Edge - Graphic Notation

Well, I uploaded this piece with midi sounds by myself. I had a classic notation score. But I wanted to do an experiment. I made a graphic score, which you can see here. I enjoy very much this kind of score, and the indeterminacy concept. I sent it to a couple of friends and one has done what you can hear...

I thought this piece to be playd by a string quartet but I didn't wrote in the graphic which instruments should be used...

AUDIO: https://clyp.it/ek4rf5sk

If you don't mind, can you tell me what each symbol was initially supposed to represent compositionally?

55 minutes ago, Monarcheon said:

If you don't mind, can you tell me what each symbol was initially supposed to represent compositionally?

 

That's exactly the point of indeterminacy... there is no unique version. What I thought first will surely be different to the interpretations. I didn't imagine sonroje would use theremins.

I ask because original graphic scores normally are not aleatoric. If yours is, that's fine, but we're taught to avoid aleatoricism when starting to write graphic scores. Just because they're graphic, doesn't mean they're not structured. :)

i still think it's interesting!

Why are there so many completely pointless elements? ... what I mean is, can you justify a reason that everything is there?  

9 hours ago, robinjessome said:

Why are there so many completely pointless elements? ... what I mean is, can you justify a reason that everything is there?  

 

 

Take a look at Xenakis, Ligeti, Crumb, Stockhausen, Cage, Epstein, etc, etc....

12 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

Take a look at Xenakis, Ligeti, Crumb, Stockhausen, Cage, Epstein, etc, etc....

 

I have.

And I doubt that anything they put on a page wasn't there to explicitly affect the music. 

Why the coloured background? What are the "futuristic tech dials" doing there?  What's the "|i♯♯a♮." thing mean? What is the bit of wire for?

I just want to be sure you placed these elements purposefully, not just because it looks "cool" ...

All those things meant something to me when I did it.

If everything is explicit, then there is no indeterminacy, which is the concept.

There are thousands of graphic scores. I don't  think there's anything explicit in them.

On the other hand, why not putting something just because it's cool?

Many people think this is crap, it's OK... For me it's great and opens many doors.

1 hour ago, Luis Hernández said:

All those things meant something to me when I did it.

If everything is explicit, then there is no indeterminacy, which is the concept.

There are thousands of graphic scores. I don't  think there's anything explicit in them.

There are thousands of graphic scores, and I think everything is explicit in them.  Using the notation to control the indeterminacy - THAT  is the concept.  

If you think that Xenakis, Ligeti, Crumb, Stockhausen, Cage, Epstein, etc, etc.... didn't agonize over every single detail of even their most adventurous music, think again.

Control the indeterminacy.... that's contradictory.

anyway, there is no ablolute truth, 

42 minutes ago, Luis Hernández said:

Control the indeterminacy.... that's contradictory.

 

No, it's not. This is arguably the most key concept in stochastic and aleatoric music. In an abstract sense, there isn't even such a thing as total indeterminacy. Consider the meaning of the term - the absence of determinants of any kind. In order to achieve that, the work may not be explicitly presented as music, or any other kind of art form, it must not be presented by anyone to anyone, it must not bear any sort of title or have any ideological connotations, it must contain only random data unfettered by any limitations of medium, or of time and space. It cannot even be a work in general, because that already determines a great deal. Really, it is ridiculous to even acknowledge the idea of total indeterminacy, to attempt to realize it is impossible.

So what's the logical conclusion? That nothing is totally indeterminant and "indeterminacy" really refers to level of freedom in the composer's hands. Therefore, you can have things which are more or less indeterminant, and you can control said indeterminacy. This is a key concept in stochastic and aleatoric music, and it is crucial what parameters you decide to leave to chance or performance whim - if you leave everything up to chance or do not take the process seriously you are engaging in a mundane type of compositional masturbation which is all too common with aleatoric types.

In practical terms, both highly indeterminant music and highly determinant music is devoid of meaningful information - there is either too much or too little information and it becomes static and lifeless.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that every element in the score must be explicit. Even tradicional notation has non explicit things .

8 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

...that doesn't mean that every element in the score must be explicit. Even tradicional notation has non explicit things .

...for example? 

I'm not sure we're using "explicit" to mean the same thing...but I'll bite ;)

(also, sorry for hijacking the thread for your piece - if you prefer, feel free to start another one - this is interesting discussion! )

Don't worry. I think it's good to discuss about this topic. It's quite interesting.

I know it's not the same but, for example, Satie used to write "indications" in the scores which are open to interpretation. In Cage's writings we always read the example of The Art of the Fugue. According to him, Bach didn't tell about the instrumentation, neither the order to play the parts.

By explicit, I understand that what I see in a score is exactly how the composer wants the piece to be played.

Yes, I agree that even in graphic scores, everything has a meaning but the composer allows a range of variation or interpretations.  The possibilities are many. Teh composers can state many things, or not. That is to say, the graphic and symbols have an actual meaning, but if everything is "explicit" in terms that every symbol is explained, then Where is the indeterminacy? In that case, the symbols are different, but there's no room for "chance".

To clarify, I'm not meaning that something in the score needs to have an explicit outcome.  The beauty of this type of music is in the fact that the musicians have about as much input into the performance as the composer.

What I'm trying to say is that the everything in the score should be placed explicitly. Purposefully. While the exact outcome may be open to interpretation, the composer should be using the score as a way to shape and steer the performance.  The only thing differentiating a "composition" from a "free improvisation" is the score. And some graphical influence will have somewhat predictable results; allowing freedom on some aspects while controlling others... herein lies the musical art.  The same goes with the various "conduction" and "game pieces" for controlling free performance.

Back to your score, however. 

I'll ask again - why the background colour?  Did you choose that colour? If so, why?  Why are the futuristic tech dials there?  What's the wire for? What is the reasoning the "maj" is placed at the right edge? What does the "|i♯♯a♮." thing indicate? Why is it tilted? What are the arrows for? ... I can keep going. I also don't doubt that some of them are important, but I just want you to be aware of how every single thing on your score is important, especially when working in this type of a medium.

On the flipside, if you can you show me a single, respected piece with a graphically notated score where an element was clearly placed without consideration for the impact on performance, and I'll eat my hat.