Editor’s Note

Max Mathews 1926–2011 people to perform music in new ways. As an amateur violinist, Math- Vernon Mathews, a pioneer ews saw the computer as a means who helped to create and shape the for performers like him to “make field of , passed away better music” by transcending some on 21 April 2011 at the age of 84. of the physical demands inherent He had been briefly hospitalized in learning and performing with for pneumonia in San Francisco, conventional musical instruments California, where he lived. (Park 2009, p. 10). Mathews’ pioneer- ing work with F. Richard Moore in the late 1960s produced the Gener- A Computer Music Pioneer and ated Real-Time Output Operations Visionary on Voltage-Controlled Equipment Born in Nebraska on 13 November (GROOVE) system, which for the 1926, has often been first time allowed a human performer called the father of computer music. to interact with a digital computer Indeed, he was responsible for one to control live analog sound. Later, of the most significant events in Mathews developed some of the first the birth of the field: in 1957, when software and hardware for allowing Mathews was a young researcher at real-time control over digital sound. Bell Telephone Laboratories, he wrote Recognizing that the creation of in- the first program for generating audio teractive computer music systems waveforms using digital synthesis. demanded careful consideration of Suddenly, humans making sound the roles that humans and computers were no longer constrained by the I wanted as simple a program as pos- could and should play in live mu- physical, analog world; digital syn- sible; I wanted the complexity of the sic performance, Mathews created thesis allowed the creation of any program to vary with the complex- the Conductor program to allow a sound imaginable, turning the com- ity of the musician’s desires. . . The human performer to expressively puter into—in Mathews’ words—“a only answer I could see was not to shape the computer’s rendition of universal instrument” (Park 2009, make the instruments myself—not a pre-composed musical score. In p. 11). to impose my taste and ideas about the Conductor program, Mathews The invention of digital synthesis instruments on the musicians—but also challenged and expanded the alone might have established Max rather to make a set of fairly universal roles played by the human com- Mathews as a founding father of building blocks and give the musician poser and software programmer, computer music. But he was also a both the task and the freedom to put recognizing that the questions of pioneer and a visionary whose work these together into his or her instru- which musical dimensions should continued to shape research and prac- ments” (Roads and Mathews 1980, be controllable by the performer tice in the field, as well as inspire p. 16). The unit generator paradigm over the course of a piece were es- countless collaborators and students, enabled new ways of composing and sentially musical questions whose for many decades to follow. In the programming with sound that have answers were encoded in the software Music III language, developed in 1960, persisted to this day, and Mathews program. Mathews introduced the “unit gen- later indicated that he considered this Mathews invented the Radio Ba- erator” paradigm for programming to be “the most important innovation ton, a new digital musical instrument, sound synthesis. The unit generator that [he] had a hand in” (Park 2009, in the early 1980s. The Radio Baton was born of Mathews’ desire to em- p. 20). sensed the motions of two hand- power musicians to create their own Although real-time control over held batons in space and used those sounds through a simple and effec- digital sound would not be feasible motions to influence and control tive interface. In a 1980 interview, until over a decade after Mathews’ the computer’s sound during perfor- Mathews remarked: “I wanted to first work on digital sound synthesis, mance. Mathews continued to refine give the musician a great deal of his motivation for that work arose the instrument for many years, and power and generality in making the partly from his vision that computer for the rest of his life, he remained musical sounds, but at the same time technology could someday enable engaged in investigating whether and

Editor’s Note 11

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/COMJ_e_00082 by guest on 01 October 2021 how it was possible to build new researchers who went on to trans- mentored many students. Mathews digital instruments that allowed gen- form computer music with their own was also a prominent figure in the uine musical expressivity. In a 2009 contributions. was the international computer music re- interview, Mathews remarked that first composer to join Mathews and search community, influencing and he considered this to be his legacy to Pierce; he arrived in 1961, and he first inspiring others through his presence the community: “If wrote about his work with Mathews at meetings of the Audio Engineering I’ve done anything, I am an inventor in the Yale Journal of Music Theory in Society, the International Computer of new instruments, and almost all 1963. Soon after, Jean-Claude Risset Music Conference, the International the instruments I have invented are and , both graduate Conference on New Interfaces for computer programs. I have built a few students at the time, were inspired Musical Expression, the Society for electronic violins. So if I am remem- by Mathews’ 1963 article on com- Electro-Acoustic Music in the United bered for anything, I would like to be puter music in Science. Risset arrived States, and others. remembered as one of the inventors at in 1964 and proceeded Many who knew Mathews through of new instruments” (Park 2009, to undertake his seminal research this extended community have de- p. 22). on the analysis and synthesis of in- scribed being struck by his generosity, Mathews’ achievements and con- strumental timbre. With Mathews’ warmth, and humility. In interviews tributions have been recognized by help, Chowning began to conduct and lectures, Mathews frequently diverse international professional his own computer music research downplayed his expertise and contri- organizations. Mathews was a fel- at . A few of the butions. He often referred to himself low of the Institute of Electrical and other notable composers who worked as merely an amateur musician, and Electronics Engineers, the Audio with Mathews throughout his career he attributed many of his achieve- Engineering Society, the American include John Cage, , ments to circumstance: “I think that Academy of Arts and Sciences, and James K. Randall, Emmanuel Ghent, this occurred not because I did any- the Acoustical Society of Amer- , David Lewin, Paul thing special, but because I was in at ica. Among his many honors are Lansky, , Hubert the beginning when computers first the IEEE Gold Medal, the Acous- Howe, , Pierre became powerful enough to deal with tical Society of America Silver Boulez, , Barry Ver- sound and music. I guess I didn’t have Medal, the Chevalier de l’Ordre coe, and . This list any way of predicting the popularity des Arts et Lettres, the Qwartz is, of course, incomplete; Mathews of digital music, and that popularity d’Honneur Lifetime Achievement worked with countless musicians, was the result of many people other Award, and the Lifetime Achieve- researchers, and students over his than me making it easy to do and far ment Award of the Society for Electro- lifetime. less expensive. And I certainly had no Acoustic Music in the United States Mathews also played a significant idea of the rapid advance in computer (SEAMUS). role in establishing and shaping sev- power that we have seen in the last 50 eral computer music research centers years, and I don’t think anyone else A Colleague, Mentor, and Friend across the world. In 1965, Princeton did either, or at least very few people University opened a computer mu- [did] . . . ” (Park 2009, p. 22). Writings Mathews’ contributions to the com- sic facility with the help of a data by his colleagues and students— puter music field transcend his many converter donated by Bell Labs. Math- including those on the following technical innovations and accom- ews was the first Scientific Advisor pages of this issue—refer to Mathews plishments. He has also been a to the Institut de Recherche et Coordi- as a true friend, a patient teacher, and colleague, mentor, and—along with nation Acoustique/Musique (IRCAM) someone who could be counted on his wife, Marjorie—friend to many in Paris, France, serving from 1974 to both to provide excellent advice and members of the computer music 1980. After his retirement from Bell to truly listen to the ideas of those community. Mathews worked as Labs in 1987, Mathews joined the more junior than he. These facets of the director of Bell Labs’ Acoustical faculty of the Center for Computer Mathews’ extraordinary personality and Behavioral Research Center from Research in Music and Acoustics have enriched the lives of those who 1962 to 1985, and his musical projects (CCRMA) at Stanford University. have interacted with him over the enjoyed the support of his supervisor, Until his death, he remained an ac- years, and they have set a high bar for John Pierce. Together, they welcomed tive figure at CCRMA, where he future leaders of the computer music collaborations with composers and continued his research work and community.

12 Computer Music Journal

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/COMJ_e_00082 by guest on 01 October 2021 A Legacy Shaped by a Love of and researchers in cognition and Tricia Schroeter Music neuroscience worked together to un- CCRMA/Music derstand the true nature of sound and Stanford University Mathews’ deep love of music formed music, and to understand the ways Stanford, CA 94305 the foundation for all of his achieve- in which computers could expand USA ments. His goals for computer music the possibilities for human musical didn’t stop at creating sounds that experience. Recently, Mathews de- Mathews is survived by his wife, were simply new; rather, he was scribed his vision for computer music Marjorie; his sons, Vernon, Guy, interested in synthesizing and under- in an age where the old constraints and Boyd; and six grandchildren. standing sounds that were beautiful. of computing speed and cost have On behalf of the computer music Likewise, his interest in new mu- largely been swept away: “What now community, we express our sincere sical interfaces stemmed not from is the musical challenge of the future? condolences to them and our deepest a desire to create novel controllers I believe it is our understanding of the gratitude for the impact that he has per se, but to create musical perfor- power and limitations of the human had on our community, our work, and mance possibilities that enabled more brain, and specifically discovering our lives. people to engage in truly expressive which sound waves, sound patterns, music-making. timbres, and sequences humans rec- These values permeated the first —Rebecca Fiebrink, News Editor ognize as beautiful and meaningful work of Mathews and his team at music—and why” (Mathews 2011). Bell Labs, and they have continued Ultimately, Mathews’ values and to inform the goals of computer References vision for the computer music com- music research and the notions of munity have helped to shape its goals, who should participate in shaping Mathews, M. V. 2011. Foreword to its identity, and its contributions to the discipline. As Risset wrote in The Audio Programming Book,by the world in subtle yet indelible ways. 2009, “Not only did he give birth R. Boulanger and V. Lazzarini, Eds. This is also part of his legacy. to digital sound, but he lovingly Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. and carefully nurtured it” (Risset Park, T. H. 2009. “An Interview with Remembering Mathews 2009, p. 26). Under Mathews’ care, Max Mathews.” Computer Music experiments with musical sounds in a A celebration of Max Mathews’ life Journal 33(3):9–22. 1950s industrial research lab quickly and contributions was held on 29 Risset, J.-C. 2009. “Max Mathews’s expanded to involve composers from May 2011 at Stanford University’s Influence on (My) Music.” Com- around the world who were interested CCRMA in Palo Alto, California, puter Music Journal 33(3):26–34. in the musical consequences of digital USA. CCRMA is accepting donations Roads, C., and M. V. Mathews. 1980. technology. Mathews envisioned in Mathews’ memory to establish “Interview with Max Mathews.” computer music as a field in which a permanent display of his work. Computer Music Journal 4(4):15– engineers, composers, musicians, Donations can be sent to: 22.

Editor’s Note 13

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/COMJ_e_00082 by guest on 01 October 2021