think of as temporal

extension, extending the structural capabilities of what the performer does.


you don't find in purely acoustic works?

Well I guess there are difficulties of rehearsing; that's a practical difficulty. That's a fairly

straightforward thing, but it means if you're going to rehearse with some kind of technologically

extended environment where everything is set up, so there is a practical concern there. Basically,

technologically, I've never found anything in technology as difficult as playing the trumpet,

frankly. Playing the trumpet is just so difficult that anything else pales by comparison! The

hardest thing I find is playing trumpet itself.

211

2a. Do you find anything conceptually difficult as well, or is it mostly technically?

Aside from technically, if you're rehearsing away from the technology, then obviously you have

a greater challenge of conceptualizing what you're playing with, as it were, than you do in the

case of score-determined stuff. I guess maybe that refers more to the sort of piece where there is

some kind of electronic abstract component. That is simply very difficult to get much a sense of

except when you hear it, and you can see people have different graphical techniques.

There was one piece I remember playing, a wonderful piece which had a different set of

unknowns. Do you know Morton Subotnick's Ghost Electronics? It's a great set of pieces. The

idea was that you started this signal processing box as you started the performance, and you

didn't have to control anything. It's kind of an effects box, but you don't control it. It runs

through its own sequence of things; it's changing constantly. And there is a beautiful trumpet

and ensemble piece called After the Butterfly, and you really don't know what's going to come

out, because you're not in control of it, you just set the thing off. It works beautifully, and also

then you've got something kind of to play against, you've got something to interact with, because

of the unpredictability of it. So that's quite another situation.


I started using technology as a composer as well as a performer, so I learned things like

programming. I do most of my programming in C++. I use a combination of a thing called

Swarm from the Santa Fe institute, and I get Max to do most of actual the DSP stuff. I learned

stuff about sensing technology, I did my Ph.D. on interactive composition systems. So that was

a whole bunch of technological stuff that was involved in development my own ways of

exploring that area.

4. Is it difficult to balance that with trumpet playing and the performance aspect of this music?

I still play the trumpet, partly because I can't afford to give up my night job! And partly because

playing is like sort of yoga or something for me - I have to do it every day, otherwise I get ill!

212

It's really like that. So playing is a major part of my life, and the technology is just part of the

way I think about music. I think the state of music has changed, so if you're going to come to

grips with that you have to get a handle on the technological side of things. So I don't see it as a

particular conflict, it just means that there's lots of stuff to do.

What I never really got a hold of was the hardware side of things. With live electronics I get

other people to do that stuff. I'm using an interface box by Sukandar Kartadinata called a glui

(www.glui.de). He does a lot of hardware stuff. All of the sensing technology itself, although

it's smaller and neater, hasn't actually changed much over a generation, with the different

physical things you can sense. It hasn't changed much. I guess in terms of sensing technology,

most of it's pretty obvious. The only thing that is a bit of a surprise is air pressure. You feel that

you're blowing through the thing, but actually not much air goes through it. You measure the air

pressure, it has a very non-linear relationship with what you imagine it doing. So that proved a

most difficult thing to do in terms of sensing technology without compromising the acoustics of

the instrument, and the least useful.


Not really. I try and get a picture of the whole piece, and try and sort out the things I can't play,

and I try and make sure I understand how the technology works. That's pretty much it.



See above.

213


technology?

See above. Also: I was playing more pieces by other people when I started working with this

stuff, so my knowledge of it increased because I found the way composers were generally

working with this technology were quite limiting. They were just using it as an effects box,

basically.


use?

See answers to questions three and four.

9. What is your favourite electronic equipment? Would that be your metatrumpet?

Well that's the thing I've developed for myself. I now run Max/MSP on a laptop, I have another

laptop that runs some composing stuff, and in fact I use an Eventide machine to do some of the

stuff that sounds not great on Max. So I've got a favourite machine to do things like

transposition, and reverb and stuff on my Eventide machine.

10. Who are some of your favourite composers for trumpet and electronics?

Well it's hard to say because they're mostly one-off pieces. I think the Morton Subotnick piece is

one of the most poetic and imaginative uses – the range of gestures that he gets out of the

trumpet, that he imagines the trumpet playing, I think he conceives of what the instrument might

do in a way that's radically unlike what most people imagine the trumpet doing; more than most

composers you come across. So Stockhausen for instance. Stockhausen's music is emphatically

trumpet writing. It's very difficult, it's beautifully composed, all the rest of it, but the writing

itself – that's orchestral trumpet writing, with a bit of jazz. I listen a lot to people like Franz

Haussinger, Axel Doerner, people like that, and of course that's quite a challenge for composers

214

to know how to use that kind of material. But I notice you've got Agostino's piece on your list. I

guess Agostino is one of the people that comes closest to what you're doing there. Agostino is a

very imaginative man. His understanding of what technology can do is exceptional.

11. Do you have any favourite compositions in this genre?

There's a piece by Tim Souster called The Transistor Radio of St. Narcissus. One of the things I

like about it is that it risks being really, we say “math”. Whatever you call it, “cheesy”. It risks

that, but strikes me that in risking it, it succeeds aesthetically, and therefore it's quite an exciting

piece. The end section, it's like the albums that Freddie Hubbard made for Creed Taylor, that's

the sound of the thing, and that could have gone terribly wrong, and I think it doesn't. So I think

it's a very successful piece in that respect.

11a. Could you elaborate on what makes it “cheesy”?

I think that's partly because of sort of the “grossness” of the way these effects are just added.

You just switch on a delay or a transpose or something like that, and I think if you were writing

score-based music you probably just think one more time about exactly what you're doing and

exactly what instrument you're giving it to.

12. Do you play much music other than trumpet and electronics?

Yes, that's a lot of what I play. I also play the natural trumpet with a couple of orchestras: I play

with the Orchestra of the 18th Century, and the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra. So that's the

other half of my activity. The only thing I don't ever do is play in a symphony orchestra.

215

13. Do you have anything to say about Harvey's piece, have any advice about it?

He wrote that for me in fact. Well, the classic structural delay issues – if something goes wrong,

you're going to hear it go wrong four times. And the classic transposition and slowing down

thing, whereby intonation of the stuff in the second half of the piece, when he slows down and

stretches that little melody, of course any intonation issues are amplified. But I think it's a very

poetic piece. He's a very poetic composer.

13a. Are you familiar with Ida, My Dear by Peter Hatch or Extensions by David Cope?

No.


acoustic pieces?

Not so much. What I find much more of an issue is combining playing pieces by other people

with playing my own stuff that involves improvisation. Sometimes I find audiences are unclear

as to their relationship with the material, that is the relationship between me, and the music

played, and them. In a conventional sort of recital situation it's almost as if the performer is kind

of a third party. You know you have the music and the performer sort of stands back a bit and

says “I'll do my best”, I'll give you an honest representation, but it’s not me, this isn’t my music.

So I found that in involving work with improvisation and that kind of thing it’s much more

necessary to present everything as if it’s your music. I'm not suggesting you pretend you wrote

it, but rather than being a sort of repertoire situation. There has to be a real ownership of the

stuff. You kind of speak to the audience directly, rather than standing back and saying “I'm

going to play you this piece by such and such, and if you don't like it it's not my fault.”

216

15. Do you find that makes you take more responsibility then as well for the music you're

choosing and performing?

Yes, I think that's right. And from that point of view, in terms of your last question, there is a

greater degree of an ownership if you like (I can't think of a more appropriate word), and maybe,

say, in the conventional case, that's closer to the sort of relationship a pianist has with his

repertoire, where he really has to assimilate it before it's presented, whereas perhaps we're more

used to a sort of orchestral situation where you're kind of turning up and playing a piece to the

best of your ability, but it's not quite from the soul in the same way. We maintain a sort of “hired

hand relationship” with the stuff, which sometimes is useful!

15a. So you find your approach with electronics is helping you break beyond that?

Yes, I think it’s taught me that that's how I learned to have a different kind relationship with the

material.

217

Appendix D – Composer Interview Transcripts

D.1 - Transcript of interview with Peter Hatch. Interview questions answered by email.

13 August 2010

1. What do you feel are some advantages or disadvantages of combining acoustic instruments

with electronic elements that don’t exist in a purely acoustic setting?

Of course this is meant to be performed in an acoustic setting. Obviously, it allows for the

possibility of solo performance with something other than piano accompaniment. I find

combining acoustic and el-ac sounds a great way of extending the acoustic sound, allowing for it

to be listened to differently. I'm most interested in works that attempt to blend the sounds (rather

than contrast them.)

2. Has your approach to composing music with electronic elements changed during the course

of your career?

Well, better editing tools exist now (I was working with something pretty crude when I did Ida....

can't remember exactly what.) I've only done this work occasionally, so each piece I do is a new

adventure.

3. Has your compositional style been significantly affected by technological developments?

I think working with technology allows/forces you to listen to sound (including musical sound)

differently - I think it is invaluable for all composers, even if they don't pursue it professionally.

Our program at WLU requires all students to take a course in electroacoustics.

218

4. Where does Ida, My Dear fit into your development as an electronic composer?

I don't consider myself an electronic composer.

5. Some composers tend to favor a close relationship between the electronic elements of their

compositions and the acoustic elements of the instruments for which they are written. Do you

feel this is an important relationship? Is it important in Ida, My Dear?

As I said above, yes... and the interweaving of "live or Memorex" is completely central to the

piece.

6. What was your motivation behind composing this piece?

Gertrude Stein's writing has been a recurring motivation for me. As well, I've been interested in

a very long time in "instrumental theatre" - bringing theatrical elements (spoken word,

movement) into solo and chamber works.

7. Did you write it with a particular performer in mind?

Guy Few.

8. Why did you decide to compose a piece for trumpet and tape?

Can't remember where it started... discussion with Guy, probably.

219

9. Did you find it allowed you to easily produce the results you were seeking?

It? Do you mean technology? It is another "instrument" - a very technically challenging one.

10. What and/or who were your influences when you were composing this piece?

Hmmmm.... many.... obviously Monk and Stein, but then a huge range of musical influences,

from John Cage to Laurie Anderson. Radio in general.....

11. How are the musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.), theatrical (and/or literary),

and electronic elements of Ida, My Dear related to each other?

This is very difficult to answer... they all inspire each other. It is likely (it has been awhile!) that

the musical materials for the trumpet part are derived from the Monk tune. The balance of all of

the elements you mentioned was very important to me - I wanted the effect to be of an acoustic

piece that was enhanced by the electroacoustic elements, rather than the voice and trumpet being

part of an el-ac piece.

12. Did this relationship affect your compositional process?

Of course. The spoken text had a significant impact on defining the form of the piece.

13. Do you have any advice for performers of this work?

The best productions of this piece have featured performers who have taken some care in the

setup of the audio diffusion system (monitors) and levels, such that it doesn't sound over

amplified, but almost unamplified. Time spent with a theatre coach on the spoken text was

usually well worth it - many performers think they can just "speak naturally" (or, worse, will try

to "act") - it is a difficult text to deliver well and needs both coaching and practice.

220

14. Do you wish to make any comments regarding your philosophy of composition, especially

with regard to music involving electronics?

I'm very interested in how music actually sounds... what we in classical and post-classical music

train hard to do is develop a great sense of nuance and complexity as well as refinement in

sounds we produce. Electronics (composed for, performed with/on or listened to) can really

enhance this sense.

15. Do you have any thoughts regarding the future of this genre of music?

Given what I just said, it would be nice to see more work done combining purely acoustic sound

(not miked) with electronic sound as opposed to all-acoustic or all-amplified. There is

surprisingly little done...

D.2 - Transcript of interview with Agostino di Scipio. Interview questions answered by email.

27 August, 2010



I find it very difficult to answer this question. Sorry! I tried two or three times, but cancelled the

first two answers. Here I paste the third, but it's just to show you that it leads me to a different

kind of discussion, probably of no relevance to your subject.

[In a way, the question reflects a common assumption that "electronic elements" somehow

extend the palette of compositional possibilities offered by a "purely acoustic setting", so it

implicitly frames the issue in terms of new musical languages, more varied ways to compose

music. For me, this is not an unproblematic assumption.

221

In my view, the "advantages" in working with electronics consist, for musicians and composers

especially, in appropriating a variety of technologies having an incredibly larger role in the

society, as opposed to consolidated mechanics known as "musical instruments", having a narrow,

specialized, pre-defined role. It becomes a form of "media art": the artwork is presented together

with the technical development put into the making of the artwork itself. Inventing the process,

not only the object.

The "disadvantages"… they actually consist in much the same as the "advantages"! It depends on

one's own view of composition. Composing is not enriched or impoverished by combining

electronics and traditional music instrument: it undergoes rather a shift in focus, it turns from a

notion of composition having little to do with the availability of the means - as the means are

mostly "received", consolidated and historically-connotated - and bearing mostly on the ends

(defined in terms of musical esthetics), to a notion of composing where the availability and

relationship among the resources (no matter whether mechanical or analog or digital) are to be

decided upon and thus move to the very focus of experience. Here "means" and "ends" can be

reconciled, neither one ruling over the other. The risk of focusing mostly or exclusively on the

means (in a symmetric swap of the two terms in the dichotomy) is to be accepted - that's the

history of a lot of electronic music - only to learn to avoid it.]


of your career?

Yes. At the beginning, I did a lot of research on computer-based sound synthesis and processing,

resulting in "tape" works (stereo or multichannel audio). At the time, I also wrote many

"instrument(s) + tape" works. Later on, I moved towards live electronics performance and real-

time/real-space sound installations.


"Style" is a problematic notion. I guess it stands for recurrent elements, traces of my own

behaviour/actions/understanding, that can be recognized across a variety of technical resources

222

and media. "Technological developments" is also quite problematic…

When you are a beginner, your "style" is certainly affected by the technologies available and

developing; later on, you learn not to be affected by the those trends too much, in an attempt to

rather affect yourself the research in the means significant to your work. Sure, moving from

mainframe to personal computers (during the 80s) was crucial for my own programming and

signal processing skills; later on, having enough computation power and flexible programming

tools was also crucial to view live electronics performance the way I happen to. I approached

live signal processing when the Kyma real-time workstation became solid enough and available

(in the mid 90s). Later on, still using computers, I enlarged the scope of "electronics" in my

work, to mean the whole electroacoustic and mechanical infrastructure in the performance

context. Eventually I wrote "solo electronics" pieces. Eventually I even made sound

installations with only analog electronics (… going back to set-ups closer to that of pioneers of

live electronics, in the 60s and 70s). So, you see, developments may influence your decisions,

but if you have a creative, inventive approach, then you follow up with anything that seems

interesting to you, regardless of technological advances.

In general, technological determinism (the theory that everything that happens in the society is

actually under the spell of technological advances, that technological developments drive the

development of society) is unavoidable, however problematic it is to really accept it. I view

composition as an activity including the research and experimentation of the means of

composing: it's a question of the degree of freedom you have, and that's a significant element you

convey to the audience.

4. Where does Modes of Interference fit into your development as an electronic composer?

Modes of Interference is a pretty good example of various aspects of my work: first, real-time

signal processing has an important role (it's a Pure Data patch, sketched as I was learning the

language, but based on previous personal experience); second, actions on the instrument are not

merely to produce sounds, but also to control the signal processing computer; third, actions on

the instrument are themselves partly dependent on the signal processing output; so it's feedback,

not only audio feedback (Larsen tones), but feedback in the performance process, in the

223

gestures/textures emerging from there. Important, it requires two loudspeakers (it's a frontal,

stereo piece), not more: here speakers are NOT to merely amplify and reproduce sounds that are

already there, but they are active parts in the generation of sound; for this piece, and speakers

seemed just enough. The whole technical configuration, once up and running, is a small

dynamic system: that means, during the performance every part is always affecting every other

part. That's my understanding of "interaction", there is nothing "neutral" to the sound,

everything affecting sound in the performance is compositionally relevant. The stage

environment becomes crucial: actually, the background noise in the room is just necessary (we'll

discuss feedback later on). You can't even "set the level" to this system: it comes with its own

level, if you try changing any level, either input or output, it'll change in the overall dynamical

behaviour (it can even simply die, thus resuming to silence). It's a small autonomous system

constantly exposed to the heteronomy of the environment to which it is coupled, to a number of

"perturbations" in the room. It's fragile. But that is not at all a problem: rather, it becomes a

character of the piece.

Before trying to use the trumpet not only to make sounds that a computer would modify, but as

the source of control for the signal processing gear modifying it, I would have never thought of

writing a piece largely based on prolonged sine tones (Larsen tones are frequently, not always,

very close to sine tones, either single tones, or clusters). This brings us back to the question of

"style", as a problematic notion. I didn't want to write a "fragile" and "thin" work. Simply, it's

got that character from the very structure of the interplay of system components. I was interested

in the latter, and learnt what would be its sonic potential.


compositions and the acoustic characteristics of the instruments for which they are written, and

this is obviously the case in Modes of Interference. Do you feel this is an important relationship

in general?

It is, as is clear from the previous answer. And it is important that this close relationship is clear

to the listeners. You hear a thinner or thicker, variable texture, and you clearly experience that

the many layers in it, the various details, would soon vanish were any part being separate from

the system. You hear that: were the trumpet to stop, the whole sound fabric would also do so.

224

It's so interconnected.

Being so important, the signal processing and the details of the electroacoustic infrastructure are

duly documented in the score. I always try my best to capture the essential of the electronics in

my scores, so other people can implement fairly similar working conditions when they present

my compositions. The digital signal processing is usually notated in ways general enough to be

imported to other computers and programming languages (other than Kyma or Pure Data, the

two I've been using most often). I have seen a few pieces of mine performed by other people

taking charge not only of the instrumental parts, but of the electronics too, and the results were

good enough to have me keep on doing that. It's difficult, but it can be done. It's important to

make such pieces circulate in the hands of people other than yourself, but sharing a similar

perspective.


I had been invited as guest composer at ZKM, Karlsruhe, fall 2005. I had no plan what I would

do there, but I knew they had some emphasis on open source software, at the time, which was

interesting to me. So I accepted the invitation, but requested that they teach me Pure Data or

other open source stuff. That was part of the motivation. Other motivations, less contingent, are

implicit in my answers to questions 4 and 5.


The commission was specifically for Marco Blaauw, a very talented trumpeter from the

Netherlands. At ZKM, I met with Marco and we worked together, but only in the later stage of

the process. However, I wouldn't say I wrote anything that can't be practical for any trumpet

players. Yes, it's quite unusual and specific, virtuosic in a sense, yet the ability required of the

trumpeter is not of a kind we usually attach to virtuosic instrumental music. It has more to do

with the timely responsiveness to the instrument's resonances, and to the behaviour of the

broader context (room and technology) where the instrument is but a component part. It has to

do with the ability to respond of any small aspect of one's actions. But then this "ability" is,

225

strictly speaking, "responsability": the context where you act now, is the result of your own

previous actions; actions you do now, will create the context where you will act next; and not

always the connection is either clear or linear. The score leaves ample margins of maneuver to

tackle this.

In essence, the kind of virtuosity I was asking of Marco, is more like a very very good (almost

perfect) awareness of all subtle details (wanted and unwanted) in his playing, in his manipulating

of the trumpet body with hands and lips. I am not sure at the beginning he was following me on

that. It was difficult, sure, and it was still in progress for me, too. But then he realized that all I

was asking for was a more exact and prompt perception of his own mastery of the trumpet, a

different, renewed understanding of actions of the kind he would actually do all the times, when

playing trumpet. Basically, what I ask of my interpreters, is that they take seriously their

musicality: music lays more in well balanced actions and interactions, and less in the

arrangement of sounds resulting from those actions. Music is a praxis, a practical discipline,

something you do possibly well, not something you re-create or replicate to match a purely

esthetic goal, no matter how well you match it. The first reflects a notion of production

(bringing-forth, poiesis, acting, enacting) and "composition", the latter a notion of reproduction

(mimesis, re-acting) and "consumption".

8. Why did you decide to compose a piece using computer/trumpet controlled audio feedback?

Well, you know, we had several examples of feedback music along the decades. The closest to

what I've done with Modes of Interference is probably a performance by David Tudor, called

Microphone (I can't recall the year). However, it is also very different, in sound as much as in

concept. In general, audio feedback is for me a way to make some events of sound to take place,

some sound to be there, instead of silence: it is "ontogenic" - some sound is now there,

eventually, whose pitch and dynamics largely depend on innumerable factors related to the given

physical, material (this social) context, including the electroacoustic set-up. With some simple

computer code, I turn the feedback chain into a kind of sound generator, so it doesn't necessarily

peak nor saturate. That event of sound lays the ground for a confrontation - encounter or clash -

between performers, a place (space), and a specially composed technological infrastructure

embodying some idea concerning how larger structures can evolve and singular gestures emerge:

226

there it becomes "morphogenic" - feedback not only provides that some events of sound takes

place ("sound as energy"), it also affects how that is articulated in time ("sound as a carrier of

information").

The idea is simple: a) set-up a feedback chain, letting it generate sound by the sheer

accumulation of background noise ("positive" feedback, in cybernetic terms); b) experiment

ways to interfere with that (thus introducing "negative" feedback, i.e. control and longer-term

developments). Ways of interfering include actions on the valves, mouthpiece and bell. The

position of the player relative to the speakers is relevant, too, as is the placement of the

microphone capsule inside the trumpet. And then there's some signal processing transformations

(pitch- and time-shifting of sound). The very same performance concept, with only few

adjustments, is behind other works of mine, particularly the other works called Modes of

Interference (there are three of them so far: the first with trumpet; the second with saxophone;

the third with a number of electric guitars; the third one is actually a sound installation, but it

lends itself well to performance situations too).


The trumpet revealed a very good feedback generator and controller, in a way… After all, it is a

very very small tube, a very restricted duct or conduct, with strong resonances (sometimes too

strong). And it allows you to make actions (not many, but all rather effective) to interfere with

the feedback.

This said, as should be clear from previous answers, I was seeking no particular sound result, if

that is what you mean. I could of course figure out what the resultant sonorities would eventually

be, but I was not after a mental image, I was not realizing something I could pre-hear in my

mind. Sure, along the way I did my best for it to sound in a way that is acceptable or interesting

to my ears. But that came along, it didn't have me started. What had me started was this idea of

creating an autonomous (but exposed to the environment) sound generating system, and

introducing a human-driven factor (instrumental part) to explore its musical potential (in more

specific terms: its system dynamics).

227


Mmmhh, I don't know… I always find it difficult to answer this kind of question. I could

mention very general influences, not particular to this very piece: "system thinking" (cybernetics,

ecology) is a relevant influence, as is "embodied cognition" research (Francisco Varela). Yet, I

don't pursue any kind of naturalism nor claim any scientific relevance… I could mention a few

pioneers whose teachings are invaluable for me… Yet, the list would be too long and not overtly

related to this particular piece (some stronger relations can be found not only with Tudor or

Lucier, but with Xenakis, however different these composers could be). Not to say that, I listen

to a lot of more recent music, including radical improvisation and others where the praxis - i.e.

how you act in a given context, with musical means you are responsible for - is more crucial than

the sounding results. Let me put it very shortly: I am influenced by all music where "sound" is

not "object", but "event".

Oh, yes, I was influenced by the rather bad weather in Karlsruhe and the somewhat depressive

hostel room! I perhaps should mention that my father used to play trumpet (for his own pleasure,

not as a professional): indeed, I took one of his older trumpets with me trying things in the ZKM

studio and at my place in L'Aquila. I had already written, in 1994, a short trumpet & real-time

signal processing, totally non-interactive in a way (you find it in a CD put forth that year by Ars

Electronica, Linz)… I don't recall these as biographical elements: only as evidence that,

probably, when you write for an instrument, often the most significant influence comes from the

instrument itself... I tend to "stay with the instrument" for months, listening to it, learning basic

playing techniques, trying alternative techniques. Or, disassembling it and turning into a

different set of tools (I am doing that for a new flute piece, 2 pezzi di ascolto e sorveglianza [two

pieces of listening and surveillance]).

11. How are the musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.) elements and the electronic

elements of Modes of Interference related to each other?

Well, they are all totally interrelated, as a significant task for me is "compose the interactions"

228

(rather than composing "interactive music"… ). That means, studying the interrelations, the

constraints linking several aspects of sound among them. Modes of interference sounds like a

music where pitch is crucial, just as Feedback Study (a solo electronics piece from 2003, second

piece in the Audible Ecosystemics project). However, the entire pitch structure one hears

changes from performance to performance, from space to space, from trumpet(er) to trumpet(er),

being mostly the result of site-specific (and time-specific) circumstances. However, the array of

interactions (the network "organization", in cybernetic terms) is stable. It is important for me to

regulate how a change in amplitude would cause a change in pitch and shift it; how, in turn, a

change in pitch would have stronger or softer resonances in the room, making the sound louder

or softer, how the stronger or softer resonance, or the brighter or darker resonance, in turn would

cause a change in pitch… inextricably intertwined… Usually, I make the amplitude changes also

drive some more complicated signal processing, like "granular" processing. Consider this

relationship, as an example: if total sound in the room gets louder, sonic particles output by the

granular processing are made sparser, i.e. "less dense". A change in "density" (or even a

rallentando, for that matter), will also eventually a softer overall sound level in the room. The

interrelationships I work with, are sometimes "balancing", sometimes "reinforcing" (keeping or

augmenting the unbalance).

Only in a reductionistic view you would treat the various aspects of sound as separate properties,

as objective magnitudes. I hold a more organic, ecological view of sound: you can't change any

properties, without also changing the others.

12. Did this relationship affect your compositional process?

It did not affect my compositional process: the compositional process itself consisted largely in

studying, crafting, testing etc. such a range of relationships, extending the approach to the signal

processing transformations. It required feature-extraction methods (the technical possibility, in

real time, to track aspects of sound) and methods for the tracked data to be mapped onto

psychoacoustically relevant signal processing variables.

229


See some of the answers above.



I'd prefer to remain on our subject, Modes of interference and the "instrument / electronics"

relationship, but on a point that in the end is of larger significance: How many works for

"instruments and electronics" have finely, competently crafted instrumental parts and pretty

banal electronics, mostly embellishing (or "setting a different context to") the solo instrument

with "sound effects"? There is a huge unbalance in terms of the knowledge put at work. I don't

think the beauty or structural properties of the final sounding results may justify that unbalance.

Esthetics is never a good excuse.

In contrast, I think it is important to develop a certain level of "ecriture" for the electronics: I

mean, in writing for instruments, you probably develop a level of competence in how you exploit

such means: you might have preferences, be more versed in writing for the strings rather than the

piano, etc.; yet, all your instrumental parts are decently crafted and mastered. It's not a question

of how refined or how innovative is your writing: it's a question of how good is your control of

the technological resources (mechanical, in this case, and bound to their historical sources) as

relative to the sounding result. In the end, it's a question of balancing ends and means. (By the

way, there is my definition of music: the ability to balance ends and means). Why this should be

different with electronics? Your level of "ecriture", your mastery of the electronics, reflects the

degree of freedom you hopefully can gain for yourself as a composer or performer, in a world

where our lives and our sounds are taken into unmanageably large arrays of technological and

technocratic forces. It's important to appropriate and customize, design and implement at least

the technology of artistic practices such as music.

230


I know that the approach I happened to take on sound and music appears, to many, all too

specific and technically oriented. However, the future of this approach, which I share with not so

few around the world, lays in the open-mindedness of listeners beyond the niche of today's

musical experimentations (an open-mindedness that the music itself helps widening): when a

larger audience realize that this music is about their freedom, their ears and body and brain, their

relationship to others and to the environment and the space (real space, not virtual), the future

appears a little more luminous… The problem is, quite a lot of counterforces make this business

all the more difficult, if not impossible - and, precisely for that reason, more and more urgent and

necessary, today... In fact, problematic is not the future - not yet! Problematic is the present. We

have to put a lot of thought in it.

D.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Harvey.

27 June, 2010.



The advantages of this music are, for me, an enormous extension of the instrument, much like

the invention of the mute for the trumpet it’s an extension of the instrument. It gives a lot more

difference in colours, and of course it’s an enormous extension. I’m not particularly interested in

having other things in the electronics, different things; I’m interested in an extension of the

instrument. That’s an enormous plus. And disadvantages, well of course it limits the

performance venues. You can’t perform with electronics in every hall, and of course it’s always

a bit more fuss to get everything arranged, but that’s trivial. I think the main disadvantage is that

it does cut down what venues one can use. Otherwise I don’t see any disadvantage at all - quite

the contrary.

231


of your career?

I’ve been using electronics since 1970, and I was one of the first to use computer programming.

Of course that has changed out of all recognition! My approach to composing music with

electronics has necessarily changed according to what is possible, and now we’re at a wonderful

stage where real-time processing is so very quick and efficient that very different things are

possible in real-time. So gradually over the years I’ve mixed more and more real time with tape

or recorded sounds, until now when it’s virtually all real-time. But it’s difficult to define exactly

how the music is different.


The research that has gone on into sound, by means of those programs of treatments of sound,

has been very exciting and very inspiring, so that has influenced me a lot. And the delving into

the sound, into the nature of sound, has influenced my writing. The research has often been

through a microscope as it were, into the tiny components of complex sound, and composing

with those tiny components. So composition has changed, going deeper and deeper into the

microscopic world of sound. And that would influence orchestral writing too, because in

spectral composition of course, the analysis of the sound is often used when writing for other

instruments. The electronic analysis, or computer analysis, is transferred onto the violins or

whatever.

4. Where does Ricercare una Melodia fit into your development as an electronic composer?

It’s 1984, isn’t it. It is quite a simple piece of course, and after I’d been composing very

complex things at IRCAM in Paris, so it fits into that knowledge which I got from those first few

years at IRCAM, which is a big research centre with a lot of scientists and composers. So

Ricercare was obviously not a big piece of research, and at that time you had to use tape

recorders; there was no other way of doing it.

232


The idea of the piece is that it starts off with searching, rather fugal searching like a ricercar, and

at the same time it becomes slower, and deeper and deeper and deeper. And this is a kind of

psychological progression, a rather exciting state of mind progressing to a calmer and deeper

one, eventually like a state of meditation. So that was the idea. It was a little bit Stockhausen-

en, I think that would be the influence.

6. Why did you decide to use tape-loop technology in the composition of this piece?

That was the only possibility, and now of course it’s always done without tape loop and with

computer programming. But it was quite difficult. Stockhausen had used a lot of tape loop

technology, and that really influenced it. So I decided to use it, but it’s quite difficult, because

when you got to the second half, the second tape recorder would start to run slower, at half

speed, and the tape would accumulate on the floor. It would often get into a tangle, and it would

be difficult to feed into the tape recorder properly. So it was quite a hair-raising piece to perform

originally. We had a bunch of performances with the tape loop technology, and I think they

never actually went wrong, but they were pretty scary. I think that answers number seven too,

but of course you could say the technology influenced the thinking of the piece, the technology

of slowing down to half-speed and feeding back. But it was just a demonstration or a research of

that technology, which I liked for metaphysical reasons, perhaps.


See above.


compositions and the acoustic characteristics of the instruments for which they are written. This

233

is obviously an important relationship in Ricercare una Melodia. Do you feel this is an

important relationship in general?

Yes. That’s obviously very important in Ricercare, and in general I feel that, yes. I always like

the electronics to be a close extension of the instrument, not something completely different.

I’ve always wanted to keep very close, because I’m merely an instrumental composer who has

turned to electronics for an extension of instrumental thinking, and that’s my difference with

quite a lot of composers.

9. The musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.) elements and the electronic elements of

Ricercare una Melodia appear closely related to each other. Is this an important relationship

for you?

That’s already answered; very important.

10. How did this relationship shape your compositional process?

I think I go back to classical talking, really, it’s about development, like in Beethoven or

something. You think of electronics as a technique of developing an idea. There will be a

statement of an idea, and then with the electronics you can develop it into distant regions, and

not just the notes, but obviously the whole timbre, the whole acoustic structure of the idea. I feel

quite classically about that. That would be true of most of my works with electronics.


The motivation, I think I touched on - it's a sort of idea of slowing down, of calming the mind, a

trumpet piece which would go into a different region, becoming like a tuba if you want, and

being in all the pitch levels of the brass, and getting slower and slower. So this is the kind of

poetry of the piece, an expansion downwards and getting slower, and all the psychology of that.

234

12. Did you write it with a particular performer in mind? Is there something special about the

way he/she plays that influenced you?

I wrote it for Jonathan Impett. He’s a good player, but I haven’t worked with him on it for

twenty years, I should think. I don’t know if he still does it. But I’ve worked with many, many

other trumpeters.


I think the main piece of advice would be the difficulty and importance of finding a good line in

the second part of the piece, because the trumpet becomes rather detached from the rhythms of

the slow electronics, and it needs to create a very coherent melody, and not be too much

obsessed keeping exactly with the parts underneath which are always different in every

performance. And therefore I often urge the players to practice playing the line without the

electronics, as if it was an unaccompanied piece of trumpet music and really be sure to grasp the

line as you want it, and make it work in itself. Sometimes you have to pause a little bit longer,

listen for something, but then you start again. Just make it really work.



I have written a lot about this here and there. In a word, I would say electronics makes music

more ambiguous. That is a very important thing for me. Music must have many meanings.

Good music and music I write is subtle, in a way, that it’s not obvious. It is not chaotic, and it’s

not too obvious and banal. Somewhere in between there is this ambiguity: things are not always

what they seem, they are changing into other things, they are always transforming, and

electronics is a great way of transforming. You can even transform a trumpet into a tuba, as

you’ve seen in this piece. This is a simple piece, but in many electronic pieces, the function of

the electronics is to create considerable ambiguity, I think.

235


I think that the future of this genre is vast. I think we’re only just at the edge of it, because I see

history, rather in the west, as an evolving process. If you look from the 17th C onwards, we have

the violins developing first, and then we have the woodwinds taking shape in the 18th C, and then

the brass becoming so important and chromatic in the 19th C, with the tuba being added, and the

trombones, and the horns having valves. Everything becomes much more important in the brass

department in the 19th C. And then we have the percussion of course in the 20th C. And now

there’s been nothing since then except electronics, and that is a really big thing, because it’s such

an enormous expansion of possibilities. There are some things against it, I mean economics,

people’s conservatism is not very welcoming of electronics, and of course it’s very easy to make

bad electronics. Although I suppose it was easy to make bad chromatic brass music in the 19th

C, and bad percussion music in the 20th! Anyway, for one reason or another, it is very slow in

coming to the main concert hall, but I think it will change. Slowly but surely, things will change.

D.4 - Transcript of interview with David Cope. Interview questions answered by email.

27 July, 2010



The interplay between a strictly determined track and a freer more musical track.


of your career?

Yes. Technology takes time to learn and as I have learned, I’ve become much better at it.

236

3. Is there a meaning in the whispered syllables employed in Extensions, and if so what is it?

No strict meaning, just emotives.

4. Where does Extensions fit into your development as an electronic composer?

It brought me back to live performance.


compositions and the acoustic characteristics of the instruments for which they are written, and

this is obviously the case in Extensions. Do you feel this is an important relationship in general?

Absolutely.


Bob Levy asked me to write it.


Above.

8. Why did you decide to compose a piece using prerecorded trumpet tracks?

Initially because I didn’t have the resources to use electronic sounds at the time. But also,

because I am in love with large ensembles and wanted one here.

237


Nothing is easy.


Long time ago. Probably Berio and Ligeti.

11. How are the musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.) elements affected by the

electronic elements in Extensions?

Not at all I hope. There are no electronic timbres.

12. Did the relationship between the musical and electronic elements affect your compositional

process?

Not that I remember.


Make the tape part as carefully as possible so that the timbres on the tape sound as real and

present as the live trumpet does.



The ability to create rhythms that humans could not possible perform has both good and bad

elements. This is true of electronic timbres as well as recorded and then spliced sounds.

238


Not many prefer it today, though I think, like everything, it will return.

music for solo trumpet and electronics: a repertoire study

Documents