Tricky Performance plan...

So, The plan is, come mid-may to have a performance of my composition that I haven't done yet.

It's for Flute, Clarinet, Piano, Violin, Cello and Electronics.

Now, the electronics are going to be synth on a computer, and hopefully mic up the clarinet and cello, so when turned on, they play and create effects that are made through the microphone and into the computer.

Clear so far?

Now, for the instruments, there are certain pointilistic aleatoric moments where the players are to perform straight after the person before them, the reaction speed is up to the performer. So the moment the cello does something, that is the flautists queue to play their bit etc. So it's not timed accurately as such (this is just the start, it all comes together).

The synth will have to comply with the acoustic instruments too, in order to keep the queues right.

Now...

1 - How would I notate the pointilistic moments, telling the players where to play their bits?

2 - How would I set up the synth to be able to be aleatoric too, bearing in mind there will be numerous sound effects (up to 8 i'd imagine, hopefully less)

3 - Any other complications you think might be useful to point out

Thanks

Nice project you have there. I will also have a performance in mid-may for solo recorder and live electronics and I'm dying multiple deaths per day because I just don't manage to get on with it as well as I should. But I guess that's my problem :(

Anyways! Concerning your questions:

1- I strongly recommend checking out Lutoslawski's string quartet (and other pieces by him), which focuses intensively on semi-aleatoric techniques and cues between the instrumentalists. It's been a while since I looked at it, but I think generally it's just parts with specific cue notes of other instruments that signify when you have to stop playing one passage or start playing another. Sometimes it also instructs one instrumentalist to give one or more of the others a visual sign which marks a new section.

Personally I've never used such techniques in chamber music, where the communication is directly between the instrumentalists, but examples like Lutoslawski's string quartet show that it's very well possible and very effective, if done considerately. I've only used Lutoslawski-like techniques once, in a piece for four Alphorns and string orchestra, but it's something quite different in an orchestral piece, since then there's a conductor with a score who can give clear cues. (If your piece gets very complex, it might even be necessary to employ a conductor as well, but generally, if you keep the structures on a reasonably simple level it should work well without one.)

The one thing I learned in this piece I wrote (which also applies to chamber music without a conductor) is that the more open your rhythmic/metric structures are, the more you need to carefully consider your timing (as absurd as that may seem first). The problem with aleatoric structures is that there's quite some span of how long they can last, which you always need to be aware of when writing your next "cue". Your violin might actually have a bit longer than the cello to complete a certain passage, for example, even if the violin part looks shorter on the score, which can quickly create confusion in the overall temporal organisation of your piece. (You have this problem less when the piece is -totally- aleatoric of course, but when you have semi-aleatorism but still some cue points where certain things -should- happen, or should even happen -together- it gets trickier).

The important thing here is to create buffer zones. These can be pauses, fermatas or passages that are repeated an indefinite number of times, for example, which give the instrumentalists a way to "wait for the others to arrive", so they can go on when the next cue comes. The longer an unsynchronised passage is, in which the instruments don't play together rhythmically, the more important such buffer zones get, and the more important it is that new cues don't come too quickly, so people actually have time to finish their part first.

Of course you can also let them know that it doesn't matter whether they finish a part and that they just should cease to play and jump to the next section when the cue comes. But this all requires very clear notes in the parts/score and careful consideration what you really want and what you are willing to accept.

I find it funny how people often think aleatoric concepts make composing easier, since "chance composes for you" and you have to worry less about carefully designing structures. I find that actually the contrary is generally the case. The more aleatoric elements you have, the more carefully you need to consider the structures of your piece (if this matters to you, of course), since you don't just have to keep in mind -one- possible outcome, but a -lot- of different possibilities, all of which should somehow meet your intent. I've worked on a couple of performances of Cage pieces too, and I was astounded how much work elements of chance created, just to create a working concept for a performance.

But sorry, I went a bit off track here. Think of that as an answer to question 3. I'll just get on to the second question!

2. To answer that, could you tell a bit more what you have in mind there for those "synths"? Are they analog synths? Digital hardware synths? Software synths in a computer? If the latter, in what kind of program will they run? Will there be one or more players who play them, or will they run automatically? Do they actually play something, or just use effects on the other instruments?

There are indeed many ways to "aleatorise" electronic sounds, which range from treating them like any other instrument and writing a part for a person who will then play them, over algorithmical and aleatoric processes that run automatically, to effects that are automatically "triggered" by certain things that happen in the music that is being played live.

First things first - I love you. Thanks so much for responding to such great detail and digression, It's massively appreciated.

As for the synths, It will largely be ambient sounds and pointilistic textures played in software on a laptop, using Cubase SX3.

I think it would be a good idea to have certain triggers, that perhaps a performer could do, even myself maybe, such as pressing 'OK' and it moved onto the next sound that has been pre-recorded.

Jordan Rudess does this in Dream Theater, he has a pedal under his keyboard, and every press of the pedal changes his sound effect, which gives effortless colour. But I won't have access to such things as auto-pedals...

By the way I'm listening to this string quartet, it's fascinating, but my plan is to only really have the aleatoric work for the first minute or so, and then things will break into regular rhythmic pace, so it SHOULD be a bit safer than this crazy piece.

Thanks again for the help!