Composing with Computers: A Progress Report Author(s): Lejaren Hiller Source: Computer Music Journal, Vol. 5, No.

4 (Winter, 1981), pp. 7-21 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679501 . Accessed: 04/12/2013 18:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Computer Music Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Department of Music State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, New York 14214

Hiller Lejaren

Composing with Computers:A Progress Report

Computer music has come to have two different meanings that are not competitive but complementary. The first, computer-composed music, involves composition, that is, note selection. The second, computer-realized music, involves conversion into electronic sound of a score that may or may not have been composed with the aid of a computer. These two operations can be performed in sequence, so that a composer's score can be both composed and realized by means of a computer (Fig. 1). Depending on the computer configuration and the composer's objectives, the boundary between these two processes can be sharply defined or rather fuzzy. Although computer composition has been going on since 1956, when LeonardIsaacson and I started work on the Illiac Suite for String Quartet, more effort has been expended over the years on sound synthesis. This is because there is a pressing need for accurate, reproducible electronic sound and for modern tools for acoustic research. Sound synthesis has applications in music education, and the commercial possibilities of sound synthesis far transcend the concerns of the avant-gardecomposer. Perhaps the most important reason for greateremphasis on sound synthesis is that computer-assisted composition is inherently a more obscure, difficult, and controversial topic. Computer-assisted composition is difficult to define, difficult to limit, and difficult to systematize. As with any kind of composing, work in this field tends to be highly personalized and hence less accessible to others. Computer composition also requires the attention of a skilled composer who has enough experience to ask the proper questions. Despite all these barriers, substantial progress has been made in computer composition over the last 25 years.
Computer Music Journal,Vol. 5, No. 4, Winter 1981, 0148-9267/81/000007-21 $05.00/0 C 1981 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Some 12 years ago, I preparedan exhaustive review of computer music composition until that time (Hiller 1970b). Among the composers mentioned therein were Pierre Barbaudand lannis Xenakis of Paris, Gottfried Michael Koenig of Utrecht, Herbert Bruinof Urbana-Champaign,Illinois, and James Tenney, now of Toronto. This list could be considerably extended today. In our own group, John Myhill and Charles Ames are particularly active. Reports in this issue of Computer Music Journal of other composers' recent work will fill in the present picture. Writing compositional algorithms forces me to scrutinize composition as process. I have to be aware of how compositional logic really works and how compositional priorities arrangethemselves. In working with computers, musical ideas come to me that I probablywould not otherwise have imagined. This carries over to composing I now do without computers as well. I shall review here some of my own work, especially that of recent years about which I have published relatively little so far. (Insteadof doing much publishing, I have been slowly but steadily gathering all the documentation into a series of technical reports. The relevant reports are listed in the References.) The composition list shown in Table 1 provides a framework for the discussion to follow. The list can be split into two parts: (1) earlier compositions produced at the University of Illinois and (2) more recent works written in Buffalo since 1968. This split is a logical one, because if I include Algorithms I with the latter group, all of these either point toward or actually make use of the programming package I currently use. One striking feature of all this work has been its pragmatism. I like to get the music performed. Performance is, without a doubt, the best test of the results. Nowadays, for example, I plan a piece like Algorithms III with my basic system, program Hiller 7

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1. The computer used as a composing machine, with facilities for compositional algorithms, analogto-digital conversion of natural sounds, sound

synthesis algorithms, high-level score language interpreters, and digitalto-analog conversion into sound.

"Natural" Sounds Composition Algorithms Input Analog-to-Digital Converter

Sound Synthesis Algorithms

Output Digital Computer (Pass2) Digital-to-Analogi a Converter

Digital Computer (Pass1)

Output

Input Interpreter AudioTape

Recorder

Playback

Input Data

Printed "Score"

Composer's Own Score

Optionof Instrumental Performance

PHRASE,in mind, and during the compositional process I improve programPHRASEby adding new algorithms or improving existing ones. A second feature of my approachto computer composition has been its emphasis upon probability and statistics. My music tends to proceed from disorder to order. It starts with random generation of musical elements and proceeds with the imposition of more and more constraints on the elements' acceptability. I have done this consistently since the original Illiac Suite. To be sure, I was much influenced by readings I had done in information theory.
8

Not only does this procedure work, but it seems philosophically satisfying. The trap in writing a completely deterministic set of algorithms is that they reduce the whole process to mere data transformation.

EarlyCompositions
Because the Illiac Suite (which I now also call
String Quartet No. 4) was the first composition

written with a digital computer, LeonardIsaacson

Computer Music Journal

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Table 1. Lejaren Hiller: computer music compositions Illiac Suite for String Quartet (1957) (composed with LeonardIsaacson) Duration: 18 min Publisher: Theodore Presser Recording: Heliodor HS25053 "The Flying Lesson" from Music for "TheBirds" (by Aristophanes) (1958) Duration: 2 min Publisher: None Recording: Private tape Computer Cantata (1963) (composed with Robert Baker) Duration: 24 min Publisher: Theodore Presser Recording: Heliodor HS25053, reissued on CRI-SD-310 An Avalanche for Pitchman, Prima Donna, Player Piano, Percussionist and PrerecordedPlayback (1968) Text: Frank Parman Duration: 9-13 min Publisher: Theodore Presser Recording: Heliodor 2549006 HPSCHD for 1 to 7 Harpsichords and 1 to 51 Tapes(1968) (composed with John Cage) Duration: 20 min to any length Publisher: C. F. Peters Recording: Nonesuch H-71224 Algorithms I for 9 Instruments and Tape (VersionsI to IV) (1968) Duration: 9 min per version Publisher: Theodore Presser Recording: Version I: DGG2543005 Version II: Private tape Version III: Private tape Version IV: DGG2543005 Computer Music for Percussion and Tape(1968) (composed with G. Allan O'Connor) Duration: 7 min Publisher: Theodore Presser Recording: Heliodor 2549006 Algorithms II for 9 Instruments and Tape (Versions I to IV) (1972) (composed with Ravi Kumra) Duration: 5 min per version Publisher: Theodore Presser Recording: Version I: Unperformed Version II: Unperformed Version III: Private tape Version IV: Private tape Hiller 9

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Table I. (cont'd) A Preview of Coming Attractions for Orchestra (1975)

Duration: 16 min Publisher: Theodore Presser Privatetape Recording:

Electronic Sonata for Four-Channel Tape(1976)

Duration: 53 min Publisher: None Privatetape Recording:

Midnight Carnival for an Urban Environment (1976)

Duration: Indeterminate Publisher: None Privatetape Recording:

Persiflagefor Flute, Oboe and Percussion (1977)

Duration: 11 min Publisher: Waterloo releasein preparation Recording:Commercial Duration: 9 min Publisher: None yet (unfinished) Recording: Unperformed

Algorithms III for 9 Instruments and Tape(VersionsI to IV) (in progress)

and I had to deal with many elementary questions as to how computer music might be composed. I had been working since late 1952 as a chemist on a research project sponsored by the United States Government. Although I had had a bit of exposure to analog computers at Du Pont prior to this, it was at the University of Illinois that I first learned how to use digital computers, specifically the Illiac I. This was very much brute force machine language work-no fancy, high-level languages. My research director, FrederickWall, assigned to me the problem of computing statistically the dimensions of idealized polymer molecules in solution. This work introduced me to the Monte Carlo, or Markov, processes of calculation that became central to my later work. It occurred to me that, by changing the controlling conditions from geometric to contrapuntal,the same basic program could be adapted to writing some counterpoint exercises. I suggested this idea to Leonard Isaacson, who was also a chemist on the same project. He liked the idea as a programming
10

challenge, even though his knowledge of music was purely that of a listener. So we started with a few small experiments and, little by little, the project grew. Around this time I mentioned the project to Milton Babbitt, my former composition teacher, and he was both intrigued and encouraging, partly because he himself was beginning to think a lot about electronic music. One evening, when we had some results, I showed them to a composer friend. He said that what we had was all very good but that it wasn't music, and that he would be more impressed were the counterpoint really correct. Isaacson and I thought about going on to more complex strict counterpoint but soon droppedthis idea in favor of composing some experiments more related to contemporary music. This resulted in the final two movements of the Suite. When we first performed the Illiac Suite, or rather three movements of it, a huge amount of publicity was generated (a lot of it rather silly). The first time I gave a talk on the subject of comComputer Music Journal

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

puter music was in 1956 before an audience of about 2000 computer experts and engineers at a Los Angeles meeting of the Association of Computing Machinery. Attitudes toward this early work ranged from curious to skeptical to overtly hostile. Rather interestingly, computer scientists were more open minded than musicians, and musicians were more open minded than scholars in the humanities, many of whom seemed to regardme as monstrous. I did not hear a complete performance of the Illiac Suite until several years later. I was giving a talk at a conference, and afterwarda man introduced himself to me as Max Mathews. He said he had a present for me-a tape recordingof the Illiac Suite he had gotten the WQXR String Quartet to make. This was around the time he was developing Music IV. Since the Computer Cantata has been rather thoroughly described elsewhere (Hiller 1964; Hiller and Baker 1964), there is little I need say about it here except that in it Robert Baker and I were concentrating again on basic problem solving, this time with an emphasis on statistics, stochastic processes, and rhythmic complexities more profound than those attempted in the Illiac Suite. Both An Avalanche ... and HPSCHD, though composed with computer algorithms, are theatrical compositions and hence differ from the earlier didactic works. An Avalanche ... is a satirical piece dealing with the state of the performing arts in the United States, and HPSCHD is a gigantic multimedia spectacle. HPSCHD involved three sets of computer programs, one for composing the tape parts and realizing them in sound by means of digital-to-analog conversion, the second for composing harpsichord parts derived from Mozart's Musical Dice Game, and the third for creating a performance part for the high-fidelity enthusiast sitting at home listening to the collage we preparedfor a commercial phonograph recording. Contraryto what many critics thought (Will they never learn?), this was not a chaotic piece. The basic note generator was a subroutine called ICHING that recreated the Oracle of the Book of Changes. The results of subroutine ICHING were not haphazard,but were based on a polynomial distribution. Also, much of the programming was concerned with melodic con-

structions that Cage hoped would express his admiration for the melodic writing of Mozart.

RecentCompositions
Both Electronic Sonata and Midnight Carnival are realized with computer sound synthesis and have nothing to do with computer-assisted composition. A Preview... and Persiflage represent successive stages in the development of the substantial library of compositional programs and subroutines I currently use. The Algorithms cycle, consisting of Algorithms I, completed in 1968, Algorithms II, completed in 1972, and Algorithms III, currently being composed, are central to this development. The structural plan of the entire Algorithms triptych is shown in Table 2. As I write this, the second movement of Algorithms III is done and the first movement well along toward completion. Debugging, code conversion, and documentation have all been nearly as time-consuming as the writing of the programs. The Algorithms cycle is actually more complex than shown in Table 2 because each movement exists in four versions, any one of which can be chosen for a given performance. There are 28 movements in all. Each version reflects small but important changes of parameters or data. This plan provides a rather neat method of testing the practical effectiveness of various compositional algorithms. Also, varying some components of a system under investigation while keeping others constant is, of course, a standard type of experimental design. First, I specify a compositional system in which a particular composition is but one example from a class of essentially similar compositions. If certain elements are changed in the matrix of elements making up the system, its details will be new but its gross properties will remain essentially the same. It is interesting to speculate how much must be changed to create a new work. We can test the effect of variance of controls in relation to the whole system to gain some insight into this problem. If we use a computer to do this, we retain a precise record of how the variance is produced and what its limits are. Let us take Algorithms I as the first example of the application of this idea. Hiller 11

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Table 2. The complete set of Algorithms compositions

Algorithm Duration in minutes

AlgorithmsI I. "TheDecayof Information" II. "Icosahedron" III. "TheIncorporation of Constraints"

Algorithms II Algorithms III

2 3 4 5 4 3 2 23

IV. "Campanology"

V. "Refinements" VI. "Quotations andPhraseology" VII. "Synthesis" Total

Algorithms I The first movement of Algorithms I, "The Decay of Information," is a short introductory piece that recapitulates (in very condensed form) the formal structure of Computer Cantata. In an evolving plan of stochastic control, transition probabilities are allowed to increase from zero order to sixth order. These transition probabilities are not the same at any time for the different instruments, since some instruments reach the sixth-order level sooner than others. I employed this process to cause the information level of this movement to drop from 100% to approximately 50% from its beginning to its end, hence "The Decay of Information."The four versions of this movement were obtained by varying the rest/play ratio assigned to this movement. "Version 1" is the emptiest and "Version4" is the fullest. Because more recent work has superseded most subroutines from this movement, only three are in my current library of subroutines. These have been both translated and updated. One rather simple subroutine provides a distribution according to Zipf's law, which, whether valid or not, is a nice way of emphasizing some choices at the expense of others (Pierce 1961). It states that the probability of selecting an item in a list is inversely proportionalto rank order, that is,
P, = P,/i, 12

where P, is the probability of choosing item i and P, is the probability of the first item in the list. The flow chart of the original subroutine is shown in Fig. 2, and the results of 10,000 trials of the current subroutine IZIPF,with limit n = 12, is shown in Fig. 3. The second movement of Algorithms I, "Icosahedron,"was my first extended effort at programming a reasonably complex serial composition. The movement consists of 576 notes made up of a 12tone row, its three permutations, and the 11 transpositions of these four fundamental forms. Thus, each variant of the row occurs just once. The row, the sequence of its variants, the dynamic plan, and all the rhythmic units were chosen by random processes. The whole assembly of note occurrences was compiled into the triangularplan shown in Fig. 4. Another feature of this movement involved sorting out randomly generated rhythms in such a way that rhythmic simultaneities would be maximal at the center of the movement. This was accomplished by a large subroutine called MATCH (Hiller 1969). I used an instrumentation process for this movement that interchanges instruments, giving the high, wind instruments breathing space. The individual lines can be quite long and taxing otherwise. The third movement, "The Incorporationof Constraints," is a rondo. Here I added a number of
Computer Music Journal

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2. The flow chart for implementing Zipf's law, used for the composition Algorithms I.

[z

z
iA

XR1

=
XR1

A + 1.

OML.ZPF

in RANGE XR2
Q = 1./A + Q

Indices, Store 0 in Q, 1. in A,

SaveStore Random Fraction in R Subroutine RAM2B

B =1.//A

B/S

A=A+1.

S=S-B

Is Yes A > RANGE? Yes Again No

Store Q in S,

Is PP-R < 0?
No

Clear

A and

XR1I

I. Initializations and Computations of 11/j to Limit n Supplied As Input Parameter. II. Computation of successive normalized probabilities and test of each against random fraction till one succeeds. Exit if range not exceeded.

Yes

RANGE RANG
No

Transfer XR1 to AC, Restore Indices

Hiller

13

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3. A graph of a test of 10,000 trials using the procedure outlined in Fig. 2.

4000 3000 Test of Subroutine IZIPF (10,000 Samples)

2000

1000 800
S6

IZIPFTEST I IZ I Iz 13237 IZIPF TEST I I IZ IZ 2 1570 IZIPFTEST I IZ 3 1034 IZIPFTEST I IZ 4 848 IZIPFTEST I IZ 5 646 IZIPFTEST I IZ
545

600
0

IZIPFTEST
I IZ

500 400 300

200

100
1

I
2

I
3

I
4

7 479 IZIPFTEST I IZ 8 400 IZIPFTEST I IZ 9 352 IZIPFTEST I IZ 10 349 IZIPFTEST I IZ 11 277 IZIPFTEST I IZ

1 1
5 6

I1
7 8 9 101112

12 263

Rank Order

14

Computer Music Journal

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 4. Structural plan of the second movement of

I, called Algorithms
"Icosahedron."

-12 11

?"'Voice 12 /oice 11
10

o'-oice
?

10

4/

Voice9 -9 Rest

-8
.U

/ 1Voice 8 /Voice 7 7 6 /Voice /Voice 5

Rest Rest I

k 7

-6? 5 -4~
E~t/Voice

Voice4
3

2 Voice 2
/Voice 1I

90 Time (Seconds)

180

is used in the ringing of church bells in England.It is, in addition, a process that seems to subsume, if there are 12 bells in the set, all the linear operations of 12-tone music (a research topic I should think would be fascinating to 12-tone specialists). The simplest operation in change ringing involves pair interchanges such as those shown in Table 4. Once the possibility for novel permutations produced by this simple operation is exhausted, recourse is had to somewhat more complex operations called plain bob, bobs, and singles. Complete peals range from 24 for 4 bells to 479,001,600 for 12 bells and, of course, still more for ranks of more than 12 bells. Each of the four versions of Algorithms II is more complex than the one that precedes it, principally because the use of change ringing increases with each version. In "Version 1" change ringing is Algorithms II not used at all; in "Version2" it controls pitch; in In Algorithms II, the point of departureis the appli- "Version3" it controls both pitch and rhythm; in "Version4" it controls pitch in four out of five sication of one central idea, that of change ringing. This is a permutational compositional technique multaneously performedpolyphonic textures. To increase the effect of the change-ringingprothat produces nonrepeating melodic sequences and modifying processes suggested by more familiar processes of composition to the basic stochastic generators of the first movement. The structure of this movement is shown in Table 3. (This is somewhat different from a similar table published earlier [Hiller 1969], mainly because I replaced phrase generation and imitation with programsfor grouping rhythms into choirs.) I was interested in writing compositional subroutines that can be called at will to modify and refine a stochastic matrix. This was when I began to use a kind of programminglogic that will be illustrated later. In general, subroutines of this sort provide variety in a composition, primarily dependent on the slow-moving statistical patterns of stochastic music.
Hiller 15

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Table 3. Structural plan of the third movement of Algorithms I, "The Incorporationof Constraints" Duration in
Section Content Seconds

1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B

Sixth-order stochasticmusic Chordevaluation with regard to a dissonance-consonance index Combination of the contentof section 1Bwith fifth-order stochasticmusic Threecontrapuntal processes Combination of the contentof section2Bwith fourth-order stochasticmusic Fixedchoirsof rhythms Combination of the contentof section3Bwith third-andsecond-order stochasticmusic choirsof rhythms Varying Combination of the contentof section4Bwith first-andzero-order stochasticmusic Processfor a statisticaltonal cadence Total:

8 40 16 32 24 24 32 16 40 8

48

48
48 48 48

240

Table 4. Basic change-ringing process for evennumbered sets of bells Row 1 (lead-end)
Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16

organized is shown in Fig. 5. Subroutine FLIPcarries out the operation shown in Table 4.

12345678
21436587 24163857 42618375 46281735 64827153 68472513 86745231 87654321 78563412 75836142 57381624 53718264 35172846 31527486 13254768

PHRASE Program
All the more recent computer compositions listed in Table 1 have been produced by means of a large main program called PHRASE.The first of these compositions is the orchestral work A Preview of Coming Attractions. ProgramPHRASEis now being combined with an ever growing number of subroutines that place constraints on choices of the five note parameters of pitch, dynamics, timbre, playing style, and rhythm. In contrast to earlier algorithms for music composition, programPHRASE can be used to compose themes, motives, and phrases, and, even more importantly, to imitate and combine these phrases in a number of ways. This system transcends the manipulation of individual musical elements because it can handle substantial groups of elements that can be related to the total score. The importance of this, it seems to me, is the recognition that hierarchical structure is the fundamental architectural principle that makes a musical work into a coherent whole. In a hierarchical structure, some events in a score are more significant than others in the pattern created when a concept

Note: Eight bells is a typical number. The lead-endis called rounds if this is the very start of ringing.

cess with each version, Ravi Kumraand I wrote a large number of programs and subroutines, the most important of which were RING1, RING2, and RING3, that dealt with various ways permutations could be propagatedand brought to full cycle, returning to the original sequence (rounds).A flow chart showing how the compositional process was

16

Computer Music Journal

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 5. The flow chart for change ringing used in Algorithms II.

Entry

Initialization Skip this step for ring 2.

Is

thepeal
Completed?!

the Yes Print

peal.

No SSelect an operation

at random.

Obtainthe new lead-end by applying

this operation.

Is
eS

Yes this lead-end

unique?

No
Is

This step only for ring 2.

the length between matched lead-ends satisfactory?

Yes

Print the peal.

Exit

No Select an untried operation.

Ring 1 and ring 2

Have

Yes

all three operations been tried?

Yes

Go back 1 node.

Go back 4 nodes.

No

Ring 3 only

II

(2

Hiller

17

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

some of the subroutines that programPHRASErequires to operate properly.For example, subroutine READL is used to read in the stochastic orders to be used in making note parameterchoices and the available choices for the five parametersof pitch, dynamics, timbre, playing style, and rhythm. Subroutine BRANCH governs many of the actual choice operations; for example, whether assembly of a phrase should be continued or terminated, whether rest or play should be chosen, or which phrase should be imitated. Subroutine FILLdoes the actual choosing of note parametersby calling in turn other subroutines. One line of development that demonstrates hierarchy is as follows: program PHRASEis the master program;subroutine FILLis subordinate to it; subroutines such as PITCHand TIMBREare subordinate to FILL;and still other subroutines, such as MODE and GOAL, are subor1. Free flow dinate to PITCH. 2. Phrase assembly Figure 7 is a sketch of subroutine FILL.The 3. Imitation boxes with dotted lines indicate subroutines that are incomplete at the time of this writing. Free flow is used for musical textures that are not maIf the diagram of programPHRASEis now rethe phrase oriented. Phrase assembly produces If do called (Fig. 6), it is easy to see how a musical structerial that is imitated. codified relationships ture is set up. Whenever composers wish to obtain not exist among notes, as is the case in free flow, a change in texture, they simply set a limit exthen there is nothing to imitate; thus the need for phrases. Imitation is the most complex set of oper- pressed in /32 notes. This is tested at the end of the big loop in programPHRASEeach time a note ations in programPHRASE.It is here that we "do is generated for each voice of the score. When all something" with the raw material provided by voices have reached this limit, the large loop rephrase assembly. By imitation, I mean the many turning to the very beginning of the programis ways a phrase or group of notes can be imitated, entered, and fresh data are read for whatever addiplaced into new contexts, transformed, developed, tion is desired, such as new themes to be quoted, and modified. This applies not just to traditional new probabilities to be supplied to subroutine tonal music but to innovative patterns as well. To codify these imitation processes into a manBRANCH, and so on. One type of refinement I add bit by bit in programmingis reduction of the of I limited to imitation the ageable form, processes amount of such data that must be specified by the following options: composer. My general attitude is that the more 1. Transposition such data are internally generated, including long2. Choice of voice range variance of such data, the more effective and 3. Permutation interesting the entire process becomes. 4. Strict or free rhythmic imitation Persiflage required 20 sets of data. These imposed 5. Optional phrase-imitation overlap a gradual change of texture by changing the amount To summarize, programPHRASEdoes not in itof phrase assembly, amount of imitation, types of self define a musical style; rather,it provides three rhythms, loudness levels, and so on. Other conalternative paths for producing and extending a mu- trols, mainly those concerned with pitch choices, sical texture. These paths are shown in Fig. 6, as are more or less took care of themselves. Furtherdeis encoded into music. A message is seldom just a linear string of events like beads on a chain. Rather, the events in a message are tied together by complex network structures that subordinate some events to others. Notions of this sort are already embodied in more sophisticated analytic systems such as that of Heinrich Schenker (1979). In similar studies of language, the idea of hierarchy forms the basis of the development of generative grammars. For a variety of reasons, the concept of hierarchy was little used in the early development of computer music algorithms. Because I felt this lack, I set about writing the programsI shall now discuss. In designing programPHRASE,I defined three processes that might occur during composing. These are 18 Computer Music Journal

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 6. An outline of the program PHRASE,with its three main subroutines: FREEFLOW,PHRASEASand IMITATION. SEMBLY,

Start

I?
Read
a

Section

Data

Read

Choice Data

Branch 1

Read

Read
Note

Parameters
I

Subroutine Readl

Readl
, ,

Read

Subroutine

Quotations

Theme

Basic Loop

Choose Parameters

Subroutine Fill

Choose

Path

Branch 2

CPhose

Free Flow

Assembly PhraseIm

Imitation

RestPlay

S Branch 4

ReR st-

Cos

Play

Branch 5

-----

Phrase to
Imitate

Choose Parameters

Subroutine Fill

Choose Parameters

Form Imitation

3 Branch

End of Phrase?

Subroutine Fill P.

Choose Parameters

End

of

End

of

No

Section?

Yes

Imitation?

No

Print

Section of Score

No

d of

en

Hiller

19

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 7. A simplified block diagram of the subroutine FILLcalled by the program PHRASE.

Mode Entry Style Choose Pitch IRIG Choose ICHING Pitch Goal

and
-

Edit Dynamics

Dynamics

I\

MLRL1

tMLRL2

IZIPF

Stochastic Sequence

Choose Timbre

Timbre SOther Routines

Choose
REIHE Playing Style Choose Style

Other Routines

Rhythmoose
Exit

Rhythm

Subroutine FILL

Compositional Modules

tails concerning Persiflage appear elsewhere (Hiller

ment, the thorough reorganizationand refinement contemplated for the first movement was not needed. The title of the first movement, "Refinement," means just that. The final movement will be a synthesis of just about all the programming Algorithms III written for the whole cycle. At present, I am much involved in programming The second movement, "Quotations and Phrasethe first movement of Algorithms III. The second ology," is partitioned into blocks, some of which movement is already done. Although quite a bit of are assigned the function of "phraseassembly" or new programming was needed for the second move- "theme quotation," depending on the version; some 1978; 1980).
Computer Music Journal

20

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of which are assigned the production of "free flow" or "imitation"; and some of which are assigned a new process, "double imitation," which is an attempt to imitate whole blocks of material, not just single lines. The parameters controlling all this are now assigned to individual voices, so it is possible to assign different textures to different portions of the performing body at the same point in the score. A modulating scheme is also imposed. "Version 1" does not modulate, but each voice has its own transposition scheme. "Version 2" is built on a tone row, and its modulation scheme depends on this row. "Version 3" makes use of a cycle of fifths, and "Version 4" incorporates a simple representation of the tonal scheme of a traditional sonata form structure. The first movement, "Refinements," will be made up of 10 sections, as is the third movement of Algorithms I. However, the addition of compositional options makes it vastly more complex. As I program successive sections of this movement, I also steadily tighten up and make more clear and logical all that is going on. This is rather slow going because so many operations interlock and depend on one another that it is very easy when instituting changes to cause the whole system to jam up. Debugging is slow and costly. A typical run now is about 5 min of machine time on the CYBER 173, a very fast computer. Three sections of the movement are done, and in these I have introduced quite a number of new subroutines involving, for example, a fully realized stochastic choice generator, subroutines for timbre and style controls, and a subroutine (REIHE) containing all current tone row operations. The next last-of vertical constep is the introduction-at trols such as harmonic rules.

References
Hiller, L. 1964. "Informationstheorieund Computermusik." In Darmstddter Beitraige zur Neuen Musik 8. Mainz: B. Schott's Sohne. Hiller, L. 1967. "Programminga Computer for Musical Composition." In Computer Applications in Music, ed. G. Lefkoff. Morgantown: West Virginia University Library,pp. 65-88.

Hiller, L. 1969. "Some Compositional Techniques Involving the Use of Computers."In Music by Computers, ed. H. von Foersterand J. W. Beauchamp.New York: John Wiley, pp. 71-83. the I-Ching Oracle," Hiller, L. 1970a. "Programming Computer Studies in the Humanities and VerbalBehavior 3:130-143. Hiller, L. 1970b. "Music Composed with Computers-A Historical Survey."In The Computer and Music, ed. H. B. Lincoln. Ithaca, New York:Cornell University Press, pp. 42-96. Hiller, L. 1972. "ComputerProgramsUsed to Produce the Composition HPSCHD."Technical report4. Buffalo, New York:SUNY, Department of Music. Hiller, L. 1978. "PhraseGeneration in Computer Music Composition.".Technical report 10. Buffalo,New York: SUNY, Department of Music. Hiller, L. 1979. "PhraseStructurein Computer Music." In Proceedings of the 1978 International Computer Music Conference, vol. 1, ed. C. Roads. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, pp. 192-213. Hiller, L. 1980. "Composing the Second Movement of Algorithms III." Technical report 12. Buffalo,New York: SUNY, Department of Music. Hiller, L. 1981. "ComputerProgramsUsed to Producethe Composition Algorithms I." Technical report 13. Buffalo, New York:SUNY, Department of Music. Hiller, L., and R. A. Baker. 1962. "ComputerMusic." In Computer Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, ed. H. Borko. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, pp. 424-451. Hiller, L., and R. A. Baker. 1964. "ComputerCantata:An Investigation of Compositional Procedure."Perspectives of New Music 3:62-90. Hiller, L., and J. Cage. 1968. "HPSCHD:An Interview by LarryAustin." Source 2(2): 10-19. Hiller, L., and L. M. Isaacson. 1959. ExperimentalMusic. New York:McGraw-Hill. (Recently reprintedby Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.) Hiller, L., and R. Kumra. 1979. "Composing Algorithms II by Means of Change-Ringing."Interface 8: 129-168. Kumra, R. 1973. "The Composition of Algorithms II with a Digital Computer."Technical report 6. Buffalo,New York: SUNY, Department of Music. Pierce, J. R. 1961. Symbols, Signals and Noise. New York:Harper,pp. 238-249. Schenker, H. 1979. Free Composition, trans. and ed. E. Oster. New York:Longman.

Hiller

21

This content downloaded from 91.157.10.210 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:20:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions