Y3 | Composer-performer orchestration research ensembles (CORE)
Composer-performer orchestration research ensembles
(CORE)
Y3 | Workgroup Summary
14 July 2021
09:30-11:00 EDT
Via Zoom
Workgroup Leaders:
S. McAdams (McGill University), R. Reynolds (University of California San Diego), C. Traube (Université de Montréal)
Aims:
To take stock of what transpired in Round 1, consider the useful materials that should be gathered during CORE activities, and discuss the plans for the next phase of the CORE ensemble.
Discussion Points:
1. Updates on post-pandemic recordings of CORE Round 1
UBC and UCSD had completed recordings before the pandemic. McGill recently recorded their pieces. UdeM will record in the Fall. At UofT, the performers are no longer in Toronto and access to halls is limited.
It is important to label the scores that correspond to the recordings, especially when the recording is not of the final score.
2. Discussion of importance of file-naming scheme for archiving and subsequent analysis
Everyone must follow the file-naming scheme in the document prepared to make the files searchable in a database and to reduce administrative overhead in organizing them across institutions.
3. Harmonization of audio and video recording formats
Audio: It is important to have standard recording formats (.wav, 96khz, stereo, stems at 0db, post-production stems). Recording reports should be mandatory, with a folder containing all materials used during the session (digital score, take sheets, micro setup, changes, photos, editing rationale. A questionnaire needs to be established to record all of this information.
Video: Since there is so much content, it might be useful to limit the video specs to 1080p at 30FPS at the most. A video standard needs to be established.
4. Preparation of useful CORE timbre and perception terms for Timbre Lingo series on the TOR (following up from UCSD document mentioned above)
There is an ongoing dialog on terminology to reach consensus for TOR. Terminology should be understood by everyday people and coherent across disciplines allowing a dialog between people with different backgrounds. Commonality in terminology would streamline interdisciplinary processes.
The richness of these terms may be from the different perspectives; therefore, we may want to present a wide view of these terms (like a monitored chat).
To easily explain music to the general public visual, tactile, smell, taste are all relevant as metaphors.
5. Discussion of instrumentation and inclusion of electroacoustics for Round 2 in 2021-22 and their implications for the different institutions, standardized recording, and exchangeability of pieces across institutions
Everyone agrees to add flute and cello for the next phase.
Piano: every institution is interested in adding piano. The vibraphone will benefit from the support of the piano. However, there are issues from the point of view of recording (microphone placement, standardizing the kind of piano, bleed into other microphones given power and omnidirectional diffusion of piano).
There was some discussion of the problems created by allowing unspecified percussion in addition to vibraphone. A near-consensus was that only vibraphone should be allowed.
Discussion of whether doubling instruments should be allowed tended toward a near consensus that we should stick with the specified instruments for issues of comparison and recording standardization.
So the ensemble for Round 2 is flute, bass clarinet, trombone, vibraphone, piano, violin, and cello (with preparations of vibraphone and piano allowed).
Discussion on inclusion of DSP, live electronics and spatialization: polarized interest in adding DSP. Some think it is too early, some think it is too necessary. One of the most pertinent issues is that the variability in outcomes may be too great to allow for comparison across pieces, going against a main goal for this project. There were suggestions on limiting the uses of DSP and perhaps defining constraints on its use. Another issue is the exchangeability of pieces across institutions given the frequent idiosyncrasy of electroacoustic setups (different hardware, software, and halls).
There was a consensus that the inclusion of electroacoustics would be very interesting given the wide interest in mixed music at various participating institutions. However, it was also felt that including this possibility at this stage would pose a number of problems in terms of recording and exchangeability of pieces between institutions. It was decided not to use electroacoustics for HEM, McGill, UBC, UdeM, and UofT in this particular round in 2021-22, but that UCSD, as it is the most enthusiastic partner, would pilot their inclusion in 2022-23 since they have to delay Round 2 for one year for institutional reasons anyway. A subgroup will be formed to discuss the boundaries of inclusion of electroacoustics and spatialization.
6. Discussion of the way the CORE seminars are organized.
What status should we accord to graduate student thinking/composing/performing in relation to “fully professional” models? Should analytical and evaluative studies routinely contain “perspective-giving” representation from more established composers/orchestrators with broadly recognized authority? How are we framing the analysis and evaluation processes being conducted by the Timbre and Orchestration Analysis workgroup?
One suggestion was to use the list of reference pieces analyzed as part of the UCSD seminar for Round 1 as a starting point.
Diversifying this list of reference repertoire would provide a better variety of ways to explain and use orchestration and timbral concepts.
It seems important that a focus on timbre, perception and orchestration problem-solving remain a guiding principle for the CORE seminars.
7. Discussion of what the primary analysis and creative output aims are and the materials that are essential for archiving, analysis, and dissemination. What are the particular elements of interest to analysts?
Types of items currently being collected at various partner institutions: audio visual interview transcriptions, records of exploration, performance and discussion, sketches at various processes, reflections, audio visual of dress and concerts, student report, annotated bibliographies, summary documents.
Ioannis Mitsialis's summarizing document from UCSD was especially appreciated for giving an evaluative overview of the whole CORE seminar and how all of the pieces fit into what the seminar was attempting to do. It should be taken as a model for other institutions because it gives newcomers a sense of what is present and a path to diving deeper into the materials.
Different approaches to combined score/recording analysis include using the different orchestration analysis taxonomies (perceptual grouping effects, orchestration techniques, functional orchestration, aural sonology). Some analyses already conducted focused on the perceptual grouping effects, examining phenomena such as perceptual fusion, seamless transitioning between instruments, and the use of Gestalt principles to achieve cohesive gestures across instruments. An additional focus was on how notational specificity across composers yielded varying results at times clarifying the sonic goal, but at times causing informational overload for performers, drawing them away from listening to the others.
Written reports were of more variable usefulness, but it seems important to have some record of participants' initial intentions, the evolution of those intentions, and a self-evaluation of the result in light of the intentions, either in written or interview form.
Interviews and their transcriptions were very helpful in getting a sense of aims and conceptual and terminological frameworks adopted by performers and composers. Systematic analyses of transcriptions were able to uncover recurrent concepts that were partly independent of the actual questions posed and which could serve to design new interview questions for Round 2.
The ability to follow up directly with specific participants was found to be very helpful when additional clarification was needed for analysis.
One note from analysts was that the analysis of fully composed pieces that made use of the learned knowledge from the project sparked more interest than études per se.
On what to collect, there were two points of view: 1) get more materials than we need (excess data may be useful to a researcher down the line) or, 2) all data must serve a predetermined purpose (record only what we need to follow our intentions for archiving, analysis, and dissemination).
The evaluative summary document prepared at UCSD is an excellent model for how to pull together the realizations at a given institution. This would require the institution to provide a research assistantship for this purpose.
The text analyses of the interviews are promising. This may help frame questions for the next phase. Some topics and concepts which were not originally addressed came out during conversation. (The Timbre Semantics group will address this.)
Source-based computer-aided orchestration with Orchidea should be allowed if a student composer wants to go this route.
It is essential to gain a better understanding of the directions in which the CORE analysis subgroups of the Timbre and Orchestration Analysis and Timbral Semantics workgroups intend to go to guide the collection, preparation and archiving of materials for analysis.
Action Items:
1. Send list of UCSD scores that seem to have been changed after the recording in order to get the ones used for the recording
2. Meeting to establish video format standard
3. Merge documents from UCSD on terminology with comments from McGill and new comments from UCSD
4. Set up a new interview analysis subgroup in collaboration with the Timbral Semantics workgroup to think about content of interviews and aims of future analysis
5. Set up a sub-workgroup to develop a dialogical approach to CORE-related Timbre Lingo entries in coordination with the Timbre Semantics workgroup
6. Send out call for participation in a subgroup to discuss boundaries on electronics and its connection to orchestration
7. Collect list of reference pieces for orchestration analysis from UCSD; create diversified list for discussion and send to partner institutions for use in CORE Round 2
8. Prepare a list of necessary and optional items for seminars (syllabus and plan for the seminar, terminology to be used and discussed, various assignments and reports to be completed by students, sketch and score elements, audio or video interviews, summary evaluative report, etc., with all files clearly dated.)
Prepare a questionnaire to document details of recording processes.