Listening to Cybernetics

Christina Dunbar-Hester, Cornell University For re:place conference, Berlin, November 2007 Draft—Do not circulate or cite without permission

Listening to Cybernetics: Music, Machines, and Nervous Systems, 1950-1980

Introduction “Cybernetics” emerged as an area of academic study and popular interest shortly after the end of World War II. It was concerned with broad themes including command and control, systems, information, and analogies between organisms and machines, including computers. In the academy, cybernetics came to constitute “one of the dominant intellectual paradigms of the postwar era” (Turner 2006: 27). Cybernetics has recently attracted attention in social studies of science, particularly in terms of its application in “hard” scientific fields and in the social sciences. Yet from the inception of the field in the late 1940s, cyberneticians explicitly envisioned wide sociocultural applications extending beyond the purview of scientific disciplines. Indeed, many cybernetic concepts were seen by cyberneticians, the public, and artists as having broad social significance beyond their “technical” meanings.

In this paper, I emphasize cybernetics’ adoption in one of the humanities (music). I ask how this application was manifested and why cybernetic principles may have held appeal for people in experimental music circles. I aim to explore the implications of cybernetics’ appearance in music for the consideration of cybernetics by historians of science. In particular, the treatment of cybernetics as “closed” in the sense discussed by Paul Edwards does not match the use of cybernetics by musicians and composers. In viewing cybernetics primarily in relation to the sciences, scholars have neglected to see how “open” or indeterminate cybernetic discourse could also be.

Materially, this was a period of experimentation with electronic techniques in recording, composition, and sound production and manipulation. Musicians and composers seeking unique sounds and modes of musical production often looked to new electronic technologies to aid them, including computers.

N. Katherine Hayles suggests that the meaning of cybernetics changed over time, and she sketches three “waves” of cybernetics. Many examples I found seem to have roughly in

1 Christina Dunbar-Hester, Cornell University For re:place conference, Berlin, November 2007 Draft—Do not circulate or cite without permission common what Hayles has termed “second wave” cybernetic principles; they are united around a conception of cybernetics as “autopoiesis,” or the self-making of a complex system. For Hayles, the equilibrium-seeking aspect of first-wave cybernetics gave way to a more reflexive notion of “turning a system’s rules back on itself so as to cause it to engage in more complex behavior,” privileging “change over constancy, evolution over equilibrium, complexity over predictability” (1994: 446).

Below, I identify four categories of uses of cybernetics in musical practice, and in the interest of length, I will keep examples to a minimum.i

I. HUMAN-MACHINE INTEGRATION In his 1948 book, Norbert Wiener wrote of the “unity of the set of problems centering about communication, control, and statistical mechanics, whether in the machine or in living tissue…” (1948: 19). He emphasized conceptual similarities in feedback systems in organisms and machines. Wiener held that the electronic circuits of computing machines were “precise analogues” to “neuronic circuits and systems” (1948: 22).

Bebe (b. 1927) and Louis Barron (1920-1989) were trained composers and pianists with an interest in electronic music. Around 1950, the Barrons moved to Greenwich Village, New York City, where they were active in an experimental music community, collaborating with John Cage and others, while running an early electronic music studio out of their home. The Barrons aspired to larger projects than experimental films and scored MGM’s 1956 science fiction film Forbidden Planet. This film is notable because by most accounts it features the first all-electronic soundtrack in a mainstream Hollywood film; “soundtrack” may not even be the correct term, because the Barrons “complete[ly] obliterat[ed]…distinctions between music and effects.”ii The sounds for the film were all rendered using custom-built circuits designed by the Barrons.

According to Bebe, Wiener’s ideas about cybernetics were a direct source of inspiration: What we did was pretty elementary: we would attach resistors and capacitors to activate these circuits… negative and positive feedback was involved—Wiener talks about all that. The same conditions that would produce breakdowns and malfunctions in machines, made for some wonderful music. The circuits would have a “nervous breakdown” and afterwards they would be

2 Christina Dunbar-Hester, Cornell University For re:place conference, Berlin, November 2007 Draft—Do not circulate or cite without permission

very relaxed, and it all came through in the sounds they generated. (Bebe Barron in Vale and Juno 1994: 200, emphasis in original)iii

In likening their instruments and the effects created by them to cybernetic biological processes, the Barrons emphasized that they were sought an “organic” quality of sound, albeit through the use of electronic circuits. They also cited a particular model of cybernetic principles in which electrical circuits were explicitly likened to the neural “circuitry” of an organism.

II. INFORMATION Another principle of cybernetic theory was related to the supposed ability of a cybernetic system to detect, through communication and feedback, signals or messages containing “information”. Shannon and Weaver’s 1949 A Mathematical Theory of Communication provided fodder for a1956 article in the popular magazine Scientific American that exclusively focused on the relationship of this theory to music (Pinkerton 1956). The author calculated the amount of information per note in simple melodies. He argued that “melody, rhythm and harmony can all be fitted into a statistical scheme… A set of tables could be constructed which would compose Mozartian melodies or themes which would out-Shostakovich Shostakovich” (1956: 86).

Cybernetic scientists, musicians, and composers also drew on these discussions, referring to the degree of redundancy, entropy, and information contained in musical compositions. The introduction to a late-1960s conference proceeding volume entitled Music by Computers, dealt directly with these themes Heinz von Foerster (1911-2002), an Austrian émigré to the U.S., was an architect of the field of cybernetics. He taught biophysics and electrical engineering at the University of Illinois, and where he interacted with composer Herbert Brün. In his introduction to the 1969 conference volume, von Foerster wrote: Let us consider the sounds that are stored on the records attached to this book. Are these sounds music? A century ago this question would have been unanimously answered in the negative. Today, however, we would have to be more cautious. Why is it that a sizable number of people are willing to pay admission to a concert that to an audience of two generations ago would have been cacophony rather than euphony?

…[This] is most clearly understood in information-theoretical terms, namely, as a gradual reduction in the redundancy of works of music, or expressed differently, as a continuous increase in the complexity of sound and composition, hence an increase in the amount of auditory information transmitted during a given interval or time. (von Foerster and Beauchamp 1969: 8-9)

III. SYSTEM AND PROCESS ORIENTATION N. Katherine Hayles’ description of “second wave” cybernetics is useful to introduce the idea of process orientation in music. She states: “Interest is focused not on how systems maintain their organization intact, but rather on how they evolve in unpredictable and often highly complex ways through emergent processes” (1994: 463). Examples of this shift in orientation away from a musical product and towards a musical process can be seen in a variety of instances, and I do not mean to suggest that cybernetics was entirely responsible for process-oriented music. At the same time, a number of prominent musicians and composers claimed to have incorporated cybernetic principles into their music-making.

Brian Eno (b. 1948) is a renowned composer/performer who is recognized for contributions in experimental and rock genres. During the 1970s, Eno developed a strong interest in cybernetics and published a 1976 article on systems theory and music. Eno also made a point about process orientation, using the example of the work of experimental composer Cornelius Cardew (1936-1981). According to Eno, the use of the “fade” effect on Cardew’s recordings is significant, as it “implies that not that the piece has finished, but that it is continuing out of earshot” (1996: 340, emphasis in original). Cardew underscored this point by recording pieces with fade beginnings, which are more atypical in recorded music than the fade-out ending, which may be commonly found not only experimental music but in the rock genre. For Eno, the use of the fade production technique at either end of a piece indicates that “the music is a section from a hypothetical continuum and…it does not exhibit strong ‘progress’ from one point (position, theme, statement, argument) to a resolution” (1996: 340). This material technique is consonant with the idea that a musical recording may reflect a process rather than a finite composition; it suggests that the listener is only hearing a portion of a larger, or perhaps endless, piece of music.iv

Herbert Brün also composed works, including Infraudibles and Mutatis Mutandis (both 1968), which emphasized the process of making the music. Of Infraudibles, he wrote: “Instead of approaching again the aesthetic question: ‘Which process will generate the desired audible event and thus music?’ it attempts to deal with the political question: ‘What audible events would be generated by desirable processes, and thus music?’” (Chadabe 1997: 278). In these examples, the composers’ attention is not on the musical product.

IV. CONTROL AND (IN)DETERMINACY Paul Edwards writes of what he calls a “closed world discourse”. The closed world was “a chaotic and dangerous space rendered orderly and controllable by the powers of rationality and technology” (1996: 72), including computers. The idea of control was additionally an important one to people working in experimental and electronic music who had adopted cybernetic theories about communication in human-machine systems.

John Cage was prominent American experimental composer who worked in electronic, minimalist, and process-generated music, and he was an admirer of cybernetic theory. A student later recalled: “In 1965 John Cage handed me a book to read. It was Cybernetics by Norbert Wiener”. Cage was also a proponent of “chance music”. For Cage, this included measures to enhance randomness and eliminate the taste and agency of the composer and the performers; indeterminacy could lead to pieces that even the artist might not have imagined. He enumerated this in a 1966 article in a cybernetics journal: “the word 'experimental’ [is taken] to mean making an action the outcome of which is not foreseen,” and he challenged others to employ this value in their work (Cage in Ascott 1966: 262).

Cage’s ideas about indeterminacy and chance music were influential. The Barrons had worked with Cage in early 1950s New York. Bebe later recalled: We explored the idea that we didn’t want to control the circuits…Nevertheless, John Cage declared that we were “disgustingly orchestral and musical” in our approach—which was amazing because actually we had less control; we didn’t want the control and in fact had rejected the control—yet it came out sounding “musical.” And I never could understand how that happened,

yet it did sound quite musical in many ways—much more so than John Cage’s music! (Vale and Juno 1994: 199-200, emphasis in original)

CONCLUSIONS Norbert Wiener used “cybernetics” in 1948 to refer to “the entire field of control and communication, whether in the machine or in the animal” (1948: 19). However, this is sufficiently vague to encompass vast amounts of research and theory; I have examined how cybernetics was actually employed by artists. Fred Turner’s work on the “cybernetic counterculture” of the 1950s and 1960s indicates some of what may have been at stake for musicians and artists (as well as music listeners and art fans): “[C]ybernetics and systems theory offered an ideological alternative… [M]any in the counterculture saw in cybernetics a vision of a world not built around vertical hierarchies and top-down flows of power, but around looping circuits of energy and information…” (Turner 2006: 38). And of course, prominent figures’ interest in cybernetics extends beyond scientists and musicians, including for example Stewart Brand (Turner 2006) and Marshall McLuhan (Kline 2006); Norbert Wiener himself both wrote popular books that were widely consumed and worried about the overexposure of cybernetics as early as 1952 (January 22, 1952, Robert S. Morison Diaries). Thus, the issue of popular interest in cybernetics is a part of this story as well; unlike some scientific concerns that might be appropriated by arts practitioners without much public interest, cybernetic discourse was widespread.

As scholars attempt to understand the early history of cybernetics in science, we may also benefit from consideration of electronic and experimental music as another site where cybernetics-inflected discussions of human-machine integration, information, autopoeisis, and (in)determinacy, control, and complexity may be found. It is certainly appropriate to “follow the actors,” attending to the bulk of cybernetic theory that was indeed oriented around the sciences (Latour 1987). But as prominent cyberneticians such as von Foerster began to experiment in music, and as John Cage appeared in a scientific journal, it seems worthwhile to extend the analysis of the science of cybernetics to its migration into music.

Geof Bowker notes that in the natural and social sciences, the language of cybernetics could “be yanked out of one context…and plugged into another…with the translation into the language of cybernetics doing the work of glossing the discontinuity” (1993: 116). The example of experimental music might be seen as an instance of cybernetic language being “translated” into another context. Yet the example of experimental music demonstrates that cybernetics was more than a universal language within the sciences.

Cybernetic theories were capable of focusing potent anxiety about the future of humankind generally. Following his World War II research, Norbert Wiener suffered an acute crisis of faith over his participation in scientific research due to its potential applications in wartime and wrote about these topics in his popular writings. In the above applications, the issue of control is one that the artists approach with ambivalence. It would seem that the attitude towards control is often a discourse that is neither a “closed world” nor anxious one; instead the deliberate application of cybernetics is more open and indeterminate. The possibility of openness that these musicians and composers interpret to be part and parcel of cybernetics stands in contrast to the “closed world” discussed by Edwards. The new possibilities afforded by electronics and computers provided both a material and imaginary link for experimenters interested in pursuing new structures and new sounds, but this was not focused only on control.

In Cage’s writings, he moved freely between indeterminacy in society and in music. Cybernetics may have offered a means to frame ambiguities, anxieties, and potentials. Paul Edwards has referred to the “open horizon of an unpredictable and increasingly complex postmodern world” (1996: 252); one wonders if Brian Eno may have been referring to this issue when he titled a1978 album Before and After Science.v John Cage stated, “Everything we do is music’” (Cage in Cope 1976: 197). Clearly, cybernetics was more than science, as early as the 1950s, and certainly by the 1960s.

Sources

American Society of Cybernetics. August 1968. Newsletter.

Armbruster, Greg, editor. 1984. The Art of Electronic Music. Compiled by Tom Darter. New York: Quill.

Ascott, Roy. 1966. “Behaviourist Art and the Cybernetic Vision.” Cybernetica 9: 247- 264.

Barron, Louis and Bebe. 1956. Forbidden Planet Soundtrack (album). Liner notes.

Bowker, Geof. 1993. “How to Be Universal: Some Cybernetic Strategies, 1943-1970.” Social Studies of Science 23: 107-127.

Brautigan, Richard. 1967. All watched over by machines of loving grace. San Francisco: Communication Company.

Brun, Herbert. 2004. When Music Resists Meaning. Edited by Arun Chandra. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Cage, John. 1970. “McLuhan’s Influence.” In John Cage. Edited by Richard Kostelanetz. New York: Praeger.

Chadabe, Joel. 1997. Electric Sound. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cope, David H. 1976. New Directions in Music, 2nd edition. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.

Duckworth, William. 1989. “Anything I Say Will Be Misunderstood: An Interview with John Cage.” In John Cage at Seventy-Five. Edited by Richard Fleming and William Duckworth. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press.

Edge.org. 1998. “CODE - George Dyson & John Brockman: A Dialogue.” http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/brock_dyson/brock_dyson_p2.html, accessed on 8/8/04.

Edwards, Paul N. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eno, Brian. 1975. Discreet Music (album). Liner notes.

Eno, Brian. 1996. “The Great Learning.” In A Year With Swollen Appendices. Faber & Faber.

Galison, Peter. 1994. “The Ontology of the Enemy.” Critical Inquiry 21: 228-266.

Gerovitch, Slava. 2002. From Newspeak to Cyberspeak. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gieryn, Thomas. 1983. “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non- science.” American Sociological Review 48: 781-795.

Greenwald, Ted. 1986. “The Self-Destructing Modules Behind the Revolutionary 1956 Soundtrack of Forbidden Planet.” Keyboard Magazine February 1986: 54-65.

Haraway, Donna. 1991. “The Cyborg Manifesto.” Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. New York: Routledge.

Hayles, N. Katherine. 1994. “Boundary Disputes: Homeostasis, Reflexivity, and the Foundations of Cybernetics.” Configurations 3: 441-467.

Hayles, N. Katherine. 1999. How We Became Posthuman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heims, Steve Joshua. 1991. The Cybernetics Group. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Henderson, Lynda Dalrymple. 1983. The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Holmes, Thom. 2002. Electronic and Experimental Music, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

Kay, Lily. 2000. Who Wrote the Book of Life? Stanford Univ. Press.

Kettlewell, Ben. 2002. Electronic Music Pioneers. Vallejo, CA: ProMusic Press.

Kline, Ronald R. 2004. “What Is Information Theory a Theory Of? Boundary Work among Information Theorists and Information Scientists in the United States and Britain during the Cold War.” In The History and Heritage of Scientific and Technical Information Systems: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference, Chemical Heritage Foundation. Edited by W. Boyd Rayward and Mary Ellen Bowden. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Kline, Ronald R. 2006. “Where Are the Cyborgs in Cybernetics?” Unpublished manuscript.

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Light, Jennifer. 2003. From Warfare to Welfare. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lohner, Henning. 2001. “The Making of Cage’s One.” In Writings through John Cage’s Music, Poetry, & Art. Edited by David W. Bernstein and Christopher Hatch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

MacDonald, Ian. 1977. New Musical Express. “Another False World.” December 3, 1977.

McCulloch, Warren S. Unpublished papers. Collection held by American Philosophical Society Archives, Philadelphia, PA.

McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media. New York: New American Library.

Mindell, David. 2002. Between Humans and Machines. Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology Series. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Morison, Robert S. Unpublished papers. Collection held by Rockefeller Archives Center, Tarrytown, NY.

Murphy, Bill. 2006. “Louis and Bebe Barron.” Remix Magazine. January 1, 2006: 114.

Ornes, Stephen. 2007. “Art: Of Doilies and Disease.” Discover Magazine February 2007: pp. 66-67.

Pickering, Andrew. 2002. “Cybernetics and the Mangle: Ashby, Beer, and Pask.” Social Studies of Science 32: 413-437.

Pinch, Trevor and Karin Bijsterveld. 2003. “‘Should One Applaud?’ Breaches and Boundaries in the Reception of New Technology in Music.” Technology and Culture 44: 536-559.

Pinkerton, Richard. 1956. “Information theory and melody.” Scientific American 194: 77-84.

Pritchett, James, et al. 2001. “Cage and the Computer: A Panel Discussion.” In Writings through John Cage’s Music, Poetry, & Art. Edited by David W. Bernstein and Christopher Hatch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rabinbach, Anson. 1992. The Human Motor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Reichardt, Jasia. 1968. Cybernetic Serendipity. New York: Praeger.

Saper, Craig. 2001. Networked Art. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Shannon, Claude. 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423.

Shannon, Claude and Warren Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Shannon, Claude. 1951. “Prediction and Entropy of Printed English.” Bell System Technical Journal 30: 50-64.

Sischy, Ingrid. 1995. Interview with David Bowie. Interview Magazine 25: 8.

Taylor, Timothy. 2001. Strange Sounds. New York: Routledge.

Turner, Fred. 2006. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vale, V. and Andrea Juno. 1994. Incredibly Strange Music volume 2. San Francisco: RE/SEARCH Publications. von Foerster, Heinz and James Beauchamp, eds. 1969. Music by Computers. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Wiener, Norbert. 1948. Cybernetics, or, Control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: John Wiley.

Wiener, Norbert. 1954. The Human Use of Human Beings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Wilson, Stephen. 2002. Information Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11 i An article-length version of this paper is available. Please email the author at [email protected]. ii Greenwald 1986: 57; Taylor 2001: 94. Often films would use acoustic/standard instruments for earth settings and humans, and electronic sounds for space and space creatures; the Barrons ignored this convention in this film. iii Here I wonder if Bebe is referring to Wiener’s discussion of animal reflexes and Pavlov’s research with animals, Human Use of Human Beings (1954): 68-69. The first edition of Human Use of Human Beings was actually published in 1950, not 1951 as Bebe stated. iv Thanks to Lee Klein for a conversation about this topic. v This album was more on the pop end of Eno’s work, but some of the lyrics were generated using what Eno called “oblique strategies,” used to jog the mind during the process of generating music. The artwork for this album was created by Eno’s artist friend Peter Schmidt, who shared an interest in working this way and helped inspire Eno to create his deck of cards that contained the strategies. See MacDonald 1977.