|
Sequencer Score
GetSiriusNoah - L. Fehskens, July 1987
tempo - 60 quarter notes per minute
Notational conventions:
Step size is denominator of time signature (i.e., 9/8 => eighth
note resolution, 9/16 => sixteenth note resolution).
r - rest
t - tie
p - phrase
q - retrograde phrase
b - inverted phrase
d - retrograde inverted phrase
P - augmented phrase (beat/step size is halved; apparent tempo is
doubled; i.e., 9/8 -> 9/16, etc.)
etc.
Phrases:
Source material (A omitted from row unintentionally)
9/8 p1 B t F# t t C# G# t t
5/8 p2 C t t A# t
6/8 p3 r G F t t t
7/8 p4 D D# t E t t t
Derived material
Inversions are "relative to C" (C -> C, C# -> B, D -> A#, ...,
F# - > F#, ..., A# -> D, B -> C#). Retrogrades are based on position
(i.e., NOTE-ONs in the retrograde phrase occur the same distance
from the end of the bar as they were from the beginning of the
bar of the source phrase). This is a slightly weird definition
of retrograde; it has the property that the retrograde of the
retrograde of a phrase may not be the same as that phrase.
Note durations in a retrograde phrase are determined by the
placement of the next note (i.e., rests appear only at beginning
of retrograde bar, if at all).
9/8 p1' B t t t t r r r r (to complete scale of phrase d4)
7/8 p4' D D# t C# t t t (to provide 3rd for A major chord)
9/8 q1 r r G# C# t t F# t B
5/8 q2 r A# t t C
6/8 q3 r r r F G t
7/8 q4 r r r E t D# D
9/8 b1 C# t F# t t B E t t
5/8 b2 C t t D t
6/8 b3 r F G t t t
7/8 b4 A# A t G# t t t
9/8 d1 r r E B t t F# t C#
5/8 d2 r D t t C
6/8 d3 r r r G F t
7/8 d4 r r r G# t A A#
Accompaniment:
(chord inversions as yet undocumented except in the manuscript
score and as sequencer data)
C11 D# + B B(no 5th) G#m(no root)
C21 C# + E + G# C#m
C31 C + F + G + A# C7sus4
C41 D + F# + A D
C12 C# + D# + G# G#sus4
C22 F# + A# F#(no 5th) D#m(no root)
C32 C + E + F + A Fmaj7
C42 D + G + B G
c11 D + F# D(no 5th) Bm(no root) Gmaj7(no root, no 3rd)
c12 C# + G# C#(no 3rd) G#sus4(no 5th)
c2 C + F F(no 3rd) Csus4(no 5th)
c3 D# + A# D#(no 3rd) A#sus4(no 5th)
c41 G + B G(no 5th) Em(no root) Cmaj7(no root, no 3rd)
c42 E + A A(no 3rd) Esus4(no 5th)
G D + D# + E + F + G + A + A# + B (tone cluster for gong)
Voice assignments:
string ensemble - JX-10, MKS-80
flute - CZ-101
marimbas - low, medium low - JX-10
medium high, high - MKS-80
gong - MKS-80
brass ensemble - JX-10, MKS-80
There appears to have been some confusion about the nature of the
synths used. No samplers were employed. The synths are as follows:
MKS-80 - Roland Super Jupiter, analog synth
JX-10 - Roland Super JX, digital/analog hybrid synth
CZ-101 - Casio CZ-101 digital (phase distortion) synth
The score:
Each space (print position) represents one beat. Note that for
the augmented material (P, B, D, Q) each beat is one half the
nonaugmented beat. "|" denotes a bar line. "()" enclose truncated
material.
1 - 4 strings |p1 |p2 |p3 |p4 |
5 - 8 flute |p1 |p2 |p3 |p4 |
strings |C11 |C21 |C31 |C41 |
9 - 12 flute |q1 |q2 |q3 |q4 |
strings |C12 |C22 |C32 |C42 |
13 - 16 strings |b1 |b2 |b3 |b4 |
17 - 20 flute |b1 |b2 |b3 |b4 |
strings |C32 |C22 |C42 |C12 |
21 - 24 flute |d1 |d2 |d3 |d4 |
strings |C21 |C41 |C31 |C11 |
25 - 28 flute |p1' |
strings |p1 |p2 |p3 |p4 |
29 - 32 marimba |P1 |P2 |P3 |P4 |
strings |c11 c12 |c2 |c3 |c41 c42|
33 - 36 marimba |B1 |B2 |B3 |B4 |
strings |c12 c42 |c11 |c2 |c41 c3 |
37 - 40 marimba |D4 |D3 |D2 |D1 |
strings |c3 c41 |c2 |c11 |c42 c12 |
41 - 44 marimba |Q4 |Q3 |Q2 |Q1 |
strings |c42 c41|c3 |c2 |c12 c11 |
45 - 48 hi marimba | | | |P1.....|
med hi marimba | | |P1....|...P2..|
med lo marimba | |P1...|....P2|...P3..|
lo marimba |P1.......|P2...|P3....|P4.....|
49 - 52 hi marimba |..P2...P3|....P|4.....|B1.....|
med hi marimba |.P3....P4|.....|B1....|...B2..|
med lo marimba |..P4.....|B1...|....B2|...B3..|
lo marimba |B1.......|B2...|B3....|B4.....|
53 - 56 hi marimba |..B2...|B3....|B4...|..D4.....|
med hi marimba |.B3....|B4....|.D4..|...D3....|
med lo marimba |..B4...|..D4..|...D3|....D2...|
lo marimba |D4.....|D3....|D2...|D1.......|
57 - 60 hi marimba |D3....D|2...D1|.....|..Q4.....|
med hi marimba |D2...D1|......|.Q4..|...Q3....|
med lo marimba |D1.....|..Q4..|...Q3|....Q2...|
lo marimba |Q4.....|Q3....|Q2...|Q1.......|
61 - 64 hi marimba |Q3....Q2.|..Q1.|......|P1.....|(..)
med hi marimba |Q2...Q1..|.....|P1....|...P2..|(.)
med lo marimba |Q1.......|P1...|....P2|...P3..|(..)
lo marimba |P1.......|P2...|P3....|P4.....|
8/4
65 gong |G . . . . . . . |
66 - 69 brass |c11 c12 |c2 |c3 |c41 c42|
70 - 73 brass |p1 |p2 |p3 |p4 |
strings |p1 |p2 |p3 |p4 |
flute |p1 |p2 |p3 |p4' |
strings |c11 c12 |c2 |c3 |c41 c42|
|
|
How It Actually Got Written
GetSiriusNoah was written in response to a challenge from some
fellow COMMUSIC noters. The challenge, while somewhat in jest, ended
up being taken quite seriously. That challenge, to "get serious",
appears as a rather lame pun in the title.
First, let me deal with the question of anonymity. My apologies to
all for the ethical sleights of hand necessitated by my desire to
keep my identity unknown until after the piece had been auditioned.
Basically, given the expected ambience of the tape, and my reputation
as a rock'n'roller, I wanted it to be given a fair hearing. It would
have been fun had there been more guessing as to its authorship,
but my thanks to everyone for bearing with me.
The piece was not so much "composed" as it was "designed" or "derived".
Only a few of the decisions I made regarding the piece entailed any
judgement on my part; most were "random", as random as a human being
can try to be (i.e., they were subject to unspecified biases). I had
essentially no idea what this was going to sound like until all the
parts had been sequenced and recorded. No computers were involved in
the compositional (i.e., decision making) process, only the performance,
and even then, only to the extent that the MC500 sequencer and the
various synths employed contain "embedded" computers.
I based the piece on a naive understanding of serial composition
techniques. My strategy was to pick a row, and then build the piece
up from this row, its inverted form, its retrograde ("backwards") form
and its retrograde inversion. I also deliberately crafted the piece to
avoid a number of criticisms that had been leveled at earlier "toy"
compositions of mine.
So, I began by picking a row. I actually began by picking four
subrows, which together used all 12 notes of the chromatic scale.
The subrows contained 4, 2, 2 and 3 notes: of course, I made a mistake
this early in the game by inadvertantly omitted one note (A - accounting
for the other lame pun in the title). You might ask, "where would
you put the A were you to "fix" this "bug"?" After some thought, I've
decided I'd put it in p2 (see the sequencer score), just before the A#.
I didn't bother fixing it at the time because I had already sequenced
more material than I was willing to do over again. Such are the
vicissitudes of "real" composition.
Notes were assigned to subrows "randomly". The subrow time signatures
were deliberately chosen to be "unconventional", to avoid the "4/4 is
so pedestrian" criticism, thus 9/8, 5/8, 6/8 and 7/8. Note durations
were also assigned "randomly" to the subrows. By chance (or unconscious
design, i.e., ingenuous oversight), the last note of each subrow
extends to the end of the subrow barline.
Having generated the melodic material, I needed some harmonic
accompaniment. I decided to again use each of the 12 notes of the
chromatic scale once, allocating them among 4 chords, one for
each subrow. The 4 chords were chosen "randomly", with the constraint
that they be more or less consonant (e.g., a 7sus4 is "more or less"
consonant). The 12 notes were grouped into chords of 2, 3, 3 and 4 notes.
The 4 chords were assigned to the subrows by superficial inspection,
again based on the desire for some nominal consonance. I ruefully
observe that almost all of the chord changes occur at the (tyrannical)
bar line, and the chords are almost all held for the duration of the
bar.
I then generated the inversion, retrograde and retrograde inversion
of each subrow. The definition of retrograde used is somewhat
idiosyncratic (see the sequencer score).
I sketched out the "large scale" structure of the piece more or less
as I sequenced it. It eventually became clear that I wanted two more
sets of chords for accompaniment, so I generated another set of 4 chords
(again with 2, 3, 3 and 4 notes) and later a set of 6 two-note chords.
These additional chord sets were also mapped onto the subrows by
cursory inspection.
The large scale structure went as follows:
1) theme (4 subrows) in strings
2) theme in flute over first set of 4 chords
3) retrograde subrows in flute over second set of 4 chords
repeat the above substructure using inverted rows (to "use up"
all the material generated):
4) inverted theme in strings
5) inverted theme in flute over 2nd set of 4 chords
6) retrograde inverted subrows over 1st set of 4 chords
7) repeat theme in strings to "reestablish frame of reference"
8) double time theme and its inversion (to avoid criticism of
rhythmic monotony) in marimba (to provide some timbral diversity)
over set of 6 chords; then retrograde this material
9) marimba canon based on marimba material just introduced, to
avoid criticism of linearity and lack of polyphony; no
accompaniment; this 27/16 phrase repeated 5 times to guarantee
all "vertical" combinations occur; voices of the canon enter on
the bar lines of the low marimba, but the tyranny of the bar
line is thereafter subverted as the subrows stack up with one
another in random staggered fashion; see the sequencer score for
the actual alignments
10) gong crash to bring everything to a screeching halt; 8/4 bar
length chosen as longest sequencer allowed to let crash fade
11) brass chords (from 6 chord set) inverted and widely spaced for a
portentous effect; played in the same order as used when
accompanying the marimba introduction (section 8)
12) unison theme over 6 chord set in strings to wrap it up.
Despite all these more or less arbitrary decisions, this structure
produced the prime bar and beat lengths mentioned in my liner notes.
Lest anyone think otherwise, I believe this to have no significance
whatever. Based on the motivations discussed above, the various
sections of the piece work out to the following lengths:
section # bars # beats bar #s beats as 16ths
------- --------- --------- ------- ---------------
1 - 3 3 * 4 3 * 27/8 1 - 12 6 * 27
4 - 6 3 * 4 3 * 27/8 13 - 24 6 * 27
7 4 27/8 25 - 28 2 * 27
8 4 * 4 4 * 27/16 29 - 44 4 * 27
9 5 * 4 5 * 27/16 45 - 64 5 * 27
10 1 8/4 65 32
11 4 27/8 66 - 69 2 * 27
12 4 27/8 70 - 73 2 * 27
---------- ---------------
18 * 4 + 1 27 * 27 + 32
As it happens, both these numbers are prime. Curious, but no more
than that.
This was a fun exercise. I have come to rather like this little toy,
and consider my random choice of row to have been extraordinarily
fortunate.
This led to some other studies of this sort of composition, which I found
intellectually amusing if of limited practical value (e.g., how many
sets of 6 nominally consonant intervals (i.e., limited to the intervals
of the minor 3rd, major 3rd, fourth, fifth, minor 6th and major 6th)
can be defined using each of the 12 notes of the chromatic scale once?
Given a phrase of n resolvable time units length, how many different
rhythmic phrases can be created using notes, ties and rests, each
of the resolvable unit's duration? I have been able to derive an
analytic (well, recursive) solution for the latter, but have only
been able to deal with the former empirically.).
I am working on a major revision that inserts the missing A and uses
a more conventional definition of retrograde. This version will be
somewhat longer. I can't make any promises as to what else it might be.
|