University of Huddersfield Repository Hewitt, Scott Notational approaches for composing and directing a non-homogeneous laptop orchestra Original Citation Hewitt, Scott (2014) Notational approaches for composing and directing a non-homogeneous laptop orchestra. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/23317/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ University of Huddersfield A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Notational Approaches for Composing and Directing a Non-Homogeneous Laptop Orchestra Supervisors: Author: Prof. Pierre Alexandre Tremblay Scott Hewitt Prof. Michael Clarke February 3, 2014 2 Revision Information 2014/02/03 00:55:09 +0000 04c3150 04c31500057b43187d182983e73570cb31c3f4a7 3 Copyright Statement i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns any copyright in it (the Copyright) and s/he has given The University of Hudder- sfield the right to use such Copyright for any administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in accordance with the regulations of the University Library. Details of these regulations may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of any patents, designs, trademarks and any and all other intellectual property rights except for the Copyright (the Intellectual Property Rights) and any reproductions of copyright works, for example graphs and tables (Reproductions), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions. 4 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervision team of Professor Pierre Alexandre Tremblay and Professor Michael Clarke for their insight and guidance. I am grateful for the willingness of the performers of HELO and HELOpg. I would also like to thank Julian Brooks, Sam Birkhead, Samuel Freeman, Alex Harker, Adam Jansch and Scott McLaughlin. I would like to dedicated this work to Susanna and my parents, as without their encour- agement and patience I would never have finished. Typographical Conventions Compositions included as part of the submission are indicated in bold. Code included as part of the submission are indicated in italic. Urls are written as http://phd.scotthewitt.co.uk/ throughout the text. Contents Copyright Statement3 Acknowledgments4 Typographical Conventions4 List Of Figures9 Abstract 11 1 Instrument Concerns 13 1.1 Introduction................................... 13 1.2 Purpose Of Notation Within My Work.................... 14 1.3 The Laptop, Device / Tool / Instrument................... 14 1.3.1 Instrument Features.......................... 16 1.3.1.1 The Variable Interface.................... 16 1.3.1.2 Infinite Sonority....................... 18 1.3.1.3 Flexibility of Role...................... 18 1.3.1.4 Accessible Instrument.................... 19 1.3.1.5 Composition Specific Instrument.............. 21 1.3.1.6 Modular Architecture.................... 23 5 6 CONTENTS 1.3.1.7 Network Connectivity.................... 24 1.3.2 Instrument Mastery.......................... 25 1.4 Within An Ensemble.............................. 26 1.4.1 Laptop Roles in an Ensemble..................... 26 1.4.1.1 Subservient Role....................... 27 1.4.1.2 Dominant Role........................ 27 1.4.1.3 Existing Laptop Orchestras................. 28 1.5 Early Conclusions............................... 29 1.5.0.4 The Benefits Of A Laptop Orchestra............ 29 1.5.1 A Composer And/Or Performer................... 29 1.5.2 Styles of Notation........................... 30 1.5.3 The Purpose of Notation....................... 30 2 Notation 33 2.1 A New Instrument, A New Notation..................... 34 2.1.1 Notate Physicality........................... 34 2.1.1.1 Video Notation........................ 35 2.1.2 Notate Sonority............................. 37 2.1.3 Notation Void of Gesture....................... 38 2.1.3.1 The Coded Environment As A Score............ 38 2.1.3.2 Facilitating Improvised Performance............ 39 2.1.4 The Purpose of Notation; An Early Conclusion........... 39 2.2 Western Notation................................ 40 2.2.1 The Advantage of Familiarity..................... 41 2.2.1.1 Efficiency........................... 42 2.2.1.2 Pitch Notation........................ 42 2.2.1.3 Rhythmic Suitability.................... 43 CONTENTS 7 2.3 Graph Based Notation............................. 44 2.3.1 The Software Instrument....................... 45 2.4 Rejection of Graphical Notation........................ 48 2.5 Text Notation.................................. 49 2.5.1 The Graph Score As Text....................... 49 2.5.2 Video Notation As Text........................ 50 2.5.3 Text As Code.............................. 51 2.5.4 Openness Of Text Scores....................... 52 2.5.5 Durability Of Text Scores....................... 53 2.6 Code Notation................................. 53 2.6.1 Features of Code Notation....................... 54 2.6.2 Purpose of the Score.......................... 55 3 Conclusions 57 3.1 The Laptop Instrument............................ 57 3.2 The Role Of The Performer.......................... 58 3.2.1 Programmer or Player......................... 59 3.3 The Laptop Performer............................. 60 3.4 Coding as Instrumentalist Practice...................... 61 3.4.1 The Instrument Builder........................ 61 3.4.2 The Score Replacement Paradox................... 62 3.4.3 To Be Played.............................. 62 3.5 The Coding Laptop Performer........................ 63 3.6 Laptop Notation................................ 63 3.7 Notation For The Laptop Ensemble..................... 67 3.8 Future Work.................................. 67 Bibliography 68 A Recordings Appendix 75 B Score Appendix 77 Composition Index.................................. 79 C Software Appendix 81 Software Index.................................... 84 D Published Paper Appendix 85 8 List of Figures 1.1 Composition structure with composer creating an instrument........ 21 1.2 Composer creating an instrument for use with a score............ 22 2.1 Tri Play image captured from video score................... 35 2.2 ChucK Instrument Processing (CIP) in use.................. 38 2.3 Args#1 being performed at the Week of Speakers 2008........... 41 2.4 Args#1 score excerpt.............................. 42 2.5 Tower Whisper part excerpt.......................... 44 2.6 Tower Whisper Synth 1 Code.......................... 46 2.7 Feedback Slide graph score excerpt....................... 47 2.8 Page from orchestral score of Christmas Carol Sonorities.......... 48 2.9 Screen shot from live-coding performance of Chuck CMJ Quarks...... 50 2.10 Human Shredders blank score......................... 52 2.11 Chess on Radio Score Part 1......................... 53 3.1 Participant role relationship within OnRadio................. 59 3.2 Composer, instrument, performer, score relationship within inCode Prime. 61 9 10 Abstract Within this composition commentary, I seek to outline my practice for composing for laptop ensembles, as well as the notational approaches I have developed to facilitate composition, direction, rehearsal and ultimately performance within an intentionally non-homogeneous laptop ensemble. Illustrating the requirement to move beyond the current typical `application as score and meta-instrument' paradigm, I outline my own notational approach for laptop ensemble writing and the features it offers to the operation of laptop ensembles. As a consequence of the notational approach I seek to outline the performative coding role of the player and acknowledge the compositional role it extends to the performer. These theoretical considerations are considered within the practical operation of the Huddersfield Experimental Laptop Orchestra (HELO) and its sibling HELOpg. As a consequence of these experiments I present my preference for graph and text based notations for directing the laptop performer. 11 12 Chapter 1 Instrument Concerns 1.1 Introduction This commentary accompanies the compositions, their respective recordings and the code listed within the appendixes. Through the discussion of my compositional activity I will explore possible methods of notating performance of a laptop instrument