Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 249

Music for Solo Trumpet and Electronics:

A Repertoire Study

by

Michael Edwin Barth

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements


for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts
Graduate Department of Music
University of Toronto

© Copyright by Michael Barth, 2011


Music for Solo Trumpet and Electronics: A Repertoire Study

Michael Barth

Doctor of Musical Arts

Graduate Department of Music


University of Toronto

2011

Abstract

This dissertation examines the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics through a study of the

genre as a whole and discussions of four compositions that represent its main stylistic

approaches. An obscure but fascinating genre, current research in this area is limited to

discussions of a few of its compositions in other dissertations and lecture recitals. By

investigating this music, this dissertation will contribute to an area that has so far seen little

research while promoting new repertoire that greatly expands the musical possibilities of solo

trumpet performance.

Based on the List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and Electronics compiled by the author,

several aspects of this repertoire are described in Chapter Two, including its development from

1965 to 2009 and the relative popularity of its different compositional approaches. The primarily

academic background of this repertoire’s composers is discussed as well as the diverse

nationalities they represent. The relative obscurity of this repertoire is suggested by the number

of compositions for solo trumpet and electronics that have been published and recorded.

ii
A discussion of the aesthetic, qualitative and practical aspects of the repertoire is presented in

Chapter Three. Based on interviews with leading performers of this repertoire and the

composers of the pieces examined in this dissertation, this music is discussed from the

perspective of musicians who have significant experience in this field. Their interviews

illuminate several important issues that may not be apparent to musicians who are unfamiliar

with this repertoire.

Chapters Four through Seven discuss four representative compositions from the List. An

overview of each piece is given, along with biographical information about its composer, a

description of its electronic components, discussion of relevant performance techniques, and

formal analysis of the composition. Conclusions based on this investigation and suggestions for

future research are suggested in Chapter Eight.

iii
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the University of Toronto and its Graduate Department of Music for their
support of the DMA program. Thank you also to my supervisor, Dr. Jeffrey Reynolds, and the
other members of my advisory committee, Dr. Gillian MacKay and Dr. Cameron Walter, for
their invaluable assistance in preparing this dissertation.

Most of all I would like to thank my wife Lisa for her extraordinary support and patience.

iv
Table of Contents

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................iv

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................v

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ix

List of Appendices .....................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1 Introduction, Definition and Methods..........................................................................1

1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Definition ........................................................................................................................3

1.3 Methods ..........................................................................................................................3

Chapter 2 Overview of the Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics.....................................8

2.1 Types of Electronic Accompaniment ................................................................................8

2.2 Composers......................................................................................................................11

2.3 Publishing and Recording ...............................................................................................14

Chapter 3 The Aesthetic, Qualitative and Practical Aspects of the Repertoire, Based on
Performer and Composer Interviews.....................................................................................18

Chapter 4 Ida, My Dear for trumpet and tape by Peter Hatch.....................................................28

4.1 Overview........................................................................................................................28

4.2 Biography......................................................................................................................29

4.3 Electronic Component, Setup and Synchronization ........................................................31

4.4 Performance Techniques................................................................................................34

4.5 Analysis.........................................................................................................................36

Chapter 5 Modes of Interference for Trumpet and Live Electronics by Agostino Di Scipio........50

5.1 Overview........................................................................................................................50

5.2 Biography......................................................................................................................52

v
5.3 Computer Processes.......................................................................................................56

5.4 Technical Setup .............................................................................................................60

5.5 Performance Techniques................................................................................................63

5.6 Analysis.........................................................................................................................69

Chapter 6 Ricercare Una Melodia for Trumpet and Tape Delay by Jonathan Harvey ................72

6.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................72

6.2 Biography......................................................................................................................73

6.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization............................................................................77

6.3.1 Synchronization ...................................................................................................79

6.4 Extended Techniques.....................................................................................................79

6.5 Analysis.........................................................................................................................83

Chapter 7 Extensions for Trumpet and Multi-track Tape by David Cope ...................................95

7.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................95

7.2 Biography......................................................................................................................96

7.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization..........................................................................100

7.3.1 Synchronization .................................................................................................101

7.4 Extended Techniques...................................................................................................102

7.5 Analysis.......................................................................................................................106

Chapter 8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................120

Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................123

Appendices .............................................................................................................................127

Appendix A – List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and Electronics ...............................127

Appendix B – Performer Biographies .................................................................................194

B.1 - Stephen Altoft.....................................................................................................194

B.2 – Marco Blaauw....................................................................................................195

B.3 - Jonathan Impett...................................................................................................196


vi
Appendix C – Performer Interview Transcripts...................................................................199

C.1 - Transcript of interview with Stephen Altoft. Interview questions answered by


email................................................................................................................199

C.2 - Transcript of telephone interview with Marco Blaauw. .......................................202

C.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Impett. .....................................210

Appendix D – Composer Interview Transcripts ..................................................................217

D.1 - Transcript of interview with Peter Hatch. Interview questions answered by


email................................................................................................................217

D.2 - Transcript of interview with Agostino di Scipio. Interview questions answered


by email. ..........................................................................................................220

D.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Harvey. ....................................230

D.4 - Transcript of interview with David Cope. Interview questions answered by


email................................................................................................................235

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics by Country p. 13

Table 2: Publishing Companies Represented on the List p. 15

Table 3: Articulations in the tape part during the introduction of Ida, My Dear p. 33

viii
List of Figures

Fig. 1 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 36-37 p. 35


Fig. 2 Form Diagram for Ida, My Dear p. 36
Fig. 3 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 4-9 p. 38
Fig. 4 Ida motive a p. 39
Fig. 5 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 38-47 p. 40
Fig. 6 Hatch, Ida, My Dear mm. 34-38 p. 41
Fig. 7 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 39-42 p. 41
Fig. 8 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 43-48 p. 42
Fig. 9 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 54-57 p. 43
Fig. 10 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 64-69 p. 44
Fig. 11 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 70-71 p. 44
Fig. 12 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 73-79 p. 45
Fig. 13 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 95-103 p. 46
Fig. 14 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 104-110 p. 46
Fig. 15 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 146 and 150 p. 47
Fig. 16 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 178-180 p. 48
Fig. 17 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 183-186 p. 48
Fig. 18 Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 188-192 p. 49
Fig. 19 System Interactions in Modes p. 51
Fig. 20 Modes of Interference technical setup p. 61
Fig. 21 Modes of Interference Graphical User Interface p. 67
Fig. 22 Modes of Interference No. 1 Form Diagram p. 70
Fig. 23 Ricercare Una Melodia Circuit Diagram p. 78
Fig. 24 Ricercare Una Melodia Form Diagram p. 84
Fig. 25 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia mm. 1-4 p. 84
Fig. 26 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, mm. 10-12 p. 85
Fig. 27 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, m. 34 p. 87
Fig. 28 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive a p. 90
Fig. 29 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 1-2, motive b p. 90
Fig. 30 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive b altered p. 90

ix
Fig. 31 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive b further expanded p. 91
Fig. 32 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive c p. 91
Fig. 33 Harvey Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 2-3, motive a variant p. 92
Fig. 34 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, motive d p. 92
Fig. 35 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 3, F# major chord; trill p. 93
Fig. 36 Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, variation of motive a p. 93
Fig. 37 Cope, Extensions, mm. 18-20 (trumpets 1 and 2). Syllables p. 104
Fig. 38 Cope, Extension, mm. 9-11 (trumpets 1 and 2). “F.N.” and “F.N. Gliss” p. 105
Fig. 39 Extensions Form Diagram p. 107
Fig. 40 Matrix for Tone Row ‘A’ p. 110
Fig. 41 Cope, Extensions, mm. 24-26 (trumpet 6). Pitch bends p. 113
Fig. 42 Matrix for Tone Row ‘B’ p. 115
Fig. 43 Matrix for Tone Row ‘C’ p. 116

x
List of Appendices

Appendix A – List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and Electronics ........................... p. 127

Appendix B – Performer Biographies ............................................................................. p. 194

B.1 - Stephen Altoft................................................................................................. p. 194

B.2 - Marco Blaauw................................................................................................. p. 195

B.3 - Jonathan Impett............................................................................................... p. 196

Appendix C – Performer Interview Transcripts............................................................... p. 199

C.1 - Transcript of interview with Stephen Altoft. Interview questions answered by


email............................................................................................................ p. 199

C.2 - Transcript of telephone interview with Marco Blaauw. ................................... p. 202

C.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Impett. ................................. p. 210

Appendix D – Composer Interview Transcripts .............................................................. p. 217

D.1 - Transcript of interview with Peter Hatch. Interview questions answered by


email............................................................................................................ p. 217

D.2 - Transcript of interview with Agostino di Scipio. Interview questions answered


by email. ...................................................................................................... p. 220

D.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Harvey. ................................ p. 230

D.4 - Transcript of interview with David Cope. Interview questions answered by


email............................................................................................................ p. 235

xi
1

Chapter 1
Introduction, Definition and Methods

1.1 Introduction

The evolution of the trumpet is marked by technological innovations that have profoundly
influenced its design, musical function and repertoire. The modern trumpet’s distant ancestors
were made from naturally occurring hollow bodies such as animal horns, bones, shells and plant
stems, which being of limited musical potential were used primarily as signaling instruments in
ceremonial and military settings.1 The trumpet continued to serve a functional role with little
melodic capacity for most of its history, even for several centuries (if not millennia) following
the metallurgical advances of the Bronze Age during which trumpets began to be made of metal,
allowing them to be constructed in different sizes and shapes. It was not until the baroque era
that the musical potential offered by metallic construction was fully realized as the clarino
technique of playing in the trumpet’s upper register was developed, permitting the trumpet to be
played melodically and with an aesthetically pleasing tone. This allowed the trumpet to finally
gain acceptance as an artistically important musical instrument and to begin developing a
repertoire of significant solo and ensemble music.2

Although the flexibility offered by metal construction eventually brought the trumpet to a point
where it could be used in art music, its basic shape of a gradually expanding tube was not much
different in the baroque era than it was in antiquity. The baroque trumpet remained limited to the
notes of the harmonic series, and although it could be used to play melodically in the upper
register, it remained incapable of being played chromatically in the low and middle registers.
This deficiency was first remedied through experiments with keyed trumpets, the most
successful being those of Anton Weidinger for whom Joseph Haydn and Johann Nepomuk

1
Philip Bate, The Trumpet and Trombone (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1972), p. 84.
2
Edward Tarr, The Trumpet, trans. S.E. Plank and Edward Tarr (London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.,
1988), p. 85.
2

Hummel wrote the great classical concertos of the trumpet’s repertoire.3 However, the
development of the valve trumpet in the 19th century was an even more important innovation that
gave the trumpet a fully chromatic compass and sufficient agility to play chromatically in any
register.

The development of the valve trumpet opened up a new world of musical possibilities for the
instrument, making it capable of expressive performance in a wide variety of genres and styles.
The adaptability and flexibility of the trumpet is still growing as new technologies and
construction techniques continue to improve the modern trumpet while instrument makers and
musicians strive for perfection in design and performance. However, these continuing
refinements of the instrument and its playing techniques have not offered musically
revolutionary advantages as the development of clarino technique or the invention of the valve
had done. Rather, recent significant expansions in the trumpet’s musical potential have
developed separately from the instrument as innovations in electronic music have not only
created new ways for composers to create music, but also new performance possibilities for
acoustic musicians in terms of enhancing and accompanying their performance. Combining the
trumpet with electronics has created a remarkable compositional genre which allows the trumpet
to be paired with an ever-expanding palette of electroacoustic sounds, as well as giving it even
more musical flexibility as its fundamental characteristics (such as timbre, pitch, attack, and
duration) may be altered by electronic processes.

The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the extraordinary new repertoire for solo trumpet
and electronics. Although it has grown in popularity over the last fifty years, this music remains
relatively unknown and unstudied. Little has been done to examine this repertoire or many of its
significant compositions, and academic research in this area has been limited to a few
dissertations and lecture recitals that discuss a small number of individual compositions within
the overall context of contemporary trumpet music. This dissertation explores the repertoire for
solo trumpet and electronics as a whole while providing detailed accounts of four significant
compositions that represent the main compositional and technological approaches within the
genre. By studying these representative compositions and discussing the repertoire’s historical,

3
Tarr, 150.
3

aesthetic and practical aspects, this dissertation contributes valuable information about
fascinating and previously unexplored music, and in so doing promotes an understanding and
appreciation of a new repertoire that expands the musical horizons of the trumpet.

1.2 Definition

For the purposes of this dissertation, the phrase “trumpet and electronics” refers to any sort of
music for solo trumpet that includes an electronic component. This covers a wide range of music
involving electroacoustic composition, live electronic manipulation and accompaniment, and
recording.

1.3 Methods

The starting point for the research presented in this dissertation is the List of Compositions for
Solo Trumpet and Electronics (Appendix A). Referred to from here on as the List, this is a
compilation of repertoire that resulted from preliminary research during the course Research in
Performance (Mus 4899) at the University of Toronto which involved investigating the existing
repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics, with the primary goal of discovering several
compositions from this genre. Initial research was based on score materials found in the
University of Toronto’s music library, and was expanded by searching for information about this
repertoire on the Internet. By entering the search terms “trumpet and tape,” “trumpet and
electronics” and “trumpet and live electronics” into the Google search engine, links were found
to websites for composers, performers, publishers, libraries, and music information centres from
several countries. A particularly useful resource was Folkmar Hein’s International
Documentation of Electroacoustic Music, which contains information on thousands of
electroacoustic compositions from around the world. It is found online and in its 1996 print
edition from Pfau Verlag in Saarbrücken, Germany. These searches yielded a substantial
amount of information about the repertoire, resulting in a list of 200 works for solo trumpet (or
related instruments such as cornet or flugelhorn). It includes information about the composers
and their nationalities, the pieces’ titles, dates of composition and durations, whether or not these
4

compositions have been published or recorded, and any other relevant information.

However, these search methods were also subject to certain limitations, such as language
(internet searches were carried out in English, French, German, and Italian, leaving gaps in other
languages with which the author is unfamiliar), and whether or not a composer and his/her
composition(s) had a presence on the internet. Also, it was not always possible to find complete
information relating to each work on the List, and in these cases unknown areas were left blank.
Nonetheless, the substantial amount of information provided by the List provides the basic
material necessary for an examination of the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics while
providing useful information for performers interested in this music. This information is
summarized in Chapter Two, where several aspects of the repertoire are examined including the
different types of composition, the composers, and the published scores and recordings of this
music. In addition to the practical information offered by the List itself, this synopsis provides a
broad view of the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics as a whole and insight into its
development since 1965.

Supplementing the information offered in Chapter Two is a discussion of the aesthetic,


qualitative and practical aspects of this repertoire from the perspectives of prominent performers
and composers of this music. Chapter Three contains a discussion of these aspects that draws
primarily on interviews with three performers (Marco Blaauw, Stephen Altoft and Jonathan
Impett), world-class musicians who have made music for solo trumpet and electronics a
significant part of their personal repertoires. In addition, the composers of the pieces that are
examined in Chapters Four through Seven were interviewed about their music and thoughts on
electronic composition, further adding to this discussion. The perspectives of these musicians
gives a unique view of a repertoire that illuminates a number of issues that may not be apparent
to performers without a great deal of experience in this field.

Each of the performers and composers were asked fifteen questions regarding their practices and
opinions regarding music with electronics (see Appendices C and D). They were given the
option of responding to these questions in a written email questionnaire, or answering the same
questions verbally in a telephone conversation. Two of the performers (Blaauw and Impett) and
one of the composers (Jonathan Harvey) preferred to answer the questions verbally, while the
remaining performer (Altoft) and the other three composers (Agostino di Scipio, Peter Hatch and
5

David Cope) chose to answer the questions via email. Using two different methods of
communication presented the possibility of varying quality in the responses depending on the
method of communication. Written responses to the interview questions permit greater
opportunity for contemplation before responding and allow for more reflective and focused
answers, but may provide more limited information than verbal responses. On the other hand,
verbal responses allow the interviewer to explore the respondents’ answers in greater detail and
ask for clarification of confusing statements.4 This suggests that a significant difference between
these two approaches would be in the verbosity and richness of the participants' responses, with
verbal communications yielding lengthier and more elaborate answers than the written
communications. While this ended up being true for some of the interviews, this wasn't always
the case – see di Scipio's exceptionally detailed written answers in Appendix D.

Attempts to minimize the inherent differences between the written and verbal interviews were
made by addressing the same questions in both the telephone conversations and email
correspondences. Additionally, the interview subjects were given the opportunity to read the
questions in advance, allowing them to reflect on their responses prior to answering the
questions, regardless of whether their statements were verbal or written. Finally, the interviews
were not intended to generate “data” for use in analysis, rather personal accounts based on the
experiences of the respondents. Although the quality of the narratives portrayed by the
interviewees’ responses may depend on the manner in which they were interviewed, valuable
information can be drawn from these accounts whether they were delivered verbally or in
writing. Ultimately, the decision to allow the participants the choice of responding in either
verbal or written communications was intended to ensure participation as much as possible.
Since some people are more comfortable with speaking than writing and vice versa, and a small
number of specific interview participants was required, it was imperative that the participants be
as comfortable as possible in the interview process, making it more likely that they would
respond positively to an interview invitation.

Chapters Four through Seven present detailed accounts of four representative compositions from

4
Jocelyn Handy and Kirsty Ross, “Using Written Accounts in Qualitative Research,” South
Pacific Journal of Psychology 16, no.1 (2005), http://spjp.massey.ac.nz/issues/2005-v16/v16-
handy.pdf (accessed April 13, 2011).
6

the List. It became apparent during initial research that electronics have been used in a variety of
ways to accompany and enhance solo trumpet performance. The majority of the pieces found
were compositions for solo trumpet and fixed media5, while pieces for trumpet and live
electronics appeared less frequently, and even less common were pieces for trumpet and tape
loop or delay, and trumpet accompanied by multi-track tape recordings of pre-recorded trumpet
performances. Some works also combined different types of composition, for example music for
trumpet, tape, and live electronics. The pairing of trumpet with electronics in these different
ways gives rise to a number of performance considerations that are not encountered under
traditional musical circumstances, particularly in terms of ensemble playing and technological
preparation. The compositions chosen for this study represent the different styles of composition
from the List and address most of the performance considerations presented in this repertoire.

Ida, My Dear for trumpet and tape by Peter Hatch (Chapter Four)

Modes of Interference for trumpet and live electronics by Agostino di Scipio (Chapter
Five)

Ricercare Una Melodia for trumpet and tape delay by Jonathan Harvey (Chapter Six)

Extensions for trumpet and multi-track tape by David Cope (Chapter Seven)

These pieces are examined in order to illuminate the musical, technical and contextual issues that
arise in their performance. These issues are addressed for each composition by providing a
formal analysis of the work, discussing the playing techniques required, describing the set up and
synchronization of the electronic components, and providing an overview of the composition's
history and context within the repertoire. Biographical information is also given for each
composer, which is further supplemented by interviews with the composers about their careers
and compositions (contained in Appendix D). This not only provides valuable insight into the
compositions themselves, but also into how these pieces contribute to the overall repertoire for
solo trumpet and electronics and electroacoustic music in general.

5
“Fixed media” refers to recording tape, compact disc or computer sound files on which the
composer includes the pre-recorded electronic component of the composition.
7

In order to provide a study that is relevant to performers interested in this music, the pieces that
were selected represent the main types of composition within this genre while meeting several
criteria that make them interesting and important contributions to the repertoire. One of the most
important attributes shared by these pieces is that they expand the musical capabilities of the solo
trumpet beyond its usual boundaries. Each of these pieces approaches this concept in a different
way, creating music that is not simply for solo trumpet accompanied by unusual sounds
(although this is sometimes the case), but rather music that endeavors to enhance the trumpet as a
musical instrument. These pieces alter and expand musical elements such as tone, range,
dynamics, technique, theatricality, ensemble playing, and even the way the trumpet is played,
and in so doing they allow the trumpet to become part of a larger musical experience that
originates from the characteristics of the trumpet itself while remaining in the context of solo
performance.

There are also several practical aspects that were taken into consideration in selecting these
pieces, most of which stem from the condition that they would be accessible to interested
performers. One aspect of accessibility is that these pieces have scores and parts that are readily
available to the public, and each of the selected pieces can be obtained from libraries, publishers
or from the composers themselves. In addition, these pieces have been professionally recorded,
providing valuable resources for those interested in learning this music.

While none of these pieces is particularly easy to play and each of them has specific
requirements with which many musicians may not be familiar, they are still accessible in terms
of their technological and musical demands. Although the technological requirements differ for
each of the selected pieces, the composers have given clear directions on how to handle these
issues, making it possible for performers with access to the necessary audio and/or recording
equipment to perform these pieces. In terms of musical demands, these compositions present a
number of challenges that make these pieces demanding while remaining playable for advanced
trumpet players. They each create interesting and effective musical statements, and lend
themselves well to recital programs.
8

Chapter 2
Overview of the Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics

This chapter provides an overview of the information contained within the List (Appendix A).
Several aspects of the music represented by the List are discussed, providing information
regarding the different types of compositions, their composers, and whether or not these pieces
have been published or recorded. This examination reveals the technologies used in these
compositions and the trends that correspond with technological developments from 1965 to
2009, and illuminates the academic background of much of the repertoire and its relative
obscurity within the context of published classical music.

2.1 Types of Electronic Accompaniment

There are several different types of music on the List for solo trumpet and electronics. The most
common is music for trumpet with fixed media electronics, and of the two-hundred compositions
on the List, one-hundred and eleven are for that configuration. These compositions combine
trumpet performance with pre-recorded electronic music that was created by the composer. Most
(one-hundred and two) of these compositions were written for trumpet and tape, although the
term “tape” appears to refer to a broader set of media than audio recording tape. Many of the
earlier compositions (especially those written during the 1960s and 70s) were likely produced
used magnetic recording tape, and later on in the 1980s and 90s several other compositions were
likely produced using digital audio tape (eg. Ida, My Dear by Peter Hatch from 1995). However,
this term is also applied to more recent compositions that were created well after both magnetic
and digital audio tape became obsolete technologies. Other fixed media are described in four
compositions which use compact disc, pre-recorded synthesizer, and computer sound files, and
the remaining five compositions that have been included in this category have been more
ambiguously described as being for trumpet and “synth sounds”, “electronic sounds” or
“electroacoustic sounds”.
9

However, regardless of whether or not the term “tape” accurately describes the format of these
fixed media compositions, it often it has little to do with the way in which the electronic sounds
of the accompaniment were created. Such is the case with Dexter Morrill's Studies for Trumpet
and Computer, composed in 1974 - an early example of a composition in which the
accompaniment consists of computer-generated sounds, which were transferred to audio
recording tape for performance purposes. Other compositions would have been produced using
whatever technology the composer had available, which may or may not have included use of
audio recording tape.

In addition to providing a medium for electronic composition, tape is used as a bridge between
recorded and live performance in the four compositions from the List for trumpet and multitrack
tape. Composed as early as 1973 and as late as 1993, these are essentially trumpet ensemble
pieces that require the soloist to pre-record a number of accompanying trumpet parts onto
individual tape tracks which are played back during performance. These pieces function
similarly to fixed-media pieces in that the accompanying part does not change once it has been
recorded. However, they are also closely related to the world of acoustic music as the
accompanying tracks are not subjected to electronic manipulation once they have been recorded.
Therefore it could be argued that these pieces do not belong in the category of music for trumpet
and electronics. However, a significant electronic element is introduced through the recording of
the ensemble trumpet parts, and since either the composers of these pieces have indicated that
they may be performed as music for trumpet and tape, or the performers of these pieces have
approached these compositions in this way, they merit consideration as music for trumpet and
electronics.

Tape has also been used to create electronic effects in real-time, and five of the compositions
from the List (all written during the 1970s and 1980s) are for trumpet with tape loop or delay.
Both of these tape effects are created in essentially the same way with reel-to-reel tape recorders:
a melody is recorded by a “recording” machine and played back through a separate “playback”
machine with a specified distance/delay time between the two recorders. The musical signal is
delayed (echoed) by virtue of the distance between the recording and playback machines, and
multiple delays can be accomplished by returning the signal from the playback machine to new
tracks on the recording machine. A looping effect is created in a similar manner, although the
signal from the playback machine returns to the same track on which the melody is recorded,
10

allowing the melody to continue to cycle between the two tape recorders and grow indefinitely.
In addition to creating a loop or delay effect, tape recorders can be used to create other effects,
such as playing the music back at different speeds (also affecting pitch and timbre), and playing
it in reverse. These tape loop effects have since been replaced by less cumbersome methods
through modern electronic equipment and computers. For example, Jonathan Harvey's Ricercare
Una Melodia for trumpet and tape delay is now available with software that allows the delay
effect to be accomplished by computer processing.

The use of tape recorders in the 1970s and 80s to create real-time electronic effects foreshadows
the increasing use of live electronics from the late 1970s to the present. The second most
common style on the List, music for trumpet and live electronics comprises forty-one of its
compositions. The term “live electronics” is used here to include any type of music that features
electronic manipulation of the trumpet's sound in real time (excluding tape loops). This covers a
wide range of electronic effects that can vary from simple amplification to complex computer
operations. The increasing popularity of this type of composition is the most significant
developmental trend suggested by the List, as the number of compositions for trumpet with live
electronics grew from one written in 1979 (Herman Rechberger’s ES) to nine in the 1980s,
twenty-two in the 1990s and twenty-seven from 2000-2009.6

The gradually rising popularity of music for trumpet and live electronics as suggested by the List
is undoubtedly attributable to the continually decreasing costs and increasing availability and
sophistication of digital technology, especially with regard to computers and software. Eleven of
these pieces specify computer sound processing, which is accomplished through software such as
MAX/MSP, Pure Data, or Kyma. One of the pieces with live electronics (Steven Winteregg's
Eastwind Variations) uses MIDI (music instrument digital interface) technology, which may
include computer processing, although this is not specified. The remaining compositions with
live electronics do not specify what type of electronic processing is used. Several of these likely
also use computer sound processing, while others use stand-alone effects such as amplification
(eg. Refrain by Zack Browning), delay (eg. Trumpet Capriccio by Charles Eakin and The

6
This figure includes music for trumpet and any combination that includes live electronics, such
as live electronics alone or live electronics combined other accompaniment such as fixed media,
synthesizer and/or video.
11

Transistor Radio of St. Narcissus by Tim Souster), and reverb (eg. Épigone by Bernard
Carlosema).

Another type of live electronic accompaniment is accomplished with electronic instruments, as


in Marcel Baars' Ballade for trumpet with Yamaha HX 1 electronic organ, Miklós Sugár’s
Fanfare for trumpet and synthesizer and Meg Bowles' two compositions for trumpet and
synthesizer (although the synthesizer part has been pre-recorded for performance in Bowles’
compositions). There are also two compositions which combine trumpet with electronic
instruments and other electronic accompaniments: David Dramm's Chain Curve for double bell
trumpet, Hammond organ, tape, and live electronics, and John Watts' Elegy to Chimney – in
Memoriam for trumpet, synthesizer and tape. These are the only compositions on the List for
trumpet accompanied by electronic instruments (except for Merrill Ellis' Episode for trumpet
with unknown electronic instruments), which would suggest that electronic instruments have not
become popular accompanying alternatives to the piano.

The remaining compositions on the List use combinations of electronic accompaniments, such as
fixed media and live electronics, and fixed media or live electronics with video. There is one
piece (Metallics by Yan Maresz) that can be performed with either fixed media or live
electronics, and there are ten compositions with unspecified or unexplained electronic
accompaniments.

2.2 Composers

The majority of the compositions from the List are by composers who are well-grounded in
academia. Of the 164 composers represented on the List, eighty-five are (or have been)
professors at universities or conservatories, three were university students when they composed
their works, and of the sixty-three freelance composers, eight hold doctorate degrees in
composition while several others hold master's degrees. That many of these pieces have been
composed in academia would not be surprising to David Cope (composer of two of the List's
pieces - Extensions and Bright Angel), who wrote that “in America, at least, the colleges and
12

universities have replaced the courts, church, and patrons of earlier times, offering the composer
his only realistic terms for physical survival.”7 While this may be a debatable point, especially
by those composers who are earning a living outside of academia, the academic backgrounds of
the majority of the List's composers suggests that music for trumpet and electronics is more
readily found in academic environments such as universities and conservatories. The
professional activities of eight of the composers are unknown, and one of the compositions
(Emguux) is by Marco Blaauw, who is professionally active as a trumpeter but not as a
composer. However, it is not surprising that Blaauw has written a composition in this genre
given his background both as a performer with electronics and as an improviser.

Most of the composers found on the List wrote only one piece for solo trumpet and electronics.
Of the twenty-two composers who did write more than one of these pieces, fifteen of them wrote
two compositions, five of them wrote three compositions, two of them wrote four compositions,
and one (Roger Dannenberg) wrote six compositions. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the more
prolific composers in this genre have either been trumpet players themselves (such as Tittle,
Sermilä, and Dannenberg), or have had close associations with trumpet players (such as
Karlheinz Stockhausen with his son, Markus). In total, thirteen of the composers from the List
are known to be trumpet players as well as composers.

The following table shows the countries represented by the composers on the List and the
numbers of compositions associated with them, showing that music for trumpet and electronics
has been composed all over the world. It also suggests possible limitations in search methods
used with regard to music composed in non-English speaking countries, as the majority of
compositions from the List (one-hundred and four) are from countries where English is the
primary language (USA, Canada, England, Ireland, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand).

7
David Cope, New Directions in Music (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1971), p. 6.
13

Table 1: Repertoire for Solo Trumpet and Electronics by Country

North America

USA: 67

Canada: 8

Central and South America

Mexico: 1

Argentina: 2

Europe and United Kingdom

England: 21

Ireland: 2

Scotland: 2

Germany: 19

The Netherlands: 9

Belgium: 3

France: 8

Italy: 15

Spain: 1

Switzerland: 2

Austria: 4

Greece: 1

Poland: 2
14

Hungary: 3

Czech Republic: 2

Sweden: 6

Norway: 2

Finland: 7

Russia: 1

Oceania

Australia: 1

New Zealand: 3

Asia

Korea: 1

Japan: 2

Unknown: 3

2.3 Publishing and Recording

The majority of the compositions from the List have not been published, with eighty-two having
been published and one-hundred and three remaining unpublished (the status of fifteen of the
compositions is unknown in this regard). Of the compositions that were published, eleven of
them were released by the composers' own publishing companies, including Meg Bowles'
Kumatone Records, Christopher Fox's Fox Edition, Steve Kornicki's Fragmented View Music,
James Mobberly's Cautious Music, Dexter Morrill's Chenango Valley Press, and Karlheinz
Stockhausen's Stockhausen Verlag. Very few (nine) of the other sixty publishing companies
15

(which includes institutions such as IRCAM and the national music information centres) released
more than one composition for trumpet and electronics, and of those that did the highest numbers
were published by the Canadian Music Centre (five) and Seesaw Music (whose catalogue is now
owned by the Subito Music Corporation), also with five. These figures suggest that music for
trumpet and electronics remains a relatively obscure genre, as over half of the compositions from
the List are either unpublished or of unknown publication status, while those that have been
published have either been released by the composers themselves or only rarely by other
publishing companies. The publishing companies represented on the List and the number of
pieces for trumpet and electronics released by each is shown below.

Table 2: Publishing Companies Represented on the List

American Composers Alliance: 1

Blue Bison Music: 1

BMG-Ricordi: 1

Editions BMG: 1

Boosey and Hawkes: 1

Carl Fischer: 1

Catena Press: 1

Claude Benny Press: 2

Donemus: 3

DMA Music: 1

Durand: 1

Editions Wilhelm Hansen: 1

Faber: 2

Frog Peak Music: 1

Jasemusiikki: 3

J.M. Fuzeau: 1
16

Lantro Music: 1

Merion: 1

Manduca: 3

Musik Fabrik: 1

N.Y. Composers Facsimile Editions: 1

Novello: 1

OdB Editions: 1

Pasquina Publications: 1

Pizzicatto Verlag Helvetia: 1

Seesaw: 5

Shawnee Press: 1

Shelan: 1

Sounz: 1

Wai-te-ata Press: 1

Tons: 2

Tre Media: 1

IRCAM: 1

Canadian Music Centre: 5

Budapest Music Information Centre: 1

British Music Information Centre: 2

Swedish Music Information Centre: 3

Norway Music Information Centre: 1

Finland Music Information Centre: 2

Given the obscurity of this genre suggested by the publication figures, it is not surprising that
more than half of these compositions have not been recorded. Of the seventy-nine that have
17

been recorded, fifty-nine have been featured in professional commercial recordings, and twenty
exist as live or archival recordings.

It is difficult to say with any certainty why this repertoire remains relatively unknown with few
publications and recordings. There are undoubtedly several contributing factors, one of which
being that it falls within the context of contemporary music which itself tends to be relatively
unpopular among performers and audiences alike. On a more practical level, however, music
involving electronics takes more effort to produce and perform. From the perspective of the
publisher it is certainly a larger task to produce an electronic component in addition to sheet
music, although with the continuingly increasing ease and decreasing costs of compact disc
production it is becoming much more common to find scores packaged with an accompanying
compact disc or CD-ROM. From the perspective of the performer it may be less attractive to
invest the time required to learn a piece of music that is not only musically challenging but also
requires unusual technological requirements. Finally, it may simply be because it is still a very
young genre that has not had much time to establish itself among the standard trumpet repertoire.
18

Chapter 3
The Aesthetic, Qualitative and Practical Aspects of the
Repertoire, Based on Performer and Composer Interviews

Three prominent performers of music for trumpet and electronics were interviewed in order to
obtain a perspective on the repertoire from musicians who have a great deal of experience in this
field. The musicians who participated in the interviews (Stephen Altoft, Marco Blaauw, and
Jonathan Impett) include several compositions for solo trumpet and electronics in their personal
repertoires, and are unique among the trumpet community as innovators who are not only
influencing the development of new trumpet repertoire, but also the continued evolution of the
trumpet itself (see Appendix B for brief biographies of the interview subjects). Their interviews
illuminate several important issues that may not be apparent to trumpeters who do not have a
great deal of experience in this field.

The interviews consisted of fifteen questions regarding the performers' opinions and practices
involving music for solo trumpet and electronics. Their answers (see Appendix C) provide the
basis for a discussion of several aesthetic, qualitative and practical aspects of this repertoire, and
were used to create a descriptive commentary on these issues. Information was also drawn from
interviews with the composers of the pieces examined in this dissertation, especially with regard
to the qualitative aspects of this repertoire. Unless indicated with footnotes, all quotations in this
chapter are taken directly from the interviews (see Appendix C for interview transcripts). Issues
that are discussed include the instrumental nature of electronic music and its different
relationships with acoustic musicians, the challenges presented by electronic composition and the
potential difficulties of combining it with acoustic performance, the possibilities offered by
electronics to extend the sonic characteristics and musical environments of acoustic instruments,
practical issues that must be considered in the preparation and performance of these kinds of
pieces, the benefits of researching and discovering obscure repertoire, and the context of music
for solo trumpet and electronics within the overall trumpet repertoire.

The first question each performer was asked was “What do you like about performing music for
19

trumpet and electronics?” Altoft's answer (“Not being alone on stage! It is more interesting than
playing solo trumpet! The different sound worlds one moves in is simply very liberating, and the
processing of my sound into something very different is cool!”) contains several implications for
performance of this repertoire. His first statement refers to the relationship between solo
performers and electronics, even though soloists with electronics are often physically alone on
stage. In his answer to the same question, Marco Blaauw pointed out that the electronic
component “is to be treated as an independent instrument.” Whether or not this instrument lends
a physical presence to the performance area (perhaps through a sound projectionist or visible
electronic equipment), it still provides the soloist with musical support that does not exist in
unaccompanied performance.

The instrumental nature of electronically created and manipulated music is considerably different
from that of acoustic music, especially regarding its relationship with acoustic performers. In the
case of music for soloist with fixed-media electronics (e.g. “trumpet and tape”), this relationship
is “one-way” as the soloist may react musically to the electronic part, while the electronic part
does not (and can not) react to the soloist's performance. This provides challenges to the soloist
with regard to coordination and expression, as he or she must fit musical aspects such as tempo,
rubato, dynamics, and intonation into parameters defined by the electronic part. Depending on
the degree of coordination desired by the composer, this may leave little room for flexibility with
regard to these criteria. However, this also helps ensure that the composer's intentions are
fulfilled without being significantly affected by interpretation. Even though interpretation is an
important element in the successful performance of any composition that allows the performer to
display his or her personality and musicianship, it also has the potential of diluting or altering the
composer's ideas. This was a concern of French composer and electronic music pioneer Edgard
Varèse, expressed in his following remarks from a 1939 lecture:

We composers are forced to use, in the realization of our works,


instruments that have not changed for two centuries. . . Personally,
for my conceptions, I need an entirely new medium of expression:
a sound-producing machine (not a sound re-producing one). . .
Whatever I write, whatever my message, it will reach the listener
unadulterated by "interpretation." It will work something like this:
after a composer has set down his score on paper by means of a
new graphic, similar in principle to a seismographic or
oscillographic notation, he will then, with the collaboration of a
sound engineer, transfer the score directly to this electric machine.
20

After that anyone will be able to press a button to release the music
exactly as the composer wrote it.8

The acoustic part of a piece for performer with fixed electronic media is still subject to a certain
degree of interpretation. However, in this case the soloist is in a sense performing alongside the
composer who has provided a part of the composition that precisely reflects his or her musical
ideas, thereby influencing the performer's interpretation of the acoustic component of the work.

On the other hand, the electronic “instrument” with which the soloist performs may be
equipment that manipulates the performance in real-time, which Blaauw appreciates both “as a
partner to play with” and “as offering a larger range of sounds on (the) trumpet.” Altoft also
enjoys this situation: “I prefer working with live electronics where either I have some artistic
control or can have interpretation leverage and/or can communicate with the performer who is on
the laptop: it creates more of a duo with electronics.” In this case performance relies on
interaction between acoustic and electronic elements to create the sounding results of a
composition. Rather than one-way communication between a performer and fixed electronic
media, the performer interacts with the electronic accompaniment on a fundamental level in
order to create the overall musical output. Electronic manipulation of the performance's acoustic
properties fosters a uniquely deep interaction that goes beyond what is possible between acoustic
performers. While an acoustic ensemble performance does rely on communication between the
participating musicians in order to achieve a successful sense of ensemble, their interaction does
not go as far as directly transforming and extending the sounds made by each other.

In addition to using electronics to extend what he considers the “spatial” characteristics of


trumpet performance (i.e. “the kind of sound you can make, or the range of colours”), Impett is
also interested in “temporal” extensions of the trumpet and “extending the structural capabilities
of what the performer does.” After finding that the way many composers were working with
sound processing to be “quite limiting” and using electronics as an “effects box”, Impett
developed his meta-trumpet with the idea that it would “somehow integrate the instrument

8
Peter Manning, Electronic and Computer Music (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004),
http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=2042 (accessed November 7, 2010).
21

structurally into the way music is generated.” Wanting to move beyond the idea of simply
“controlling effects,” Impett developed an approach that allows him to “transform that
fundamental relationship” between musician and music as the actions involved in performance
influence the structure of the composition itself. In this way he uses technology to create an
integral relationship between performance and composition, as the interaction between the
soloist and the electronic component of the music not only transforms the musician's sound, but
also the outcome of the composition itself.

The treatment of electronics as an “effects box” appears to lead to a potential flaw in electronic
music, described by Blaauw and Impett as the possibility for electronic elements to come off as
“cheap tricks” or “cheesy” effects. Impett feels that the “grossness of the way these effects are
just added” can create a tasteless element in the music. Blaauw further discusses this point in the
context of live performance: “a big danger of using electronics, especially with sound
processing, is that the effect of electronics can become cheap tricks, and if you play them loud
enough it is sort of an easy effect on the audience. They don't have to participate so actively,
they don't have to listen so actively, they can just lay back and be overwhelmed.”

The issue of quality is important for performers and composers alike, and while a discussion of
what constitutes quality in music is beyond the purview of this study, it is a factor that must be
weighed by performers as they select repertoire and by composers as they create new works and
use new musical languages. The possibility of using electronics as an “easy effect” rather than
treating it seriously as another instrument may be the reason Jonathan Harvey feels “it is very
easy to make bad electronics.” Agostino Di Scipio elaborates further on this idea, asking “how
many works for “instrument and electronics” have finely, competently crafted instrumental parts
and pretty banal electronics, mostly embellishing (or “setting a different context to”) the solo
instrument with “sound effects?” Di Scipio feels there is a “huge imbalance in terms of the
knowledge put at work” between electronic and acoustic composition, further adding “I don't
think the beauty or structural properties of the final sounding results may justify that imbalance.
Aesthetics is never a good excuse.” Citing the importance of developing a strong fluency and
technical mastery in electronic composition, he feels that successful composing (electronic or
otherwise) is “not a question of how refined or innovative is your writing: it is a question of how
good is your control of technological resources... as relative to the sounding result.”
22

The nature of electronics, described by Peter Hatch as “technically very challenging,” presents
significant difficulties to those who wish to develop a certain level of competence in electronic
composition. Adding to this complex nature is the rapid pace of technological development,
which Blaauw describes as “constantly changing” so that composers “have to be renewing all the
time” in order to keep up-to-date with new technologies. Feeling that it is “very difficult for
composers to get a good grip on that instrument,” Blaauw supports Di Scipio's contention that
technological proficiency is essential for successful electronic composition as “composers that
are really good now with electronics are people that are occupied all the time with the computer,
and composing and working with electronics at the computer, just non-stop updating, willing to
play with it, willing to experiment, that is compose and throw away.”

For Di Scipio, a composer's level of “ecriture” or “mastery of electronics” reflects “the degree of
freedom” they have as a composer. However, the quality of a composition does not necessarily
depend on the degree to which technology has advanced. Blaauw feels that “to find really good
quality in the use of electronics, to reach very good aesthetic quality ... just needs a very good
composer”. Citing Stockhausen as such a composer, Blaauw points to his Gesang der Junglinge,
which, although it was composed in 1956 using early electroacoustic techniques such as
manually cutting and splicing tape, is “constructed in such an ingenious way that it will survive
the time”, and that even though “we have much better equipment nowadays, much better means
and knowledge, that piece is still one of the biggest examples for good quality electronic music.”

Although the complexity of electronic composition poses daunting challenges to composers, the
possibilities it offers are virtually endless, as electronic music is not limited in terms of register,
volume, articulation, timbre, or intonation. Thus it is not surprising that Altoft feels music for
trumpet and electronics is “more interesting than solo trumpet,” further expressing that it
provides “more to listen to” than acoustic trumpet performance. His statement that “the different
sound worlds one moves in is simply very liberating” is also logical, as electronics can
potentially provide any sound the composer is capable of imagining. Although acoustic
accompaniment by piano, orchestra, or other ensemble can provide excellent collaborative
music, the flexibility of electronic music provides an accessibility that is liberating for the
performer or composer who wishes to move beyond the possibilities offered by acoustic
instrumental accompaniment.
23

Far beyond being able to provide interesting “sound effects” or unusual contexts for instrumental
performance, the use of electronics provides the potential to extend nearly every aspect of
performance. In addition to the possibilities it offers by extending the sounds a composer or
performer is capable of creating, it can also alter the characteristics of the environment in which
the performance takes place. Multi-channel electronic music in particular is able to extend the
perceptual characteristics of a performance space by surrounding the listener with sound, rather
than having the music come from one location, usually in front of the audience. This can create
an extraordinary effect for the listener who may perceive sound as a physically moving entity,
not bound by the location of the performer. Again referring to Stockhausen, Blaauw discusses
this situation in compositions such as Aries which require octophonic diffusion of the electronic
parts, and how “the sound traveling, the melodies traveling from left to right, front to back, etc.
... is a very different and unique experience.”

However, compositions that require extensive multi-channel diffusion also present practical
difficulties, such as finding suitable performance spaces, and Blaauw has found that a number of
problems can arise in presenting these pieces that prevent an optimal performance situation. He
notes that “concert halls are not built for music like that. People can't sit in the middle, the
performer can't be in the ideal position, and the height of the hall is often a difficulty. So it is
very, very difficult to find the ideal circumstances for great electronic music.” Harvey agrees
with this, mentioning this type of music “does cut down what venues one can use,” although he
also feels that this is a “trivial” problem.

Aside from procuring an appropriate venue there are other practical considerations that arise in
the performance of music with electronics. One of the most important of these is the set-up and
execution of the electronic component(s) of the composition. This can be a time consuming and
difficult task, especially for people who do not specialize in electronics. Blaauw mentioned this
difficulty as he elaborated on his comment that the electronic component is to be treated as
another instrument, saying that “to get a really good grip and control on the (electronic) material
you have to practice as much as (you) would practice the trumpet.” Finding that he does not
have enough time to become proficient with electronic equipment, Blaauw regularly relies on
specialists to take care of the electronic component of the performance, leaving him occupied
only with the trumpet. Altoft echoes this statement, noting that “mostly there is a technician
there or composer running the programmes or at least sitting at the mixing desk.” However, he
24

has found that over time he has come to know some basics regarding music technology such as
mixing desks, foot pedals, and microphones. He has also become familiar with some computer
procedures and different software patches, noting that he does not do any computer programming
and that he still feels a “novice” with the technological components of these works, emphasizing
that “I have to put most of the energy into learning the notes I have to play.”

As a composer as well as performer Impett has done a great deal of work to learn about
electronic music technology, including learning how to do computer programming, mostly using
C++, Swarm (from the Santa Fe institute), and MAX. He also learned about sensing technology
during his Ph.D. studies on interactive composition systems. However, he admits that he “never
really got a hold of the hardware side of things,” and he gets other people to take care of the
technological parts when he is performing with live electronics. Just as Blaauw and Altoft noted
that they have to concentrate mostly on learning the trumpet parts of these pieces, Impett says “I
have never found anything in technology as difficult as playing the trumpet, frankly. Playing the
trumpet is just so difficult anything else pales by comparison!”

An additional challenge in this repertoire comes from finding a good balance between the soloist
and the electronics. Reiterating the need to work with someone else, Blaauw mentions that “you
always need a pair of ears in the concert hall ... because it is never possible to tell what the
balance is like,” regardless of whether it is with live electronics or pre-recorded electronic
accompaniment. Feeling that he can not find an appropriate balance on his own, even in a small
hall, Blaauw says that it is “really difficult to get a great sound,” and “a great sound is necessary
to give the piece what it deserves.” Further difficulties may arise with the electronic equipment
itself, with Blaauw noting that “it is very difficult to find the best equipment. Usually we have to
do concessions, like the loudspeakers are not the best, or the microphone is not the best, and I
often find the performance is as good as the weakest part. If one cable or microphone, or even
one plug is not one-hundred percent good, then the performance depends very much on that
weak part. I often find that concert organizers are not really willing to invest the maximum in
electronic equipment; they often find it too expensive.” Finances are often a significant deciding
factor in the forces used in a concert, and Altoft further notes that “there is more effort, outlay
and equipment involved, and sometimes the financial means are not there in order to put such a
concert on.”
25

In addition to overcoming these practical difficulties, performers are often required to expand
their own musical abilities in learning and performing these pieces. One aspect of this is the
development and refinement of the sense of ensemble with electronics. This may require the
development of new techniques and skills, some of which mentioned by Altoft include “playing
with a stopwatch, interpreting graphic scores, playing with foot pedals, and learning about their
response timings.” In a more general sense, however, performers are often challenged by the
many unique approaches composers take in creating these pieces. Within the larger genre of
contemporary music for trumpet, music for trumpet and electronics is part of a repertoire in
which the trumpet's possibilities are constantly expanded by the imaginations and innovations of
modern composers. As Blaauw noted in his interview when asked if he has had to learn any new
techniques or skills in order to perform these kinds of pieces, he mentioned “this happens in
every piece; it is not typical for electronic music. Because I am specializing in contemporary
music, every time I play a new piece by a composer I have to/get to speak the language of the
composer, and that is adjusting my playing all the time.” Thus each new piece provides a new
opportunity for the performer to grow, and as Altoft noted “learning every piece brings me
further as a musician.”

Learning the “languages” of different composers has helped performers like Blaauw and Altoft
develop significant relationships not only with composers, but also with the repertoire itself. The
relationship between the performer and the repertoire they choose is also an important issue for
Impett, who feels that by having to find out about music for oneself, whether through research or
working with composers, the performer is able to take a greater degree of “ownership” of the
repertoire than is the often case with more standard, “institutionalized” repertoire.9 This allows
the performer to “play it as if it is from yourself” and “as if it is your music,” rather than
following the formalized nature of standard repertoire and “imitating what has already been
agreed to as being suitable.”10 Finding that “in a conventional sort of recital situation it is almost
as if the performer is kind of a third party,” Impett feels that while a performer may present an
“honest” representation of the music, it is not “their music” and “it is not quite from the soul in

9
Roeland Hazendonk, Liner Notes, Ladder of Escape 7, Jonathan Impett, perf., Attacca Babel
compact disc 9476 DDD, 1993.
10
Hazendonk, Liner Notes from Ladder of Escape 7.
26

the same way.” Developing a close relationship with or “taking ownership” of the repertoire is
an important issue for the performance of any style of music. However, it is especially apparent
in a genre such as solo trumpet and electronics which has not been subject to widespread scrutiny
or the development of standard performance practices, and Impett has found that his approach to
music for trumpet with electronics has helped him move beyond this “conventional”
performance approach in developing a more personal relationship with the music he performs.

Impett's interest in discovering music for himself reaches beyond the repertoire for trumpet and
electronics to include not only other contemporary trumpet music but also baroque and classical
music, and for each of the interview subjects music for trumpet and electronics remains part of a
larger musical context in which they are involved. For Impett, technology has become part of his
general musical concept, feeling that “the overall state of music has changed, (and) if you are
going to come to grips with that you have to get a handle on the technological side of things.”
For Blaauw, although he has performed several pieces for trumpet and electronics, he does not
consider them to constitute a major part of his repertoire or to have been a defining factor in his
career. While he feels they help his interests of continually “trying to extend the trumpet,” he
approaches them as part of the overall contemporary repertoire he enjoys performing. For Altoft,
music for trumpet and electronics is integrated with his interest in microtonal music, and he
includes several compositions for microtonal trumpet and electronics in his repertoire.

All of the trumpeters interviewed have spent considerable effort developing their abilities and
enhancing their instruments to allow them to participate in the ever-expanding languages of
contemporary trumpet music. Furthermore, their research, collaboration with composers, and
determination to extend the trumpet as an instrument have contributed to the discovery and
development of new music for trumpet, enriching the trumpet's repertoire and providing new
means of expression for trumpet players. In addition to being innovators, they also provide
examples of musicians who have found their voice through the discovery and performance of
various styles of music. Finding one's voice as a musician is a significant accomplishment which
requires not only dedication to overcoming the challenges of learning and mastering an
instrument, but also developing an awareness of its repertoire and place within the greater
context of musical styles and history. Although it is a recent addition to the trumpet repertoire,
music for solo trumpet and electronics provides a new component in the overall picture of the
27

trumpet that is important for all trumpeters with an interest in exploring the trumpet's place in
music.
28

Chapter 4
Ida, My Dear for trumpet and tape by Peter Hatch

4.1 Overview

Peter Hatch wrote Ida, My Dear in May, 1995. It was commissioned with assistance from the
Ontario Arts Council by Guy Few, a virtuoso trumpeter, pianist, and singer who is on faculty
along with Hatch at Wilfrid Laurier University. Written for trumpet and tape, Ida, My Dear
combines solo trumpet performance not only with a range of electronically manipulated and
generated sounds, but also with theater through the use of spoken word both by the performer
and on tape. This allows the solo trumpeter's performance to be extended in two key ways: by
combining and blending the trumpet with a variety of taped sounds, and by expanding the role of
the soloist to trumpeter/actor as he/she must also deliver spoken lines, both alone and in dialogue
with the voice on tape. Ida, My Dear is a composition that goes beyond the usual concert
practice by blending theatricality and musicality into a unique performance experience.

Ida, My Dear was inspired by two sources: Gertrude Stein's 1937 novelette Ida and Thelonious
Monk's jazz composition Ruby, My Dear. In his programme note for the score, Hatch describes
the “melancholic mood” of the piece as being derived from “Monk's purposely 'awkward' style
of playing and from the anti-heroic 'heroine' of Stein's story, who does very little but 'manages to
fill her day'”. He further describes the interaction of the trumpet and tape and of the live and
spoken voices as being “intended to create a musical character as mysterious and enigmatic as
Stein's Ida.”

Throughout the composition quotations are taken from both Ida and Ruby, My Dear. Excerpts
from Ida (the 1937 novelette, not Stein's 1941 novel of the same title) are spoken both by the
soloist and on tape by Waterloo mezzo-soprano Anne-Marie Donovan, whose “beautiful
29

delivery” of the text influenced the direction of the piece.11 The quotations from Ruby, My Dear
are played on piano in the tape part. In an email communication with the author, Hatch
mentioned that he played some of the piano parts on tape while a small portion of the music was
sampled from Monk's playing, although he could not recall from which recording. In addition to
the spoken voice and piano, Ida, My Dear utilizes several other natural, unmodified sounds as
well as a variety of electroacoustic and electronic sounds that effectively extend its acoustic
qualities.

Ida, My Dear is published by the Canadian Music Centre, which also holds two recordings of the
work.

4.2 Biography

Peter Hatch is a composer, concert organizer, and teacher, and is currently professor of
composition at Wilfrid Laurier University’s Faculty of Music, where he began teaching in 1985.
Born in Toronto in 1957, Hatch’s early university studies focused on bassoon performance
before he changed his major to composition. He received B.Mus. and M.Mus. degrees from the
University of Toronto and a DMA from the University of British Columbia. His works have
been featured in several music festivals and have gained recognition through composer
competitions held by CBC radio, the Winnipeg New Music Festival, and Vancouver New Music.
In addition to his compositional work, Hatch has served as the artistic director of new music
ensembles and festivals such as the 1989 ‘5th Stream’ festival and the 1995 ‘Coming Together’
festival, and in 1985 he founded NUMUS concerts, a Waterloo based new music organization.

Hatch’s background in electroacoustic composition includes working at Simon Fraser


University’s electronic music studio from 1983-84 and becoming director of the Electroacoustic
Music Studio at Wilfrid Laurier University in 1987. However, in an interview with the author he
described himself as having composed electroacoustic music only “occasionally” and does not
consider himself an electronic composer. Nonetheless, he finds great value in electroacoustic

11
Peter Hatch, interview with Larry Lake, Two New Hours, CBC radio, date unknown.
Canadian Music Centre cd AR2601, CentreStreams, www.musiccentre.ca (acc. Aug. 18, 2010).
30

processes, and in the same interview he described the combination of electroacoustic and
acoustic sounds as “a great way of extending the acoustic sound, allowing for it to be listened to
differently”. Especially interested in works that attempt to blend acoustic and electroacoustic
sounds, he further describes electronics as being able to enhance the sense of “nuance and
complexity as well as refinement” in the sounds produced by classical and post-classical
composers and performers.

Hatch’s compositions span a wide range of genres including orchestral music (he was composer
in residence for the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony from 1999-2003), chamber music,
instrumental theater, and sound installations. For a long time he has been especially interested in
musical theater, incorporating theatrical elements such as spoken word and movements into his
solo and chamber works. This interest has grown from extending traditional performance
practices and from collaborating with artists from other disciplines, including director David
Murray Scott, architect Dereck Revington, and choreographers David Earle and Bill James.12

One of Hatch’s recurring motivations has been the writing of Gertrude Stein, an influential
American author who spent much of her life in Paris where she associated with several avant-
garde writers and artists such as Matisse, Picasso, and Hemingway. Her writing has played an
important role in several of Hatch's compositions besides Ida, My Dear, including his full-
evening instrumental theater piece Mounting Picasso and his short opera Asks Alice. He has
been especially interested in Stein’s use of syntax and its effects on the perception of time.
While attending the 34th Ferienkurse für Neue Musik at Darmstadt, Germany in 1988 he
delivered a lecture entitled “A talk about time. And syntax in music.” in which he examined his
musical aesthetic and his interest in Stein’s grammatical structures. In his lecture he discussed
Stein’s use of syntax to control the sense of time, and how her use of repetition and variation in
her phrase structures would meet or not meet grammatical expectations, creating a sense of time
which “seemed to be always happening in the now.” He further described her time as “musical
time”, inspiring him to think about the use of syntax, repetition, and expectation as fundamental
aspects of his musical composition.

12
Peter Hatch, Biography, http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/biography.php (accessed August 18,
2010).
31

In his lecture Hatch described repetition as an important aspect of time and an essential element
in the development of expectation, focusing on the way “repetition, especially varied repetition
allows the listener to hear, to feel, to experience a sound event from different angles…Each
varied repetition sheds a different light on the event”. Varied repetition is an important aspect of
Ida, My Dear, in which the melodic lines consist primarily of varied repetitions of a brief motive.
Exact repetition is also used prominently in Ida, My Dear, with the tape's static ostinato of the
vocalized “Dear Ida” contrasting with the forward motion of the melody. Stein’s influence on
Hatch’s work thus extends beyond an attempt to capture the emotional atmosphere of her
writing, and provides uniquely direct structural parallels between her writing style and his
compositional technique.

4.3 Electronic Component, Setup and Synchronization

The electronic component of Ida, My Dear, consists of a prerecorded tape part, originally
prepared using DAT tape and now available on CD from the Canadian Music Centre. The
material on the tape part is composed of a variety of acoustic, electronic, and electroacoustically
altered sounds. In composing this piece, Hatch was particularly concerned with balancing the
musical, theatrical, and electronic components of the work, wanting the “effect to be of an
acoustic piece that was enhanced by the electroacoustic elements, rather than the voice and
trumpet being part of an el-ac piece”13. It is not surprising, then, that the tape part contains a
great deal of natural acoustic sounds, with some subtle electroacoustic treatment and spare use of
electronically generated sounds. This allows the electronic and acoustic components of Ida, My
Dear to blend with each other, extending the acoustic properties of the music.

The most important components of the tape part are the piano playing and the spoken texts, as
these refer to the main inspirations of the composition: Thelonious Monk's jazz piece Ruby, My
Dear and Gertrude Stein's novelette Ida. These components are often presented in their natural
acoustic states, although they are also subject to some subtle electroacoustic treatment. For
example, the first note of the piece is a G played in the piano's low register, which is then

13
Peter Hatch, interview with Michael Barth, August 13, 2010.
32

extended for the next twenty-four measures of the composition. Another example is the looping
of the spoken phrase “Dear Ida”, providing a vocalized ostinato in several sections of the piece.

Another important acoustic component of the tape part is the trumpet playing, which often
harmonizes with the trumpet soloist, allowing the live and recorded trumpet sounds to blend with
each other. Other unaltered sounds in the tape part include human breath and consonant sounds,
and television sounds. In contrast to the tape's acoustic and electroacoustically altered content
are sounds that have been electronically generated, likely by a synthesizer, as is suggested by the
indication “synth” in the first measure of the score.

An important part of performing this piece is attaining a proper balance between the trumpet and
tape parts. Hatch prefers a natural sounding balance, noting that “the best productions of this
piece have featured performers who have taken some care in the setup of the audio diffusion
system (monitors) and levels, such that it does not sound over amplified, but almost
unamplified.”14 Hatch includes a detailed list of technical requirements along with the score, the
most important elements of which include a DAT player (or CD player), a vocal microphone, a
mixer, two high quality speakers and a monitor so the performer can adequately hear the tape
part. It is very helpful to have a sound technician set up this equipment, and having a sound
projectionist is especially useful to adjust the volume of the vocal microphone and the tape
playback in order to achieve a proper balance between all the parts.

Perhaps the most important aspect of performing this piece is the coordination between the
soloist and the tape part. Performing with a prerecorded electronic accompaniment often
presents significant challenges in ensemble playing, as the tape part, although acting as the
“other performer”, can not react to any fluctuations in the soloist's tempo, pitch, or volume.
Thus it is especially important that the soloist is not only able to perform their part consistently
and accurately, but also knows the tape part as thoroughly as the solo part so that he/she can
develop a good sense of ensemble.

Hatch has notated some elements of the tape part alongside the trumpet part in the score,
providing information that will allow the trumpeter to follow important cues from the tape.

14
Peter Hatch, interview with Michael Barth, August 13, 2010.
33

However, there are several points at which it is still difficult to coordinate with the tape, as the
tape cues provide either insufficient or slightly inaccurate information for the soloist. This is the
case in the beginning of the piece, where the soloist must play from measures four to twenty-four
with no clear indication regarding the coordination between the trumpet and tape parts.
Fortunately this is not a major problem for most of the section as the tape part consists primarily
of long tones, and no rhythmic information is included in the score for the tape part, making
precise coordination unnecessary. However, it is difficult for the trumpet soloist arrive at the end
of this section together with the tape part leading into letter A. One solution to this problem
could be for the performer to use a visual metronome to keep time during this section. Another
option would be for the soloist to play without concern for the tempo, as long as he/she is
prepared to hold the last note (the written D natural the bar before A) for however long it takes
for the tape part to reach letter A. Another option (and probably the best option, in the author's
opinion) would be to listen to the tape part and pay attention to when the G played by the
trumpet in the tape part is rearticulated, and write that into the score. The following table
displays the measure numbers and the beats on which this G is articulated, and should provide an
effective guide for this section.

Table 3: Articulations in the tape part during the introduction of Ida, My Dear

Measure Number Beat on which trumpet 'G' is rearticulated


1 3
2 3
3 3
4 3
5 3
6 3
7 4
8
9 1
10 2
11 3
12 3
34

13 3
14 3
15 3
16 4
17
18 1
19 1
20 1, 4
21 3
22 3
23 4
24

There are a few small errors and discrepancies in the score that can make ensemble playing
inaccurate or difficult, and again the best way to prepare for this is to be thoroughly acquainted
with the tape part through listening and practice. One such discrepancy occurs at m. 73 (the first
measure of E), where the trumpet part in the tape score comes in slightly earlier than indicated.
Here the soloist may wish to shorten the time between the first and second beats of this measure
in order to stay together with the trumpet on tape. The only other significant error in the score is
the notation at H (m. 115) indicating the voice on tape speaking “When she was one...” This
spoken excerpt actually begins four bars earlier, in m. 111. There are some other small errors in
the notation of the tape part in the score, but these are very minor and inconsequential to
maintaining coordination between the trumpet and tape.

4.4 Performance Techniques

No unusual trumpet techniques are required in Ida, My Dear, with the exception of the use of
quarter-tones in mm. 36-37.
35

Figure 1. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 36-37

36 37

Although many trumpet players are not accustomed to playing quarter tones, these notes can be
played using a combination of alternate fingerings and extended valve slides. The C quarter-flat
can be played using the second and third valves with the third valve slide extended, and the B
quarter-flat can be played using the first and third valves with the third valve slide extended. The
performer will have to experiment to determine how far the third valve slide will have to be
extended to obtain a true quarter tone.

However, in addition to playing the trumpet, the soloist is required to speak written excerpts
from Gertrude Stein's Ida, which will require some consideration by the trumpeter to perform
this aspect of the piece effectively. In a discussion with Larry Lake during a broadcast of the
CBC radio program Two New Hours, Hatch described this as an important part of the
composition, expecting that the performer would pay close attention to the theatrical delivery as
well as to the trumpet part. In an interview with the author, Hatch also suggested that it can be
quite useful getting some theatre coaching on the spoken text, and that although “many
performers think they can just "speak naturally" (or, worse, will try to "act") - it is a difficult text
to deliver well and needs both coaching and practice”. It would also be helpful for the performer
to listen to Anne-Marie Donovan's delivery of the spoken lines in the tape part in order to get a
sense of an interpretation of the text that is approved of by the composer.
36

4.5 Analysis

Ida, My Dear consists of several distinct musical sections combined with spoken excerpts from
Gertrude Stein's novelette Ida to create a uniquely theatrical composition. Composed for
trumpet and tape, Ida, My Dear uses a combination of natural and electronically generated
sounds to evoke a variety of musical characteristics. References are also made to Thelonious
Monk's Ruby, My Dear as the composition moves between jazz and classical styles. Despite its
eclectic mix of ideas, however, Ida, My Dear maintains a sense of continuity throughout the
composition by the development and repetition of musical motives and the theatricality of the
spoken excerpts. The form is outlined below, giving letters to each of the main sections of the
work.

Figure 2. Form Diagram for Ida, My Dear

A (mm. 1-24)
trumpet: establishment of motive a
tape: introduction of whole-tone interval; broken group of notes mirroring trumpet melody;
pedal G

B (mm. 25-48)
excerpt from Ida spoken by soloist in mm. 25-32 and on tape in mm. 33-44
trumpet: motive a expanded and varied
tape: “breath and consonant” sounds; electronic pitch cluster in upper register; variation of
motive a in bass mm. 38-48

Spoken Excerpt – soloist speaks, followed by voice on tape leading into “Dear Ida” ostinato

C (mm. 49-84)
trumpet: development of motive a; development of whole-tone interval
tape: “jazz ensemble” setting
- walking bass, freely improvised
- piano chords from Ruby, My Dear
- trumpet harmonizes with solo melody
- “Dear Ida” spoken ostinato throughout

Spoken Excerpt – soloist speaks over “breath” sounds on tape, television sounds fade in on tape
part toward end

D (mm. 85-139)
excerpt from Ida spoken on tape from mm. 111-139
37

trumpet: further development of motive a; other material from section A


tape: television sounds until m. 128; piano excerpts from Ruby, My Dear; pedal C throughout
section

Spoken Excerpt – brief spoken excerpt on tape leading into “Dear Ida” ostinato

E (mm. 140-165)
trumpet: harmon-muted long tones - harmonizes and blends with tape part
tape: spoken “Dear Ida” ostinato as in section B; harmon-muted trumpet long-tones on F,
F♯, G

Spoken Excerpt – excerpt from Ida spoken on tape

B' (mm. 166-201)


trumpet: similar to section B, but with some alterations
tape: identical to section B (mm. 49-84)

Spoken Excerpt – soloist and voice on tape alternate speaking brief passages; electronic long
tones on tape on pitches C, B, B♭

Ida, My Dear opens with a G in the tape part played in the piano's low register, cueing the soloist
to speak the first excerpt from Stein's Ida: “Ida is her name.” This low G is sustained throughout
the first section (section A), which lasts from mm. 1-24 and is where most of the composition's
melodic and harmonic concepts are introduced. The tape part in section A consists of three
elements: a shaker-like sound that provides a non-rhythmic background sound, a sustained chord
on the notes G and F, and a broken-up group of notes that grows one note at a time from two
notes at the beginning of the piece to seven notes by measure fifteen. The G/F chord and the
broken-up group of notes are closely related to the trumpet melody, which consists of a phrase
which expands and repeats from mm. 4-24 and provides the primary motivic material for the
composition.

The sustained G/F chord uses a mixture of timbres derived from piano, trumpet, and electronic
sounds. These timbres provide important structural and perceptual links in the composition as
the trumpet sound (performing a repeated sustained 'G') closely approximates the soloist's
timbre, while the piano sound is suggestive of one of Hatch's main inspirations for this work –
the piano playing of Thelonious Monk. The electronic synthesizer tones, on the other hand,
38

provide an artificial foil to these acoustic instrumental sounds, adding an ethereal quality to the
composition. This chord also has harmonic significance both by foreshadowing the importance
of the whole-tone interval, and by establishing the first notes of the trumpet entry in the fourth
measure of the piece.

The solo trumpet focuses on the note G (written A for B♭ trumpet) in mm. 4-9, using the
neighbouring F to emphasize the interval of a whole tone in the sixth and seventh measures.
Although this G is sustained in mm. 4-8, it is rhythmically articulated in mm. 8-9, using random
combinations of note-lengths suggested by the composer, which may be a way of signaling the
end of this melodic idea.

Figure 3. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 4-9

4 5 6

7 8 9

The trumpet continues in m. 10 with a melodic fragment that is repeated and gradually elongated
as new notes are added to the end of each repetition from mm. 10-24. The growth of this melody
is mirrored by a group of notes played by the piano in the tape part. Beginning with just two
notes in the second measure (F and G), this group of notes grows one note at a time until
measure fifteen, at which point it includes all seven notes played by the trumpet in this section
(F, G, B, B♭, A, C♯, C♮). These notes are added to the group in the same order as in the
melody from the solo trumpet part.
39

The note-by-note growth of the trumpet melody and the group of notes in the piano part on tape
is reminiscent of Hatch's compositional approach in his marimba solo Lagtime, which he
discussed in his 1988 lecture A talk about time. And syntax in music. In Lagtime, the music
begins with a trill on two notes, which expands to a group of three notes, and keeps expanding
one note at a time until a group of five notes is being played, and each time a note is added to
each group it “seems to slow down”.15 The similarity of this approach suggests the same attempt
to manipulate the listener's perception of time, creating “a sense of time being dragged out”, a
concept which has grown directly from his interest in Gertrude Stein's use of syntax and
repetition to control the sense of time in her writing.16

The melodic fragment in the solo trumpet grows to become an important motive (motive a)
which is frequently altered and repeated throughout the composition. Although this motive
continues to be expanded through the end of section A, its configuration in mm. 15-17 is most
closely related to its later transformations. Additionally, it is followed in mm. 17-18 by
rearticulations of the written B (sounding A on B♭ trumpet) similarly to mm. 8-9, possibly
indicating the completion of this motive. This fragment contains melodic characteristics that
permeate much of the composition with its structure of an ascending interval and three
chromatically descending notes.

Figure 4. Ida motive a

motive a

ascending
interval
15 16 17

chromatic descent

15
Peter Hatch, “A talk about time. And syntax in music.” The 34th Ferienkurse fur Neue Musik,
Darmstadt, Germany, summer 1988, http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/textDetails.php?writ=13
(accessed 18 August, 2010).
16
Hatch, “A talk about time. And syntax in music.”
40

The last note played by the solo trumpet in section A is a C in m. 24, which provides a melodic
link to the next section (B), which begins in m. 25 with a C one octave higher in the tape part.
This C is an electronically generated pitch, and it is sustained through m. 41. It is the top voice
of a cluster of tones which are gradually added one at a time until a dense chord consisting of the
pitches E, F, G, A♭, A, B, and C is achieved by m. 40 and fades out in m. 41. Other electronic
pitches are added in the bass register beginning in m. 38. Possessing a somewhat vocal quality,
these notes refer to the chromatic content of motive a through a slow chromatic ascent in mm.
38-41, followed by a descent utilizing both semitones and whole tones in mm. 41-45, using
staggered perfect fifths in mm. 43-45 (note: the bass pitches indicated in the score do not reflect
precisely the notes played on tape; the following figure shows the notes as they sound on tape).

Figure 5. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 38-47

38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47

The trumpet begins playing in section B at the pickup to m. 34. It is preceded by spoken
excerpts from Ida, spoken first by the soloist beginning in m. 28 and then by the voice on tape in
m. 33, which continues speaking until m. 44. The first trumpet entrance in section B is a
simplified version of motive a, played at a different transposition and with only one pickup note.
It is followed by another alteration of motive a in which the descending semitones are expanded
into quarter-tones.
41

Figure 6. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear mm. 34-38

34 35 36

37 38

The melodic material which follows in mm. 38-48 is quite different from motive a, although the
brief statements presented here do possess some similarities to it. Each of the three statements in
mm. 38-42 begins with an ascending interval, followed by an expansion of the descending
chromatic notes of motive a, either by inverting the interval of a minor second to a major seventh
or by increasing it to a major second.

Figure 7. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 39-42

39 40 41 42

The sustained G (written A) in mm. 43-44 is approached by its upper and lower chromatic
neighbours, suggesting the chromatic content of motive a, and the three eighth notes leading into
m. 45 are reminiscent of the ascending interval from motive a.
42

Figure 8. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 43-48

43 44

45 46 47 48

The tape part in section B also contains breath and consonant sounds, providing sounds that are
unusual yet familiar and unmistakably human. These sounds continue beyond the end of section
B and through the next spoken excerpt from Ida, which is performed by the soloist shortly after
the last note of section B fades out and continued by the voice on tape. These spoken excerpts
provide a transition between section B and the next section (C), and the last two words of this
excerpt (“Dear Ida”) repeat in a continuous loop beginning in m. 49, forming a vocalized
ostinato that lasts throughout section C.

Section C lasts from mm. 49-84 and is characterized by a jazz feel created in the tape part, which
gives the impression of a small jazz ensemble accompanying the soloist. In addition to the “Dear
Ida” ostinato, the tape part consists of a jazz-style walking bass line, chordal piano interjections,
and trumpet harmonies. The opening note is an electroacoustically altered sound playing a C,
however the harmony throughout this section is unclear as the bass line (which is not notated)
does not suggest an obvious harmony, and was freely improvised on the recording.17 The piano
chords, however, were taken from Monk's Ruby, My Dear. Specifically, the chords in which the
top note is an F moving to F♯ (mm. 52, 58, 59-60) are from the A♭7 and E♭7+9 chords on
beats two through four of the last measure of the 'B' section (m. 24) in Ruby, My Dear; the
chords whose top note is A (mm. 63, 67, 76, 83) come from the G minor chord on the second

17
Peter Hatch, email message to author, July 13, 2010.
43

half of beat two of m. 3 in the 'A' section; the chords whose top note is F♯ (mm. 63-64, 66, 81)
come from the B♭+7 chord on beat four of the last measure (m. 8) in the 'A' section; and the
chords whose top note is D♯ (mm. 71-72, 78, 79) come from the E♭7b9 chord on the third beat
of the fifth measure in the 'A' section of Ruby, My Dear.

The solo trumpet part in section C sounds like an improvised jazz solo. However, it is made up
of phrases that are closely related to motive a. The first solo phrase in this section appears in m.
54, and it begins with an ascending interval of a minor third, followed by a descending chromatic
line beginning a major third below. It is harmonized in parallel major thirds by another trumpet
in the tape part, and is repeated in m. 56, transposed up a whole tone. This phrase occurs again
in m. 61 in the same transposition as m. 54, although this time the solo and tape parts are
exchanged.

Figure 9. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 54-57

54 55 56 57

In m. 64 the solo trumpet begins using a harmon mute, and again its melodic material is based on
motive a. The first variation of motive a begins with three eighth-note pickups to m. 65,
presenting an ornamented version of the ascending interval of motive a, and following the
chromatic descent the motive is extended through the first two beats of m.66. A similar
44

approach is taken with the three eighth-note pickups to m. 67, and the descending chromatic
quarter notes in mm. 68-69 allude to the chromatic content of motive a.

Figure 10. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 64-69

64 65 66

67 68 69

After a rapid “bebop” style outburst in m. 70 (which itself refers to motive a with its chromatic
groupings), the whole tone interval is emphasized in m. 71, here expanded into a major ninth
between C and B♭.

Figure 11. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 70-71

70 71
45

Three descending chromatic quarter notes (again referring to motive a) lead into a restatement of
the phrase from m. 54 in m. 73, which in this case is lengthened with two sets of chromatic
eighth-note triplets before beginning a chromatically ascending line from mm. 75-78, leading
into a restatement of the descending major ninth interval between C and B♭, which is repeated
two more times between mm. 80-83.

Figure 12. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 73-79

73 74 75

76 77 78 79

Following section C is another spoken excerpt from Ida. This excerpt is spoken by the soloist,
accompanied by subtle breathing sounds in the tape part. “Television sounds” including white
noise and voices from various television programs appear in the tape part toward the end of this
spoken excerpt. The next section (D) begins shortly after the spoken excerpt is concluded, and
lasts from mm. 85-139. The television sounds that began during the spoken excerpt continue
intermittently throughout this section until m. 128. References to Monk's Ruby, My Dear are
also present in this section, as an excerpt from the second through third measures of Ruby, My
Dear appear in mm. 86-89, and again in mm. 103-106. Cues given in the tape part in mm. 90,
92, and 94 also refer to excerpts from Ruby, My Dear. Here the F♭ to E♭ cues come from the
fifth and sixth measures of the A section of Ruby, My Dear, where an E♭7b9 chord moves to an
A♭△ chord and then to a C minor chord. Although cues are not given in the score, these figures
also occur in measures 98 and 110.

However, despite the references to Ruby, My Dear, this section does not have a jazz swing feel.
Rather, it is played with straight eighth-notes in 5/8 meter. In addition to the television sounds
46

and piano chords from Ruby, My Dear, the tape part includes a pedal C throughout the entire
section, providing a harmonic basis for the section while articulating the 5/8 meter. Another
spoken excerpt from Ida occurs on the tape part, beginning in m. 111 (not m. 115 as indicated in
the score) and lasting until the end of section D in m. 139. Interestingly, even though the spoken
excerpt is clearly audible in m. 111, it fades out periodically between mm. 111-120, blending in
with the rest of the tape part and becoming lost in the overall texture.

The solo trumpet part in section D is lyrical and legato, and again it draws on material from
earlier in the composition. The opening phrase in m. 95 recalls the melodic material from m. 42-
43 of section B, extending it through m. 103.

Figure 13. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 95-103

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

The melody from mm. 104-110 is based on motive a, and following a fragment of the melody
from mm. 95-99 in mm. 112-113, motive a continues to form the basis for the melody in mm.
114-126.

Figure 14. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 104-110

104 105 106 107 108 109 110


47

The melody from the pickup to 127 through m. 136 again recalls the first melody from section D
before it comes to a close in m. 139. The music fades out by m. 138, leaving the voice on tape
speaking an excerpt from Ida. Similar to the spoken excerpt preceding section C, the last two
words of this Ida excerpt are “Dear Ida”, which again are looped to form a spoken ostinato that
lasts throughout the next section (E).

Section E lasts from mm. 140-165, and aside from the “Dear Ida” ostinato, the only other
material included in the tape part are two harmon-muted trumpets playing long notes on F, F♯,
and G, often overlapping each other to create sustained intervals of a minor second. Although
these notes are not functioning melodically in this section, their separation by the interval of a
semitone recalls the chromatic content of motive a. These sustained notes are joined by the
trumpet soloist, also playing sustained tones with a harmon mute in order to blend in with the
tape part. The solo trumpet part stays quite close to the notes of the tape trumpet parts near the
beginning and end of this section with sustained F's in mm. 142-145 and F♯, F, and E in mm.
155-164. However, in the middle of this section from mm. 146-154 it also plays intervals that
are further away from the chromatic pitches in the tape part. This generates a sense of harmonic
ambiguity by simultaneously creating two intervals that are similar in size but have different
harmonic qualities. For example, the D in the solo trumpet part in m. 146 makes major and
minor thirds with the F♯ and F in the tape part, and the D♭ in the solo trumpet in m. 150 makes
perfect and diminished fifths with the G and F♯ in the taped trumpet parts.

Figure 15. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 146 and 150

146
150

solo:

tape:
48

The last notes of section E fade out in m. 165, leading into the next spoken excerpt from Ida,
which is performed entirely by the voice on tape. This spoken excerpt is followed by section B',
which is very similar to section B. Although the spoken excerpt from Ida preceding section B'
does not end with the phrase “Dear Ida”, the “Dear Ida” ostinato begins immediately after the
excerpt is finished, along with the electroacoustically altered C leading into the section. The
tape part in section B' is identical to the tape part in section B, and the solo trumpet part is very
similar. The differences in the trumpet part in section B' include adding the harmon mute earlier
in the section in m. 175, followed by new melodic material in mm. 176-177. The phrase
beginning in m. 178 is identical to the analogous phrase in section B, although it is expanded
through m. 180 with chromatic content from motive a.

Figure 16. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 178-180

178 179 180

The major-ninth motive is transposed down a perfect fourth from section B, as in B' it occurs in
mm. 183-186 between the notes G and F.

Figure 17. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 183-186

183 184 185 186


49

The chromatic content of motive a is referred to only vaguely in mm. 188-189 as some of the
semitone intervals are expanded to major sevenths, leading to the return of the major ninth
motive in its original transposition (C to B♭) in mm. 191-198.

Figure 18. Peter Hatch, Ida, My Dear, mm. 188-192

188 189 190 191 192

Maj. 7th Maj. 7th C-B♭motive

Section B' ends at m. 201 with a new reference to Ruby, My Dear, the ascending chromatic run
leading to the C on beat one of m. 5 of Ruby, My Dear. This C provides a link to the
electronically generated C that occurs in the final section of Ida, My Dear.

The final section of Ida, My Dear consists of a spoken “dialogue” between the soloist and the
voice on tape, with the two voices taking turns speaking brief excerpts from Ida. There is also a
musical component to this section as high-pitched electronic tones are played on tape, including
the pitches C, B, and B♭, which occasionally overlap as the sustained G, F♯, and F had done in
section E. Again this refers to the three chromatic pitches of motive a, and these tones fade out
on a B shortly before the last excerpts from Ida are spoken.
50

Chapter 5
Modes of Interference for Trumpet and Live Electronics
by Agostino Di Scipio

5.1 Overview

Agostino Di Scipio composed Modes of Interference no. 1 in 2005-06. It was commissioned by


ZKM Karlsruhe: the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie (Centre for Art and Media), a
cultural institution that is dedicated to exploring new media and developments in information
technology. It was composed at ZKM and at Di Scipio’s independent studio, and is dedicated to
Marco Blaauw, a leading performer of contemporary music for solo trumpet. It is one of three
pieces in a series of works titled Modes of Interference, each of which combines audio feedback
with instruments and live electronics in an interactive system. Modes of Interference No.1 may
be performed with trumpet of any intonation or flugelhorn, while Modes No. 2 was written for
saxophone and live electronics, and Modes No.3 was written for electric guitars, amplifiers, and
live electronics. Di Scipio has noted that other composers have experimented with similar
approaches, including Alvin Lucier and the Italian composer Michelangelo Lupone in his 1999
composition Gran Cassa for bass drum and feedback system.

Di Scipio describes Modes as a “composed dynamical system”. Unlike traditional compositions


which describe what sounds are to be used and how they are to be created and projected, Modes
consists of an interactive system in which the naturally occurring sounds of an audio feedback
loop are manipulated by the performer and Di Scipio’s Pure Data software patch, resulting in
music. While different musical elements (pitch, rhythm, timbre, dynamics, etc.) are created as a
result of this process, these characteristics are dependent on a number of variables, such as the
equipment being used and the performance space. Therefore, although the performance of
Modes depends on using Di Scipio’s sound-transforming procedures and following his score,
different performances will inevitably differ depending on these factors.

Modes is based on an audio feedback loop created between two miniature microphones (one
deep inside the trumpet’s bell and the other on the edge of the bell) and two loudspeakers. The
51

feedback loop is created as a result of using a very high gain on the microphones, resulting in
feedback sounds (also called “Larsen tones”). These sounds are used in Modes as the main
sound source, and they are altered by the trumpet and computer as they intrude upon the
feedback system.

The trumpet interferes with the feedback loop in several ways, the most important of which is
through valve action, which changes the length of the trumpet and alters the resonant
characteristics of the environment immediately surrounding the microphone. It also acts to
introduce noises into the overall system, such as percussive and breath effects. Both of these
actions affect the resonant characteristics of the feedback loop, altering the Larsen tones. The
computer acts to regulate the sound system, keeping it under control and preventing the feedback
sounds from growing too strong and overwhelming the system while also transforming and
extending all the sounds produced in the system. The overall system is also subject to sounds
emanating from the performance environment.

Di Scipio has included the following diagram in his score, illustrating the interactions between
the various components of the feedback system in Modes.

Figure 19. System Interactions in Modes

trumpet:
variable resonances
and noises

high feedback gain (Larsen tones)


microphone
speakers
inside trumpet

environment (room) computer:


adaptive feedback gain
and sound transformations
52

5.2 Biography

Agostino Di Scipio is an Italian composer and sound artist whose works include compositions
for instrumentalists and electronics as well as sound installations. His music often features
unconventional ways of creating and processing sound while focusing on the phenomena of
noise and turbulence, and many of his compositions explore the possibilities of live sonic
interactions between performers, machines, and environments. Di Scipio's work has gained
international attention, and has been featured in academic and experimental venues as well as at
several international festivals. He has been widely active in academic circles, holding
professorships and residencies at universities, conferences, festivals, galleries, and museums, and
is a prolific writer and editor with contributions to numerous international journals and
conferences. His writings on issues concerning the methods and history of musical technologies
and their social, cultural, and cognitive implications have had a significant impact on many
artists and researchers, and his research has been mentioned and quoted in many international
scientific and technological publications.18

Born in Naples in 1962, Di Scipio first approached music as a self-taught musician, playing
electric guitar in high school while experimenting with programmable synthesizers and studying
computer programming. Following studies in languages, literature, and theatre theory at the
Istituto Universitario Orientale in Naples, he studied composition and electronic music in
L'Aquila with Michelangelo Lupone, Giancarlo Bizzi, and Mauro Cardi, and computer music at
the University of Padova's Centro di Sonologia Computazionale. Di Scipio's early studies in
electronic music focused on learning as much as possible about computer music technique and
digital signal processing. He also explored algorithmic composition, with the goal of learning
how to formalize musical gestures in writing for both musical instruments and electronics.19
This was a period of broad exploration into sonic materials which eventually led to him to
“microcomposition” through his studies of granular, textural, and noisy materials, and his focus

18
Agostino Di Scipio, Bio, http://xoomer.virgilio.it/adiscipi/bio.htm (accessed July 22, 2010).
19
Federico Placidi, “A conversation with Agostino Di Scipio,” trans. Valeria Grillo,
Unidentified Sound Object, posted June 13, 2010,
http://usoproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/conversation-with-agostino-di-scipio.html (accessed July
22, 2010).
53

on the “finest temporal scales of sound” was founded on his idea that microcomposition could
allow musical gestures to occur on larger time scales.20 In exploring these concepts he
developed new synthesis techniques based on the mathematics of nonlinear dynamic systems (as
found in 'chaos theory'), which provided him with sound materials for his studio compositions.21

However, Di Scipio also wanted to compose music involving live electronics, and although he
spent a great deal of time as a student in the 1980s developing software for real-time synthesis
and processing, it was not until the mid-1990s that he seriously considered live computer music
performance.22 Di Scipio has taken an unorthodox approach to composing with real-time
electroacoustic components. As opposed to the predominant view that certain “accidental”
electroacoustic sounds (such as ambient noise or feedback) represented problems - the unwanted
by-products of mistakes in performance - he saw them as resources to be controlled and
manipulated in live electroacoustic situations. Dissatisfied with the idea that technologies exist
to neutrally convey musical sounds, “as if their tools and signals were not part of the musical
experience,” he felt they could be studied and turned into sources of music.23

He also came to realize that the performance space itself was integral to the performance of
electroacoustic music, and by incorporating the performance space into his compositional
processes he could utilize any sources of noise and risk as the composition progressed. Rather
than creating abstract electronic processes that ignore the performance space in an attempt to
present an “ideal” model of a musical concept, he found that by implementing interactive
processes between electroacoustic equipment (i.e. microphones) and the environment, he could
use and control the inevitably resulting “flaws” in a self-regulating sounding system. By using
ambient noise and the idiosyncrasies of electroacoustic equipment as sound sources, Di Scipio
could design what he described as “a kind of living sound organism in contact with the

20
Placidi, “A Conversation With Agostino Di Scipio.”
21
Placidi, “A Conversation With Agostino Di Scipio.”
22
Christine Anderson, “Dynamic Networks of Sonic Interactions: An Interview with Agostino
Di Scipio,” Computer Music Journal 29 no.3 (2005): 14,
http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/journal.xqy?uri=/15315169.
23
Placidi, “A Conversation With Agostino Di Scipio.”
54

surrounding space, one that grasps in that space the energy necessary to stabilize itself, grow and
change.”24

One of Di Scipio's interests lies in the social and cultural ramifications of interactions between
people and technology, and paradoxically he explored this interaction on a practical level in one
of his first real-time electroacoustic pieces by creating a performance situation that eliminated
any planned interaction between the performer and the signal-processing computer. His 7 Small
Variations on the Cold (1994) for trumpet and digital signal processing featured an
improvisatory trumpet part which was completely independent of the computer's signal
processing transformations, which themselves ran on their own schedule, independent of the
trumpet part. Wanting to see if any residual interaction would still occur between the performer
and the electronics, Di Scipio noticed that the trumpet player still had a tendency to interact with
the electronic component of the composition. He found similar results as he repeated the
experiment with his Four Variations on the Rhythm of the Wind (1995) for double-bass recorder
and digital signal processing, and he concluded that this residual interaction was a result of
auditory perception and a sense of timing and coordination with the sound and how it traveled
through the room.25

From there Di Scipio went on to explore ways of creating networks of sonic interactions, rather
than avoiding them. He began to explore how instrumental sounds would affect computer
processes, how computer processes would affect instrumental sounds, how sounds interacted
with the performance space, and how those interactions would affect instrumental reactions and
computer processes. In developing these ideas he moved away from situations in which sound
comprises the “raw material” to be processed and projected into space and time, to a situation
where sound becomes the “vehicle of information” transferred between human and machine
components in an interactive network.26

24
Placidi, “A Conversation With Agostino Di Scipio.”
25
Anderson, “Dynamic Networks,” 15.
26
Di Scipio, “Using PD for Live Interactions in Sound. An Exploratory Approach,” Linux
Audio Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany, April 28, 2006,
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/adiscipi/DiScipio.LAC06.pdf (accessed July 22, 2010).
55

This is the concept that underlies his “Audible Ecosystemics” project (2002-05), which includes
a variety of concert pieces and sound installations of live electronic solo works. Mostly based on
audio feedback between microphones and loudspeakers, mediated by signal processing software,
these are live electronic solo works that utilize this deliberately generated feedback or
background noise to explore the existing sound characteristics of a given room. More recent
works, including his series of works titled Modes of Interference, are an extension of that project.
These compositions are based on the concept of regulating feedback between speakers and
microphones not only with signal processing software, but also through human performers and
instruments. By playing an instrument and intruding into the feedback loop between the
microphone and speakers, performers are able to interfere with it in ways unique to their
instrument. In his Modes of Interference for trumpet and electronics, the placement of a
miniature microphone deep inside the trumpet's bell has the effect of placing it in a tiny “room”:
the area it occupies in the trumpet's bell. Thus the composition not only explores the sound
characteristics of the performance space, but also the sound characteristics of the trumpet itself.
This also allows the trumpet player to alter the resonant characteristics of the immediate
environment surrounding the microphone by performing actions on the trumpet such as blowing
into it or pressing down the valves, making the trumpet performance “the source for variations in
the signal processing”.27

Di Scipio is concerned with developing a “desirable and honest relationship to the technology we
live in,”28 and by creating sonic interactions such as those in his Modes of Interference, he is
addressing his philosophical concepts regarding relationships between people and technology,
and the social impact of music and art. The interactive relationships between composers,
performers, technologies and the spaces within which they exist are representative of broader
issues of people's relationships with technology. He feels that it is important for artists to know
the technology they are working with “at least well enough to bend it to our purposes”, rather
than simply accepting it and “enjoying the commodities with which it provides us.”29

27
Di Scipio, “Using PD.”
28
Anderson, “Dynamic Networks,” 23.
29
Anderson, “Dynamic Networks,” 23.
56

5.3 Computer Processes

As has been discussed in the Overview, Modes of Interference is a “composed dynamical


system” in which the performer and electronic components interact with each other, using sounds
arising in an audio feedback loop between the microphones and speakers as the medium for
communication. Given the simplicity of operating the digital signal processing software and the
sophisticated design of Di Scipio's PD patch, the performer needs very little understanding of the
signal processing methods in order to create a successful performance of Modes. However,
beyond the basic signal processing procedures described in the section Playing Techniques
(especially in regard to the adaptive scaling of the input sound through AmpScaler), a broader
understanding of the computer-controlled operations will give the performer a significantly
greater depth of understanding of the concept behind Modes and the interactive possibilities it
provides.

Digital signal processing begins in Modes when the sounds resulting from an audio feedback
loop between the microphones and speakers are input into the computer and converted to digital
signals. There are two input signals: the signal from microphone two (on the edge of the
trumpet's bell), which is not processed and is sent directly to the computer output, and the signal
from microphone one (deep inside the trumpet's bell), which is used both as a source for sound
processing and to create a control signal that affects the processing procedures within the system.
This control signal is called AmpScaler, and its primary function is to regulate the overall volume
of sound in the system so that feedback sounds (Larsen tones) may be produced in the audio
feedback loop without becoming so strong that they overwhelm the system. There is also a
complement signal called MemScaler which performs other signal processing functions, and
whose value is the inverse of AmpScaler.

AmpScaler is formed when the input from microphone one undergoes a series of transformations
that result in a low frequency signal whose value varies inversely and exponentially to the
strength of the input signal.30 Therefore when the input sound gets louder, the value for

30
Di Scipio, “Using PD.”
57

AmpScaler becomes smaller, and when the input gets softer, the value for AmpScaler becomes
larger. One of the procedures affected by AmpScaler is a “Dynamical Low-pass Filtering”
process, which controls the range of frequencies of the input signal. This process begins as the
input signal is sent to a low-pass filter, which allows low frequency signals to pass through while
cutting off high frequency signals. The frequency cut-off for the low-pass filter ranges from
5000 to 20,000 Hz, and it varies according to the value from AmpScaler, such that when the
input volume is strong (driving the value for AmpScaler down), higher frequencies will be
filtered out, and when the input volume is weak (driving AmpScaler up), higher frequencies will
be allowed through. Therefore this process determines the timbre of the feedback sounds, as
stronger inputs will have a narrower range of frequencies, and weaker inputs will have a wider
range of frequencies. It also allows a greater chance for high-pitch Larsen tones to arise when
the input is soft, and a smaller probability that they will occur when the input is loud. This
system ensures that Larsen tones can occur in a wide range of frequencies, and that very high
frequencies will be dampened before they can become too loud and unpleasant for the listener.31

After passing through the low-pass filter, the amplitude of the input signal is also adjusted by
AmpScaler so that strong sounds (with a narrowed range of frequencies) will be made softer, and
vice-versa. By having AmpScaler control both the volume and frequencies of the input signals, a
perceptive link is created between the range of frequencies (timbre) and volume of the Larsen
tones.32 The coordination between these two mechanisms creates a self-gating mechanism that
can adapt to the continually changing input volume.

Following processing by the low-pass filter and amplitude adjustment, the signal is amplified by
a value called inputGain, which is set by the performer in the Graphical User Interface (GUI).
The value for inputGain must be set at a large enough value to allow audio feedback to occur.
However, AmpScaler reduces the output volume as input volume increases, so the audio
feedback loop will never grow to the point of producing overwhelming distorted sounds. Rather,
the feedback loop will be continually adjusted in an adaptive balancing between the input and
output, allowing for the production of Larsen tones, kept at a fairly constant and controlled

31
Di Scipio, “Using PD”.
32
Di Scipio, “Using PD”.
58

volume.33 After amplification by inputGain the signal is sent both to the output to be converted
to a sound signal and to the input of another processing procedure that involves granular
resampling.

Granular resampling is a process by which sound is “granularized” into tiny pieces (“grains”). In
Modes, this process occurs in a cascading sequence of three granularization procedures that feed
into each other: the output from the first granularization is the input into the second
granularization, and the output from the second granularization is the input into the third. The
result from each level of granularization also proceeds to the overall output, so that the resulting
sound from all three stages is part of the overall output signal. The output, therefore, consists not
only of Larsen tones, but also of three layers of granulated and resampled material.34

Prior to entering the sequence of granularizations, the signal is again altered by AmpScaler, so
that strong sounds will not be made too loud from the processing itself, overpowering the rest of
the input. Granular resampling is accomplished by writing the resampled grains of sound into a
piece of memory called a “wavetable” of a given length, and scanning them according to
dynamically controlled variables. That is, the input signal is broken down into small pieces
which are stored in a given length of memory, and then scanned through at a specified speed to
read off samples with a certain size and pitch. The wavetable lengths are eight seconds, four
seconds, and two seconds (subpatches gr8, gr4, and gr2, respectively), and the signal passes
through them in that order.

The speed at which the wavetables are scanned is driven by MemScaler, whose value is the
inverse complement of AmpScaler, so that when the input volume is strong, the value for
MemScaler is high, and vice-versa. As the value for MemScaler gets higher, the scan speed for
the wavetables increases, and when MemScaler gets lower, the scan speed gets slower. The
result of this is that soft sounds will cause the resampling process to focus on only a few grains
of sounds, resulting in prolonged granular textures, while louder sounds will lead to a faster and

33
Di Scipio, “Using PD”.
34
Agostino Di Scipio, Description of the Digital Signal-Processing Method (Italy, Di Scipio,
2006), CD-Rom.
59

wider resampling and granulation of the wavetable material, resulting in “a more articulated and
gestural musical output”.35

While the other resampling parameters of pitch and grain size are partially affected by the
MemScaler control signal, they are primarily controlled by automated operations within the
system. These parameters have unison values at the beginning of the piece, and are adjusted
exponentially during the course of the piece, causing the grains to become finer while their pitch
becomes higher over the first half of the piece, and returning to unison over the second half of
the piece. This process has the most radical effects in gr2, intermediate effects in gr4, and the
most subtle effects in gr8.36 This process has a total time span of approximately eight minutes
(four minutes in the first half of the piece, and four minutes in the second half), which imposes a
sense of timing to the performance. However, there is still a significant degree of flexibility in
that regard, and with the fermata passages the overall duration of Modes is approximately ten
minutes.

The overall processing procedure is subject to a short delay (latency) imposed within the system.
This can lead to problems if transient Larsen tones develop quickly, as this may cause the signal
to peak and get distorted for a few moments before the self-gating mechanism driven by
AmpScaler is able to dampen the feedback sounds. However, this strategy is still preferable to
using other dynamic processing methods involving compressors or limiters, as these methods
would require much larger amplification levels and would make the development of Larsen tones
less likely.37 It is also advantageous as it allows Larsen tones to develop more slowly that would
otherwise be the case, and “short peaks that may occur in the audio feedback loop may elicit
particular room responses that would otherwise not be elicited”, thus providing a wider variety of
sounds.38 A short delay in the self-gating mechanism also gives the performer more control over
the process, as he/she can handle the development of peaking Larsen sounds by operating the

35
Di Scipio, “Using PD”.
36
Di Scipio, Description.
37
Di Scipio, “Using PD”.
38
Di Scipio, “Using PD”.
60

valves, creating extra noises, or moving the instrument further from the speakers. Further
latency will also be introduced into the system by the computer operating system, which will
vary depending on the operating system and computer configuration being used. However, for
the above reasons, this latency is acceptable “within reasonable limits” as a “contributing
element to the system dynamics”.39

5.4 Technical Setup

The electronic setup for Modes of Interference requires several pieces of sound equipment and a
computer running Di Scipio's Pure Data software patch. The required audio equipment includes
two miniature microphones (often referred to as lavalier microphones), a mixer with at least four
inputs, two speakers, and any cables and power adapters needed to connect and power the
equipment. The audio equipment, computer, and trumpet are connected as shown in Di Scipio's
diagram, which he includes in his score for Modes. One of the microphones is to be placed
deeply into the trumpet's bell (but before the turn of the bell bow), and the other is placed on the
edge of the trumpet's bell. Both microphones can be held in place with tape.

39
Di Scipio, “Using PD”.
61

40
Figure 20. Modes of Interference technical setup

There are a few things to consider when making the audio connections that are not apparent from
Di Scipio's diagram. One is that many computers (especially laptop computers) will have only a
minimal audio interface, often consisting of one sound input and one or two sound outputs
(generally one headphone jack and/or one line-out jack), usually through one-eighth inch mini-
jacks. However, the technical setup in Modes requires two inputs and two outputs from the
computer. This can be solved by using a USB audio interface to connect the mixer to the
computer. Most computers have at least one USB port, and audio interfaces with any number of
sound inputs and outputs can connect to the computer through these ports. USB audio interfaces
range from very basic with few inputs and outputs to elaborate interfaces with numerous inputs
and outputs as well as several other features. A simple interface would be sufficient for the
requirements in Modes, and fairly inexpensive interfaces do exist with the minimum number of
inputs and outputs (e.g. the Behringer UCA-202 with two inputs, two outputs, headphone
monitor jack, and optical output jack).

Another technical difficulty may arise when connecting the microphones to the mixer. Di Scipio
notes in the Technical Setup section included with the score that the microphones tested by the
composer include the DPA 4060 and 4061, as well as the Beyerdynamic MCE5 and MCE55.

40
Agostino Di Scipio, Modes of Interference No. 1 (Italy: Di Scipio, 2006).
62

However, regardless of the microphone used by the performer, it will have to be connected to the
mixer, which may require an adapter to make the connection and a power supply to power the
microphone. There is a wide variety of connection styles for lavalier microphones, and while
they generally require power to operate, they may have different requirements in this regard.
The performer or/and audio technician will have to determine what extra equipment may be
necessary to make the microphones connect properly in the overall setup.

Another detail regarding the audio connections that may not be obvious from Di Scipio’s
diagram is the routing of the signal from the microphone input through the aux sends and into the
computer. The purpose of this routing is to send the signal from the microphones to the Pure
Data patch before it is returned to the mixer and output to the speakers. This is possible if the
mixer is capable of sending the signal from the microphones to the aux sends pre-fader. This
means the microphone signals are sent from the mixer through the aux sends to the computer
separately from the mixer’s main output. The alternative to a pre-fader aux send is a post-fader
aux send, which splits the signal from the input (the microphone) and sends it simultaneously
through the aux send and the mixer’s main output. However, many small mixers only have post-
fader aux sends, which would have negative consequences in Modes of Interference as part of
the signal in the feedback loop would not be modulated by the Pure Data software, creating an
overwhelming feedback sound. An alternative configuration that the author has successfully
used with a small mixer (Behringer’s Xenyx X1204USB) is to use the set-up described in Di
Scipio’s diagram, but instead of sending the microphone input signal through the aux sends it is
sent through the mixer’s Alt 3-4 channels to the computer, which keeps it completely separate
from the mixer’s main outputs. The rest of the connections are as shown in Di Scipio’s diagram.

One of the main electronic requirements for Modes is a computer running Di Scipio's Pure Data
patch. Pure Data is a real-time graphical programming language originally developed by Miller
Puckette. It is freely available and widely compatible with most computer operating systems,
and is available on a CD ROM supplied by the composer, along with the necessary patch as well
as the score and technical documentation. The computational requirements for running this
software are quite light by current (2010) standards. The patch was prototyped and tested on
laptop computers running the Windows XP operating system with Centrino or Pentium IV
processors at 500Mhz, Linux with a Pentium III processor at 600Mhz, and Macintosh OSX with
a G5 dual 2Ghz processor.
63

Di Scipio mentions in his technical setup notes that Modes is intended to be performed with
“frontal stereo diffusion”, i.e. two speakers facing the audience. However, he also notes that if
multiple pairs of speakers are available, they can be placed around the audience and used to
reproduce the sounds coming from the front pair of speakers. In order to precisely coordinate the
extra speakers with the front speakers, the sounds coming from the extra speakers should be
delayed by a time directly proportional to the distance from the front stereo pair, where delay
time (in seconds) is equal to the distance (in meters) divided by 344. Either way, only the front
speakers should be involved in the audio feedback loop in performance.

5.5 Performance Techniques

The trumpet is used in a very unconventional way in Modes of Interference. Rather than
producing sound by amplifying vibrations from the performer’s lips, the trumpet is used
primarily as a mediating device in the feedback loop between the microphones and the speakers.
The few sounds it does produce are subtle noises that come from handling the instrument and
blowing into it without allowing the lips to vibrate. However, although the trumpet is not being
played in its usual way, the playing techniques in Modes will be familiar to any trumpet player.

The most important trumpet technique in Modes is the operation of the valves. The sound source
for this composition is the feedback loop between the microphones in the trumpet’s bell and the
speakers, and the sounds that result from this loop (Larsen tones) are directly affected by the
acoustic properties of the environment surrounding the microphones. Since operating the
trumpet’s valves causes the trumpet's tube length to change, thereby affecting its resonant
qualities, valve action has a direct influence on the pitch, volume, and overall quality of the
Larsen tones.41

Di Scipio notes in his instructions accompanying the score that every valve combination on the
trumpet should, in theory, result in a different Larsen tone. However, as a result of any number
of acoustic and technical circumstances beyond the performer's control, different valve

41
Agostino Di Scipio, Modes.
64

combinations may result in Larsen tones with the same pitch. In addition, some valve
combinations will be more effective at producing Larsen tones, while others will not allow them
to occur at all. It is also possible that certain valve combinations may have varying degrees of
effectiveness in producing Larsen tones at different points in the composition, depending on the
sounds circulating in the feedback loop and any changes in position between the microphones
and the speakers. Therefore the player will have to be flexible in his/her choices of valve
combinations throughout the duration of the piece, listening carefully to the sounds being created
and reacting accordingly.

The score for Modes is graphically and verbally notated, indicating how many valves may be
used at any point in the composition and how often they should be moved. Di Scipio indicates in
his instructions that the “fundamental piston position (no piston depressed)” is the “default”
valve combination for generating Larsen tones. It can be used at any point in the performance,
and should be checked during rehearsal to ensure that it does allow Larsen tones to form. Aside
from the fundamental valve position (labeled “FUND” in the score), other valve combinations
are indicated by the number of pistons that may be used, with “1” indicating that one valve may
be used at a time, “2” indicating that one or two valves may be used, and “3” indicating that one,
two or three valves may be used. If the performer is playing a trumpet that has more than three
valves, the extra valve(s) may be operated at any time during the performance, following the
approach given in the score. In addition to the number of valves indicated, the letter “H”
indicates that the valves should only be pressed halfway down, and “F” indicates that the valves
should be pressed down fully. The valves are also occasionally used to play trills, and Di Scipio
notes that they should be played only with “Larsen-effective” valve combinations. Any number
of valves may be used to play the trill, and they only need to be pressed down far enough to have
an audible effect on the feedback loop.

In the first part of the score the valve combinations used are at the discretion of the performer,
and the score simply indicates the number of valves to be used and how far down they should be
pressed (e.g. “2.H”, meaning any combination of one or two valves pressed down halfway). In
the second part of the score, however, the valve combinations are meant to follow the fingering
pattern from a passage of existing trumpet music, which may be of any style and from any time
in history. The number of valves that may be used is indicated in the same manner as in the first
half of the work, although here the indicated valve combination is preceded by the letter “M”
65

(e.g. “M2.H”, meaning any combination of one or two valves from a musical excerpt where one
or two valves are used at a time). However, it is only the pattern of valve combinations that is
relevant in this part of the composition. All other aspects from the musical excerpt such as
rhythm, tempo, dynamics, mutes, ornamentation, and pauses should be ignored.

Throughout the score the “rhythm” of the valve changes is indicated by a minimum rate of
change. Thus an indication such as 3.F[< 2”] indicates that any combination of one, two, or
three fully depressed valves may be used, and must be changed every two seconds or less.
Different valve combinations and durations are used for each of the composition’s thirty-two
time-windows, which last ten, twenty, or thirty seconds each. Since there is no indication in the
score precisely how many valve changes there are in each time window, it might be a good idea
for the performer to predetermine how many valve changes will take place and when they will
occur. This will help the performer keep track of where he/she is in the composition and when to
move between time windows.

In addition to normal valve operation, other playing techniques are employed to introduce sounds
into the feedback loop. One of these techniques is the use of “valve clicks”, in which the
trumpet’s valves are pressed and/or released in such a manner as to create audible clicking
noises. Although valves are typically operated with a minimum of excess noise in normal
trumpet playing and in much of Modes, this technique is used to affect the resonances of the
feedback loop, altering the Larsen tones while being transformed into textural and/or rhythmic
materials. The performer may wish to partially unscrew the valve caps, creating brighter click
sounds to emphasize the effect. This technique is performed in conjunction with the prescribed
valve action, emphasizing the valve changes at any given point in the composition.

Other techniques that create rhythmic and textural effects are mouthpiece “taps” and “scratches”.
These techniques are employed in the “fermata” windows (numbers four, eight, twelve, twenty,
twenty-four, and twenty-eight), following specified rhythms. Di Scipio indicates that
mouthpiece taps should be accomplished by gently tapping on the edges of the cup of the
mouthpiece, partially covering the cup. The sound generated by this effect will have a clear
pitch, depending on the tube length. Mouthpiece scratches are accomplished by one or more
fingers scratching hard against the edges of the cup of the mouthpiece, creating an intermittent
noise with a pitch that is less defined, but still related to the tube length.
66

There are also several playing techniques that require the performer to blow into the trumpet.
However, this is done differently than in normal trumpet playing, as the lips should not vibrate or
even press against the cup of the mouthpiece. Di Scipio also notes that it will sometimes be
necessary to keep the lips away from the mouthpiece completely. The notation “Breath”
indicates breathing sounds, performed by blowing into the trumpet with minimal air pressure,
with the lips separated. The notation “Whistle” indicates “whistling sounds, random very high
pitches” that may be accomplished in either of two ways: blowing into the trumpet with strong
air pressure through tensed lips, or blowing in or out with variable air pressure while pressing the
upper teeth against the lower lip. “Tongue slap” indicates single hard tongue strikes against the
teeth and palate while blowing out. The lips should be kept up to one centimeter away from the
mouthpiece for this technique, and it may occasionally may be replaced by “tongue clicks”, in
which the tongue “clicks” against the palate. The notation “Pulse Tongue” is similar to regular
tonguing, with short sequences of rhythmic tongue slaps against the upper lip and/or teeth. It
should be done as fast as possible, while either blowing or not blowing and keeping the lips away
from the mouthpiece. Double and triple tonguing is also indicated by “TK” or “TKT”, which
also may be performed while blowing in or out, or not blowing at all. The performer should
choose the one that he/she can do the fastest.

Di Scipio also indicates that the trumpet’s water key should never be emptied during
performance so that the sound from water drops building up inside the trumpet can enter the
audio feedback loop. In addition, he also suggests that the performer experiment with different
positions relative to the speakers. Small changes in position of both the instrument and the
performer’s body will affect the length of the audio feedback loop, as well as the “acoustical
shadows” and resonances in the environment surrounding the instrument. This allows the
performer to “play with” with the feedback loop, allowing the opportunity to create different
Larsen tones from the same valve combinations.

In addition to the trumpet playing techniques required in Modes, the performer (or perhaps a
sound technician) must also operate the sound processing software during the performance.
Fortunately, Di Scipio has designed his Pure Data software patch to be very user friendly and
easy to operate, so that it is possible for the performer to operate the sound processing system in
preparation for and during the performance. The computer is operated during performance
through a graphical user interface (GUI), an image of which is shown below.
67

42
Figure 21. Modes of Interference Graphical User Interface

The operations required to run the PD patch for Modes involves setting the performance
parameters, starting the sound transformation processes, and ending the sound transformation
processes. These actions all involve the top-most icons in the GUI. The only performance
parameter that needs to be set is the “inputGain”, whose default level (0) must be replaced with a
value high enough to allow the feedback loop to generate a Larsen tone that does not fluctuate
significantly. This must be tested in rehearsal with the valves in the fundamental position and
with the performer standing in the same position where he/she will be performing. This value
may change depending on the acoustic and technical characteristics of the performance space.

To start the performance, “StartProcess” is clicked, followed by “FadeIn/Out” for time window
zero. This starts the software processes, and trumpet performance can begin at this point.

42
Di Scipio, Modes.
68

“Part1” is then clicked to start the audio processing for Part One of Modes, and “Part2” is clicked
after window sixteen to begin Part Two. “FadeIn/Out” is clicked again after window thirty-two,
causing the sound to fade out over the next few seconds. The icons “proc1”, “proc2”, and
“proc3” are also active during performance, and they are responsible for three different sound
transforming procedures. However, they do not need to be operated during performance,
although they may be used during rehearsal to activate or deactivate these transformation
procedures.

Also indicated in the GUI are two timers: one that indicates the total time elapsed since the
beginning of the performance, and one that indicates how much time has passed in either Part
One or Part Two. There are also two sliders that constantly move during performance which
reflect the current volume of the input sound. The one on the right (“memscaler”) is directly
proportional to the input volume, while the left one (“ampscaler”) is inversely proportional. The
left slider represents the adaptive adjustment of the input sounds relative to their strength. This
action results in the strengthening of weak input sounds while weakening strong input sounds.
This affects the overall output of Larsen tones and the signal-processing transformations as the
output becomes weaker when the amount and density of sound material recirculating in the
feedback loop gets larger, and vice-versa. If the input sound becomes very loud, the left slider
will move closer to the bottom, entering the red, and the output will become so weak that it
almost disappears. This can be avoided by minimizing loud sounds (especially with regard to
breathing and tonguing sounds), or temporarily refraining from adding any sound at all to the
feedback loop. If the Larsen tones are peaking, the performer may move to a valve combination
that is less effective at generating Larsen tones, or move further from the speaker to weaken the
feedback loop.

The playing techniques used in Modes and the performer's interactions with the sound processing
software provide the opportunity to develop the “human” components of nuance, musicality and
expression in this composition. However, these actions should generally be undertaken in a
subtle, controlled manner. Di Scipio notes in his score instructions that, because the microphone
is inside the trumpet’s bell, the amplification gain is always very strong, and that every “tiny
event of sound inside the trumpet will be largely boosted”. The performer must be careful not to
play too loudly, especially with the tonguing and blowing techniques, as these will generate very
loud sounds, even when performed softly.
69

The score does contain a number of dynamic indications, which are relative to the particular
playing techniques. They do not indicate the volume of the overall sound, however, as this is
controlled by the interactions between the feedback loop and computer processes. The indicated
dynamics should be played on the gentle side, as Di Scipio indicates that ppp should be
performed “as pianissimo as possible”, and mf and f should be played as “almost mezzoforte and
almost forte”. There are also crescendi notated on the bottom lines of the score. However, these
only indicate the overall increases in volume resulting from the network of interactions as the
piece progresses, rather than indicating an increase in the strength of the performer’s actions.

5.6 Analysis

The score for Modes of Interference consists of thirty-two “time windows” of varying lengths,
plus one introductory window (“#0” in the score). The piece is divided into two parts which are
identical in every respect except for the valve action employed in each part (as well as a few very
small differences to be discussed later), and both parts are divided into four subsections which
each consist of three time windows. The three time windows in each of the subsections have
lengths of ten, twenty, and thirty seconds (although not necessarily in that order), making each of
the subsections one minute in length. The subsections are separated from each other by single
time windows which feature percussive mouthpiece effects. These windows are marked with a
fermata and last from just under four seconds to just under ten seconds. The score is graphically
notated with verbal instructions throughout, indicating playing techniques and timings. A form
diagram is given below. It describes just one part of the composition, but is the same for both
parts one and two (except for time window #0, which occurs only at the beginning of the piece).
70

Figure 22. Modes of Interference No. 1 Form Diagram

Time Window Duration Playing techniques

0 (fermata) Process starts, Larsen tone fades in

1/17 30” - Silent valve action begins, and lasts through the
2/18 20” composition unless otherwise indicated.
3/19 10”

4/20 < 10” - Mouthpiece taps/scratches

5/21 30”
6/22 10” - Valve clicks
7/23 20” - Breath sounds

8/24 < 6” - Mouthpiece taps/scratches

9/25 10” - Valve clicks


10/26 20” - Valve clicks, breath sounds, and whistle
11/27 30” - Valve clicks, breath sounds, and tongue slaps

12/28 < 4” - Mouthpiece taps/scratches

13/39 10” - Valve clicks, breath, whistle, pulse tongue


14/30 20” - Valve clicks, breath, whistle, tongue slaps
15/31 30” - Valve clicks, breath, whistle, tongue slaps, pulse tongue
(also tk or tkt)

16/32 fermata - One long-lasting Larsen tone, fade out in #32

The main trumpet playing technique in Modes is the operation of the valves as described in the
section Playing Techniques, and it is the valve action that provides the main difference between
the first and second parts of the composition. In Part One, the notation indicates the number of
valves that may be used and how far they can be pressed at any given time, although the actual
valve combinations and rates at which they are changed (within minimum rates of change) are at
the discretion of the performer. In Part Two, however, while the number of valves that can be
used and how far they can be pressed is still indicated, the valve combinations must come from a
passage of existing trumpet music, which may be of any style and from any time in history. It is
only the pattern of valve combinations that is important in Part Two; the pitches that result from
these combinations have nothing to do with the musical excerpts that are used, and the original
71

tempi must be ignored and replaced with the rates of change indicated in the score. Dynamics,
ornamentations, pauses, and mutes from the selected musical excerpts must also be ignored.

There are three other small differences between Part One and Part Two. The first difference is
that the percussive mouthpiece effects in the “fermata” windows in Part One (windows four,
eight and twelve) consist of “mouthpiece taps”, while the complementary windows in Part Two
(windows twenty, twenty-four, and twenty-eight) utilize “mouthpiece scratches”, with a few
mouthpiece taps in windows twenty-four and twenty-eight. The second difference is that some
of the valve changes are of slightly shorter durations in Part Two, such as in window seventeen
where the minimum rate of change is “less than six seconds”, whereas the minimum rate of
change in the complementary window in Part One (window one) is “less than eight seconds”.
The third difference is that the valve combination used in the last measure of Part One (window
sixteen) may be any combination except the “fundamental” (i.e. no valves pressed down), while
the valve combination in the final measure of Part Two (window thirty-two) may be either the
fundamental valve combination or the same valve combination as window sixteen. Overall these
are very minor differences. However, they do create a small qualitative difference between the
sound gestures between Parts One and Two.

It can be seen in the above form diagram that the number of playing actions increases in each
successive subsection of the piece, resulting in an increase in the density of gestures as each part
progresses. However, other musical parameters such as timbre and pitch are controlled by the
computer, altering these characteristics in a predictable manner to contribute to the shape of the
composition. Through automated control of certain processing variables (which will not be
described here – see Computer operations for more detail), the range of pitches and timbres of
Larsen tones gradually expand over Part One leading to the widest range of pitches and timbres
in window sixteen, and contract again over Part Two until unison Larsen tones are achieved
window thirty-two. Thus Modes has an ‘arc’ shape with respect to the computer transformations
of its main sound source, while human-performed musical gestures increase over the duration of
each part.
72

Chapter 6
Ricercare Una Melodia for Trumpet and Tape Delay
by Jonathan Harvey

6.1 Overview

Ricercare una Melodia was composed in 1984. A ricercare is a type of composition that was
especially prominent in the late Renaissance and early Baroque eras, and Harvey elaborates on
its usage in his Programme Note as meaning “‘to seek’, and in musical usage it signifies a fugal,
often rather strict movement. Here, a five-part canon is obtained by means of a tape-delay
system, and when the ‘sought-after’ melody is ‘found’, the canon is by progressive augmentation
and at the interval of the octave.”43

Ricercare una Melodia was commissioned by the Park Lane Group, an organization based in
London, England, for Jonathan Impett (trumpet), and John Whiting (sound projection), who
premiered the work at the Purcell Room of the Southbank Centre in London, on January 10,
1985. A trumpet player, composer, and researcher, Jonathan Impett has premiered several other
solo pieces by composers including Luciano Berio, Michael Finnissy, and Giacinto Scelsi, and
his interest in music for trumpet and electronics has led to his development of a computer-
extended “meta-trumpet”, a system which couples the trumpet with computers for computer-
based performance and composition. John Whiting is a sound designer, projectionist, producer,
collaborator, and teacher who has developed an international reputation through his work with
dozens of high-profile orchestras, conductors, composers, chamber ensembles, and soloists.

In addition to its setting for trumpet, Ricercare una Melodia exists in versions for flute, oboe,
cello, and trombone, and each of these versions is published by Faber Music. It has been
recorded on trumpet by Jonathan Impett (Ladder of Escape Nr. 7: Trumpet; Attacca 9476) and
Philippe Ranallo (Jonathan Harvey: Wheel of Emptiness; Cypres CYP 5604). The trumpet

43
Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, (London: Faber Music Ltd., 1992).
73

version has also been recorded on viola by Christoph Desjardins (Alto/Multiples; Aeon AEO
981). The flute version has been recorded by Manuel Zurria (Repeat!; Die Schachtel DSZC1),
the oboe version has been recorded by Piet van Bockstal (Jonathan Harvey: Wheel of Emptiness;
Cypres CYP 5604), and the version for cello has been recorded by Benjamin Carat (L’Oeuvre
pour Violoncelle de Jonathan Harvey; Assai 222 242) and Frances-Marie Uitti (Jonathan Harvey:
Cello Concerto; Etcetera KTC 1148).

This is one of very few compositions for trumpet and tape delay. Other compositions in this
genre include Echo (1979) by Ross Harris, Echo III (1978) by Roger Smalley, Bright Angel
(1972) by David Cope, and Épigone (1986) by Bernard Carlosema. Ricercare una Melodia is
exemplary among these compositions for its thorough exploitation of tape delay technology to
expand the voice of the trumpet well beyond what normally possible. It takes full advantage of
the possibilities offered by the tape delay system as it creates a variety of textures and colours,
especially in the second half of the piece as the half-speed tape setting progressively broadens
the trumpet’s voice and transposes it far beyond the trumpet’s lowest registers.

6.2 Biography

Jonathan Harvey is one of the world’s leading composers. Born in 1939 in Warwickshire,
England, Harvey was involved in music at an early age as a chorister at St. Michael’s college in
Tenbury Wells. He was encouraged by his father (an amateur pianist and composer) to write his
own compositions, and he went on to study music at St. John’s College in Cambridge. Harvey
completed his Ph.D. at Glasgow University in 1964 while working as a cellist with the BBC
Scottish Orchestra, and received his Mus.D. from Cambridge University in 1972. Some of
Harvey’s early influences were Béla Bartók and Benjamin Britten, and on Britten’s advice he
studied privately with Erwin Stein and Hans Keller, Austrian refugees living in London whose
knowledge of the Second Viennese School made a great impression on him. Harvey studied
Schoenberg’s work in great depth, laying the foundation for the development of his own
compositional language.
74

Harvey studied serialism through the 1960s, culminating in a Harkness Fellowship at Princeton
University where he studied with Milton Babbitt in 1969-70. However, he did not subscribe
completely to the serialist approach, and although he wrote his own serial compositions, they
differed in technique from those of Schoenberg and Webern.44 Searching for a sense of
structural depth in his experimentation with serialism in his own compositions, Harvey’s
dissatisfaction with the results led to his composition becoming “more free” as he sought out a
balance between formal rigor and freedom.45 Nonetheless he remained intrigued by its essence,
and encouraged by Keller to remember the importance of spontaneity and freedom in music,
Harvey followed his own path beyond serialism in developing his approach to atonality.

Fascinated by the symmetrical structures of the serialist composers, Harvey became a proponent
of a “musical revolution” in which “the bass moves to the middle”.46 Rejecting the traditional
approach of building harmony on a figured bass, he was interested in symmetrical harmonic
structures that reflect each other from either side of a central axis. By freeing his composition
from conventionally rooted harmony, Harvey developed a style that allows the music to move
flexibly through space while providing the sense of structural depth he had been looking for in
atonal music, as these symmetrical mirroring structures centre around an axial middle where
musical relationships converge. This is clearly observable in Ricercare una Melodia, in which
the third line of the treble clef serves as the axis around which the harmony is built.

Harvey felt this was an important step in moving away from an antiquated harmonic system
toward a new mode of expression. It was also a natural extension of Schoenberg’s serial
concept, articulated in his response to Swedenborg’s description of heaven in Balzac’s
Seraphita: “The unity of musical space demands an absolute and unitary perception. In this

44
Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival, Jonathan Harvey in Conversation,
http://www.hcmf.co.uk/HCMF-Composer-in-Residence-Jonathan-Harvey-in-conversation
(accessed March 21, 2010).
45
Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival, Jonathan Harvey.
46
Jonathan Harvey, “Reflection after Composition,” Tempo, New Series 140 (March 1982): 2,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/944831 (accessed 23 March 2010).
75

space…there is no absolute down, no right or left, no forward or backward.”47 Although Harvey


felt Schoenberg did not completely achieve his vision, Webern continued to develop this sense of
omnidirectionality as he extended the use of symmetry to every musical aspect of his
compositional approach. Rejecting the motion and direction of tonality in favor of the
motionless static of atonality, Webern’s approach was an important development for Harvey that
mirrored his spiritual ideals of “being” as opposed to the worldly goals of “becoming”:

“Certainly here all directions are equal, the listener is not traveling down a road to
a climactic destination, he is crisscrossing a field, covering it to complete
satisfaction. It is knowledge, not action.”48

Much as Schoenberg had equated his vision of music with heaven, Webern also related his atonal
techniques to the world of spirituality. Webern’s sense of “floating feelings” in connection with
axially symmetrical music was an important connection for Harvey, for whom atonality is “a
musical language which is highly ordered, and yet which floats above the seething world of tonal
becoming” and in which “we have a representation of this spirit world potentially more direct
and precise than was possible in the tonal era.”49

Concurrent with Harvey’s concern with the atonal practices of the Second Viennese School and
the musical/spiritual connections they evoked was his interest in the writings of Austrian
philosopher Rudolf Steiner. Steiner’s outlook on the future of music proved to be influential on
Harvey, and in 1923 (around the same time as Schoenberg was developing his method), he
described the future of music as being ready to move

“toward spiritualization, and involve a recognition of the special character of the


individual tone. Today we relate the individual tone to harmony or melody in
order that, together with other tones, it may reveal the mystery of music. In the
future we will no longer recognize the individual tone solely in relation to other
tones, which is to say according to its planal dimension, but apprehend it in depth;

47
Schoenberg, Arnold, Style and Idea: The Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg, ed.
Leonard Stein, trans. Leo Black (London: Faber, 1951), 223.
48
Jonathan Harvey, “The Composer's View: Atonality,” The Musical Times 121 No. 1653
(Nov., 1980): 699, http://www.jstor.org/stable/963776, accessed 23 March 2010.
49
Harvey, “The Composer’s View,” 699.
76

penetrate into it and discover therein its affinity for hidden neighbouring tones.
And we will learn to feel the following: If we immerse ourselves in the tone it
reveals three, five or more tones; the single tone expands into a melody and
harmony leading straight into the world of spirit.”50

His increased awareness of the importance of the individual note had significant implications for
Harvey’s approach to composition. An interest in the music of Karlheinz Stockhausen (on
whom he published a monograph in 1975) and exposure to electroacoustic techniques during his
time at Princeton encouraged Harvey to begin exploring the “special character of the individual
tone” through electroacoustic manipulation. An invitation from Pierre Boulez to work at
IRCAM (Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique), where he has since
completed eight works, allowed him to delve more deeply into the possibilities offered by
electroacoustic composition. He investigated the functionality of the harmonic series, and
through electronic manipulation he found it could become an important source of musical
material. He also explored the depth of the individual tone through emphasis, an aspect he
examines thoroughly in Ricercare una Melodia, especially in the second half of the composition
by stretching out the melody (particularly emphasizing the note ‘A’), gradually decreasing its
tempo and bringing it to the low register through the progressive augmentation of the half-speed
tape loop.

Harvey’s experiments with electroacoustic music have increasingly favored live electronic
manipulation as a means of exploring the characteristics of sound and the possibilities offered by
different musical instruments, and since the mid-1990s he has been using computer manipulation
to explore harmonic structures in what he calls “the new Pythagoreanism”.51 He published two
books in 1999 on spirituality and inspiration respectively, and his compositions in numerous
idioms, both acoustic and electroacoustic, have earned him international acclaim and numerous
accolades including major awards, honorary doctorates, professorships, and fellowships. He is
currently an honorary professor at the University of Sussex, and in May 2009 – May 2010 his

50
Harvey, “Reflection After Composition,” 3.
51
Arnold Whittall, “Harvey, Jonathan.” In Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed March 20 2010).
77

standing in the international music community was honored with many dedicated concerts, new
recordings, festival focuses and composer portraits.

6.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization

The electronic component of Ricercare una Melodia consists of two four-track tape recorders
and a reverberation unit. Other necessary equipment includes a microphone and two or four
loudspeakers. The operation of the tape recorders is described in Harvey’s Performance
Instructions:52

The tape-recorders should be set up to a tape-delay of three seconds. The trumpet


has a microphone which records onto Track 1 of Tape-recorder (TR) 1. When the
signal has traveled to TR 2 (3 seconds later) the signal should be split: sent to
Loudspeaker 1, and folded back to TR 1 to be recorded on Track 2. Track 2’s
signal now travels to TR 2 (3 seconds later) and is again split: to Loudspeaker 2
and to TR 1 to be recorded on Track 3. Track 3’s signal is treated likewise: split
to Loudspeaker 3 and TR 1’s Track 4. Track 4 is simply sent from TR 2 to
Loudspeaker 4. Consecutive tracks should not be connected to consecutive
speakers, but arranged in one of the following patterns:

I III or I III II IV, etc. Or, in stereo, I+III/II+IV

II IV

Harvey has also indicated that 0.9 seconds of reverb should be added to the recording of Track 1
only, which will automatically be lengthened for the remaining tracks. A useful Circuit Diagram
has also been included in the score to aid with the set-up of the tape recorders.

52
Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, (London: Faber Music Ltd., 1992).
78

53
Figure 23. Ricercare Una Melodia Circuit Diagram

Harvey has indicated that a “sound-projectionist should adjust the various levels to keep an equal
balance between the sound sources. Where the live trumpet is silent, the playback levels may be
momentarily increased.”54 The sound projectionist is also responsible for controlling the levels
of the channels in mm. 34-46 where “fader play” is indicated in the score, fading out the
playback completely in m. 47, changing Tape recorder 2 to half-speed setting, and fading up the
microphone and each of the channels following the directions in the score from m. 47 onward.

Another method of performing the piece, which is advocated by Harvey, and in fact “the most
often used”55, is to make a four-track recording of the delayed lines in a studio, and perform with
the playback of the recording. As mentioned in the Performance Instructions, a stereo recording
would also be acceptable, with Tracks 1 and 3 on one channel and Tracks 2 and 4 on the other.
This is the easiest way of handling the electronic component of this piece, as the operation at
performance time simply involves starting the playback of the recording at the right time. It also

53
Harvey, Ricercare.
54
Harvey, Ricercare.
55
Harvey, Ricercare.
79

gives the trumpeter a consistent playback which will never change from practice to performance.
It is also in many ways “safer” than setting up the tape recorders for live playback, as any
playing errors that occur during live performance will not be repeated, which would be
especially obvious during the section of progressive augmentation toward the end of the piece.

6.3.1 Synchronization

Regardless of whether a live tape recorder setup or a pre-recorded performance is used,


synchronization in this piece is almost completely dependent on a steady tempo by the
performer. In a live recording situation, synchronization between the performer and the tape
playback will take care of itself if the performer maintains a steady tempo, which will allow the
playback to remain consistent and accurate. Any tempo deviations will have dramatic
consequences, as these differences would be magnified through the repeated playback of the
tape-loop generated canon, especially when the second tape recorder is set to half speed. Tempo
variations in live performance would be less of an issue when playing with a pre-recorded
performance, but every effort should be made both in the recording studio and in live
performance to maintain a steady tempo to allow the voices of the canon to line up correctly.
Harvey has also included staves beneath the solo trumpet part to aid with coordination. In the
first part of the score, up to the m. 47, only two staves have been included beneath the solo
trumpet part, and from m. 56 onward all the tape-delay has been notated.

6.4 Extended Techniques

Extended techniques are used in Ricercare una Melodia to create interesting timbral effects and
include flutter tonguing, half-valve technique, and muting. Although trumpet players are usually
accustomed to using mutes, and their use is not generally considered an extended technique, the
muting effects in this piece are especially elaborate and require significant planning and
consideration. Flutter tonguing and half-valve technique are also fairly common procedures,
especially for trumpeters who have played jazz or other twentieth-century classical compositions.
80

There are four instances in which the flutter-tonguing is required: measures 20, 23-24, 29, and on
the first line of the last page (line ten of the unmetered section). Only the first of these four
instances explicitly gives a flutter-tonguing indication (flz.), along with tremolo signs (slashes
through the stem of the note). The other three occurrences simply give the tremolo signs. The
highest note requiring the flutter-tongue effect is a C♯ on the third space of the staff, which is
fortunate, as flutter tonguing often becomes much more difficult in the upper register. There are
some performers who are not able to create the flutter-tongue effect, and they may compromise
by creating a growl effect, which is accomplished by ‘growling’ or humming while playing. It
creates a somewhat different texture than the flutter-tongue effect, but is an effective substitute if
the flutter-tongue is not possible.

Half-valve technique is not difficult for trumpeters to accomplish, and it is only called for twice
in this composition: m. 13-14 (on a B♭) and line eleven of the unmetered section (on a C♯). It
is accomplished by pressing the trumpet’s valves about half-way down, partially blocking the
flow of the air through the valve section. This creates a slightly muffled, nasal tone, and the
timbre and pitch can be quite variable depending on how many valves are pressed and to what
degree. The performer will have to experiment with these factors to find a timbre they like while
still being in tune.

Different mutes and muting techniques are used extensively throughout the composition. The
first use of a mute occurs from mm. 38-46 with a melo-wah mute – an unusual mute that is rarely
required in classical music. The Humes and Berg Manufacturing Company makes a melo-wah
mute, and it is fairly easy to find, especially in online music stores. It gives the trumpet a soft,
mellow tone, and has an opening in the end that can be covered by the trumpeter’s hand. Its use
is notated with ‘+’ and ‘o’ symbols, indicating ‘closed’ and ‘open’, respectively, and moving
between these open and closed sounds creates its characteristic ‘wah’ effect. Measures 38-46
contain precise indications regarding when mute should be closed or open, and the performer
must cover and uncover the end of the mute according to the notated rhythms to create a
rhythmically undulating timbre.

A variable mute effect is also called for in m. 47. Here the notation indicates “hand over bell”,
and the trumpet’s tone is dampened by using the hand to cover the bell of the trumpet when
indicated by a ‘+’ sign. This can cause intonation problems, as covering the bell with the hand
81

significantly lowers the trumpet’s pitch. However, there is little that can be done to alleviate this
problem other than using the lips to raise the muted pitches. Fortunately the rapid speed of these
passages helps prevent these inherent intonation difficulties from being very obvious.

The next muted passage follows immediately in mm. 47-53. Here the trumpet player uses a
straight mute, and must insert and remove it during very brief rests or while playing. This is a
challenging effect to achieve, as it is difficult to insert and remove the mute so quickly,
especially in technically demanding passages such as this one. This is the first set of difficult
mute changes in this composition, and the performer will have to carefully plan their mute
changes and become comfortable with this sort of technique while learning the music.
Intonation may also be an issue here as straight mutes tend to make the trumpet’s pitch go sharp,
and it will be impossible to adjust the trumpet’s tuning slide each time the mute is inserted or
removed. Aside from using the lips to keep the pitch from going too sharp, the performer may
play the sustained high A’s with the third valve to help keep the pitch in tune on that note.

The straight mute remains in the trumpet following the cadenza, and it remains in until the fourth
full line of the unmetered section. However, here the trumpet player must switch from the
straight mute to a harmon mute during a quarter-rest before continuing. It is very difficult to
remove one mute and insert another mute in the space of one second as is given here, and some
planning will have to be done by the performer to accomplish this maneuver. One possible way
of doing this is by preparing the mutes at the end of line one, when the trumpet player has four
beats to get ready. During this rest the player can remove the straight mute and pick up the
harmon mute so that he or she is holding both mutes in one hand. This is a precarious move and
it is easy to drop the mutes in this position, especially if the performer does not have very large
hands. The player would then hold the straight mute loosely inside the trumpet bell, with the
harmon mute away from the bell, leaving the trumpet player in a good position when it is time to
change mutes in line four. However, with the left hand occupied holding mutes, it will be
difficult to extend the third valve slide to lower the pitch of the C♯’s, which will otherwise be
extremely sharp. Since there are several E♭’s in the preceding music which require the third
valve slide to remain closed, the only time the left hand will be free to extend the third valve
slide is in the two-beat rest immediately before the C♯ on line four. It will be necessary for the
82

third valve slide to be held firmly in place and yet remain mobile, so that it will not slide out on
its own when playing the E♭’s, but may still easily be extended for the C♯.

Another strategy is to have the harmon and/or the straight mutes firmly attached to a stand in
such a way that the player can position the bell of the trumpet over the mutes and avoid having to
pick one or both of them up altogether. If both mutes are attached to a stand this would allow the
trumpet player to hold the instrument with both hands, making it possible to use the first and
third valve slides to adjust intonation as necessary. However, this may also make rapid mute
changes more awkward. Ultimately it will be up to the performer to experiment with different
mute options and determine what works best for them.

Shortly after this quick mute change another variable mute effect is required at the end of line
five, and again on line six. Here the harmon mute must be removed and inserted according to the
rhythm notated above the staff. A variable harmon mute effect also occurs on lines seven and
eight, however this time the mute remains in the trumpet, and an open/closed effect is created by
covering the end of the harmon mute when indicated with a ‘+’ sign. During a fermata in the
middle of line nine, the harmon mute is removed and replaced with a straight mute. The straight
mute is inserted and removed while playing, only this time the rhythm of inserting and removing
the mute is at the discretion of the performer (with a few exceptions), as the notation indicates
“create variety by moving it slightly out at times.”56

The last note of line twelve has the simple mute indication “in”, and since the straight mute was
used most recently, one would likely continue to use it at this point. However, the ‘+’ and ‘o’
indications later on indicate an open/closed effect. Although this can be done by inserting and
removing the straight mute, the ‘+’ sign occurs after the straight mute has already been inserted.
This might lead the performer to use a variable-timbre mute such as the harmon or melo-wah
mute, which can be ‘closed’ after the mute has been inserted. This was done by Philippe Ranallo
on the recording Wheel of Emptiness, who used a harmon mute to good effect. However,
Jonathan Impett, for whom the piece was composed, used a straight mute at this point on his
recording Ladder of Escape Nr. 7: Trumpet.

56
Harvey, Ricercare.
83

6.5 Analysis

This composition is constructed of two large sections (referred to here as A and B) that are
separated by a cadenza. Section A runs from mm. 1-46, and features a five-part canon created by
a tape delay system in which every note played by the trumpet is repeated four times at three
second intervals. This makes the solo trumpet an equal voice within a larger setting as the
melody is layered into a complex tangle of notes, expanding the texture and harmony of the
music far beyond what is normally possible in solo performance. It also gives the composition a
subtle, organic character, as each musical statement overlaps with the music that precedes and
follows it, creating gradual changes in rhythm, tonality, and texture. The cadenza occurs from
mm. 47-53, and is performed without the tape recorders running, providing a short break from
the canon.

Section B runs from m. 54 to the end of the piece, and is distinguished from A by the progressive
augmentation of its canon. Progressive augmentation occurs as successive repetitions of the
melody are played back at half-speed, so that each entrance in the canon is one octave lower and
at half the tempo of the preceding entrance. This brings the voices of the canon well below the
normal range of the trumpet, and the low, elongated pitches gradually expand the texture and
register of the music. This gives section B a significantly different character from section A, as
the lower ranges and slower tempos of the canonic repetitions allow the solo trumpet to remain
prominent in the texture.

The pitch content is generally centred around the pitches B♭ and A, and symmetrical tonalities
with different tonal centres are frequently used above and below the third line of the treble clef.
This is consistent with Harvey’s interest in symmetrical structures that reflect each other from
either side of a central axis, as discussed in his Biography. A form diagram showing the main
sections and their pitch centres is given below.
84

Figure 24. Ricercare Una Melodia Form Diagram

A mm. 1-46
a: mm. 1-16 – symmetrical bitonality introduced: B♭whole-tone scale above the third
line of the staff, A whole-tone scale below
transition: mm. 17-28 – diminished bitonality: B♭above the third line of the staff, A
below the third line
b: mm. 29 -37 – octatonic bitonality: A is emphasized as tonal centre toward the end of
the section
c: mm. 38-46 – single octatonic tonality in A

Cadenza mm. 47-53


transition: m. 47 – octatonic, whole-tone, and diminished bitonalities; in B♭above the
third line of the staff, in A below the third line
mm. 48-53: octatonic scale in A

B mm. 54-end
mm. 54-63 – octatonic, A emphasized as tonal centre
m. 62-end – several lines of unmetered material in which different motives are explored,
tonal centre mostly A

The first section of the piece opens with a pseudo-metrical phrase in mm. 1-4, in which the
location of the beats within each measure is given by a dotted line and the rhythm of the notes
within each beat is at the discretion of the performer. This allows the soloist an opportunity to
cultivate a “seeking” quality to the music as they search out the rhythm of this ricercare.

Figure 25. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia mm. 1-4


85

While the rhythm mm. 1-3 is determined by the performer, it is clear that each of the notes
should have the same duration and attack. This creates a canon in which the texture is quite
even, although the crescendi and decrescendi will cause some of the notes to stand out more than
others.

The pitch content of these opening measures appears to be chromatic. However, this
chromaticism is actually the result of combining of two different whole-tone scales. The whole-
tone scale starting on B♭ is used above the third line of the staff, and the whole-tone scale
starting on A is used below the third line. This introduces two concepts central to this
composition: the use of a symmetrical bitonality in which two different symmetrical scales are
used above and below the third line of the staff, and the notes B♭and A as contrasting harmonic
and structural elements. Throughout this piece there often seems to be a ‘conflict’ between these
two pitches, as if they are fighting for control of the tonal centre. The opening phrase ends with
a rapid flourish of staccato grace notes ending on an accented F♯, a note that later has an
important function in its relationship to the notes B♭and A.

From mm. 5-14 the whole-tone bitonality introduced in the first four measures continues,
although now the music consists of precisely notated rhythms. These measures consist of long
notes with durations of four-and-a-half to five-and-a-half beats, immediately followed and/or
preceded by rapid arpeggiated figures of 16th notes, 32nd notes, and 16th note triplets.

Figure 26. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, mm. 10-12

10 11 12

The tape loop’s canonic repetition allows the long notes to layer on top of each other, creating
subtly shifting chords surrounded by staccato outbursts. Although there are a few moments in
86

which three-note chords occur, the pacing of the tape loop makes them very short lived, and two-
note chords are prominent. These consist of C♯/ D♯ in mm. 7-10, D♯/A in mm. 10-12, and
B♭/A in mm. 13-15. These chords emphasize the whole-tone sonority of this section with the
whole-tone between C♯ and D♯, the tritone between D♯ and A (a characteristic interval of the
whole-tone scale), and the whole-tone scale ‘roots’ (or tonal centres) B♭ and A. The rapid
arpeggiated figures continue to employ the whole-tone bitonality introduced at the beginning of
the piece, although the wide-interval leaps across the staff temper the whole-tone effect. The last
long note of this section is a B♭, played in mm. 13-14 using half-valve technique and molto
vibrato, giving this note an unusual tone quality and emphasizing it as an important structural
note.

This section draws to a close in mm. 15-16 with material that recalls the first four measures of
the composition. However, while the rhythmic notation is similar to mm. 1-4, an important
difference exists in that the locations of the beats of mm. 15-16 are not indicated. Even more
significant is that the whole-tone bitonality breaks down in m. 16, first with the “white note”
flourish of grace notes and then with the C♯ at the end of the measure. These notes serve to
lead away from the whole-tone bitonality of mm. 1-16 and into the transitional section of mm.
17-28.

Some significant changes occur in mm. 17-28. Although the overall chromatic tonality
continues in this section, the whole-tone bitonality of mm. 1-15 is no longer being used to
produce this result. The notes above the third line of the treble clef are B♭C♯ E G B♮, and the
notes below the third line are (D♭D E E♯) A C D♯ F♯ A♭(the notes in brackets are the
flutter-tongued 32nd notes in mm. 19-20, which serve as chromatic upper neighbors to the C on
the second half of beat one of m. 20). A new symmetrical bitonality is introduced as the notes
above the third line of the treble clef (with the exception of the B♮) form the diminished chord
B♭ C♯ E G, while the notes below the third line (with the exception of the A♭) form a
different diminished chord: A C D♯ F♯. Interestingly, the ‘exception’ notes (B♮ and A♭) are
the highest and lowest notes of this section, providing a chromatic foil to the diminished sonority
at the outer edges of the register. The chromatic 32nd notes in mm. 19-20 further dilute the
diminished quality of this section. However, the use of diminished chord tones does provide an
87

effective transition to the octatonic bitonality of the next section. This section closes on a
repeated and sustained F♯, which begins in m. 22 and continues on through m. 28, remaining
the only pitch sounding for the last two measures of this section.

In m. 29 the F♯ leads into a series of ascending scales that gradually increase in both speed and
range. The increase in speed is accomplished by decreasing the length of the notes from 16th-
note triplets in m. 29 to 16th-note septuplets in m. 32, and finally to 32nd-notes in m. 33. The
regular ascending motion of the scales imparts an orderly texture that gradually grows denser as
the note lengths shorten.

A new symmetrical bitonality is established here as one octatonic scale is used above the third
line of the staff and another is used below it. The scale above the third line is: B♭C D♭E♭E♮
F♯ G A and the scale below the third line is: A B C D E♭F F♯ A♭. This distinction is based
on the precedent of the symmetrical bitonality established earlier in the composition. However,
it could also be argued that both octatonic scales have A as the tonal centre, with the upper scale
being: A B♭C D♭E♭E♮ F♯ G. In either case it is clear that different octatonic scales are
used above and below the third line of the staff, even though the tonal centre(s) is ambiguous for
the first part of this section.

The tonal centre is established as A by the end of m. 33, as the octatonic scale from above the
third line of the staff is repeated with A as its tonal centre (A B♭C D♭ E♭ E♮ F♯ G), along
with sustained A’s in mm. 34-38.

Figure 27. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, m. 34

34
88

At this point a new element is introduced into the canon as the composer has indicated “fader
play in rapid succession across channels.” This composition calls for four individually amplified
audio channels (one for each voice of the canon besides the soloist), and the playback volume of
each of these channels is controlled at a mixing console by a fader. Thus the volume of each
channel will increase and decrease according to the manipulation of the faders by the sound
projectionist, and the rate at which the volume changes should be quite rapid from m. 34 to the
end of this section in m. 38.

In m. 38 the final canonic repetition of the ascending scale passage occurs as the next section
begins with a soft, lyrical character. The octatonic scale in A from mm. 34-38 is used
exclusively in this section, and the single octatonic tonality is confirmed in m. 41 with a G♮ on
the second line of the staff. Here the ‘melo-wah’ mute is used to give the trumpet a mellow tone
colour that can change from ‘open’ (indicated by ‘o’ and accomplished by playing normally) to
‘closed’ (indicated by ‘+’ and accomplished by covering the end of the mute with the hand). The
open/closed mute effect follows a carefully notated rhythm, and the canon multiplies the effect to
create a soft, undulating tone colour. The “fader play” slows down from mm. 38-46, sometimes
“touching zero”, further contributing to the soft timbre of this section. The canon is faded out
completely over the first two beats of m. 47, bringing A to a close.

The cadenza begins in m. 47 after the canon of section A has faded out. During the cadenza the
tape recorders are stopped and the playback machine is set to half-speed to prepare it for the
second major section of the piece. In addition to giving the cadenza a practical function, turning
the tape recorders off allows for a brief period of unaccompanied solo performance, providing an
effective break between the two major sections of the piece.

The first part of the cadenza is a single unmetered measure (m. 47) that consists of three rapid
ascending figures followed by a B♮. These statements feature progressively larger intervals as
they recall the symmetrical bitonality from earlier in this composition. The first figure uses the
alternating whole-tones and semi-tones of the octatonic scale (although it may simply be an
excerpt of an octatonic scale beginning on A), while the second employs whole-tone scales, and
the third uses consecutive minor thirds. The B♮ is a major third away from the note that
precedes it (G♮), making it a natural continuation of the expanding intervals of the preceding
89

figures. It also recalls the B♮ from measures 16, 19, and 22. As was the case earlier in the piece,
these figures are divided at the third line of the staff with B♭as the tonal centre above the third
line, and A as the tonal centre below the third line. A variable mute effect is also used here, this
time created by covering the bell of the trumpet with the hand when indicated by a ‘+’ sign.

The second part of the cadenza in mm. 48-53 firmly reestablishes the octatonic tonality with A as
the tonal centre. It consists of rapid ascending octatonic scales beginning on A, alternating with
sustained A’s above the staff. A variable mute effect is again employed as the performer must
insert and remove a straight mute several times over these five measures, causing the trumpet’s
tone colour to change while playing.

The second major section of the composition begins at m. 54, at which point the tape recorders
are turned back on and the canon resumes. With the playback tape recorder now set to half-
speed, the progressive augmentation of the canon begins as each repetition of the melody occurs
at half the tempo and one octave lower than the preceding statement. Thus the first repetition of
the melody is at half the tempo and one octave lower than the original melody, the second
repetition is at one quarter the tempo and two octaves lower, the third repetition is one eighth the
tempo and three octaves lower, and the fourth (and final) repetition is one sixteenth the tempo
and four octaves lower.

This is the section of the composition which Harvey refers to in his Programme Note as being
where the “‘sought after’ melody is ‘found’”57. It begins with a melody based on the notes of the
octatonic scale, again with A as the tonal centre (A B♭C C♯ D♯ E F♯ G), which provides the
main tonality for the rest of the composition. The note A is especially emphasized at the
beginning of this section with several long notes in three octaves. This allows these long A’s to
remain present throughout the rest of the composition, as they lengthen and descend in range to
form a sustained bass voice through the progressive augmentation of the canon.

As in the beginning of the piece, the music is in 3/4 time with a tempo of ♩= 60. However, the
music only remains metered until the end of m. 61, at which point it becomes unmetered for the
remainder of the composition. This unmetered section begins with a motive that refers to the

57
Harvey, Ricercare.
90

octatonic bitonality of mm. 29-33 as its notes belong to the scale used below the third line in that
section: A B C D E♭F F♯ G♯.

Figure 28. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive a

motive a

The unmetered section is made up primarily of brief motives that reoccur and are frequently
altered, and the absence of a meter allows these motives to exist without any metrically implied
accent. It also gives the motives greater rhythmic flexibility, as is illustrated in motive b, which
contains a single eighth note in a phrase that otherwise has the pulse of a quarter note:

Figure 29. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 1-2, motive b

motive b:

This rhythmic flexibility is further illustrated by the following variation of motive b, which
contains an additional eighth note:

Figure 30. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 6 line 2, motive b altered

motive b, altered:
91

Both versions of motive b emphasize the interval of a perfect fourth. However, the altered
version of motive b ends on an A, rather than on a B♭, highlighting the relationship between
these two notes.

Motive a reappears unchanged at the end of the first full line of the unmetered section (referred
to from now on as ‘line one’), and is followed on line two by another variation of motive b,
whose intervals are expanded to emphasize a perfect fifth between F♯ and C♯, and then a
major sixth between F♮ and D♮. The motive has also been rhythmically extended and is
considerably longer than its first two appearances:

Figure 31. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive b further expanded

motive b further expanded

This expanded version of motive b leads into the first appearance of motive c, which has an
angular melody and features dotted rhythms:

Figure 32. Jonathan Harvey,Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 1, motive c

motive c:
92

This motive occurs three times in a row. The first and third time it ends on an F♯, and the
second time it ends on a C♯, foreshadowing the F♯ chord of motive d. Especially interesting is
the accenting of the B♭, especially considering its rhythmically weak position. This further
asserts it as an important note, and this is stressed further in the variant of motive a following the
three statements of motive c:

Figure 33. Jonathan Harvey Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 2-3, motive a variant

The final motive of the unmetered section follows this on line four, outlining a chord in F♯
major:

Figure 34. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, motive a

motive d:

Here the F♯, which has been occasionally emphasized throughout the composition, takes on a
significant harmonic role as the root of the chord, and the A♯ lends it a major quality. This is
followed immediately by a variation that includes grace notes before the C♯ and F♯, and has a
particularly interesting end with the trill between B♭and A. The trill between the B♭ and A is
one of the most significant juxtapositions of these two notes in the composition, as the trill
between these two notes obscures the tonality of the F♯ chord by giving it both a major and
93

minor quality. It is important to note, however, that the F♯, C♯, A, and B♭ all belong within
the octatonic scale in A that is the basis of this section’s tonality.

Figure 35. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 3, F# major chord followed by trill

This is followed after a brief pause by an elaborate variation of motive a on line five, in which
the last three quarter notes are ornamented with chromatic neighboring tones which again
emphasize the juxtaposition between A and B♭.

Figure 36. Jonathan Harvey, Ricercare una Melodia, p. 7 line 4, Elaborate variation of motive a

The end of this phrase again employs a changing mute effect as the harmon mute is inserted and
removed from the bell of the trumpet according to the notated rhythm. This adds a rhythmic
change in tone colour, and occurs frequently throughout the remainder of the composition. This
is the point at which the fourth voice of the canon makes its first entrance, with an A two octaves
and a minor third below middle C.

This is followed by a restatement of motive b, which again uses a chromatic neighboring tone on
the last beat while employing a changing harmon mute effect. Motive b is then expanded to a
perfect fifth (as it was in line two) before leading into a fanfare-like passage over the next two
lines that features arpeggios in E major. The E major tonality is interrupted by three A♯’s in
lines seven and eight, and after a ‘precipitoso’ descending arpeggio returns to an A♮ lower
94

register. The A♮ is repeated before an ascending glissando on the harmonic series in A. Motives
a, b, and c are then restated in succession in lines nine and ten before another ‘wild’ ascending
glissando (this time without precise pitches) at the end of line ten.

Another variation of motive a appears in line eleven, this time emphasizing B♭, and a
restatement of motive d in its original form appears at the end of this line. This is followed in
line twelve by an ‘impetuous’ passage of 32nd-notes which begins with brief three- and four-note
statements which are followed by a longer chromatic passage that leads to the highest note the
performer can play.

Motive d begins again at the end of line twelve, but it is cut short in line thirteen by a
rhythmically diminished version of motive d which, as in line four, uses both the B♭ and A, and
after a brief grace-note passage leads into a trill between B♭ and A to end the piece. This
suggests that the overall tonality of the piece is never really settled between these two notes.
Interestingly, the composer has indicated that the last note of the trill is a B♭, and although by
this point it would be too quiet to make much of a harmonic impact, it seems to be an appropriate
conclusion to the piece as it also began on a B♭.

Overall these motives appear to follow a pattern that repeats two times in the unmetered section.
The general shape of the pattern suggested by the motives is:

a-b a-c a-d || a-b a-c a-d

A more precise description of the motivic pattern is:

a-b-b a-b-c-c-c a-d-d || a-b-b (fanfare) a-b-c-c a-d-(rapid “impetuous” outburst)-d-d

Thus a sense of cohesiveness is created in the second main section of Ricercare una Melodia as
the subtle consistency of the motivic pattern tempers the apparent freedom suggested by the
absence of meter and the gradual stretching of the solo line.
95

Chapter 7
Extensions for Trumpet and Multi-track Tape by David Cope

7.1 Overview

David Cope composed Extensions in 1973, and it was originally published by the Seesaw Music
Corporation, whose catalogue was later acquired by the Subito Music Corporation in 2006. It
was written for solo trumpet and tape, with a tape part that consists of eight separate trumpet
ensemble tracks that must be recorded by the performer, who also plays gong. It is not indicated
which key of trumpet this piece is composed for, although its range would be suitable for
trumpet in B♭ or C. There is a recording of it posted on Cope's website
(http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/extensions.htm) which is performed using a B♭ trumpet.

Cope categorizes this piece in his “post-tonal” cycle, which is one of the three categories in
which he classifies his compositions (the other two categories are his “Navajo” and
“algorithmic” cycles). The post-tonal qualities of Extensions are manifested in Cope's uses of
serialism, non-serial chromaticism, and symmetrical tonalities (especially octatonic sonorities).
These harmonic concepts are combined with instrumental, percussive, and vocal effects to
achieve a “collage of sound” in which solo statements are combined with sound masses and tone
clusters in a wide range of timbres, textures, and dynamics.58

Extensions was written at the request of Robert Levy, a trumpeter, conductor, and composer who
has been “a leading proponent for contemporary music over the past thirty years”.59 Levy
includes it in his “current recording projects” (as of 2003) on his personal website, and featured
Extensions in a review of new music for brass players in his article “Music in Manuscript”
appearing in the journal The Brass World in 1973. He described it in this article as “very

58
Robert Levy, “Music in Manuscript,” The Brass World 8, No. 2 (1973): 104.
59
Robert Levy, Robert Levy: Performer, http://www.robertlevymusic.com/performer.htm
(accessed 14 July 2010).
96

effective” and suitable for “the serious trumpet soloist looking for an experimental or avant-
garde composition.”

Extensions is one of very few compositions for trumpet and pre-recorded tape. Other
compositions in this style include Equale II and Theme II by David Rowland, Cirrus by Lois
Vierk, Three Travelling Tunes by Jon Deak, and Laminae by George Heussenstamm. Extensions
is exemplary among these compositions for its expansion of the trumpet's sonic capabilities
through its complex layering of various traditional and non-traditional trumpet sounds. This
allows Extensions to be more than simply a piece for trumpet and pre-recorded trumpet
ensemble, and Cope's extensive use of trumpet-generated sound effects approaches the sonically
manipulated qualities of electroacoustic music without actual electroacoustic treatment of the
sound.

7.2 Biography

David Cope has had a distinguished and prolific career as a composer and university professor,
and his innovative work has brought him international recognition in the fields of composition,
computer science, and artificial intelligence and creativity. He is Dickerson Emeriti Professor at
the University of Southern California Santa Cruz, and prior to his appointment at UCSC in 1977
he held teaching positions at the Miami University of Ohio, the Cleveland Institute of Music,
California Lutheran College and Kansas State College. He is also Honorary Professor of
Computer Science at Xiamen University in China, and teaches regularly in the annual Workshop
in Algorithmic Computer Music at UCSC.

Born in San Francisco in 1941, Cope's early musical experiences included studying piano (which
led to an extensive performing career) and cello. He went on to study composition, completing
degrees at Arizona State University and the University of Southern California, studying with
George Perle, Halsey Stevens, Ingolf Dahl, and Grant Fletcher. He has since become a widely
published and performed composer, with over seventy published compositions and thousands of
performances in the US and abroad. His compositional output includes thirteen symphonies, ten
string quartets, and nine piano sonatas, and his work has appeared in numerous recordings,
including several complete albums of his own works which range from large ensembles to
97

soloists with electronic and computer generated tape. Cope has received numerous awards for
his compositions, including two National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships, fifteen ASCAP
standard Panel Awards, Composers' Forum (New York City) recital award, Houston Composers
Symposium Award, and numerous university grants.60

In a composer profile published in the American Record Guide in May, 1982, Steven Mamula
described Cope's music as being

marked by tension, achieved through sharply dissonant, sustained


tonal clusters, sporadic and impulsive phrasing, and wide skips in the
linear movement. His textures are transparent, though not always
sparse, and rhythms seem to fall at extremes: either subtle and almost
not pulsating, or fiercely aggressive with frequent juxtapositions of
both.61

This assessment is consistent with Cope's style in Extensions, which also includes some of the
characteristic elements from his compositional language of “unconventional techniques
including unconventional manners of playing, prepared instruments or those he invented himself,
microtonal scales (e.g. his 33-note system of just intonation), atonality and polyrhythms”.62

Cope is also a prolific writer on contemporary music and computer music technology. His New
Directions in Music is now in its seventh edition, and his Techniques of the Contemporary
Composer and New Music Notation are standard reference materials.63 His writings on computer
music technology include the books Computers and Musical Style, Experiments in Musical
Intelligence, The Algorithmic Composer, Virtual Music, and Computer Models of Intelligence,
which describe his program Experiments in Musical Intelligence (EMI, pronounced Emmy),
composition software he began developing in 1981.

60
David Cope, Biography, http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/biography.htm (accessed 5 July,
2010).
61
Mamula, Stephen. "Selected American composers: a profile and analysis," American Record
Guide 45 (May 1982): 2.
62
Dale Cockrell, "Cope, David." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed July 6, 2010).
63
Cope, Biography.
98

Cope was a pioneer in the field of electronic music, and one of the foremost academic authorities
on the experimental compositions of the 1960s.64 One of his achievements in this field included
developing a notable electronic music studio at the Miami University of Ohio in the mid-1970s,
and touring the country with demonstrations of synthesizer technology. However, arguably his
most significant (and controversial) achievement resulted from his research into computer
composition and the subsequent development of EMI.

Spurred on by a case of composer's block in 1980, Cope began studying computer programming
and artificial intelligence with the goal of developing a computer program that could aid in
composition by acting as an extension of the composer's mind. The result was EMI, which
developed into sophisticated compositional software that was capable of composing music in the
styles of several composers. The first performance of EMI's compositions occurred at the
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign in 1987. Written in the style of J.S. Bach, EMI's
pieces were so convincing that those who heard them, including classical music scholars, were
unable to identify them as computer generated.65 Cope's continued development of EMI gave it
the ability to compose in the styles of many other composers, and several recordings of EMI's
compositions are now available which include music in the styles of Mozart, Chopin, Brahms,
Joplin, Bartók, Prokefiev, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, and Cope.

EMI's compositions are based on the idea of recombinance, that is recombining existing music
into new logical successions. Cope believes that recombinancy appears everywhere as “a natural
evolutionary and creative process”, and by exploiting this concept EMI is able to capture the
essence of a composer's language.66 However, EMI's success with this approach has raised
several questions and generated controversy regarding the nature of creativity, and several
musicians, composers and scholars have been challenged by EMI's apparent intrusion into a
realm that they feel has no place for computers. Cope's demonstrations through EMI that the

64
Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph of the Cyborg Composer,” Miller McCune, 22 February 2010,
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
(accessed 8 April 2010).
65
Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.”
66
David Cope, Experiments in Musical Intelligence,
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/experiments (accessed 5 July, 2010).
99

great classical composers were simply “clever mathematical manipulators of notes” have been
unsettling for many who feel that EMI is incapable of replicating the “soul” they feel is present
in creative human endeavors.67 However, Cope ultimately views the computer as a tool with
which composers can extend their minds, and the music composed with their algorithms are “just
as much ours as the music created by the greatest of our personal human inspirations.”68

Despite the music community's skepticism, however, Cope's work has been praised by scientists
in the fields of artificial intelligence and artificial creativity. EMI's principles of recombination
and pattern recognition have been adapted by architects and stock traders, and his work was
highlighted in the late 1990s in the New York Times among other publications. The importance
of his work was recognized by Eleanor Selfridge-Field, senior researcher at Stanford University's
Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities, acknowledging that Cope “has
revealed a lot of essential elements of musical style, and the definition of musical works and of
individual contributions to the evolution of music, that simply have not been made evident by
any other process. That really is an important contribution to our understanding of music,
revealing some things that are really worth knowing.”69

Cope has since moved on from EMI, and in the mid 1990s he began developing a new kind of
composition software. Wanting to move beyond the re-creative abilities of EMI, whose
development had taken up so much of his time he felt it had “cheated him out of years of
productivity as a composer”, Cope wanted to develop a program that had its own “personality”
and would be able to create original music.70 The result was Emily Howell, an interactive
program that creates new compositions through musical and language communication between
the composer and the computer, using EMI's compositions as its source material. Emily
Howell's first album, From Darkness, Light, was released on Centaur records (CRC 3023) in
May 2010.

67
Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.”
68
David Cope, Experiments.
69
Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.”
70
Ryan Blitstein, “Triumph.”
100

Although Emily Howell has received much of the same criticism as EMI, Cope believes there is
a strong future for computer assisted composition. By not being susceptible to human
preoccupations and preconceptions, he feels computers are able to expand the bounds of human
creativity and provide a significant enhancement to the creative process. Of course, having been
developed after he wrote Extensions, his work in artificial creativity has little direct relation to
this composition. However, it does show the unique direction in which he began to take his
composition a few years after Extensions was completed.

7.3 Electronic Setup and Synchronization

The electronic component of Extensions consists of a recording of eight trumpet parts, recorded
by the soloist and used as the accompaniment during performance. In his performance notes for
the score, Cope indicates that the accompaniment should be diffused in a quadraphonic setup,
with tracks one and two in speaker one, tracks three and four in speaker two, tracks five and six
in speaker three, and tracks seven and eight in speaker four, although he does not indicate a
precise orientation for the speakers. Alternatively, he suggests that Extensions may also be
performed with the trumpet ensemble and gong parts performed live (or with gongs on tape),
with the soloist in the centre of the hall and the ensemble trumpeters located around the
audience.

Since Extensions does not include any electronic manipulation other than recording the
accompanying trumpet parts, it could be argued that describing it as a piece for “trumpet and
electronics” is an erroneous categorization that would necessarily extend to any piece of music
involving performance with a recorded accompaniment, regardless of the nature of the recorded
material. Just as Milton Babbitt asserted that a recording of a Tchaikovsky symphony is actually
a work of electronic music,71 a performance of a trumpeter playing along with a recording of all
the parts of any trumpet ensemble piece (as has been done by performers such as Wynton
Marsalis on his recordings of several classical compositions) might be considered music for
trumpet and electronics. However, a significant difference still exists between works like

71
Paul Griffiths, A Concise History of Modern Music: from Debussy to Boulez (Great Britain:
Thames and Hudson, 1978), 169.
101

Extensions and other trumpet ensemble pieces, in that Extensions was composed with the
intention of possibly performing alongside recorded ensemble parts, while this intention does not
exist in purely acoustic ensemble works. It is this intention that makes Extensions fit into the
realm of electronically enhanced music, despite being composed of unaltered acoustic elements.

Cope describes the practical advantages of performing with recorded ensemble parts in his book
New Music Composition:

The advantage ... is in increased performance potential (rare to have five


tubas available to perform tuba quintets, but easy to have one tubist
perform five separate parts onto tape) and economics (ten professional
trumpets would indeed require substantial financial backing). An added
benefit is the performer's ability to hear himself perform and thus learn
more about his musical interpretations.72

However, preparing a recording of eight trumpet tracks is described by Robert Levy as “quite a
project ... With the work just shy of twelve minutes in length, this is no small task.”73 In addition
to a significant amount of time spent learning eight ensemble parts plus the solo part, a great deal
of time would also need to be spent recording the ninety-plus minutes of music for the eight
ensemble tracks, which could lead to considerable expense, especially in a professional recording
studio. Therefore regardless of whether this piece is performed with a live ensemble or with a
recording, it will require a much greater commitment of time and resources than is usually
needed to perform a solo piece, or even other types of solo pieces with electronics. Nonetheless,
the extra effort required to prepare this piece will result in a performance that truly extends the
trumpet as a solo instrument while creating a uniquely effective musical experience.

7.3.1 Synchronization

There are two components in Extensions that require accurate synchronization: the recording of
the ensemble trumpets, and the performance of the solo part with the ensemble tape.
Synchronization may be achieved in the preparation of the tape part by playing along with a click

72
David Cope, New Music Composition (New York: Schirmer Books, 1977), 188.
73
Robert Levy, “Music in Manuscript,” The Brass World 8, No. 2 (1973): 104.
102

track or visual metronome in order to maintain a steady tempo and rhythmic accuracy, and
ensemble intonation can be maintained by listening to each track as it is recorded. Performing
the solo part along with the tape requires the soloist to know the tape part well, so that he or she
can develop a strong sense of ensemble with the accompaniment. This should be a relatively
straightforward task, especially if the tape is prepared with close attention to rhythm and
intonation.

7.4 Extended Techniques


One of the distinguishing characteristics of Extensions is the frequent use of extended
techniques, creating a variety of sound effects and timbres which are often overlapped and
juxtaposed to create a range of unusual textures. These techniques include several instrumental
effects which range from relatively common procedures such as the “kiss off” and “rip up”, to
more obscure effects like slapping the palm of the hand on the open bore of the mouthpiece to
elicit a “popping” sound from the instrument. There are also several non-trumpet techniques
used in Extensions, including vocalizations like singing and whispering, and percussive sounds
from the gong. These techniques are combined with traditional trumpet playing to create an
array of sounds which are layered in the eight ensemble parts to create a unique expansion of the
trumpet's sonic characteristics.

Extensions begins with a chord in which a “kiss off” is performed in each of the ensemble parts.
This effect is created by making a rapid descending glissando after striking the note, and is often
accomplished with half-valve technique. This effect occurs frequently throughout the
composition, as does the “rip up” effect, which is performed similarly to the “kiss off” but with
an ascending glissando. While these effects are not particularly difficult to accomplish and are
relatively common techniques (especially for players with a jazz background), it is important that
they be played convincingly and musically. Generally, this is accomplished by blowing through
the “kiss off” or “rip up” with lots of air, maintaining a full sound throughout the glissando.
Cope has also indicated in his Instructions for the score that the “kiss offs” and “rip ups” should
be performed “as far as possible”, and evenly over the entire durations of the notes, which have
been precisely notated in each case.
103

Other extended trumpet techniques include note bends, buzzing on the mouthpiece alone, flutter
tonguing, pedal tones, “sucks” (i.e. vibrating the lips while inhaling through the trumpet), and
inserting and removing a mute while playing. While none of these are particularly uncommon
techniques, in Extensions they are often performed in combination, adding a new dimension to
the unusual sounds they already generate. For example, many of the note bends occur while the
player inserts and/or removes a mute, as happens in mm. 25-38 and 45-52 in the ensemble
trumpets, and the mute is rapidly moved in and out of the bell while playing a pedal G# in the
solo trumpet in mm. 62-63. The mouthpiece is played into a cup mute in mm. 26-36 in the solo
trumpet, as well as being played in the pedal register (indicated as “lowest possible sound”)
while flutter tonguing in mm. 32-34 in the solo trumpet.

The opening chord is followed by several measures in which the ensemble trumpets perform
“palm slaps”, labelled “P.S.” This effect is accomplished by slapping the open bore of the
mouthpiece (while it is still inserted in the trumpet) with the palm of the hand, creating
percussive “popping” sounds with pitches that correspond to the trumpet's seven valve
combinations. While the palm slaps are notated without specific pitch, Cope has indicated in his
Instructions that the performer may “change fingering to alter pitch slightly”, although he does
not specify whether the fingerings should change during the course of each individual line, or if
different fingerings should be used consistently in the individual ensemble parts. He has,
however, clearly notated several complex rhythms for the “palm slaps”, which, when performed
simultaneously by several trumpets, create a dense rhythmic texture of popping sounds. It is
very important when performing this effect not to strike the mouthpiece too hard, as applying too
much force will cause the mouthpiece to become stuck in the trumpet.

In addition to generating percussive sounds from the trumpet, Cope has included the use of a
gong in Extensions, interspersing it throughout the composition. He has indicated in his
Instructions that the performer should use the largest gong or tam-tam available, and has
indicated the use of five different types of beaters: a large wood hammer, a large soft mallet, a
metal beater (triangle beater), hard rubber mallets, and a metal bar. Fortunately, Cope has given
clear instructions in the score for how the gong should be played, detailing where and how the
gong should be struck and which beaters should be used. In addition to being struck, the gong is
also to be used as a resonator for the trumpet's sound in m. 83, where Cope advises the performer
to “play directly into (the) gong” and “experiment to find the place for best ring off”.
104

Other non-trumpet effects are created in Extensions through different types of vocalizations.
Several different vocal sounds occur throughout the composition, with whispered syllables being
the most often used. These syllables consist of a consonant followed by a vowel with a
diacritical mark indicating its pronunciation: the macron ( ¯ ) which indicates a long vowel
sound, and the breve ( ˘ ) which indicates a short vowel sound. There is no strict meaning to the
syllables; they are what Cope describes as “emotives”.74

Figure 37. David Cope, Extensions, mm. 18-20 (trumpets 1 and 2). Syllables.

18 19 20

These syllables follow carefully notated (and often complex) rhythms, providing an interesting
textural effect, especially when layered in several parts. They are generally whispered at a forte
dynamic level (as in a stage whisper so that they will be sufficiently audible), although they are
also spoken out loud in m. 106 during a particularly loud and chaotic passage which also features
yells on the syllables “Ah”, “Eh”, and “Go”.

The performer(s) is also required to sing sustained pitches in the ensemble parts in mm. 52-56.
Using the syllable “ah”, the sung pitches provide an alternative to the trumpet timbre while
maintaining harmonic and textural continuity with the surrounding measures. These sung
pitches range from F in the treble clef to the D a major sixth higher. These pitches will fit
comfortably in the vocal range of most female performers, however they will be in the falsetto
range for most male performers.

74
David Cope, interview with Michael Barth, July 22, 2010.
105

Cope also makes frequent use of aleatoric passages in Extensions, which do not necessarily
involve unconventional manners of playing the trumpet, but do involve unconventional manners
of reading music. The most frequently occurring aleatoric passages are the “F.N.” passages, in
which F.N. stands for “Fast” and “Not Even”. These passages consist of a small group of
(usually) five notes, which are initially to be played in the order shown, and then in any order for
the remainder of the passage as indicated by the wavy line. These notes do not have notated
rhythms, but are to be played as fast as possible, except when 'slow' is indicated. They are also
subject to accelerations and decelerations as indicated by “accel.” and “rit.”, which refers
specifically to the note speed of the “F.N.” passages, rather than the tempo of the composition.
These groups of notes also move by “glissando” according to the notation “F.N. Gliss”, in which
the groups of notes move in the direction indicated while maintaining their interval relationships.

Figure 38. David Cope, Extension, mm. 9-11 (trumpets 1 and 2). “F.N.” and “F.N. Gliss”

9 10 11

Other aleatoric passages are the rapid indeterminate runs of notes that occur in mm. 65-66 and
several times in the solo cadenza (mm. 82-102). In m. 65 a “fast run” is indicated in which as
many notes as possible are to be played in the duration given, following the shape of the line
drawn on the staff while avoiding tonal scales. A similar indication is given in the cadenza in m.
93, although here the player is humming through the trumpet while playing. In both of these
cases the performer, although he or she will be avoiding tonal scales, will be playing scale-like
passages consisting of relatively small intervals. However, in m. 97 the player must again play
as many notes as possible in the indicated duration, but must play them “not at all scale like”,
indicating that the player should use wider intervals, creating an angular, arpeggiated passage.
106

7.5 Analysis

Extensions follows a modified sonata form including an introduction, exposition with two theme
groups, development, cadenza, and coda. Given the significant harmonic and formal differences
between this composition and the traditional sonata, however, labeling this piece as a “sonata”
provides an approximation that is used here for practical purposes only. Alternatively, this piece
might be described as a binary form with an introduction, cadenza, and coda, where the ‘A’
section would take the place of the exposition and the ‘B’ section would take the place of the
development.

As Extensions is largely atonal, it can not be related to sonata form on a tonal level, and its lack
of a recapitulation causes it to differ significantly from traditional sonata form. However, the
clearly identifiable theme groups in mm. 9-38 and their subsequent exploration in mm. 39-81
parallel the exposition and development sections of a sonata, and the absence of a distinct
recapitulation is not without precedence in sonata form. This is similar to the “Type 2” sonatas
described in Hepokoski and Darcy’s Elements of Sonata Theory, which, although they describe a
classical model of sonata form, provide a convenient parallel to the form in Extensions.
Hepokoski and Darcy describe “Type 2” sonatas as “double rotational” (or binary) structures
which “do not have recapitulations at all, in the strictest sense of the term.”75 Rather, the second
“rotations” in these forms contain “developmental spaces” that explore the primary thematic and
transitional material or their episodic substitutes, “grafted onto tonal resolutions” that contain
secondary thematic and closing material.76 Although Extensions does not follow this model
precisely (and can not due to its lack of “tonal resolutions”), this Sonata type provides a suitable
template on which to base this analysis. A form diagram describing the major sections and their
contents is shown below.

75
Hepokoski, James and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types and
Deviations in the Late-18th-Century Sonata (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 354.
76
Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements, 354.
107

Figure 39. Extensions Form Diagram

Introduction (mm. 1-8) “Penetrating”

ensemble: octatonic opening chord followed by percussive palm slaps on mouthpiece

Exposition (mm. 9-38) “Flowing”

- First Theme Group (mm. 9-18)


ensemble: chromatic “F.N.” passages, “tear-offs” in chromatic pairs outlining octatonic
tonality
solo: twelve-tone row A

- Transition (mm. 18-19)


ensemble: whispered syllables

- Second Theme Group (mm. 20-38)


ensemble: long notes - octatonic sonority
solo: whispered syllables, mouthpiece buzzes

Development (mm. 39-82)

“With Contrast” (mm. 39-55)


- explores some of the elements of both theme groups of the exposition in brief
segments, including mouthpiece buzzes, gong strikes, whispered syllables, chromatic
pairs, and octatonic tonality

“Slow Buildup” (mm. 55-82)


- develops twelve-tone rows interspersed with textural elements from the exposition
(gong strikes, pedal tones, whispered syllables, F.N. passages) while gradually building
in intensity toward the climax of the piece

Cadenza (mm. 83-102) “Slight Rubato”

solo: further exploration of twelve-tone rows

Development 2 (compressed restatement) (mm. 103-108) “Tight Masses”

solo and ensemble: statements of most of the composition’s musical elements in rapid
succession

Coda (mm. 109-118) “Gentle”

ensemble: long notes occurring in chromatic pairs, neither fully chromatic nor octatonic
108

The introduction of Extensions (mm. 1-8), labeled “Penetrating”, begins with a fortissimo chord
in the ensemble trumpets. This chord consists of the notes B♭, C♯, G, C, A, and F♯ in
trumpets two, three, four, five, seven, and eight respectively, while trumpets one and six play “as
high as possible.” The notes in this chord form the harmonic and melodic basis for much of the
composition, consisting of three chromatic note pairs (G/F♯, B♭/A, and C♯/C) that form two
diminished triads (G-B♭-C♯ and F♯-A-C) and comprise most of the notes of an octatonic
scale. Several different note-lengths are employed for each note of the chord, ranging from a
triplet-eighth-note in trumpet eight to a double-dotted quarter-note in trumpet six, giving the
opening chord an uneven quality.

The notes marked “as high as possible” in trumpets one and six present an interesting harmonic
aspect to this chord. These notes will vary according to the limits of the performer’s upper
register, and can potentially add an extraordinary dimension to the composition. However, if all
of the ensemble parts are recorded by the same trumpet player, it is logical that the “highest note
possible” will always be the same. Another approach to these notes might be to play the highest
note that the performer considers reasonable, an approach that would allow the performer to
complement or enhance the harmonic texture. In the case of the opening chord, the performer
might simply choose to play two different high notes to add variety to the harmony and avoid
overpowering the rest of the chord. They may also choose to play a note that is already being
played in one of the other trumpet parts in a higher octave, or expand the chord by playing an E
or E♭, turning the diminished triads into full diminished chords and completing the octatonic
sonority suggested by the other trumpet voices.

The music following the opening chord is played in the ensemble trumpets and consists of “palm
slaps” alternating with single notes played normally. Over the next six measures the “palm
slaps”, described in the section on extended techniques, are performed with different rhythms for
each ensemble trumpet, creating a dense percussive texture across the ensemble. However, some
of the palm slaps are marked sf, meaning “extra hard slap”, allowing them to occasionally stand
out from the texture.

Single notes are interspersed among the palm slaps beginning in m. 2. They are to be played
loudly (marked sffz), and are followed immediately by either a downward “kiss off” or an
upward “rip”. Many of these notes are notated as distinct pitches, although several of them are
109

to be played “as high as possible”. These interjections occur infrequently at first, with only two
of them in each of measures 2 and 3, and they occur more frequently as the palm slaps disappear
during the next five bars. By the eighth measure the palm slaps have disappeared completely
and the music is comprised solely of notes played on the trumpet. Each of the ensemble
trumpets plays a small group of one to four pitches, and although they are not ordered in a
particular pattern, most of the twelve chromatic pitches are played between mm. 2 – 8 (the only
note missing is D♯). This section finishes at the end of m. 8 as the ensemble trumpets converge
on a G, which crescendos to fff at the beginning of m. 9.

The exposition begins in m. 9, and the first theme group occurs in mm. 9-18. Labeled
“Flowing”, it opens with a loud gong strike (marked sffz) in the solo trumpet, as the G from the
previous measure in the ensemble trumpets ends abruptly at the beginning of the bar. Here the
ensemble trumpets create a new texture as they take cup mutes and begin playing chromatic
“F.N.” passages which are also described in the section on extended techniques. In mm. 9-10
each ensemble trumpet plays five chromatic pitches encompassing a major third (except trumpet
six which plays four pitches encompassing a minor third), and the entire chromatic scale is
covered by the ensemble trumpets.

The flowing chromatic texture created by the ensemble trumpets is contrasted by the solo
trumpet’s fff entrance in m. 11. Marked “viciously”, each note in the solo trumpet part is to be
played “very short and harsh” is it moves through a twelve-tone row. This is the first twelve-
tone row of the composition, and is referred to here as “row A”: E F♯ G F C B D C♯ E♭ B♭
A A♭.
110

Figure 40. Matrix for Tone Row ‘A’

Matrix for Row A

I0 I2 I3 I1 I8 I7 I10 I9 I11 I6 I5 I4

P0 E F♯ G F C B D C♯ E♭ B♭ A A♭ R0

P10 D E F D♯ A♯ A C B C♯ A♭ G G♭ R10

P9 C♯ D♯ E D A A♭ B B♭ C G F♯ F R9

P11 D♯ F F♯ E B B♭ C♯ C D A A♭ G R11

P4 G♯ A♯ B A E E♭ G♭ F G D D♭ C R4

P5 A B C B♭ F E G G♭ A♭ E♭ D C♯ R5

P2 F♯ G♯ A G D D♭ E D♯ F C B B♭ R2

P3 G A A♯ G♯ E♭ D F E F♯ C♯ C B R3

P1 F G A♭ F♯ C♯ C E♭ D E B B♭ A R1

P6 B♭ C C♯ B F♯ F A♭ G A E D♯ D R6

P7 B C♯ D C G G♭ A A♭ B♭ F E E♭ R7

P8 C D D♯ C♯ G♯ G B♭ A B F♯ F E R8

RI0 RI2 RI3 RI1 RI8 RI7 RI10 RI9 RI11 RI6 RI5 RI4

This row contains three segments which are bound together chromatically: the first four notes
encompass all of the semitones between E and G, the next five notes encompass the semitones
between B and E♭, and the last three notes are A♭, A, and B♭. The three segments are
separated by wider intervals: a perfect fourth (or fifth) between the last note of the first segment
and the first note of the second segment, and another perfect fourth (or fifth) between the last
111

note of the second segment and the first note of the third segment. The chromatic content of the
row is often melodically expanded into wider intervals such as major and minor ninths, and
major sevenths.

This row is played over mm. 11-13, with the last two notes of the row repeated in m. 14. The
row begins again in m.15, but this time some liberties are taken with the organization of the row,
reversing the orders of the B and C in m. 15 and the C♯ and D in m. 16, as well as skipping the
ninth through the eleventh notes of the row (E♭, B♭, A) before ending the row in m. 17. This
treatment of the row is consistent with Cope’s philosophy of serial composition, expressed in his
text New Music Composition: “…it would seem that the pantonal or atonal process must be
maintained throughout a given composition for it to have any consistent validity; however …
constant chromaticism is as directionless as constant diatonicism.”77

The chromatic murmuring of the ensemble trumpets changes occasionally in this section, and the
first change occurs in m. 11 with a “slight rit.” (which refers to the note speed and not the overall
tempo) as the range of the ensemble notes contracts to a perfect fourth between C♯ and F♯.
The change in register is accomplished by an “F.N. Gliss”, in which the groups of notes move in
the indicated direction while maintaining their internal interval relationships. The range of the
chromatic F.N. groups gradually expands again over the next four measures as the group of notes
played by trumpet two ascends to encompass B♭ in m. 12, the group of notes in trumpet one
ascends to B♮ in m. 14, and the group of notes played by trumpet eight descends to include C♮ in
m. 15. After a crescendo to ff in m. 16 the fast notes diminuendo, ritard, and glissando down to a
perfect fifth between A and E by m. 17, eventually easing away from the tone completely by the
beginning of m. 18 as they fade into “key clicks only and tongue trill”.

The fast chromatic notes are interrupted by two “tear offs” in m. 12 on the notes A♭ and G,
which are made by a rapid crescendo to fff while the cup mute is temporarily removed from the
trumpet’s bell. Other “tear offs” occur in chromatic pairs following this, with G/F♯ and B♭/A
in m. 14, and E/D♯, C♯/C, and G/F♯ in m. 15. The notes from mm. 14-15 form two
diminished chords (G-B♭-C♯-E and F♯-A-C-D♯), which together form an octatonic scale

77
Cope, David, New Music Composition (New York: Schirmer Books, 1977), 14.
112

(C-C♯-D♯-E-F♯-G-A-B♭), and with the exception of the E and D♯, are the same as the
notes of the opening chord of the composition.

The first theme group is followed by a transition in mm. 18-19 in which all of the ensemble parts
perform whispered syllables, using different syllables and rhythms in each part. The use of
whispered syllables is discussed in the section on extended techniques, and here they provide an
unexpected and interesting texture.

The second theme group of the exposition lasts from mm. 20-38, and begins with the dotted
eighth-note in trumpet five at the end of the m. 20. The ensemble trumpets use whisper mutes in
this section, inserting and removing the mutes as indicated by the ‘+’ (muted) and ‘o’ (open)
indications. The use of whisper mutes (i.e. practice mutes or other styles of mutes which greatly
dampen the trumpet’s sound) aids in the creation of this section’s soft dynamic level, which
varies from pp to mp from mm. 20-35 with an overall indication of sempre piano “unless
otherwise noted” with f interjections when the mute is removed.

The pitch content of mm. 20-28 consists of chromatic note pairs arranged in major sevenths.
These are the same chromatic pairs that appeared earlier in the composition, comprising the
notes of the same octatonic scale that has been used up to this point. These notes are held for
seven or more beats, beginning and ending at different times in each of the ensemble trumpet
parts. They are played with soft accents, resulting in a shifting, unstable texture, even though the
notes do not change over these nine measures. The octatonic sonority begins to destabilize in
mm. 25-28 as the notes are played with “slow and even” bends, causing their pitch to slightly
rise or fall, depending on the shape of the line beneath the note. These pitch bends are
emphasized as the mute is removed and the dynamic is temporarily increased to f before the mute
is replaced.
113

Figure 41. David Cope, Extensions, mm. 24-26 (trumpet 6). Pitch bends.

24 25 26

The octatonic tonality is destabilized further beginning in m. 29 as the pitches begin to move by
half-steps. These pitch changes are emphasized with “pop” notes, in which the mute is quickly
removed and replaced while playing “very harsh accents” and then “immediately soft”. The
intensity of this section increases during mm. 28-36 as the tonality becomes increasingly
chromatic, the dynamic level grows stronger, and the note lengths decrease. This section reaches
a climax in mm. 37-38 with a fff chord cluster across the entire ensemble (including the solo
trumpet), encompassing each of the chromatic pitches from E in the fourth space of the staff to
the C above it.

While the ensemble trumpets provide a sustained harmonic background from mm. 20-38, the
solo trumpet performs contrasting material which consists of whispered syllables (similar to
those in mm. 18-19) and staccato mouthpiece buzzes. An unusual effect is called for as the
performer is required to buzz the mouthpiece into a cup mute when indicated with a ‘+’ sign.
The notation here does not indicate exact pitches for the mouthpiece buzzes; instead the
performer follows the general contour of the notated line, allowing for considerable flexibility
regarding the pitches used. Another interesting effect called for in this section is buzzing the
lowest sound possible on the mouthpiece while flutter tonguing.

Following the fff chord in m. 38, the first section of the development, labeled “With Contrast”,
begins in m. 39 and lasts until m. 60. It is not explicitly stated which elements of this section are
to be contrasted with each other. However, the composer may be referring to this section’s
several segments of one to five measures which contain contrasting musical and textural
elements. It is through these brief phrases that the music of the exposition is developed, as its
musical ideas are expanded and juxtaposed against each other.
114

The first segment of the development begins in the solo part with a brief statement buzzed on the
mouthpiece in m. 39, followed by a flurry of mouthpiece buzzes of several different rhythms and
pitches in the ensemble in m. 40. This outburst of buzzes gradually dissipates over the following
two measures.

The next segment begins with a gong strike in the solo trumpet on the beat before m. 43. Gong
strikes follow on different beats of m. 43 in each of the ensemble parts before the solo trumpet
begins the next segment with a long muted B♮ in m. 44. Similar sustained tones are played in
the first, fourth, fifth and seventh ensemble trumpets in mm. 44-46, occurring within a semitone
of the B♮ as two of them play B♮ while the other two play C and A♯. These long notes of six
or more beats are also muted and include note bends which move by a quarter-tone or semi-tone
either toward or away from the B♮ while the mute is temporarily removed.

The next segment begins as the ensemble trumpets move from sustained tones to rhythmic
whispered syllables in mm. 47-49, while trumpets two, three, six and eight play the gong, either
swirling a metal beater around the rim or softly rapping a metal beater near the rim. Another
segment of long notes begins in the solo trumpet in m. 50, again with a long B♮ followed by long
notes in the first, fourth, fifth and seventh ensemble trumpets. This time the texture is slightly
expanded by playing within a whole tone of the B♮, as two ensemble trumpets play B♮ and the
other two play C♯ and A♮. As in mm. 44-46, the notes bend either toward or away from the B♮
while temporarily removing the mute. The B♮ is reemphasized in the next segment as trumpets 3
and 6 sing a B♮ in mm. 52 and 53. The rest of the ensemble trumpet parts also begin singing in
m. 54, creating a chord from chromatic pairs of notes which comprise an octatonic scale, this
time a semitone away from the earlier octatonic tonality: C♯ D E F G G♯ A♯ B. The sung
octatonic chord lasts through m. 55 and two beats into m. 56, with each voice dropping out one
at a time as the first theme group of the development ends.

The second part of the development begins as the solo trumpet plays a new twelve-tone row (row
‘B’), starting on beat four of m. 55. This row is different from row A, but does have a significant
relationship with it as row B is made up of four chromatic trichords which are identical to the
first three notes of the retrograde and retrograde inversions of row A. As was the case with row
115

A in the exposition, row B is presented in an angular fashion, containing several major sevenths
and minor ninths.
Figure 42. Matrix for Tone Row ‘B’

Matrix for Row B

I0 I1 I2 I5 I4 I3 I11 I10 I9 I8 I7 I6

P0 B C C♯ E E♭ D B♭ A G♯ G F♯ F R0

P11 B♭ B C E♭ D D♭ A A♭ G G♭ F E R11

P10 A B♭ B D C♯ C A♭ G F♯ F E E♭ R10

P7 F♯ G A♭ B B♭ A F E D♯ D D♭ C R7

P8 G G♯ A C B A♯ F♯ F E E♭ D D♭ R8

P9 G♯ A A♯ C♯ C B G F♯ F E D♯ D R9

P1 C C♯ D F E E♭ B B♭ A G♯ G F♯ R1

P2 C♯ D D♯ G♭ F E C B B♭ A A♭ G R2

P3 D D♯ E G G♭ F D♭ C B B♭ A A♭ R3

P4 E♭ E F G♯ G F♯ D C♯ C B B♭ A R4

P5 E F F♯ A A♭ G D♯ D C♯ C B B♭ R5

P6 F F♯ G B♭ A G♯ E D♯ D C♯ C B R6

RI0 RI1 RI2 RI5 RI4 RI3 RI11 RI10 RI9 RI8 RI7 RI6

Row B ends in m. 60, at which point the “slow buildup” begins. This lasts from mm. 60-81,
leading to the climax of the composition. The focus here is on the serial aspect of the piece with
116

several tone rows presented in conjunction with textural effects. The row played by the solo
trumpet in mm. 55-60 is extended as trumpet 1 continues its last note (F) before it begins playing
P4 of row B. This statement in trumpet 1 uses the same wide intervals (but not the same
rhythms) as the statement of the original row in the solo trumpet in mm. 55-60. Another new
twelve-tone row (row ‘C’) also begins in m. 60 in trumpet 5, and lasts until the A♭ on beat two
of m. 65 (although it is extended with two notes from outside the row: B and D♯).

Figure 43. Matrix for Tone Row ‘C’ Matrix for Row C

I0 I10 I9 I8 I5 I4 I3 I2 I1 I11 I6 I7

P0 C♯ B A♯ A F♯ F E D♯ D C G G♯ R0

P2 D♯ C♯ C B G♯ G F♯ F E D A A♯ R2

P3 E D C♯ C A G♯ G F♯ F E♭ B♭ B R3

P4 F D♯ D C♯ B♭ A A♭ G F♯ E B C R4

P7 A♭ G♭ F E C♯ C B B♭ A G D E♭ R7

P8 A G F♯ F D C♯ C B B♭ A♭ D♯ E R8

P9 B♭ G♯ G F♯ E♭ D C♯ C B A E F R9

P10 B A G♯ G E D♯ D C♯ C B♭ F F♯ R10

P11 C A♯ A G♯ F E D♯ D C♯ B F♯ G R11

P1 D C B B♭ G F♯ F E D♯ C♯ A♭ A R1

P6 G F E E♭ C B B♭ A G♯ F♯ C♯ D R6

P5 F♯ E E♭ D B B♭ A G♯ G F C D♭ R5

RI0 RI10 RI9 RI8 RI5 RI4 RI3 RI2 RI1 RI11 RI6 RI7
117

This row has some similarities to row A as it also contains three segments of notes which are
comparable in size and pitch content to the three segments of row A.

In m. 65 trumpets 3 and 7 take over the final notes of the phrases played by trumpets 1 and 5 (A♮
in trumpets 1/3 and D♯ in trumpets 5/7), and during mm. 65-67 they proceed to play P4 of row
B together, sharing the notes of the row between the two parts. P4 of row B begins again in m.
68 in trumpet 7, and again this row is shared between trumpets 3 and 7 in mm. 68-69. However,
this statement of the row differs slightly from its original version as some of the notes are
rearranged: the second trichord of the row (F G♯ G) is inserted within the first trichord of the
row (D♯ E F), which itself is out of order as the F precedes the E. The third trichord (D C♯ C)
is also out of order as the C precedes the C♯. The fourth trichord remains intact. P4 of row B
begins again in m. 70, with the first note (D♯) played by trumpet 7, and the rest of the row
played by the solo trumpet in a rapid flourish.

Twelve-tone rows are not used in mm. 71-73. However, the essence of row B is preserved with
chromatic three-note fragments in the solo, third, and seventh trumpets. Examples of this
include G♯-G-F♯ and D♯-E-F in trumpet 3, B-A-A♯ in trumpet 7, and C♯-B-B♭ and B-
B♭-A in the solo trumpet.

Twelve-tone rows occur again in m. 73-77 in trumpets 1 and 3, and these trumpet parts use
similar rhythms and intervals as trumpet 1 plays P4 of row B and trumpet 3 plays row C.
Trumpet 5 plays three-note fragments in mm. 74, 75, and 77 which are similar in structure to the
opening three notes of the rows begun by trumpets 1 and 3 in m. 73. Trumpet 7 provides
harmonic support from mm. 73-77, playing the last four notes of RI5 of row C twice in
succession in the low register.

In addition to the serial content of mm. 60-77, several textural effects are created by the trumpet
parts that are not playing twelve-tone rows. These include gong strikes, rhythmically whispered
syllables, sucking sounds, fast passages of indeterminate notes, pedal tones, and chromatic
“F.N.” passages.

During this part of the development the dynamic gradually builds from pp in m. 60 to fff in m.
70, with the indication “as loud as possible”. To this strong dynamic is added an increase in
118

density, speed, and register as each of the trumpet parts perform “F.N.” groups beginning in
m.77 that gradually accelerate and glissando upward through the first three beats of m. 79,
leading to the climax of the composition in mm. 79-81. At this point the solo, first, third, fifth,
and seventh trumpets are playing different notes in different rhythms, and the five notes used
(F♯ G♯ A B C) suggest a third octatonic tonality, the only other possible octatonic tonality that
has not yet been used in this piece. The other trumpets (2, 4, 6, and 8) are each playing different
rhythms on the gong, and as each ensemble part is playing at full volume these measures are the
loudest of the composition. This development closes at the end of m. 81 as is punctuated by a fff
gong strike in m. 82 by the solo trumpet before it plays a sustained B in m. 83, leading into the
cadenza.

The cadenza lasts from mm. 83-102, with a total duration of 1’30”. It is to be performed with
“slight rubato”, however, if the soloist is performing with a recording of the ensemble parts, the
cadenza must fit within the time frame of the recording. The sustained B from m. 83 provides
the first note of I7 of row A, which is played through the third beat of m. 86. This is followed in
mm. 87-92 by short statements that begin with either a major or minor seventh, alternating with
flutter-tongued pedal tones. A rapid scale passage follows in mm. 93-94 in which “recognizable
scales” are to be avoided while following the general shape of the line. The passage following
this in m. 95-96 consists of the second through twelfth notes of row A and the sixth through
eleventh notes of I7 of row A, while the last three notes of this passage do not belong to any of
the previous rows.

Measures 97-102 consist of rapid indeterminate passages, which are to be played as fast as
possible and with as many notes as possible, not using specific pitches but following the general
stem length and “not at all scale like”. These outbursts are punctuated by sf staccato notes, the
first five of which are the eighth through twelfth notes of I2 of row A, building to “kiss off” notes
in the upper register at the end of the cadenza in m. 102.

Following the cadenza, many of the musical and textural elements of the composition come
together in rapid succession in mm. 103-108, similar to their presentation in the development but
in a more compressed fashion. Chromatic pairs occur in major sevenths in m. 103 (although here
they do not suggest an octatonic tonality as was the case earlier in the composition) and as minor
seconds in m. 105 (where they do outline an octatonic scale). Gong strikes occur in mm. 104,
119

105, and 108, whispered syllables occur in m. 104, pedal tones are played in m. 104, yells and
mouthpiece palm slaps in m. 106, mouthpiece buzzes in mm. 106 and 107, and “F.N.” groups in
mm. 106-108.

The coda, marked “Gentle”, provides a calm and contrasting ending in mm. 109-118. The
dynamic here is quite soft (ppp to mp), and except for the fifth trumpet, each part plays one
sustained note. However, the collection of notes does not suggest a particular tonality, and most
of the notes of the chromatic scale (except F♯ and B♭) are used in this section. Ensemble parts
are gradually added from mm. 109-113 until all of the ensemble trumpets are playing, and
gradually removed from mm. 115-118 as the long notes fade to ppp. The piece ends with a
gentle gong strike in the solo trumpet in m. 118, which is allowed to ring until it stops on its
own.
120

Chapter 8
Conclusions

Although the four compositions examined in this dissertation represent the main compositional
styles contained in the List, they only represent these categories in a very broad sense. Within
each subgenre, especially those involving fixed media and live electronics, there is a tremendous
diversity of compositional styles and concepts that vary greatly among the composers and time
periods in which they were written. This variety of music has developed as music technology
has evolved, and illustrates how the flexibility of electronic music technology has allowed
composers to find unique compositional voices using the technology they have had available.
Thus further avenues for research involving this repertoire could be to examine these subgenres
in more detail (for example the repertoire for trumpet and fixed media electronics), the time
periods during which they were written (for example music for trumpet and live electronics from
2000-2010), or characteristic musical elements present in the repertoire (for example the use of
electronic delay).

Advances in electronic music technology are of significant concern to electronic composers, and
as Blaauw pointed out in his interview “the electronics world is constantly changing, so you have
to be renewing all the time.” This is undoubtedly a challenging aspect of this music, but an
important one that allows composers to continually refine and expand their compositional
language. It also has had significant effects on the trajectory of the repertoire as new
technologies have expanded the possibilities available to electronic composers over time. This is
demonstrated by the increasing popularity of music for trumpet and live electronics as
represented in the List, which grew considerably from the 1980s onward. It may also be
apparent in the increasing sophistication of the repertoire for fixed media electronics, and it
would be interesting if this were to be researched as a quantifiable aspect of this music.

Based on the information presented in the List, it would appear that music for trumpet and live
electronics will continue growing in popularity. This is relevant to the continued evolution of the
121

trumpet as live electronics provide a direct way to expand the characteristic qualities of the
instrument, a possibility that has been seized upon by the forward-thinking musicians
interviewed for this dissertation. However, it also appears likely that music with fixed media
electronics, the most common type on the List, will remain a significant part of this repertoire.
The ability to create electronic music, especially with computer music software, has advanced
very rapidly and to a degree that allows composers to create electronic music virtually
unimpeded by technical obstacles. It can also be performed with relatively simple technological
requirements, making it more accessible to performers.

Advances in music technology and the coinciding developments in electronic music styles and
concepts might imply that older electronic compositional methods have become redundant.
Indeed, it would seem highly unlikely that a composer would go to the trouble of manually
cutting and splicing audiotape when the same effect could be achieved more precisely and in a
fraction of the time using computer software. However, this doesn’t lessen the validity of
compositions like Harvey’s Ricercare una Melodia or Cope’s Extensions that use technologies
that are antiquated by modern standards. Although the methods used by Harvey and Cope were
dictated by the technology they had available, the pieces they composed would be just as
interesting had they been conceived using modern technology. Additionally, while it is unlikely
that modern composers would be interested in using audiotape to realize their compositions,
pieces like Harvey’s and Cope’s provide an important step in the development of the repertoire
by creating a style that could still be used and expanded upon today. For example, tape speed or
the physical number of tracks available would no longer be limiting factors in pieces involving
looping of musical material. Similarly, music with multitrack accompaniment would no longer
be limited by the number of tape tracks available, allowing for pieces with any number of
accompanying parts.

Although the repertoire for solo trumpet and electronics has so far remained relatively obscure
and unstudied, there seems to be significant promise for its future. One reason for this is that
advances in technology not only improve the ways in which this music can be created, but also
how it can be distributed. The Internet has made it very easy to contact composers and obtain
performance materials. For example, it is quite simple (and free) to download the Pure Data
software and contact Agostino Di Scipio to obtain the score and software patch for his Modes of
Interference. This holds significance not only for the ease by which music can be sought out and
122

distributed, but also for the relationships between composers and performers. As it becomes
easier for composers to share their music directly with musicians it also becomes easier for them
to communicate and share ideas with each other. This is a significant issue for music of any
genre, but appears particularly important for this repertoire as more than half of the music from
the List was either unpublished or published directly by the composers who wrote it.

The continued growth and acceptance of this repertoire is dependent on composers continuing to
create this music and performers being willing to perform it. The performance and promotion of
this music by influential performers and teachers will continue to bring it to a wider audience and
a broader base of musicians who are interested in expanding their repertoire in new directions. It
is also encouraging that many universities have electroacoustic music studios and include
electronic composition as significant parts of their programs, and as young composers and
performers interact with each other the creativity and strength of this repertoire will continue to
grow. Finally, it is the hope of the author that the information contained in this dissertation will
be of value and will encourage the exploration of a remarkable new repertoire by musicians who
are interested in expanding their horizons as performers.
123

Bibliography

Books

Bate, Philip. The Trumpet and Trombone. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1972.

Cope, David. New Directions in Music. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1971.

Cope, David. New Music Composition. New York: Schirmer Books, 1977.

Griffiths, Paul. A Concise History or Modern Music: from Debussy to Boulez. Great Britain:
Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Hein, Folkmar and Thomas Seelig. International Documentation of Electroacoustic Music.


Germany: Pfauverlag, 1996.

Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types and Deviations
in the Late-18th-Century Sonata. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Manning, Peter. Electronic and Computer Music. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=2042. Also available in print form.

Schoenberg, Arnold. Style and Idea: The Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg. Edited by
Leonard Stein. Translated by Leo Black. London: Faber, 1951.

Tarr, Edward. The Trumpet. Translated by S.E. Plank and Edward Tarr. London: B.T. Batsford
Ltd., 1988.

Articles in Journals and Periodicals

Anderson, Christine. “Dynamic Networks of Sonic Interactions: An Interview with Agostino Di


Scipio.” Computer Music Journal 29 no.3 (October 2005): 11-28.
http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/journal.xqy?uri=/153151
69.

Blitstein, Ryan. “Triumph of the Cyborg Composer.” Miller McCune, 22 February 2010.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
(accessed 8 April 2010).

Handy, Jocelyn, and Kirsty Ross. “Using Written Accounts in Qualitative Research.” South
Pacific Journal of Psychology 16, no.1 (2005): 40-47,
http://spjp.massey.ac.nz/issues/2005-v16/v16-handy.pdf (accessed April 13, 2011).
124

Harvey, Jonathan. “Reflection after Composition.” Tempo, New Series 140 (March 1982): 2-4,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/944831 (accessed 23 March 2010).

Harvey, Jonathan. “The Composer's View: Atonality.” The Musical Times 121, no. 1653
(November 1980): 699-700, http://www.jstor.org/stable/963776 (accessed 23 March
2010).

Levy, Robert. “Music in Manuscript.” The Brass World 8, No. 2 (1973): 103-108.

Mamula, Stephen. "Selected American composers: a profile and analysis." American Record
Guide 45 (May 1982): 2.

Other Papers

Di Scipio, Agostino. Description of the Digital Signal-Processing Methods. Italy: Di Scipio,


2006. CD-Rom.

Di Scipio, Agostino. “Using PD for Live Interactions in Sound. An Exploratory Approach.” 4th
International Linux Audio Conference. Karlsruhe, Germany. April 28, 2006.
http://lac.zkm.de/2006/presentations/lac2006_agostino_di_scipio.pdf (accessed July 22,
2010).

Hatch, Peter. “A Talk About Time. And Syntax in Music.” The 34th Ferienkurse fur Neue Musik.
Darmstadt, Germany. Summer, 1988.
http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/textDetails.php?writ=13 (accessed 18 August, 2010).

Websites and Web-based Resources

Cockrell, Dale. "Cope, David." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed July 6, 2010).

Cope, David. David Cope. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/biography.htm (accessed July 6,


2010).

Cope, David. Experiments in Musical Intelligence.


http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Cope/experiments (accessed 5 July, 2010).

Di Scipio, Agostino. Bio. http://xoomer.virgilio.it/adiscipi/bio.htm (accessed July 22, 2010).

Duo Contour. Stephen. http://www.duocontour.org/steve_page.htm (accessed April 13, 2011).

Hatch, Peter. Biography. http://info.wlu.ca/music/Hatch/biography.php (accessed August 18,


2010).
125

Hein, F., T. Seelig, G. Föllmer, R. Frank, L. Karbowska and S. Daemnig. The International
Documentation of Electroacoustic Music. http://www.emdoku.de/EMIntro-E.html
(accessed July 2, 2010).

Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival. Jonathan Harvey in Conversation.


http://www.hcmf.co.uk/HCMF-Composer-in-Residence-Jonathan-Harvey-in-
conversation (accessed 21 March 2010).

Impett, Jonathan. Biography. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett


(accessed March 15, 2010).

Impett, Jonathan. Metatrumpet. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/research/metatrumpet (accessed


March 15, 2010).

Levy, Robert. Robert Levy: Performer, http://www.robertlevymusic.com/performer.htm


(accessed July 6, 2010).

Placidi, Federico. “A conversation with Agostino Di Scipio,” trans. Valeria Grillo. Unidentified
Sound Object, posted June 13, 2010.
http://usoproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/conversation-with-agostino-di-scipio.html
(accessed July 22, 2010).

Whittall, Arnold. "Harvey, Jonathan." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed 20 March 2010).

Music Scores

Cope, David. Extensions. New York City, Seesaw Music Corp: 1976.

Di Scipio, Agostino. Modes of Interference. Italy, Di Scipio: 2006.

Harvey, Jonathan. Ricercare una Melodia. London, Faber Music: 1992.

Hatch, Peter. Ida, My Dear. Canada, Canadian Music Centre: 1995.

Interviews

Altoft, Stephen. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. June 24, 2010.

Blaauw, Marco. Interview with Michael Barth. Recording. August 21 and 22, 2010.

Cope, David. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. July 22, 2010.

Di Scipio, Agostino. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. August 27, 2010.
126

Harvey, Jonathan. Interview with Michael Barth. Recording. June 27, 2010.

Hatch, Peter. Interview with Larry Lake. Two New Hours. CBC radio, date unknown. Canadian
Music Centre compact disc AR2601. CentreStreams, www.musiccentre.ca (accessed
Aug. 18, 2010).

Hatch, Peter. Interview with Michael Barth. Email. August 13, 2010.

Impett, Jonathan. Interview with Michael Barth. Recording. September 16, 2010.

Liner Notes from Recordings

Hazendonk, Roeland. Liner Notes. Ladder of Escape 7. Jonathan Impett, perf. Attacca Babel
compact disc 9476 DDD, 1993.
127

Appendices

Appendix A – List of Compositions for Solo Trumpet and


Electronics

Composer Ammann, Benno


Title Refrain Lointain
Date 1979
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 6:26
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality Belgium

Composer Anderson, T.J.


Title Sunstar
Date 1984
Type Trumpet and cassette recorder
Duration 10’
Publisher N.Y. Composers’ Facsimile Edition, 1984
Score/Parts availability www.composers.com; http://tjandersonmusic.com
Recording
Other First performance by Richard Burkart (trumpet) and Peter Tender
(electronics) in May, 1994. Dedicated to Dizzy Gillespie.
Nationality USA
128

Composer Aust, Renard


Title How to Cry
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 10’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.amyhorvey.com
Recording Live recording, Amy Horvey, April 2004, Rotterdam, NL
Other Written for Amy Horvey
Nationality Germany

Composer Baars, Marcel


Title Ballade
Date 1989
Type Trumpet or Flugelhorn and Electronic Organ (Yamaha HX 1)
Duration 9’
Publisher Donemus
Score/Parts availability www.donemus.nl, UofT Library M 184 B12B3 1991
Recording
Other
Nationality The Netherlands

Composer Backman, Catharina


Title Aviatris
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and Tape
Duration 15’
Publisher Tons
Score/Parts availability www.mic.se
Recording
Other
Nationality Sweden
129

Composer Badings, Henk


Title Chaconne
Date 1965
Type Trumpet and electronic sound
Duration 12’
Publisher Donemus
Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 B2C4
Recording
Other
Nationality The Netherlands

Composer Bain, Reginald


Title Sins of the Past
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and digital signal processing computer
Duration 8’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/, rbain@mozart.sc.edu
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Bain, Reginald


Title The Seventh Trumpet
Date 1988
Type Flugelhorn and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/, rbain@mozart.sc.edu
Recording
Other
Nationality USA
130

Composer Behrman, David


Title Leapday Night
Date 1983/86
Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics
Duration 32:37
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording David Behrman with Ben Neill, Lovely LDC 1042
Other www.dbehrman.net
Nationality USA

Composer Behrman, David


Title Unforeseen Events
Date 1990’s
Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics
Duration 37:52
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording David Behrman with Ben Neill, XI 105CD
Other www.dbehrman.net
Nationality USA

Composer Ben-Tal, Oded


Title Still Life
Date
Type Trumpet with tape and live electronics (Pure Data software)
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability oded@ccrma.stanford.edu
Recording
Other ccrma.stanford.edu/~oded; written for Steven Altoft and his microtonal
trumpet; www.microtonaltrumpet.com;
http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/faculty/staff/cv.php?staffnum=668
Nationality Israel, studied for DMA in composition at Stanford in USA
131

Composer Blaauw, Marco


Title Emguux
Date
Type Piccolo trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.marcoblaauw.com
Recording mp3 available at www.marcoblaauw.com/en/listen
Other Performed by Marco Blaauw
Nationality The Netherlands

Composer Bousted, Donald


Title Slide
Date 2002
Type 24-division trumpet, cd, and video projection
Duration 20’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.donaldbousted.co.uk
Recording the end of the beginning – Microtonal Projects 002/3, 2007, Stephen
Altoft, trumpet
Other written for Stephen Altoft, www.microtonaltrumpet.com,
www.microtonalprojects.co.uk
Nationality England

Composer Bowles, Meg


Title Night Sun Journey
Date 1996
Type Trumpet and pre-recorded synthesizer
Duration
Publisher Kumatone Records
Score/Parts availability PO Box 97, New Fairfield CT, 06812, USA; kumatone@aol.com
Recording Meg Bowles/David Bilger - From the Dark Earth; Kumatone K-0387
Other Written for David Bilger; www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/9702pric.pdf
Nationality USA
132

Composer Bowles, Meg


Title Places Where Rivers Meet
Date 1997
Type Trumpet and pre-recorded synthesizer
Duration
Publisher Kumatone Records
Score/Parts availability PO Box 97, New Fairfield CT, 06812, USA; kumatone@aol.com
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Briggs, Taylor


Title 2008
Date Trumpet and Tape
Type 6’30”
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.societyofcomposers.org/user/taylorbriggs.html
Recording http://www.societyofcomposers.org/user/taylorbriggs.html
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Browning, Zack


Title Refrain
Date
Type Solo trumpet with optional amplification
Duration
Publisher Manduca
Score/Parts availability www.manducamusic.com/solotrumpet.htm
Recording
Other www.zackbrowning.com
Nationality USA
133

Composer Bryan, Chris


Title Dialogue
Date 2006
Type 19-division trumpet and computer
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability chrismbryan@gmail.com, cmbryan.com
Recording
Other written for Stephen Altoft
Nationality Born in USA, settled in England

Composer Bryan, Chris


Title Repetition and Spontaneity
Date 2007
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability chrismbryan@gmail.com, cmbryan.com
Recording
Other involves eighth-tone writing
Nationality Born in USA, settled in England

Composer Buchwald, Magdalena


Title Claritas
Date 1996
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality Poland
134

Composer Calí
Title Concerto for Trumpet and Tape
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording Ivano Ascari – Nuove Musiche per Tromba, Sonica Studios AZ 4758,
distributed by Ivano Ascari, Via Asiago, 3 1-38068 Rovereto TN, Italy
(+39) 0464 423233, fax (+39) 0464 432200
Other http://www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/9899recentprograms.pdf (page5);
performed by Ivano Ascari, professor of trumpet at Riva del Garda
State Conservatory of Music, Italy (ivanoascari@libero.it,
ivanoascari@gmail.com)
Nationality

Composer Cangemi, Gianluca


Title La notte dei mutamente
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/gianlucacangemi/catalogo.html
Recording
Other
Nationality Italy

Composer Cangemi, Gianluca


Title Occhifoschi
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 8’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/gianlucacangemi/catalogo.html
Recording Ivano Ascari - Nuove Musiche per Tromba Vol. 4
Other
Nationality Italy
135

Composer Cangemi, Gianluca


Title Not Final!
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and synth sounds
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/gianlucacangemi/catalogo.html
Recording
Other
Nationality Italy

Composer Carloséma, Bernard


Title Épigone
Date 1986
Type C Trumpet with Tape loop and reverb
Duration 3’30”
Publisher J.M. Fuzeau
Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M298 C294E62
Recording
Other
Nationality France

Composer Caviani, Ron


Title A and O?
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher DMA music
Score/Parts availability www.dmamusic.org/tromba
Recording
Other
Nationality USA
136

Composer Ceely, Robert


Title Hypallage
Date 1990
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 10’
Publisher American Composers Alliance
Score/Parts availability http://composers.com/?q=node/1369&PHPSESSID=
670ed820a609de50dba7a148b733c
Recording
Other www.ceelymusic.com
Nationality USA

Composer Centazzo, Andrea


Title Visita al cimitero degli ebrei
Date 1985
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.andreacentazzo.com
Recording
Other
Nationality Italy

Composer Chapman, Basil


Title Impressions for Solo trumpet and tape
Date 1975
Type Trumpet and tape (also uses flugelhorn)
Duration 6’20”
Publisher Pasquina Publishing
Score/Parts availability http://www.skipwagner.net/pasquina/
Recording
Other
Nationality Born in South Africa, settled in USA
137

Composer Chasalow, Eric


Title Out of Joint
Date 1994
Type Trumpet and cd
Duration 5’20”
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.ericchasalow.com
Recording Eric Chasalow: Left to his Own Devices (New World Records 80601);
UofT CD 14805
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Clarke, Michael


Title Cascade
Date
Type Trumpet and live computer processing
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.hud.ac.uk/mh/music_technology/research/john-michael-
clarke.php, j.m.clarke@hud.ac.uk
Recording
Other Written for Stephen Altoft
Nationality England

Composer Clarke, Michael


Title Prism
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and octophonic tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.hud.ac.uk/mh/music_technology/research/john-michael-
clarke.php , j.m.clarke@hud.ac.uk
Recording
Other Written for Stephen Altoft
Nationality England
138

Composer Clendenen, Bob


Title Music From Planet Trumpet: No. 4
Date 2004
Type Trumpet and “numerous electronics”
Duration 5’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://music.calarts.edu/~bobc/bobspage.html
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Clendenen, Bob


Title Music From Planet Trumpet: No. 5
Date 2003
Type Flugelhorn, cd playback and electronics
Duration 3’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://music.calarts.edu/~bobc/bobspage.html
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Coccioli, Lamberto


Title Antidotes: Red-earth
Date 1997
Type Natural trumpet, tape and live electronics
Duration 8:00
Publisher composer
Score/Parts availability on composer’s website
Recording available on request
Other www.lambertococcioli.com; written for Gabriele Cassone
Nationality Italy
139

Composer Cooman, Carson


Title Reclimbing Mayflower Hill
Date 2003
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 3’
Publisher Musik Fabrik
Score/Parts availability www.classicalmusicnow.com/carsoneng.htm#works
Recording sample on order website
Other www.carsoncooman.com
Nationality USA

Composer Connolly, Justin


Title Tesserae D, opus 15d
Date 1971
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 14’
Publisher Novello
Score/Parts availability Chester Novello hire library
(http://www.chesternovello.com/default.aspx?TabId=
2432&State_3041=2&workId_3041=9444#)
Recording
Other justinconnolly.com
Nationality England

Composer Cope, David


Title Bright Angel
Date 1972
Type Trumpet and Tape loop
Duration 10’
Publisher Seesaw
Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 C66
Recording
Other http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/
Nationality USA
140

Composer Cope, David


Title Extensions
Date 1973
Type Trumpet and Multi-track Tape (tape prepared by trumpet player, and
gong played by trumpet player)
Duration 12’
Publisher Seesaw
Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 C66E9 1976
Recording mp3 available at ftp://arts.ucsc.edu/pub/cope/extensions.mp3
Other tape prepared by performer; http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/
Nationality USA

Composer Crocker
Title Untitled
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other Premiere performance by Scott Macomber at San Francisco
conservatory of music in 1997
Nationality

Composer Dambrain, Cédric


Title in Memoriam F. Romitelli
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.cedricdambrain.net
Recording
Other
Nationality Belgium
141

Composer Dannenberg, Roger


Title Assuming that you want to dump data from module 1
Date 1989
Type Trumpet, computer, and animation
Duration 8’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/
Recording
Other Performances by composer
Nationality USA

Composer Dannenberg, Roger


Title Feedback
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and computer
Duration 8’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/
Recording
Other Performances by composer
Nationality USA

Composer Dannenberg, Roger


Title In Transit
Date 1997
Type Trumpet, electronics, computer animation
Duration 8’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/
Recording
Other interactive computer animation by Scott Draves -
www.draves.org/bomb
Nationality USA
142

Composer Dannenberg, Roger


Title Nitely News (solo trumpet version)
Date 1993
Type Trumpet, electronics, computer animation
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/
Recording
Other Performances by composer
Nationality USA

Composer Dannenberg, Roger


Title Resound! Fanfares for Trumpet and Computer
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and computer
Duration 10’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/
Recording Neal Berntsen on Trumpet Voices, www.nealberntsen.com
Other Seven fanfares to be performed individually or in combination
Nationality USA

Composer Dannenberg, Roger


Title The Words Are Simple
Date 1995
Type Trumpet, computer, and animation
Duration 8’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/
Recording
Other Performances by composer
Nationality USA
143

Composer Dashow, James


Title Morfologie
Date 1993
Type Trumpet and computer
Duration
Publisher BMG-Ricordi
Score/Parts availability
Recording Mauro Maur - James Dashow and Thomas DeLio, Neuma CD 450-90;
Mauro Maur – La Tromba, Intermezzo Media
Other www.jamesdashow.net
Nationality Italy

Composer Deak, Jon


Title Three Traveling Tunes
Date 1975
Type Trumpet and multitrack tape
Duration 7’30”
Publisher Carl Fischer
Score/Parts availability www.carlfischer.com
Recording
Other five trumpets may replace tape
Nationality USA

Composer Deniozos, Anargyros


Title Kagel Collage
Date 1987
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 18:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality Greece
144

Composer Diemente, Edward


Title Something Else
Date 1970
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Seesaw
Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT Library M87 D53S6
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Dion, André


Title Étude for trumpet and tape
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability andredion@tiscali.fr; http://www.sonmire.org/
Recording
Other http://narbonnaise.com/upload/media/img/
Panorama%20cult%202007.pdf; won the Prix Sacem in 1997
Nationality France

Composer Dion, André


Title Organique
Date 1997
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability See above
Recording
Other Won the Prix Sacem in 1998
Nationality France
145

Composer Di Scipio, Agostino


Title Hy Lur
Date 1987
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 12:50
Publisher
Score/Parts availability Withdrawn
Recording
Other http://xoomer.alice.it/adiscipi/
Nationality Italy

Composer Di Scipio, Agostino


Title Modes of Interference n.1
Date 2005/06
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 10’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/adiscipi/
Recording Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 5/2007
Other Written for Marco Blaauw
Nationality Italy

Composer Di Scipio, Agostino


Title 7 piccole variazioni sul freddo (7 short varations on the cold)
Date 1994/95
Type Trumpet blows and hisses, live signal processing
Duration 4’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://xoomer.alice.it/adiscipi/
Recording Ars Electronica 95 ORF (http://oe1.orf.at/20685.html)
Other
Nationality Italy
146

Composer Dodge, Charles


Title Extensions
Date 1973
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 8’
Publisher Frog Peak Music
Score/Parts availability Frog Peak Music (Lebanon, N.H.)
Recording Thomas Stevens – Trumpet (Crystal Records CD 665)
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Dramm, David


Title Chain Curve
Date 2007
Type Double bell trumpet, Hammond organ, tape, live electronics
Duration 20’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.daviddramm.com, mail@daviddramm.com
Recording appears on cd for Trumpet and Electronics by ZKM/Wergo
Other written for Marco Blaauw; www.daviddramm.com;
www.myspace.com/daviddramm
Nationality Born in USA, settled in The Netherlands

Composer Drouin, Geoffroy


Title Crispy Grain
Date 2003
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher IRCAM
Score/Parts availability http://mediatheque.ircam.fr/ (IRCAM’s media library in Paris)
Recording
Other geoffroydrouin.com
Nationality France
147

Composer Durant, David


Title Choragus Revisited
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability ddurant@usouthal.edu
Recording Peter Wood, trumpet: Commanding Statements: Chamber Music for
Trumpet (MSR 1203)
Other http://sites.google.com/site/usadepartmentofmusic/faculty/dr-david-
durant
Nationality USA

Composer Eakin, Charles with Britton Theurer


Title Trumpet Capriccio for trumpet with electronic delay (“Here, There,
and Beyond”)
Date 1990
Type Trumpet with electronic delay
Duration 12’
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording cd “Fantasia” Capstone B000009JEN
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Ellis, Merrill


Title Episode
Date 1966
Type Trumpet and electronic instruments
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/EE/fel37.html
Nationality USA
148

Composer Elmsly, John


Title Triptych
Date 1985
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 10’
Publisher Sounz
Score/Parts availability www.sounz.org.nz
Recording cd “Points in a changing circle” Atoll ACD 299
Other
Nationality New Zealand

Composer Emmerson, Simon


Title Windbreak
Date 1985
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 11:50
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/humanities/departments-
staff/staff/simon-emmerson.jsp
Nationality England

Composer Ercklentz, Sabine


Title 4 Kompositionen für Trompete und Computer
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and computer
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.aroom.org/NL/SabineErcklentz.htm
Nationality Germany
149

Composer Ernst, David


Title Exit
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Shawnee press, currently unavailable from publisher
Score/Parts availability dernst5208@aol.com
Recording Jack Logan – “New Music for Trumpet”, Orion, 1972, online at
http://trumpet.sdsu.edu/m345/mp3/exit.mp3
Other http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/demusic/
Nationality USA

Composer Everett, Steve (Emory University)


Title Blow Back
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and interactive electronics (Kyma computer system)
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability steve.everett@emory.edu
Recording audio sample www.steveeverett.org
Other ITG composition competition winner (2002 and 2005)
Nationality USA

Composer Faragó, Béla


Title …sub galli cantum
Date 1991
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 12:30
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording Zsolt Nagy Major, trumpet, Hungaroton HCD 31624
Other
Nationality Hungary
150

Composer Festa, Fabrizio


Title Take the Wind
Date 2004
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 19’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://fabriziofesta.com (but NOT www.fabriziofesta.com)
Recording
Other Written for Ivano Ascari
Nationality Italy

Composer Fongaard, Bjørn


Title Concerto, op. 131 #13
Date 1976
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 11:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality Norway

Composer Fox, Christopher


Title Alarmed and Dangerous
Date 1996
Type Trumpet and Tape; Brass ensemble and tape
Duration 35’
Publisher Fox Edition
Score/Parts availability www.foxedition.co.uk
Recording BBC recording available from Fox
Other Suite of four works which may be performed separately
1. Sonar 5’ Trumpet and tape
2. Klaxonik 9’ Trumpet and tape
3. Insecurity 5’ Trumpet and tape
4. A map of heaven 16’ brass ensemble and tape
- article: Northern Light by Ian Pace
The Musical Times, Vol. 139, No. 1863 (Summer, 1998), pp. 33-44 (in
JSTOR pp. 40-41)
Nationality England
151

Composer Fulkerson, James


Title Stone
Date 2004
Type Trumpet, tape, live electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability Fulkerson is a member of “The Barton Workshop”;
www.bartonworkshop.org
Recording James Fulkerson: Wood, Stone, Desert; fmr s191;
http://www.secureonlineshopping.biz/sound323/
products.asp?recnumber=2427
Other part of suite “Wood, Stone, Desert”, other movements with trombone
Nationality Born in USA, settled in The Netherlands

Composer Gagneux, Renaud


Title Malkuth II
Date 1977
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality France

Composer Gibson, Richard


Title Free Flight
Date 1977
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability gibsonr@umoncton.ca
Recording
Other
Nationality Canada
152

Composer Globokar, Vinko


Title “New Piece”
Date in progress
Type
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other Being composed for concert program “Dialogues: concert for trumpet
and electronic music” with William Forman, trumpet, and Andre
Bartetzki, electronics (www.bartetzki.de).
Nationality France

Composer Goddaer, Norbert


Title Grooves
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Lantro music
Score/Parts availability http://www.lantromusic.be/index.php?page=Catalogue
Recording
Other www.norbertgoddaer.be
Nationality Belgium

Composer Goebbels, Heiner


Title Nachtstück II
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other www.heinergoebbels.com
Nationality Germany
153

Composer Göritz, Daniel


Title DecaDance II
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.daniel-goeritz.de/
Recording
Other
Nationality Germany

Composer Goto, Suguro


Title Temps Tressé II
Date 2000
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 11:13
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://suguru.goto.free.fr/Contents/SuguruGoto-e.html
Nationality Japan

Composer Gottschalk, Arthur


Title The Fountains
Date 2000
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.ruf.rice.edu/~gottsch/functional, gottsch@rice.edu
Recording
Other
Nationality USA
154

Composer Green, Adam


Title Flit
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 7:04
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording ARiADA 2003
Other http://www.ariada.uea.ac.uk/; improvisation, MAX/MSP
Nationality England

Composer Hannay, Roger


Title Sphinx
Date 1973
Type Trumpet or Flugelhorn and tape
Duration 8’
Publisher Seesaw
Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 H36S6 1979
Recording Architecture in Sound vol. 2, Lens Records
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Harris, Ross


Title Echo
Date 1979
Type Trumpet and tape delay
Duration 10’
Publisher 1988 music editions no. 22, wai-te-ata press
Score/Parts availability www.sounz.org.nz, UofT M87 H365E3 1988
Recording “Points in a changing circle” Atoll ACD 299
Other http://www.rossharris.co.nz/
Nationality New Zealand
155

Composer Harrison, Bryn


Title Mantra
Date 1997
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 12’
Publisher Contemporary Voices (BMIC)
Score/Parts availability contemporaryvoices@bmic.co.uk
Recording
Other written for Stephen Altoft; www.brynharrison.com
Nationality England

Composer Harvey, Jonathan


Title Other Presences
Date 2006
Type Trumpet and electronics
Duration 9-10’
Publisher
Score/Parts availability www.vivosvoco.com
Recording Markus Stockhausen on “Other Presences” – Sargasso SCD28075,
http://www.crotchet.co.uk/SCD28057.html?id=GQENYmny
Other Commissioned by the Cheltenham International Festival, supported by
the Cheltenham Festival Society FP: 6.7.06: Cheltenham International
Festival, Pittville Pump Room, Cheltenham. Composed for Markus
Stockhausen.
Nationality England

Composer Harvey, Jonathan


Title Ricercare una Melodia
Date 1984
Type Trumpet with tape delay system
Duration 6’
Publisher Faber
Score/Parts availability several on-line music stores, UofT M87 H38R5 1992
Recording Jonathan Harvey: Wheel of Emptiness; UofT cd 46913
Other tape delay – 4 channels; using 1/2 speed and 1/4 speed with octave
changes
Nationality England
156

Composer Hatch, Peter


Title Ida, My Dear
Date 1995
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 14’
Publisher Canadian Music Centre (CMC)
Score/Parts availability CMC
Recording CMC AR2093
Other Commissioned by Guy Few through the Ontario Arts Council
Nationality Canada

Composer Hellermann, William


Title Passages 13
Date 1970/71
Type Bb Trumpet and tape
Duration 25’
Publisher Merion
Score/Parts availability For hire from Presser music publishers (www.presser.com), UofT M
87 H43P3 1981
Recording Gerard Schwarz: The New Trumpet, H 71275 Nonesuch. Toronto Ref.
Lib. LP 2563
Other: http://www.soundart.org/whllrmnn.html
Other http://www.soundart.org/whllrmnn.html
Nationality USA

Composer Heussenstamm, George


Title Laminae
Date 1974
Type Trumpet (Bb doubling on piccolo) and tape
Duration 11’
Publisher Seesaw
Score/Parts availability www.sheetmusicplus.com, UofT M87 H48L3
Recording
Other
Nationality USA
157

Composer Heyduck, Nikolaus


Title FAQ
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.nikolaus-heyduck.de
Recording
Other Premiered by Lutz Mandler
Nationality Germany

Composer Heyduck, Nikolaus


Title Schwellenspannung
Date 1997
Type Trumpet, tape, and live electronics
Duration 12’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.nikolaus-heyduck.de
Recording
Other
Nationality Germany

Composer Heyduck, Nikolaus


Title Solo für Alphorn
Date 1985
Type Alphorn and live electronics
Duration 9’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.nikolaus-heyduck.de
Recording Lutz Mandler: Atemwege (Breath Paths), Cadenza 800 876
Other Premiered by German trumpeter Malte Burba
Nationality Germany
158

Composer Hiatt, Kevin


Title Skanda
Date
Type
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://kevinhiattmusic.com/
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Impett, Jonathan


Title Mirror-Rite
Date 1993
Type Metatrumpet and live electronics
Duration 24:38
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording Ladder of Escape #7, Attacca 9476
Other mostly improvised using metatrumpet,
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett, Prix
Ars Electronica
Nationality England

Composer Impett, Jonathan


Title Shells
Date 1988
Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics
Duration 10:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett
Nationality England
159

Composer Israel, Brian


Title Dance Variations
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording Marice Stith plays Contemporary Literature for Trumpet, Golden Crest
Recital Series RE-7068
Other Mentioned in review article by Conrad Cummings Computer Music
Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 88-88 Published by: The
MIT Press. Also mentioned in “Trumpetmaster” forum:
http://www.trumpetmaster.com/vb/146/metallics-maresz-25458-2.html
Nationality USA

Composer Jackson, Hanley


Title Aesop’s Trumpeter
Date 1983
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~hjackson/
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Jacobs, Kenneth


Title Through the Hourglass
Date 1990
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 17’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://web.utk.edu/~comp/kennethjacobs.shtml
Recording Electro-acoustic music by Kenneth Jacobs, Opus One cd 153; UofT cd
17691
Other
Nationality USA
160

Composer Johnsson, Stefan


Title Onoma
Date 2007
Type Trumpet and Computer
Duration 5’
Publisher Tons
Score/Parts availability www.mic.se (ID-number GB 4642)
Recording
Other http://www.stefanjohnsson.webb.se/
Nationality Sweden

Composer Kaipainen, Jouni


Title Altaforte, op. 18
Date 1982
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 11:26
Publisher Edition Wilhelm Hansen
Score/Parts availability www.fimic.fi
Recording Jouki Harjanne: Total Trumpet; Jase CD 0015
Other
Nationality Finland

Composer Kargel, Ines


Title Inschrift
Date Premier Nov. 2000
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.sonicatelier.net
Recording
Other Based on poem “Inschrift” by Erich Fried
Nationality Austria
161

Composer Kargel, Ines


Title Monogramm/Sonograph
Date premier Feb. 1999
Type Trumpet, live electronics, and moving computer graphics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.sonicatelier.net
Recording
Other Computer graphics by Muhammad Zauner
Nationality Austria

Composer Knussen, Oliver


Title Spiritual
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability possibly through Fred Hill (Australia) – freddiehill@dodo.com.au
Recording
Other Written for Fred Hill
Nationality Scotland

Composer Koenders, Michel


Title Helmet and Sling (Helm en Slinger)
Date 2001/02
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 13’30”
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://home.planet.nl/~michelk/, michelk@wxs.nl
Recording Excerpt on composer’s website
Other One of three pieces in his “Armamentscycle” for solo instrument and
computer; written for Marco Blaauw
Nationality The Netherlands
162

Composer Koepf, Siegfried


Title Konzentriert Musizieren (Freizeit)
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 25:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording Axel Dörner, texture, 2001
Other http://www.aconnect.de/friends/editions/index.html
Nationality Germany

Composer Kornicki, Steve


Title Passages Through Harmonic Realms
Date 1992
Type Trumpet and electronic sounds
Duration
Publisher Composer (Fragmented View Music)
Score/Parts availability www.stevekornicki.com
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Kretz, Johannes


Title Niemandslandverschmelzung, op.41
Date 1990
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 16’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.johanneskretz.com
Recording
Other
Nationality Austria
163

Composer Kyriakides, Yannis


Title Dog Song (Cerebrus serenades Orpheus)
Date 2006
Type Double bell trumpet and tape
Duration 15’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.kyriakides.com
Recording excerpt on www.kyriakides.com
Other written for Marco Blaauw
Nationality Born in Cyprus, settled in The Netherlands

Composer Latham, Mark


Title Auf dem Wasser zu spielen
Date 1993
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality England

Composer LeBaron, Anne


Title Way of Light
Date 2006
Type trumpet, tape, and video
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.annelebaron.com/, alebaron@calarts.edu, www.tfront.com
Recording
Other commissioned by ITG
Nationality USA
164

Composer Leclerc, Martin


Title À l’horizon du silence
Date 2001/02
Type Amplified trumpet and tape
Duration 17’
Publisher electrocd.com
Score/Parts availability Performance score at www.electrocd.com/en/partitions/8003
Recording “Horizons du silence” empreintes DIGITALes IMED 0786
Other
Nationality Canada

Composer Lewin-Richter, Andrés


Title Secuencia VI
Date 1983
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 14:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.dtic.upf.edu/~alewin/
Nationality Spain

Composer Lloyd, Mike


Title Air Pressure
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.mikelloyd.se
Recording excerpt at www.mikelloyd.se/music.htm
Other
Nationality Sweden
165

Composer Maintz, Maximilian


Title au.tism 3
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.hfm-berlin.de/Maximilian_Maintz.html
Nationality Germany

Composer Malik, Wittwulf Y


Title International Hymn of the Frogs
Date 1995
Type Prepared trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other Mentioned as part of a program presented on March 26, 2008 in
Hamburg, Germany, performed by Hannes Wienert. However, it is not
mentioned on Malik’s website www.wittwulf-y-malik.com
Nationality Germany

Composer Maresz, Yan


Title Metallics
Date 1995
Type Trumpet with live electronics, or trumpet and tape
Duration 11’
Publisher Durand
Score/Parts availability DURAN 03725 www.di-arezzo.co.uk
Recording "Yan Maresz: Metallics, Eclipse, Entrelac..." Accord 4767200
Other www.yanmaresz.com
Nationality France
166

Composer Maros, Miklos


Title Manipulation 5
Date 1984
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 6’30”
Publisher Swedish Music Information Centre
Score/Parts availability www.mic.se
Recording Jarmo Sermilä: At Bizarre Exits; Jasemusiikki Jase CD 0017
Other www.mmaros.com
Nationality Born in Hungary, settled in Sweden

Composer Maske, Daniel


Title Trumpets
Date 1997
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 7’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability maske@uwalumni.com
Recording
Other www.myspace.com/danmaske, danielmaske.com
Nationality USA

Composer Matamoros, Gustavo


Title Re: Jon
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Blue Bison Music
Score/Parts availability www.bluebisonmusic.com
Recording Jon Nelson – Gran Calavera Electrica
Other For trumpet solo or mixed ensemble with tape
Nationality Venezuela, lives in USA
167

Composer Matre, Orjan


Title Logitech® Noise
Date 2004
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 4’30”
Publisher Music Information Centre Norway
Score/Parts availability www.mic.no, info@mic.no
Recording sound clip at www.orjanmatre.no/logitech_noise.mp3
Other There is also a longer version (7') for trumpet and brass band
Nationality Norway

Composer Mclean, Jordan


Title Astrochemical Radiation
Date
Type Trumpet and electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.fireofspace.com
Recording
Other This two movement piece is one of three finalists the American
Modern Ensemble composition competition (2008).
Nationality USA

Composer Menon, Carlo Alberto


Title Magnétique
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality Italy
168

Composer Meyer, Piet


Title metA…INteraktion Nr. 4
Date 2007
Type Trumpet and electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other Teaching associate of Andre Bartetzki (andre@bartetzki.de) at the
Technical University of Berlin
Nationality Germany

Composer Mobberley, James


Title Icarus Wept
Date 1994-98
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 18’
Publisher Cautious Music (Composer)
Score/Parts availability http://conservatory.umkc.edu/faculty/facultydetail.asp?Faculty_ID=11,
mobberleyj@umkc.edu
Recording Keith Benjamin; comes with score
Other There is also a version for trumpet, organ and tape
Nationality USA

Composer Moretto, Nelly


Title Composición No. 13: in memoriam J.C. Paz
Date 1972
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality Argentina
169

Composer Morrill, Dexter


Title Studies for trumpet and computer
Date 1975
Type Trumpet and computer generated sounds (sounds on tape)
Duration 8’
Publisher Chenango Valley
Score/Parts availability dmorrill@mail.colgate.edu, UofT M87 M67S8
Recording Dexter Morrill: Music for Trumpets, Capstone Records CPS 8657;
UofT cd 35922
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Morrill, Dexter


Title Sketches for Invisible Man
Date 1988
Type Trumpet and computer music system
Duration
Publisher Chenango Valley
Score/Parts availability www.dextermorrill.com
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Morrill, Dexter


Title The NEXT Trumpet
Date 1993
Type Trumpet and computer music system
Duration
Publisher Chenango Valley
Score/Parts availability www.dextermorrill.com
Recording
Other
Nationality USA
170

Composer Neill, Ben


Title 678 Streams
Date 1993
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 16:25
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording Ben Neill, New Tone records nt 6730
Other www.benneill.com
Nationality USA

Composer Neuwirth, Olga


Title Addio…sognando
Date 2009
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other www.olganeuwirth.com; written for the 200th Anniversary of Joseph
Haydn’s death
Nationality Austria

Composer Nuorvala, Juhani


Title Concertino
Date 1998/2001, trumpet and tape version 2004
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 8’
Publisher Finnish Music Information Centre (FIMIC) (#18972)
Score/Parts availability www.fimic.fi
Recording
Other transcribed from the material of his clarinet concerto
Nationality Finland
171

Composer Oehring, Helmut


Title Philipp
Date 1997/2001 (originally for trombone, trumpet version made in 2001)
Type Trumpet and live electronics (or trumpet solo)
Duration 12’
Publisher Boosey and Hawkes
Score/Parts availability www.helmutoehring.de (download from website)
Recording Uwe Dierksen (trombone): Darmstadt 2000 Internationale Ferienkurse
für Neue Musik, Col Legno WWE 1CD 20056, www.col-legno.de
Other For performances with live-electronics, a pitchbender is used which
simultaneously produces a sound, pitched at various intervals below or
above the played note, according to the distance and angle of the
trumpet in relation to the light sensor.
Nationality Germany

Composer Ott, Joseph


Title Chroma IV
Date 1975
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 6’
Publisher Claude Benny press
Score/Parts availability claudebennypress.com
Recording Sample on website
Other Score available on website
Nationality USA

Composer Ott, Joseph


Title Three Little Pieces
Date 1978
Type Trumpet and Tape
Duration 8’
Publisher Claude Benny Press
Score/Parts availability claudebennypress.com
Recording
Other
Nationality USA
172

Composer Park, Tae Hong


Title t0
Date 2000
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.tulane.edu/~park, park@tulane.edu
Recording
Other
Nationality Born in Austria, lives in USA

Composer Park, Tae Hong


Title t1
Date 2001
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.tulane.edu/~park, park@tulane.edu
Recording Peter Wood, trumpet: Commanding Statements: Chamber Music for
Trumpet (MSR 1203)
Other
Nationality Born in Austria, lives in USA

Composer Pena, Luis


Title Klangspiegel
Date 2002
Type quarter-tone trumpet (in C), tam-tam, and 4-track tape
Duration 23'
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://icem.folkwang-hochschule.de/~pena/index_start.html,
pena@folkwang-hochschule.de
Recording
Other
Nationality Born in Portugal, lives in Germany
173

Composer Petrarca, Stefano


Title In mezzo a questa steppa mediterranea
Date 1990
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.s-petrarca.com/
Nationality Italy

Composer Pintér, Gyula


Title Lázadó Angyal (Grumbled Angel)
Date 1997
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 5’
Publisher Budapest Music Centre
Score/Parts availability http://info.bmc.hu
Recording Pintér: Les Cloches de Flammes Roses, Hungarotron HCD 32438
Other
Nationality Hungary

Composer Polansky, Larry


Title Always cut off the baseline
Date 1995
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://music.dartmouth.edu/~larry/
Nationality USA
174

Composer Pounds, Michael


Title Cry Out
Date 1999
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 9’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.bsu.edu/web/mspounds/
Recording mp3 available on composer website
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Powell, Andrew


Title Plasmogeny II
Date 1999
Type Trumpet, live electronics and tape
Duration 10’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability possibly through Bluestone Arts, of which Powell is Artistic Director:
www.bluestonearts.org.uk
Recording John Wallace - Stockhausen: Michael’s Farewell (Deux-Elles DXL
1039)
Other
Nationality England

Composer Power, Karen


Title Ducks and Chickens
Date 2008
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 8’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.mic.ul.ie/music/Karen%20Power%27s%20Homepage.htm
Recording
Other Written for Amy Horvey
Nationality Ireland
175

Composer Rechberger, Herman


Title ES
Date 1979
Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics
Duration 9:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other www.sonopt.pp.fi
Nationality Finland

Composer Rimmer, John


Title Seaswell
Date 1979
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 13’
Publisher Catena Press
Score/Parts availability www.sounz.org.nz, UofT M87 M67S8
Recording Grant Cooper and Concord Brass: Points in a Changing Circle; Atoll
ACD 299
Other
Nationality New Zealand

Composer Risher, Tim


Title Fanfare and Flourishes
Date 1986
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Manduca
Score/Parts availability www.manducamusic.com/solotrumpet.htm
Recording
Other www.timrisher.com
Nationality USA
176

Composer Rodriguez, Ana Maria


Title últimas flores en forma de trompeta
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 13:54
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://mugi.hfmt-hamburg.de/Rodriguez/
Nationality Argentina

Composer Ronchetti, Lucia


Title Deserti (Deserts)
Date 1993
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 10’
Publisher Editions BMG
Score/Parts availability
Recording Mauro Maur: La Tromba, Intermezzo Media
Other www.luciaronchetti.com
Nationality Italy

Composer Roquin, Louis


Title Ricercare II
Date 1977
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other
Nationality France
177

Composer Rosenboom, David


Title Music for Unstable Circuits
Date 1968 (+drums 1984, +trumpet 2004)
Type Trumpet and tape (and drums)
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://music.calarts.edu/~david/index.html
Recording Daniel Rosenboom: Bloodier, Mean Son; Nine Winds Records NWCD
0238, 2005
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Rosenboom, David


Title Zones of Coherence
Date 2003
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 14:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://adagio.calarts.edu/~david/
Nationality USA

Composer Rowland, David


Title Equale II
Date 1993
Type Trumpet and multitrack tape
Duration 10’
Publisher Donemus
Score/Parts availability www.donemus.nl, UofT M457.4 R72E7 1995
Recording
Other Written for Marco Blaauw
Nationality Born in England (1939), died in the Netherlands (2007)
178

Composer Rudy, Paul


Title …and every island and mountain were moved out of their place…
Date 1998
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 11’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.paulrudy.com
Recording Society of Composers, Inc. “Inspirations”, Capstone 8690
Other with piano resonance
Nationality USA

Composer Ruzicka, Rudolf


Title Bucina
Date 1988
Type Trumpet and electroacoustic sounds
Duration 9’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.musica.cz/ruzicka/, ruzicka@fi.muni.cz
Recording
Other http://imeb-archive.icst.net/get_file.php?id=276&file=index.html
Nationality Czech Republic

Composer Sandoval, Carlos


Title Qu Trompa
Date 2007
Type Trumpet, water, saliva, and tape
Duration 20’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.carlos-sandoval.de
Recording Paul Hübner on www.carlos-sandoval.de
Other Uses controlled improvisation, some body gestures and contemporary
music written score. Three movements.
Nationality Mexico
179

Composer Schultheis, Bernd


Title 3plus
Date 2004
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 11’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.bernd-schultheis.de
Recording Rajesh Mehta, trumpet and Bernd Schultheis, electronics – studio
recording on www.bernd-schultheis.de
Other
Nationality Germany

Composer Schulz, B. Allen


Title Essay for Trumpet and Tape
Date 1995
Type Bb trumpet and tape
Duration 9’30”
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.allenschulz.net
Recording
Other www.ram-nyc.org
Nationality USA

Composer Sermilä, Jarmo


Title But I Didn’t Know it was Spring
Date 1995
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 10’
Publisher Jasemusiikki
Score/Parts availability www.saunalahti.fi/~jase1/, ewh.fi@sermila.net
Recording Pasi Pirinen: Heptade, JASE CD 0033
Other Sermilä has also written several works for improvising soloists and
pre-recorded electronics
Nationality Finland
180

Composer Sermilä, Jarmo


Title Contemplation 1
Date 1976
Type Flugelhorn and tape
Duration 11’
Publisher Jasemusiikki
Score/Parts availability www.saunalahti.fi/~jase1/, ewh.fi@sermila.net
Recording Jarmo Sermilä: JASE CD 0017 (jasecd@sermila.net)
Other
Nationality Finland

Composer Sermilä, Jarmo


Title Final Conclusion
Date 1994
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 7’
Publisher Jasemusikki
Score/Parts availability www.saunalahti.fi/~jase1/, ewh.fi@sermila.net, UofT M298 S388F5
1994, cd 31281
Recording Jouko Harjanne: Total Trumpet, JASE CD 0015
Other Tape sounds derived from brass instruments
Nationality Finland

Composer Sermilä, Jarmo


Title Sahara Moods
Date 2005
Type Flugelhorn and tape
Duration 8’
Publisher Finnish Composers’ Society 60 years Oct. 11 2005
Score/Parts availability www.fimic.fi (#19768)
Recording
Other
Nationality Finland
181

Composer Shimazu, Takehito


Title Requiem I
Date 1981
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 15:26
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www2.educ.fukushima-u.ac.jp/~shimazu/ENG-PAGE/myprofile-
e.html
Nationality Japan

Composer Sköld, Mattias


Title Mikkophony
Date 2005
Type Trumpet and Computer
Duration 6’
Publisher Tons
Score/Parts availability www.mic.se (ID number GB 5524)
Recording
Other http://www.mattiasskold.com/
Nationality Sweden

Composer Smalley, Roger


Title Echo III
Date 1978
Type Trumpet with tape delay
Duration 13’
Publisher Faber
Score/Parts availability www.fabermusic.co.uk (part 50585 6); UofT M87 S57E4 1980
Recording Stockhausen: Michael’s Farewell; Deux-Elles DXL 1039
Other www.rogersmalley.com
Nationality Australia
182

Composer Smethurst, Coryn R.R.


Title Porton Down
Date 2000
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration less than one minute
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability corynrrsmethurst@tiscali.co.uk
Recording
Other written for Stephen Altoft
Nationality England

Composer Snyder
Title Horse – A Remix for Trumpet and Tape
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other performed by Delbert Bowers at Ohio University (Athens) in 2003,
http://www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/programs/RecentPrograms0203.pdf
Nationality

Composer Solare, Juan María


Title Collar
Date 2001
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 5’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.juanmariasolare.com
Recording
Other This piece is the third part of a trilogy:
I: Perlas Esparcidas (Scattered Pearls) for solo trumpet
II: Engarces (Threads) for electronic sound
III: Collar (Necklace) for trumpet and tape
Collar is a superimposition of the first two movements, with
the solo trumpet and electronic sound played together. However, the
first two movements are still intended to be performable on their own.
There are also versions for alto flute, english horn, and basset horn.
Nationality Born in Argentina, settled in Germany
183

Composer Souster, Tim


Title The Transistor Radio of St. Narcissus
Date 1982-83
Type Flugelhorn, live electronics and tape
Duration 24’
Publisher OdB editions
Score/Parts availability www.sara.uea.ac.uk
Recording John Wallace – Stockhausen: Michael’s Farewell, Deux-Elles DXL
1039
Other More info about Souster’s work can be obtained from his widow,
Penelope Souster:
Penny Souster
OdB editions
37 Windsor Rd
Cambridge CB4 3JJ
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)1223 351995
Email: p.souster@btinternet.com
Nationality England

Composer Spassov, Bojidar


Title Fiato Continuo IV
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 12’
Publisher Tre media
Score/Parts availability www.tremediamusicedition.com, UofT M298 s646F54 (in bindery)
Recording Fiato Continuo, ZKM WER 20602 (Marco Blaauw, trumpet)
Other
Nationality Russia

Composer Spoerri, Bruno


Title Krebsgänge für Meeresschnecken und andere Trompeten
Date 1997
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other www.computerjazz.ch
Nationality Switzerland
184

Composer Stanko, Tomasz


Title Serial I
Date 1985
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 12:25
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other www.tomaszstanko.com
Nationality Poland

Composer Stefani, Ewan


Title Interior Voice
Date 1996
Type Bb trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/es/, e.j.stefani@leeds.ac.uk
Recording
Other Written for Stephen Altoft
Nationality England

Composer Stockhausen, Karlheinz


Title Aries
Date 1977
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 15’
Publisher Stockhausen Verlag
Score/Parts availability www.stockhausensociety.org; UofT M87 S76S5o
Recording Aries, Kavierstück XIII (Stockhausen: 33); UofT cd 21686
Other
Nationality Germany
185

Composer Stockhausen, Karlheinz


Title Pietà
Date 1990
Type Flugelhorn and tape
Duration 17’
Publisher Stockhausen Verlag
Score/Parts availability www.stockhausensociety.org; UofT M1613.3 S82695L53 1995
Recording Eingang und Formel (Stockhausen 43); UofT CD 21704-05; Marco
Blaauw: Blaauw
Other
Nationality Germany

Composer Stockhausen, Karlheinz


Title Trompete aus Orchester Finalisten
Date 1995-6
Type Trumpet and octophonic tape projection
Duration 4’30”
Publisher Stockhausen Verlag
Score/Parts availability www.stockhausensociety.org; UofT M 298 S851546 1999
Recording Stockhausen: 52, UofT cd 34407 or 34412
Other part of a series involving many orchestral instruments
Nationality Germany

Composer Stollery, Pete


Title Planar
Date 2006
Type Trumpet and digital sound (computer sound files)
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability Score and soundfiles (mp3) online at
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~wae006/petestollery.com/
Recording
Other
Nationality Scotland
186

Composer Sugár, Miklós


Title Fanfare
Date 1994
Type Trumpet and synthesizer (Yamaha rev 5)
Duration 8:26
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording György Geiger, trumpet, Hungaroton HCD 31624
Other http://www.artisjus.hu/sugarmiklos/index.html
Nationality Hungary

Composer Tadini, Michele


Title Notturna
Date 1997
Type Trumpet, 8 channel tape and live electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other http://www.milanomusica.org/autori/micheletadini.html
Nationality Italy

Composer Tamminga, Jorrit


Title Schizo
Date 2001
Type Trumpet, tape and live electronics
Duration 12:00
Publisher
Score/Parts availability
Recording composer’s website
Other www.jorrittamminga.nl
Nationality The Netherlands
187

Composer Theurer, Britton


Title Ryoko
Date
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/music/directory/index.cfm,
theurerb@ecu.edu
Recording
Other
Nationality USA

Composer Thomas, Jo
Title Red Games
Date 2001
Type Trumpet and electroacoustic sound
Duration 14’30”
Publisher New Voices (BMIC)
Score/Parts availability www.bmic.co.uk; newvoices@bmic.co.uk
Recording
Other written for Stephen Altoft; http://jothomascomposer.blogspot.com/
Nationality England

Composer Tittle, Steve


Title Available Light
Date
Type Trumpet or Flugelhorn and tape
Duration 24’
Publisher CMC
Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca (recording available, no information on CMC
website about score availability)
Recording Steve Tittle: CMC AR 2378
Other
Nationality Canada
188

Composer Tittle, Steve


Title Good Golly, Miss Kali
Date 1980, rev. 1990
Type Trumpet and Tape
Duration 9’
Publisher CMC
Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca
Recording
Other
Nationality Canada

Composer Tittle, Steve


Title Intellectual Dancing (One)
Date 1983
Type Trumpet or flugelhorn and tape
Duration 6’30”
Publisher CMC
Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca
Recording
Other
Nationality Canada

Composer Tittle, Steve


Title Salvation Dharma Band
Date 1981
Type Flugelhorn or cornet and tape
Duration 9’
Publisher CMC
Score/Parts availability www.musiccentre.ca
Recording Steve Tittle: CMC AR 2383
Other
Nationality Canada
189

Composer Uduman, Sohrab


Title Ausruf
Date 2007
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 10’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/mu/staff/sohrab.htm,
m.s.uduman@mus.keele.ac.uk
Recording excerpt at http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/mu/staff/
sohrabudumancompositions01.htm
Other first performance at St. Pauls, Huddersfield in October 2007
Nationality England

Composer Vercoe, Barry Lloyd


Title Dialogue
Date 1968
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 4’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability http://web.media.mit.edu/~bv/, bv@media.mit.edu
Recording
Other
Nationality Born in New Zealand, settled in USA

Composer Vierk, Lois V.


Title Cirrus
Date 1987
Type Trumpet and Multitrack tape (six trumpets)
Duration 19’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability LVVVV@aol.com
Recording “Simoom” UofT CD 16644
Other
Nationality USA
190

Composer Vostrak, Zbynek


Title The Gentle Ties Which Bind
Date 1977
Type Trumpet and Tape
Duration 10’
Publisher
Score/Parts availability Possibly through www.musica.cz (Czech music information centre),
although this composition is not listed in their catalogue.
Recording
Other http://www.musica.cz/skladatele/vostrak-zbynek.html
Nationality Czech Republic

Composer Walshe, Jennifer


Title Split
Date 1997
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.cmc.ie (Contemporary Music Centre in Ireland)
Recording
Other Withdrawn
Nationality Ireland

Composer Watts, John


Title Elegy to Chimney – in Memoriam
Date 1972
Type Bb trumpet, synthesizer, and tape
Duration
Publisher
Score/Parts availability contained in the “John Watts Papers” in the Music Division of the New
York Public Library for the Performing Arts
(http://www.nypl.org/research/lpa/mus/pdf/MusWatts.pdf)
Recording
Other http://ariamusic.org/JohnWatts.html
Nationality USA
191

Composer Widorski, Kurt Georg


Title Freakhouse
Date 2006
Type Trumpet and electronics
Duration 3’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.komposition.ch
Recording
Other Written for the animated film “Freakhouse”.
Nationality Switzerland

Composer Wiesner, Dietmar


Title Sjanka 1
Date
Type Trumpet, tape cues and live electronics
Duration
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability
Recording
Other World Premiere on Nov. 28, 2008 by Sava Stoianov of the Ensemble
Moderne at the Hamburger Klangwerktage – Festival for Young
Contemporary Music in Hamburg, Germany.
Nationality Germany

Composer Wind, Chris


Title Paintings One
Date
Type Flugelhorn and tape
Duration 6’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability www.chriswind.com
Recording CMC ND 64
Other Improvised music over pre-recorded electronic accompaniment. Part of
a series of “Paintings” for various instruments and tape. Recorded by
Steven Crowe.
Nationality Canada
192

Composer Winteregg, Steven


Title Eastwind Variations
Date 2002
Type Trumpet in C and MIDI
Duration 9’
Publisher Manduca
Score/Parts availability www.manducamusic.com/SoloTrumpet.htm
Recording Alan Siebert: Stargazer, Equilibrium CD 83
Other Written for Alan Siebert; First Prize winner in 2002 International
Trumpet Guild Composition Competition.
http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/winteregg/
Nationality USA

Composer Yim, Jongwoo


Title Dispersion Fluide
Date 2002
Type Trumpet and live electronics
Duration 9’
Publisher Composer
Score/Parts availability Through composer at Hanyang University in Seoul
Recording
Other http://www.hanyang.ac.kr/english/About%20HYU/indexA7.html
Nationality Korea

Composer Zanettovich, Daniele


Title Aire sobre una melodia Antigua: per Tromba e frequenza
Date 2003
Type Trumpet and frequency, frequency on tape (explained in the score, in
Italian)
Duration
Publisher Pizzicato Verlag Helvetia
Score/Parts availability available for download from www.freehandmusic.com
Recording
Other incorporates piccolo trumpet
Nationality Italy
193

Composer Zwedberg, Tommy


Title Face the Music
Date 1977
Type Trumpet and tape
Duration 10’
Publisher Swedish Music Information Centre
Score/Parts availability www.mic.se
Recording
Other
Nationality Sweden
194

Appendix B – Performer Biographies

One of the characteristics of music involving electronics that makes it appealing to composers
and performers alike is that it allows music to be extended in several ways beyond what is
normally possible in acoustic settings. Therefore it is not surprising that the performers
interviewed are interested in this repertoire as each of them is committed to extending the
trumpet in unique ways. Although there are several extended techniques that allow the trumpet
to stretch beyond its usual musical capabilities, each of these performers has worked to improve
upon the trumpet itself to further widen the musical language available to them. It follows
naturally that these instrumental extensions are complemented with electronics in much of these
performers' repertoire, allowing for even greater expansion of their musical environments. The
three performers are discussed individually below, detailing some brief biographical information
as well as their unique approaches to extending the musical capabilities of the trumpet.

B.1 - Stephen Altoft

Currently based in Freiburg, Germany, Stephen Altoft is an English trumpet player who has been
very active in the creation of new trumpet repertoire and the development of the trumpet's
possibilities as a microtonal instrument. He studied trumpet performance at the University of
Huddersfield where he obtained bachelor's and master's degrees and won the Ricordi Prize for
contemporary performance. He furthered his education through private study with Markus
Stockhausen in Cologne and William Forman in Berlin, two of the foremost interpreters of
modern trumpet repertoire. He is a member of the new music group ensemble chronophonie,
and with Lee Ferguson has formed the trumpet and percussion group duo Contour. He
frequently performs music for trumpet and electronics, and his repertoire list (as of 2006)
includes eighteen compositions for trumpet with tape and/or live electronics, fifteen of which
were written for him.78

78
Duo Contour, Stephen, http://www.duocontour.org/steve_page.htm (accessed April 13, 2011).
195

One of Altoft's main interests is the performance of microtonal music and the development of
microtonal techniques for trumpet. In 2001/02 he served as a consultant for the Centre of New
Musical Instruments in London where he was responsible for learning and commenting on a
prototype microtonal trumpet. He later collaborated with instrument makers Johannes Radeke
and Siegmar Fischer in Freiburg in the development of a rotary valve mechanism to enable the
conversion of his existing trumpets into microtonal instruments, resulting in a nineteen-division
trumpet in Bb and a quarter-tone trumpet in C. He has also, along with composer Donald
Bousted, created the website The Microtonal Trumpet (www.microtonaltrumpet.com) which
offers a range of free resources for playing the trumpet in a variety of microtonal tunings,
including playing techniques, fingering charts, descriptions of quarter-tone and nineteen-division
trumpet conversion kits, history of microtonal trumpet music, audio and video podcasts of
microtonal examples, and an extensive repertoire list.

While microtonal trumpet performance is not a new concept, especially with regard to the use of
quarter-tones, Altoft's expansion of microtonal trumpet performance to include eighth-tones
(forty-eight division scales) and nineteen-division scales exhibits a commitment to extending the
harmonic possibilities of the trumpet. In addition, his contribution to the development of
conversion kits which enable standard trumpets to become microtonal instruments at a relatively
low cost shows his desire to make microtonal performance more accessible to interested
musicians. He has also had several compositions written for him for microtonal trumpet with
electronics, further expanding the possibilities of microtonal music for trumpet.

B.2 – Marco Blaauw

Marco Blaauw is a trumpeter from The Netherlands who has an international solo career and is a
member of the ensemble musikFabrik in Cologne. Interested in the continued development of
the trumpet's technique and repertoire, Blaauw frequently works in close collaboration with both
established and younger composers to create new works for trumpet. Many pieces have been
written for him or inspired by his playing by composers such as Peter Eötvös, Rebecca Saunders,
Richard Ayres, Agostino Di Scipio and Isabel Mundry. Having worked closely with Karlheinz
Stockhausen beginning in 1998, Blaauw is an authority on Stockhausen's trumpet music and has
196

premiered solo roles in scenes of the opera cycle Licht.

Blaauw's interest in extending the trumpet led to the development of his self-designed double
bell trumpet, built by Dieter Gärtner of Gärtner and Thul in Düren, Germany. In addition to the
three standard valves, his instrument has a fourth valve for playing quarter-tones and a fifth valve
for changing between the instrument's two bells. This allows for a wide range of interesting and
unique effects such as very rapid mute-changes, gradual changes between muted and unmuted
sounds, tremolo on any pitch in the trumpet's register, and variations in tonal colour as the two
bells are made of different materials.

Although Blaauw's double bell trumpet is not without precedent (see Bobby Shew's “Shewhorn”
and other custom-designed instruments), Blaauw's development of his double bell trumpet and
the several pieces commissioned for it display a commitment to expanding the sonic
characteristics of the trumpet. This commitment is further manifested in his performance of
music for trumpet and electronics, and is part of his desire to increase the range of colours on the
trumpet: “I've always been looking to getting a bigger range, not only in tone/register, but also in
sound. So for me it was quite logical to start using electronics at some point.”79

B.3 - Jonathan Impett

Dr. Jonathan Impett is a trumpeter and composer from England, and is currently a Senior
Lecturer in the music department at the University of East Anglia where he has worked since
September, 2000. He studied at Goldsmith's College, the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis and City
University, London, and completed his Ph.D. at Cambridge University where his research
focused on the relationship between composition and performance in the context of new
technologies, and working with complex dynamical systems models for interactive music. His
compositions are closely related to his research, making extensive use of improvisation, real-time

79
Marco Blaauw, interview with Michael Barth, August 21 and 22, 2010.
197

composition and sound-processing, and interactive techniques.80

Impett has a wide range of performance interests which extend from early music performance
practices to performing new works for trumpet. In addition to premiering works by composers
such as Luciano Berio, Michael Finnissy, Jonathan Harvey, and Giacinto Scelsi (as well as his
own works), Impett also plays baroque trumpet and cornetto and is a member of the Amsterdam
Baroque Orchestra and The Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century.

Impett has combined his performance, composition, and research interests in the development of
his “meta-trumpet”, a computer-extended instrument that uses computer processing of several
aspects of trumpet performance to create new compositions. The meta-trumpet uses
characteristics that occur naturally in trumpet performance (including pitch, volume, physical
position, direction and speed of movement, inclination, hand pressure, breath pressure, valve
position, and various switches) to activate computer controlled procedures which trigger MIDI
events and other computer functions. This incorporates virtually every physical aspect of
trumpet playing with computer processes, allowing for a close and dynamic relationship between
the performer, instrument, and the musical material created through the computer.81 It is an
effective and intuitive approach that combines trumpet performance with computer processing
without compromising the integrity of the trumpet as an instrument or forcing the performer to
learn new performance techniques as most of the actions used are already used in conventional
performing.

Impett's compositions for meta-trumpet have no pre-set score or musical material. Rather, the
composition is created through rules that are derived from the notes themselves and implemented
by computer controlled processes. This allows Impett to extend not only the sonic characteristics
of the trumpet but also the relationship between the performer and the music itself by structurally
integrating the instrument into the compositional process. He views most extensions of
instruments as “spatial” in that they extend the kind of sound they can make in terms of colour or

80
Jonathan Impett, Biography, http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/People/Academic/Jonathan+Impett
(accessed March 15, 2010).
81
Jonathan Impett, Metatrumpet, http://www.uea.ac.uk/mus/research/metatrumpet (accessed
March 15, 2010).
198

pitch, however, his approach also fulfills his interest in what he describes as a “temporal”
extension of the music that extends the performer's actions into the structure of the music itself.82
Impett has created several works for meta-trumpet, and his composition Mirror-Rite for meta-
trumpet and computer was awarded the Prix Ars Electronica in 1994.

82
Jonathan Impett, interview with Michael Barth, September 16, 2010.
199

Appendix C – Performer Interview Transcripts

C.1 - Transcript of interview with Stephen Altoft. Interview questions


answered by email.

24 June 2010

1. What do you like about performing music for trumpet and electronics?

Not being alone on stage! It is more interesting than playing solo trumpet! The different sound
worlds one moves in is simply very liberating, and the processing of my sound into something
very different is cool!

2. What are some difficulties you encounter when preparing and performing these pieces that
you don’t find in purely acoustic works?

Playing with fixed media (tapes/CDs) and not with a human being you can communicate with is
a challenge - knowing the electronics very well and anticipating what is going to happen next. I
prefer working with live electronics where either I have some artistic control or can have
interpretation leverage and/or can communicate with the performer who is on the laptop: it
creates more of a duo with electronics.

3. Have you had to learn any new techniques or skills in order to perform these kinds of pieces?

Yes. Playing with a stop watch, interpreting graphic scores (tp and el part). Playing with foot
pedals, and learning about their response timings.
200

4. Do you follow a particular method when learning a new piece for trumpet with electronics?

No, there is no method for learning, each piece is different, regardless of the genre.

5. Have you found that you have to know much about music technology and electroacoustic
principles in order to effectively perform these pieces?

Not necessarily no, but one learns more each time- about software responses, how to play with
microphones- which of course improves the performance.

6. Have you found that learning these kinds of pieces has increased your knowledge of music
technology?

Yes, practical knowledge, but I am still quite limited as I did not study this at university.

7. Have you had to acquire and learn to use any equipment that a trumpeter might not normally
use?

Foot pedals, playing pd and max patches, but no programming! One comes to know basics-
working with mixing desks, microphones, but I still feel a novice as I have to put most of the
energy into learning the notes I have to play. Mostly there is always a technician there or
composer there running the programmes or at least sitting at the mixing desk.

8. Do you have any favorite electronic equipment that you like to use in performance?

Not especially. I mostly work with a laptop which is either under my control or a technicians.
We have used a Mark of the Unicorn interface in order for the footpedal to work - it was small
and transportable.
201

9. Who are some of your favorite composers for trumpet and electronics?

I don’t really believe there are composers who write more than one piece for this as a genre - the
genre could be instruments and electronics. Michael Clarke has written 3 pieces (two for
trumpet and el, one for tp, perc and electronics for our duo, duo Contour) and that was a long
collaboration - something I like. Jonathan Harvey wrote a second piece a few years ago for
Markus Stockhausen, but it is just loops.

10. Do you have any favorite compositions in this genre?

Ricecare una Melodia by Jonathan Harvey - I played it with a multi-track tape machine first, and
then with Michael Clarke’s max/msp version which is much more flexible of course. It was also
the first piece in the genre I played! But I like all of the pieces in my repertoire!

11. How have learning and performing these compositions affected your career as a trumpet
player?

Learning every piece brings me further as a musician. Having programmes with electronics
enabled me and duo Contour to play at some festivals that don’t programme solely acoustic
music. I have also made some good friends (composers!) through this work.

12. Do they make up a significant proportion of your current repertoire?

Yes. My current project (actually during the last 9 years I think) is the microtonal trumpet
project:

www.microtonaltrumpet.com
202

There are pieces for both quarter-tone trumpet and 19-division trumpet with electronics (fixed,
pd and max pieces) and also with film. There is a Repertoire list on the site.

13. Are you familiar with Ricercare Una Melodia by Jonathan Harvey, Ida, My Dear by Peter
Hatch, Modes of Interference by Agostino di Scipio, and/or Extensions by David Cope, and if so
do you have any advice regarding their preparation and performance?

Harvey- see above. The Cope I have heard about. The others not.

14. Do you find audiences react differently to pieces involving electronic elements than purely
acoustic pieces?

I guess so, there is more to listen to and maybe electronic music is not so far away from pop
music, that they find it accessible. Or they find it exciting because technology is involved.

15. Do you have any further comments regarding the preparation, performance, and aesthetics
of this genre of music?

There is more effort, outlay and equipment involved, and sometimes the financial means are not
there in order to put such a concert on.

C.2 - Transcript of telephone interview with Marco Blaauw.

21 and 22 August, 2010

1. What do you like about performing music for trumpet and electronics?

I think electronic music, or the electronic equipment that we have available, that is actually since
the Second World War, is to be treated as an independent instrument. So I enjoy it as much as I
203

enjoy playing with a pianist or trombonist or ensemble or even orchestra. And second I see the
electronics also as offering me a larger range of sounds on my trumpet. So that’s two different
ways of using electronics, I think. It’s using it as a partner to play with but also especially sound
processing or live electronics that you control yourself. It’s like an extra range of colours for the
trumpet. So I’ve always been looking to get a bigger range, not only in tone/register, but also in
sound. So for me it was quite logical to start using electronics at some point. I think in the year
2000 I started investing in electronic equipment. I did a lot of experimenting there. But then I
also developed my double-bell trumpet, so I got a bit stuck with my double bell trumpet. Also
what I discovered in using electronics is it’s like using a new instrument, and to get a really good
control and grip on the material you have to practice as much as I would practice the trumpet, so
I just didn’t have the time available. So when I work up a performance I always have specialists
working with me with that do the electronics, and I am just occupied with the trumpet.

2. Do you have any favorite electronic equipment that you like to use in performance?

Not anymore, no. The equipment I bought in 2000 looks terribly old now. So it’s not of any use
anymore. I don’t do any live processing myself. I sometimes get software patches from
composers but usually I work with people. An example is a composer here from Cyprus, studied
in London, lives in Holland now. His name is Yannis Kyriakides, and we’ve worked a lot
together. He uses live software and works with samples all the time, and I quite like that. We
improvise a lot – actually we have a cd out. It’s made from selections of improvisations we did
in Karsruhe at ZKM. We recorded a piece for trumpet and electronics by Yannis and in the
evenings used the studio for improvisations and recorded a cd of it. It’s called Play Robot
Dream. The piece Yannis wrote for trumpet and electronics is called the Dog Song.

3. What are some difficulties you encounter when preparing and performing these pieces that
you don’t find in purely acoustic works?

There are different things to tell there. First of all I think the electronics is like a musical
instrument and you have to practice as much as you would on your own instrument, so it’s a time
204

thing - how much time do you really have available. And the electronics world is constantly
changing, so you have to be renewing all the time. This I think is one of the biggest difficulties.
When I get to work with music software, for me it’s incredibly complicated. So it’s big hurdle
for me. So I prefer to delegate that to another person. Also I think it’s nice to work with another
person, to have a duo/partner. The other problem is that when you play with electronics, or with
a tape, like prerecorded electronic music, you always need a pair of ears in the concert hall, so
you can never really be on your own, because it’s never possible to tell what the balance is like.
I have many pieces for trumpet and electronics, but I can’t do it on my own, even if I play in a
small hall. It’s really difficult to get a great sound, and I think a great sound is necessary to give
the piece what it deserves. The third thing I would mention is that it’s very difficult to find the
best equipment. Usually we have to do concessions, like the loudspeakers are not the best, or the
microphone is not the best, and I often find that the performance is as good as the weakest part.
If one cable or one microphone, or even one plug is not 100% good, then the performance
depends very much on this weak part. I often find that concert organizers are not really willing
to invest the maximum in electronic equipment; they often find it too expensive. The fourth
thing is with music by Stockhausen which uses 8 channels, or even that of Yannis which is
quadraphonic. Concert halls are not built for music like that. People can’t sit ideally in the
middle, the performer can’t be in the ideal position, and the height of the hall is often a difficulty.
So it’s very, very difficult to find the ideal circumstances for great electronic music.

4. Have you had to learn any new techniques or skills in order to perform these kinds of pieces?

That happens in every piece; it is not typical for electronic music. Because I’m specializing in
contemporary music, every time I play a new piece by a composer I have to/get to speak the
language of this composer, and that is adjusting my playing all the time. A very good example is
with Agostino Di Scipio. The first time we met I was ready to play for him and show him what I
do on the trumpet, and I was a bit annoyed when he didn’t show any interest at all because he
had such a clear idea about the music he wanted to compose. And it took me very, very long to
get used to his work, and I had to work really hard to satisfy him. Working with feedback, for
me I needed to do really minimal actions on the trumpet and touching the trumpet in a very, very
delicate way, knowing exactly how much air you sent through the trumpet, how you make a half-
205

valve movement, and really underestimated that, because the piece lives with those small
changes in the instrument. So that is an example where I needed a lot of time to adjust myself to
the piece.

4a. Do you have any advice regarding Di Scipio’s piece?

I needed an extra person again in the hall. This was a piece he made for me to perform easily on
my own, he said, but I just didn’t manage to find the right kind of balance between all the inputs
of the microphones and the outputs, and I got totally frustrated with the occupation with the
electronics. But if you like it I’m sure you’ll manage, but for me it got too much. And also I
needed a person, because you get so occupied with the graphics and making great sounds, that
it’s easy to forget about the musical line and what it does for the audience. So it’s great to have
somebody you can rely on in the hall who gives you feedback on what he heard and liked/didn’t
like. Every performance sounded completely different, and sometimes even the effects just
wouldn’t come up because the Larsen tone wouldn’t work properly, and there I needed technical
support. I really like the piece. It sounds fantastic.

5. Do you follow a particular method when learning a new piece for trumpet with electronics?

It’s completely different for every piece. Actually for the trumpet playing there is one thing that
occurred to me when I heard other trumpeters play. I’ve played with electronics for a long time,
I think in the 1990s I started, and it was very primitive compared to what we have now. So I
gradually grew into it, and what I automatically do when I have a microphone on the trumpet, I
change my style of playing and give a lot less of the ‘big’ sound quality that you would give in
an orchestra or big ensemble piece or even as a soloist with an orchestra. You have a lot more
input, a lot more support for a bigger sound. When you play with close micing you have to
allow the electronics to make a big part of your sound, and it’s not always easy to let it go. On
the other hand, it’s really nice playing with close micing – you can play really soft and with a lot
of details you normally wouldn’t even think of.
206

6. Have you found that you have to know much about music technology and electroacoustic
principles in order to effectively perform these pieces?

See answers to questions two and three.

7. Have you found that learning these kinds of pieces has increased your knowledge of music
technology?

See answers to questions two and three.

8. Have you had to acquire and learn to use any equipment that a trumpeter might not normally
use?

See answer to question two.

9. Who are some of your favorite composers for trumpet and electronics?

I think my favorite composers are the composers that really occupy themselves with the
instrument. I’ve had many pieces written for me, or the double bell trumpet that I use or for
other instruments, and when you get the piece you soon notice whether this composer is really
informed and knows about the trumpet, knows about specific qualities of the trumpet or not.
And may favorite composers are composers that I’ve managed to work long-term with,
composers who really get to know my playing, who really get to know the instrument, who are
almost able to sing and perform the piece before I get it. Often in the MusikFabrik you get a
score presented and the composer has no idea how to perform it, or even what it sounds like, and
those pieces are usually the most difficult to perform, to reach high quality. So favorite
composers for me are people who really occupy themselves with the instrument, and when you
write for trumpet and electronics it means you have a very, very complicated instrumentation.
So I think the amount of composers who really can cope with this are very small. And many
207

composers solve this by ‘pre-producing’, by making a tape, and I think that is probably an easy
way of dealing with electronics that often works well too.

10. Do you have any favorite compositions in the genre?

I do perform a lot of Stockhausen’s repertoire, and he was a master of electronics, and he worked
so much with trumpet he knew the instrument so well, and he insisted on doing lots of rehearsals
with the interpreters, so I spent a lot of time with him rehearsing, so I can really say I know his
language very well now. So obviously I like to perform that a lot. And I like to work with
Yannis Kyriakides. I actually worked a lot with Isabel Mundry on a piece for trumpet and
electronics, but then the piece never came. Instead we had a piece for four trumpets and a piece
for solo trumpet, but the electronic stuff she only used in a sound installation that she presented
once in Berlin. I know that Olga Neuwirth presented a piece for trumpet and four-track tape,
that’s actually very accessible, very easy to play. There will be a cd out soon with four new
pieces for trumpet and electronics, and I really enjoyed working with all the composers - David
Dramm, Agostino Di Scipio, Yannis Kyriakides, and Michel Könders, a Dutch composer. Great
pieces, lots of fun.

11. Do they make up a significant proportion of your current repertoire?

No, I don’t think so. I think I have more pieces for trumpet alone, trumpet and chamber music,
trumpet and ensemble, trumpet and orchestra. I do perform a lot with trumpet and electronics,
but it’s not the majority of my repertoire.

12. Have learning and performing these compositions affected your career as a trumpet player?

No, I don’t think so. I don’t know what is the biggest effect on my career. I just try to choose
the repertoire that I like most, and projects come up, and projects sometimes don’t happen, I
don’t know what the biggest effect is on my career.
208

13. Are you familiar with Ricercare una Melodia by Jonathan Harvey, Ida, My Dear by Peter
Hatch, and/or Extensions by David Cope?

I performed Ricercare una Melodia in January at a festival in Berlin. We tried to see if it would
make sense to make a version for double-belled trumpet, but that didn’t really work. I found in
performance and rehearsals a lot depended on the way the delay came back in the room, the
timing of that, the volume. The quality of the playback was quite essential for the performance.
I didn’t occupy myself with the electronics, this time the experimental studio of SWR, they are
specialized in live electronics, took care of the electronics. They didn’t even let me come close
to the computer!

Cope? No.

Hatch? No.

14. Do you find audiences react differently to pieces involving electronic elements than purely
acoustic pieces?

I think it’s definitely a different experience to be surrounded by sound. Especially when you
have a piece like Aries by Stockhausen, for example, there is no way you can listen to that music
at home. You need the eight-track system to really experience the piece. When you hear the
eight tracks ideally surrounding the hall, you hear the sound traveling, the melodies traveling
from left to right, front to back, etc. That is definitely a unique experience. It is difficult for
example if you program a concert to start with a piece with electronics and then go to an acoustic
piece, that doesn’t seem to work, so apparently there is a big effect on the audience. Usually the
average volume of a piece with electronics is higher than an acoustic piece, so yes I do think it’s
a different effect.

A big danger of using electronics, especially with sound processing, is that the effect of
electronics can become cheap tricks, and if you play them loud enough it is sort of an easy effect
on the audience. They don’t have to participate so actively, they don’t have to listen so actively,
they can just lay back and be overwhelmed. The effect can be so overwhelming that the
audience feels offended and walks out. Especially when I heard Stockhausen’s Pieta, it has very
209

low frequencies that are sustained, and people just got crazy because it was so loud! And some
people take it as one path, and other people are offended by it and they walk out. That is fine
too; it’s good that they have a choice.

15. Do you have any further comments regarding the preparation, performance, and
particularly the aesthetics of this genre of music?

Yes, that is a big issue. As I mentioned electronics can also be an easy, cheesy, cheap effect, and
that often is very clear because those pieces often don’t survive the time. To find really good
quality in the use of electronics, to reach very good esthetic quality, I think just needs a very
good composer. One of the most famous pieces for electronic music is Gesang der Junglinge,
from 1956, and it is made with such old fashioned techniques, just tape machines, copying,
cutting and pasting, but that piece is constructed in such an ingenious way that it will survive the
time. Although we have much better equipment nowadays, much better means and knowledge,
that piece is still one of the biggest examples for good quality electronic music. A lot of stuff
that I hear, because I’ve visited a lot of contemporary music festivals and heard a lot of
electronic stuff, is just made quickly and you can throw it away quickly. It’s very hard to make
an electronic piece that survives the time, I think. And electronic equipment is still a very young
instrument and developing so fast, so it is very difficult for composers to get a good grip on that
instrument. So I think composers that are really good now with electronics are people that are
occupied all the time with the computer, and composing and working with electronics at the
computer, just non-stop updating, willing to change, willing to play with it, willing to
experiment, that is compose and throw away. I know from Yannis he works incredibly quickly,
and is also willing to compose something and then throw it away immediately. Creating a lot of
material, to be able to select the best bits of it. It is interesting to see what will happen in the
future of electronics.
210

C.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Impett.

16 September 2010

1. What do you like about performing music for trumpet and electronics?

What I'm interested in is extending not just the sonic language of the instrument, or the sort of
“performative” repertoire, but also the kind of relationship you can have with the stuff of the
music. The instrument I developed (the metatrumpet), the idea was that it shouldn't just be a sort
of 'controller', a special effects box, but that you actually somehow integrate the instrument
structurally into the way music is generated. Extending the kind of musical action is what is of
interest to me. And when I started doing this a lot of people were using effects, processors,
controllers, pedals and stuff like that, but basically you're just controlling effects then. It doesn't
change the relationship with the nature of the stuff. And I think what technology does is allow
you to transform that fundamental relationship. Most extensions of instruments are, in
conceptual terms, spatial in that they extend the kind of sound you can make, or the range of
colours or something like that. But I'm equally interested in what I think of as temporal
extension, extending the structural capabilities of what the performer does.

2. What are some difficulties you encounter when preparing and performing these pieces that
you don't find in purely acoustic works?

Well I guess there are difficulties of rehearsing; that's a practical difficulty. That's a fairly
straightforward thing, but it means if you're going to rehearse with some kind of technologically
extended environment where everything is set up, so there is a practical concern there. Basically,
technologically, I've never found anything in technology as difficult as playing the trumpet,
frankly. Playing the trumpet is just so difficult that anything else pales by comparison! The
hardest thing I find is playing trumpet itself.
211

2a. Do you find anything conceptually difficult as well, or is it mostly technically?

Aside from technically, if you're rehearsing away from the technology, then obviously you have
a greater challenge of conceptualizing what you're playing with, as it were, than you do in the
case of score-determined stuff. I guess maybe that refers more to the sort of piece where there is
some kind of electronic abstract component. That is simply very difficult to get much a sense of
except when you hear it, and you can see people have different graphical techniques.

There was one piece I remember playing, a wonderful piece which had a different set of
unknowns. Do you know Morton Subotnick's Ghost Electronics? It's a great set of pieces. The
idea was that you started this signal processing box as you started the performance, and you
didn't have to control anything. It's kind of an effects box, but you don't control it. It runs
through its own sequence of things; it's changing constantly. And there is a beautiful trumpet
and ensemble piece called After the Butterfly, and you really don't know what's going to come
out, because you're not in control of it, you just set the thing off. It works beautifully, and also
then you've got something kind of to play against, you've got something to interact with, because
of the unpredictability of it. So that's quite another situation.

3. Have you had to learn any new techniques or skills in order to perform these kinds of pieces?

I started using technology as a composer as well as a performer, so I learned things like


programming. I do most of my programming in C++. I use a combination of a thing called
Swarm from the Santa Fe institute, and I get Max to do most of actual the DSP stuff. I learned
stuff about sensing technology, I did my Ph.D. on interactive composition systems. So that was
a whole bunch of technological stuff that was involved in development my own ways of
exploring that area.

4. Is it difficult to balance that with trumpet playing and the performance aspect of this music?

I still play the trumpet, partly because I can't afford to give up my night job! And partly because
playing is like sort of yoga or something for me - I have to do it every day, otherwise I get ill!
212

It's really like that. So playing is a major part of my life, and the technology is just part of the
way I think about music. I think the state of music has changed, so if you're going to come to
grips with that you have to get a handle on the technological side of things. So I don't see it as a
particular conflict, it just means that there's lots of stuff to do.

What I never really got a hold of was the hardware side of things. With live electronics I get
other people to do that stuff. I'm using an interface box by Sukandar Kartadinata called a glui
(www.glui.de). He does a lot of hardware stuff. All of the sensing technology itself, although
it's smaller and neater, hasn't actually changed much over a generation, with the different
physical things you can sense. It hasn't changed much. I guess in terms of sensing technology,
most of it's pretty obvious. The only thing that is a bit of a surprise is air pressure. You feel that
you're blowing through the thing, but actually not much air goes through it. You measure the air
pressure, it has a very non-linear relationship with what you imagine it doing. So that proved a
most difficult thing to do in terms of sensing technology without compromising the acoustics of
the instrument, and the least useful.

5. Do you follow a particular method when learning a new piece for trumpet with electronics?

Not really. I try and get a picture of the whole piece, and try and sort out the things I can't play,
and I try and make sure I understand how the technology works. That's pretty much it.

6. Have you found that you have to know much about music technology and electroacoustic
principles in order to effectively perform these pieces?

See above.
213

7. Have you found that learning these kinds of pieces has increased your knowledge of music
technology?

See above. Also: I was playing more pieces by other people when I started working with this
stuff, so my knowledge of it increased because I found the way composers were generally
working with this technology were quite limiting. They were just using it as an effects box,
basically.

8. Have you had to acquire and learn to use any equipment that a trumpeter might not normally
use?

See answers to questions three and four.

9. What is your favourite electronic equipment? Would that be your metatrumpet?

Well that's the thing I've developed for myself. I now run Max/MSP on a laptop, I have another
laptop that runs some composing stuff, and in fact I use an Eventide machine to do some of the
stuff that sounds not great on Max. So I've got a favourite machine to do things like
transposition, and reverb and stuff on my Eventide machine.

10. Who are some of your favourite composers for trumpet and electronics?

Well it's hard to say because they're mostly one-off pieces. I think the Morton Subotnick piece is
one of the most poetic and imaginative uses – the range of gestures that he gets out of the
trumpet, that he imagines the trumpet playing, I think he conceives of what the instrument might
do in a way that's radically unlike what most people imagine the trumpet doing; more than most
composers you come across. So Stockhausen for instance. Stockhausen's music is emphatically
trumpet writing. It's very difficult, it's beautifully composed, all the rest of it, but the writing
itself – that's orchestral trumpet writing, with a bit of jazz. I listen a lot to people like Franz
Haussinger, Axel Doerner, people like that, and of course that's quite a challenge for composers
214

to know how to use that kind of material. But I notice you've got Agostino's piece on your list. I
guess Agostino is one of the people that comes closest to what you're doing there. Agostino is a
very imaginative man. His understanding of what technology can do is exceptional.

11. Do you have any favourite compositions in this genre?

There's a piece by Tim Souster called The Transistor Radio of St. Narcissus. One of the things I
like about it is that it risks being really, we say “math”. Whatever you call it, “cheesy”. It risks
that, but strikes me that in risking it, it succeeds aesthetically, and therefore it's quite an exciting
piece. The end section, it's like the albums that Freddie Hubbard made for Creed Taylor, that's
the sound of the thing, and that could have gone terribly wrong, and I think it doesn't. So I think
it's a very successful piece in that respect.

11a. Could you elaborate on what makes it “cheesy”?

I think that's partly because of sort of the “grossness” of the way these effects are just added.
You just switch on a delay or a transpose or something like that, and I think if you were writing
score-based music you probably just think one more time about exactly what you're doing and
exactly what instrument you're giving it to.

12. Do you play much music other than trumpet and electronics?

Yes, that's a lot of what I play. I also play the natural trumpet with a couple of orchestras: I play
with the Orchestra of the 18th Century, and the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra. So that's the
other half of my activity. The only thing I don't ever do is play in a symphony orchestra.
215

13. Do you have anything to say about Harvey's piece, have any advice about it?

He wrote that for me in fact. Well, the classic structural delay issues – if something goes wrong,
you're going to hear it go wrong four times. And the classic transposition and slowing down
thing, whereby intonation of the stuff in the second half of the piece, when he slows down and
stretches that little melody, of course any intonation issues are amplified. But I think it's a very
poetic piece. He's a very poetic composer.

13a. Are you familiar with Ida, My Dear by Peter Hatch or Extensions by David Cope?

No.

14. Do you find audiences react differently to pieces involving electronic elements than purely
acoustic pieces?

Not so much. What I find much more of an issue is combining playing pieces by other people
with playing my own stuff that involves improvisation. Sometimes I find audiences are unclear
as to their relationship with the material, that is the relationship between me, and the music
played, and them. In a conventional sort of recital situation it's almost as if the performer is kind
of a third party. You know you have the music and the performer sort of stands back a bit and
says “I'll do my best”, I'll give you an honest representation, but it’s not me, this isn’t my music.
So I found that in involving work with improvisation and that kind of thing it’s much more
necessary to present everything as if it’s your music. I'm not suggesting you pretend you wrote
it, but rather than being a sort of repertoire situation. There has to be a real ownership of the
stuff. You kind of speak to the audience directly, rather than standing back and saying “I'm
going to play you this piece by such and such, and if you don't like it it's not my fault.”
216

15. Do you find that makes you take more responsibility then as well for the music you're
choosing and performing?

Yes, I think that's right. And from that point of view, in terms of your last question, there is a
greater degree of an ownership if you like (I can't think of a more appropriate word), and maybe,
say, in the conventional case, that's closer to the sort of relationship a pianist has with his
repertoire, where he really has to assimilate it before it's presented, whereas perhaps we're more
used to a sort of orchestral situation where you're kind of turning up and playing a piece to the
best of your ability, but it's not quite from the soul in the same way. We maintain a sort of “hired
hand relationship” with the stuff, which sometimes is useful!

15a. So you find your approach with electronics is helping you break beyond that?

Yes, I think it’s taught me that that's how I learned to have a different kind relationship with the
material.
217

Appendix D – Composer Interview Transcripts

D.1 - Transcript of interview with Peter Hatch. Interview questions


answered by email.

13 August 2010

1. What do you feel are some advantages or disadvantages of combining acoustic instruments
with electronic elements that don’t exist in a purely acoustic setting?

Of course this is meant to be performed in an acoustic setting. Obviously, it allows for the
possibility of solo performance with something other than piano accompaniment. I find
combining acoustic and el-ac sounds a great way of extending the acoustic sound, allowing for it
to be listened to differently. I'm most interested in works that attempt to blend the sounds (rather
than contrast them.)

2. Has your approach to composing music with electronic elements changed during the course
of your career?

Well, better editing tools exist now (I was working with something pretty crude when I did Ida....
can't remember exactly what.) I've only done this work occasionally, so each piece I do is a new
adventure.

3. Has your compositional style been significantly affected by technological developments?

I think working with technology allows/forces you to listen to sound (including musical sound)
differently - I think it is invaluable for all composers, even if they don't pursue it professionally.
Our program at WLU requires all students to take a course in electroacoustics.
218

4. Where does Ida, My Dear fit into your development as an electronic composer?

I don't consider myself an electronic composer.

5. Some composers tend to favor a close relationship between the electronic elements of their
compositions and the acoustic elements of the instruments for which they are written. Do you
feel this is an important relationship? Is it important in Ida, My Dear?

As I said above, yes... and the interweaving of "live or Memorex" is completely central to the
piece.

6. What was your motivation behind composing this piece?

Gertrude Stein's writing has been a recurring motivation for me. As well, I've been interested in
a very long time in "instrumental theatre" - bringing theatrical elements (spoken word,
movement) into solo and chamber works.

7. Did you write it with a particular performer in mind?

Guy Few.

8. Why did you decide to compose a piece for trumpet and tape?

Can't remember where it started... discussion with Guy, probably.


219

9. Did you find it allowed you to easily produce the results you were seeking?

It? Do you mean technology? It is another "instrument" - a very technically challenging one.

10. What and/or who were your influences when you were composing this piece?

Hmmmm.... many.... obviously Monk and Stein, but then a huge range of musical influences,
from John Cage to Laurie Anderson. Radio in general.....

11. How are the musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.), theatrical (and/or literary),
and electronic elements of Ida, My Dear related to each other?

This is very difficult to answer... they all inspire each other. It is likely (it has been awhile!) that
the musical materials for the trumpet part are derived from the Monk tune. The balance of all of
the elements you mentioned was very important to me - I wanted the effect to be of an acoustic
piece that was enhanced by the electroacoustic elements, rather than the voice and trumpet being
part of an el-ac piece.

12. Did this relationship affect your compositional process?

Of course. The spoken text had a significant impact on defining the form of the piece.

13. Do you have any advice for performers of this work?

The best productions of this piece have featured performers who have taken some care in the
setup of the audio diffusion system (monitors) and levels, such that it doesn't sound over
amplified, but almost unamplified. Time spent with a theatre coach on the spoken text was
usually well worth it - many performers think they can just "speak naturally" (or, worse, will try
to "act") - it is a difficult text to deliver well and needs both coaching and practice.
220

14. Do you wish to make any comments regarding your philosophy of composition, especially
with regard to music involving electronics?

I'm very interested in how music actually sounds... what we in classical and post-classical music
train hard to do is develop a great sense of nuance and complexity as well as refinement in
sounds we produce. Electronics (composed for, performed with/on or listened to) can really
enhance this sense.

15. Do you have any thoughts regarding the future of this genre of music?

Given what I just said, it would be nice to see more work done combining purely acoustic sound
(not miked) with electronic sound as opposed to all-acoustic or all-amplified. There is
surprisingly little done...

D.2 - Transcript of interview with Agostino di Scipio. Interview questions


answered by email.

27 August, 2010

1. What do you feel are some advantages or disadvantages of combining acoustic instruments
with electronic elements that don’t exist in a purely acoustic setting?

I find it very difficult to answer this question. Sorry! I tried two or three times, but cancelled the
first two answers. Here I paste the third, but it's just to show you that it leads me to a different
kind of discussion, probably of no relevance to your subject.

[In a way, the question reflects a common assumption that "electronic elements" somehow
extend the palette of compositional possibilities offered by a "purely acoustic setting", so it
implicitly frames the issue in terms of new musical languages, more varied ways to compose
music. For me, this is not an unproblematic assumption.
221

In my view, the "advantages" in working with electronics consist, for musicians and composers
especially, in appropriating a variety of technologies having an incredibly larger role in the
society, as opposed to consolidated mechanics known as "musical instruments", having a narrow,
specialized, pre-defined role. It becomes a form of "media art": the artwork is presented together
with the technical development put into the making of the artwork itself. Inventing the process,
not only the object.

The "disadvantages"… they actually consist in much the same as the "advantages"! It depends on
one's own view of composition. Composing is not enriched or impoverished by combining
electronics and traditional music instrument: it undergoes rather a shift in focus, it turns from a
notion of composition having little to do with the availability of the means - as the means are
mostly "received", consolidated and historically-connotated - and bearing mostly on the ends
(defined in terms of musical esthetics), to a notion of composing where the availability and
relationship among the resources (no matter whether mechanical or analog or digital) are to be
decided upon and thus move to the very focus of experience. Here "means" and "ends" can be
reconciled, neither one ruling over the other. The risk of focusing mostly or exclusively on the
means (in a symmetric swap of the two terms in the dichotomy) is to be accepted - that's the
history of a lot of electronic music - only to learn to avoid it.]

2. Has your approach to composing music with electronic elements changed during the course
of your career?

Yes. At the beginning, I did a lot of research on computer-based sound synthesis and processing,
resulting in "tape" works (stereo or multichannel audio). At the time, I also wrote many
"instrument(s) + tape" works. Later on, I moved towards live electronics performance and real-
time/real-space sound installations.

3. Has your compositional style been significantly affected by technological developments?

"Style" is a problematic notion. I guess it stands for recurrent elements, traces of my own
behaviour/actions/understanding, that can be recognized across a variety of technical resources
222

and media. "Technological developments" is also quite problematic…

When you are a beginner, your "style" is certainly affected by the technologies available and
developing; later on, you learn not to be affected by the those trends too much, in an attempt to
rather affect yourself the research in the means significant to your work. Sure, moving from
mainframe to personal computers (during the 80s) was crucial for my own programming and
signal processing skills; later on, having enough computation power and flexible programming
tools was also crucial to view live electronics performance the way I happen to. I approached
live signal processing when the Kyma real-time workstation became solid enough and available
(in the mid 90s). Later on, still using computers, I enlarged the scope of "electronics" in my
work, to mean the whole electroacoustic and mechanical infrastructure in the performance
context. Eventually I wrote "solo electronics" pieces. Eventually I even made sound
installations with only analog electronics (… going back to set-ups closer to that of pioneers of
live electronics, in the 60s and 70s). So, you see, developments may influence your decisions,
but if you have a creative, inventive approach, then you follow up with anything that seems
interesting to you, regardless of technological advances.

In general, technological determinism (the theory that everything that happens in the society is
actually under the spell of technological advances, that technological developments drive the
development of society) is unavoidable, however problematic it is to really accept it. I view
composition as an activity including the research and experimentation of the means of
composing: it's a question of the degree of freedom you have, and that's a significant element you
convey to the audience.

4. Where does Modes of Interference fit into your development as an electronic composer?

Modes of Interference is a pretty good example of various aspects of my work: first, real-time
signal processing has an important role (it's a Pure Data patch, sketched as I was learning the
language, but based on previous personal experience); second, actions on the instrument are not
merely to produce sounds, but also to control the signal processing computer; third, actions on
the instrument are themselves partly dependent on the signal processing output; so it's feedback,
not only audio feedback (Larsen tones), but feedback in the performance process, in the
223

gestures/textures emerging from there. Important, it requires two loudspeakers (it's a frontal,
stereo piece), not more: here speakers are NOT to merely amplify and reproduce sounds that are
already there, but they are active parts in the generation of sound; for this piece, and speakers
seemed just enough. The whole technical configuration, once up and running, is a small
dynamic system: that means, during the performance every part is always affecting every other
part. That's my understanding of "interaction", there is nothing "neutral" to the sound,
everything affecting sound in the performance is compositionally relevant. The stage
environment becomes crucial: actually, the background noise in the room is just necessary (we'll
discuss feedback later on). You can't even "set the level" to this system: it comes with its own
level, if you try changing any level, either input or output, it'll change in the overall dynamical
behaviour (it can even simply die, thus resuming to silence). It's a small autonomous system
constantly exposed to the heteronomy of the environment to which it is coupled, to a number of
"perturbations" in the room. It's fragile. But that is not at all a problem: rather, it becomes a
character of the piece.

Before trying to use the trumpet not only to make sounds that a computer would modify, but as
the source of control for the signal processing gear modifying it, I would have never thought of
writing a piece largely based on prolonged sine tones (Larsen tones are frequently, not always,
very close to sine tones, either single tones, or clusters). This brings us back to the question of
"style", as a problematic notion. I didn't want to write a "fragile" and "thin" work. Simply, it's
got that character from the very structure of the interplay of system components. I was interested
in the latter, and learnt what would be its sonic potential.

5. Some composers tend to favor a close relationship between the electronic elements of their
compositions and the acoustic characteristics of the instruments for which they are written, and
this is obviously the case in Modes of Interference. Do you feel this is an important relationship
in general?

It is, as is clear from the previous answer. And it is important that this close relationship is clear
to the listeners. You hear a thinner or thicker, variable texture, and you clearly experience that
the many layers in it, the various details, would soon vanish were any part being separate from
the system. You hear that: were the trumpet to stop, the whole sound fabric would also do so.
224

It's so interconnected.

Being so important, the signal processing and the details of the electroacoustic infrastructure are
duly documented in the score. I always try my best to capture the essential of the electronics in
my scores, so other people can implement fairly similar working conditions when they present
my compositions. The digital signal processing is usually notated in ways general enough to be
imported to other computers and programming languages (other than Kyma or Pure Data, the
two I've been using most often). I have seen a few pieces of mine performed by other people
taking charge not only of the instrumental parts, but of the electronics too, and the results were
good enough to have me keep on doing that. It's difficult, but it can be done. It's important to
make such pieces circulate in the hands of people other than yourself, but sharing a similar
perspective.

6. What was your motivation behind composing this piece?

I had been invited as guest composer at ZKM, Karlsruhe, fall 2005. I had no plan what I would
do there, but I knew they had some emphasis on open source software, at the time, which was
interesting to me. So I accepted the invitation, but requested that they teach me Pure Data or
other open source stuff. That was part of the motivation. Other motivations, less contingent, are
implicit in my answers to questions 4 and 5.

7. Did you write it with a particular performer in mind?

The commission was specifically for Marco Blaauw, a very talented trumpeter from the
Netherlands. At ZKM, I met with Marco and we worked together, but only in the later stage of
the process. However, I wouldn't say I wrote anything that can't be practical for any trumpet
players. Yes, it's quite unusual and specific, virtuosic in a sense, yet the ability required of the
trumpeter is not of a kind we usually attach to virtuosic instrumental music. It has more to do
with the timely responsiveness to the instrument's resonances, and to the behaviour of the
broader context (room and technology) where the instrument is but a component part. It has to
do with the ability to respond of any small aspect of one's actions. But then this "ability" is,
225

strictly speaking, "responsability": the context where you act now, is the result of your own
previous actions; actions you do now, will create the context where you will act next; and not
always the connection is either clear or linear. The score leaves ample margins of maneuver to
tackle this.

In essence, the kind of virtuosity I was asking of Marco, is more like a very very good (almost
perfect) awareness of all subtle details (wanted and unwanted) in his playing, in his manipulating
of the trumpet body with hands and lips. I am not sure at the beginning he was following me on
that. It was difficult, sure, and it was still in progress for me, too. But then he realized that all I
was asking for was a more exact and prompt perception of his own mastery of the trumpet, a
different, renewed understanding of actions of the kind he would actually do all the times, when
playing trumpet. Basically, what I ask of my interpreters, is that they take seriously their
musicality: music lays more in well balanced actions and interactions, and less in the
arrangement of sounds resulting from those actions. Music is a praxis, a practical discipline,
something you do possibly well, not something you re-create or replicate to match a purely
esthetic goal, no matter how well you match it. The first reflects a notion of production
(bringing-forth, poiesis, acting, enacting) and "composition", the latter a notion of reproduction
(mimesis, re-acting) and "consumption".

8. Why did you decide to compose a piece using computer/trumpet controlled audio feedback?

Well, you know, we had several examples of feedback music along the decades. The closest to
what I've done with Modes of Interference is probably a performance by David Tudor, called
Microphone (I can't recall the year). However, it is also very different, in sound as much as in
concept. In general, audio feedback is for me a way to make some events of sound to take place,
some sound to be there, instead of silence: it is "ontogenic" - some sound is now there,
eventually, whose pitch and dynamics largely depend on innumerable factors related to the given
physical, material (this social) context, including the electroacoustic set-up. With some simple
computer code, I turn the feedback chain into a kind of sound generator, so it doesn't necessarily
peak nor saturate. That event of sound lays the ground for a confrontation - encounter or clash -
between performers, a place (space), and a specially composed technological infrastructure
embodying some idea concerning how larger structures can evolve and singular gestures emerge:
226

there it becomes "morphogenic" - feedback not only provides that some events of sound takes
place ("sound as energy"), it also affects how that is articulated in time ("sound as a carrier of
information").

The idea is simple: a) set-up a feedback chain, letting it generate sound by the sheer
accumulation of background noise ("positive" feedback, in cybernetic terms); b) experiment
ways to interfere with that (thus introducing "negative" feedback, i.e. control and longer-term
developments). Ways of interfering include actions on the valves, mouthpiece and bell. The
position of the player relative to the speakers is relevant, too, as is the placement of the
microphone capsule inside the trumpet. And then there's some signal processing transformations
(pitch- and time-shifting of sound). The very same performance concept, with only few
adjustments, is behind other works of mine, particularly the other works called Modes of
Interference (there are three of them so far: the first with trumpet; the second with saxophone;
the third with a number of electric guitars; the third one is actually a sound installation, but it
lends itself well to performance situations too).

9. Did you find it allowed you to easily produce the results you were seeking?

The trumpet revealed a very good feedback generator and controller, in a way… After all, it is a
very very small tube, a very restricted duct or conduct, with strong resonances (sometimes too
strong). And it allows you to make actions (not many, but all rather effective) to interfere with
the feedback.

This said, as should be clear from previous answers, I was seeking no particular sound result, if
that is what you mean. I could of course figure out what the resultant sonorities would eventually
be, but I was not after a mental image, I was not realizing something I could pre-hear in my
mind. Sure, along the way I did my best for it to sound in a way that is acceptable or interesting
to my ears. But that came along, it didn't have me started. What had me started was this idea of
creating an autonomous (but exposed to the environment) sound generating system, and
introducing a human-driven factor (instrumental part) to explore its musical potential (in more
specific terms: its system dynamics).
227

10. What and/or who were your influences when you were composing this piece?

Mmmhh, I don't know… I always find it difficult to answer this kind of question. I could
mention very general influences, not particular to this very piece: "system thinking" (cybernetics,
ecology) is a relevant influence, as is "embodied cognition" research (Francisco Varela). Yet, I
don't pursue any kind of naturalism nor claim any scientific relevance… I could mention a few
pioneers whose teachings are invaluable for me… Yet, the list would be too long and not overtly
related to this particular piece (some stronger relations can be found not only with Tudor or
Lucier, but with Xenakis, however different these composers could be). Not to say that, I listen
to a lot of more recent music, including radical improvisation and others where the praxis - i.e.
how you act in a given context, with musical means you are responsible for - is more crucial than
the sounding results. Let me put it very shortly: I am influenced by all music where "sound" is
not "object", but "event".

Oh, yes, I was influenced by the rather bad weather in Karlsruhe and the somewhat depressive
hostel room! I perhaps should mention that my father used to play trumpet (for his own pleasure,
not as a professional): indeed, I took one of his older trumpets with me trying things in the ZKM
studio and at my place in L'Aquila. I had already written, in 1994, a short trumpet & real-time
signal processing, totally non-interactive in a way (you find it in a CD put forth that year by Ars
Electronica, Linz)… I don't recall these as biographical elements: only as evidence that,
probably, when you write for an instrument, often the most significant influence comes from the
instrument itself... I tend to "stay with the instrument" for months, listening to it, learning basic
playing techniques, trying alternative techniques. Or, disassembling it and turning into a
different set of tools (I am doing that for a new flute piece, 2 pezzi di ascolto e sorveglianza [two
pieces of listening and surveillance]).

11. How are the musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.) elements and the electronic
elements of Modes of Interference related to each other?

Well, they are all totally interrelated, as a significant task for me is "compose the interactions"
228

(rather than composing "interactive music"… ). That means, studying the interrelations, the
constraints linking several aspects of sound among them. Modes of interference sounds like a
music where pitch is crucial, just as Feedback Study (a solo electronics piece from 2003, second
piece in the Audible Ecosystemics project). However, the entire pitch structure one hears
changes from performance to performance, from space to space, from trumpet(er) to trumpet(er),
being mostly the result of site-specific (and time-specific) circumstances. However, the array of
interactions (the network "organization", in cybernetic terms) is stable. It is important for me to
regulate how a change in amplitude would cause a change in pitch and shift it; how, in turn, a
change in pitch would have stronger or softer resonances in the room, making the sound louder
or softer, how the stronger or softer resonance, or the brighter or darker resonance, in turn would
cause a change in pitch… inextricably intertwined… Usually, I make the amplitude changes also
drive some more complicated signal processing, like "granular" processing. Consider this
relationship, as an example: if total sound in the room gets louder, sonic particles output by the
granular processing are made sparser, i.e. "less dense". A change in "density" (or even a
rallentando, for that matter), will also eventually a softer overall sound level in the room. The
interrelationships I work with, are sometimes "balancing", sometimes "reinforcing" (keeping or
augmenting the unbalance).

Only in a reductionistic view you would treat the various aspects of sound as separate properties,
as objective magnitudes. I hold a more organic, ecological view of sound: you can't change any
properties, without also changing the others.

12. Did this relationship affect your compositional process?

It did not affect my compositional process: the compositional process itself consisted largely in
studying, crafting, testing etc. such a range of relationships, extending the approach to the signal
processing transformations. It required feature-extraction methods (the technical possibility, in
real time, to track aspects of sound) and methods for the tracked data to be mapped onto
psychoacoustically relevant signal processing variables.
229

13. Do you have any advice for performers of this work?

See some of the answers above.

14. Do you wish to make any comments regarding your philosophy of composition, especially
with regard to music involving electronics?

I'd prefer to remain on our subject, Modes of interference and the "instrument / electronics"
relationship, but on a point that in the end is of larger significance: How many works for
"instruments and electronics" have finely, competently crafted instrumental parts and pretty
banal electronics, mostly embellishing (or "setting a different context to") the solo instrument
with "sound effects"? There is a huge unbalance in terms of the knowledge put at work. I don't
think the beauty or structural properties of the final sounding results may justify that unbalance.
Esthetics is never a good excuse.

In contrast, I think it is important to develop a certain level of "ecriture" for the electronics: I
mean, in writing for instruments, you probably develop a level of competence in how you exploit
such means: you might have preferences, be more versed in writing for the strings rather than the
piano, etc.; yet, all your instrumental parts are decently crafted and mastered. It's not a question
of how refined or how innovative is your writing: it's a question of how good is your control of
the technological resources (mechanical, in this case, and bound to their historical sources) as
relative to the sounding result. In the end, it's a question of balancing ends and means. (By the
way, there is my definition of music: the ability to balance ends and means). Why this should be
different with electronics? Your level of "ecriture", your mastery of the electronics, reflects the
degree of freedom you hopefully can gain for yourself as a composer or performer, in a world
where our lives and our sounds are taken into unmanageably large arrays of technological and
technocratic forces. It's important to appropriate and customize, design and implement at least
the technology of artistic practices such as music.
230

15. Do you have any thoughts regarding the future of this genre of music?

I know that the approach I happened to take on sound and music appears, to many, all too
specific and technically oriented. However, the future of this approach, which I share with not so
few around the world, lays in the open-mindedness of listeners beyond the niche of today's
musical experimentations (an open-mindedness that the music itself helps widening): when a
larger audience realize that this music is about their freedom, their ears and body and brain, their
relationship to others and to the environment and the space (real space, not virtual), the future
appears a little more luminous… The problem is, quite a lot of counterforces make this business
all the more difficult, if not impossible - and, precisely for that reason, more and more urgent and
necessary, today... In fact, problematic is not the future - not yet! Problematic is the present. We
have to put a lot of thought in it.

D.3 - Transcript of telephone interview with Jonathan Harvey.

27 June, 2010.

1. What do you feel are some advantages or disadvantages of combining acoustic instruments
with electronic elements that don’t exist in a purely acoustic setting?

The advantages of this music are, for me, an enormous extension of the instrument, much like
the invention of the mute for the trumpet it’s an extension of the instrument. It gives a lot more
difference in colours, and of course it’s an enormous extension. I’m not particularly interested in
having other things in the electronics, different things; I’m interested in an extension of the
instrument. That’s an enormous plus. And disadvantages, well of course it limits the
performance venues. You can’t perform with electronics in every hall, and of course it’s always
a bit more fuss to get everything arranged, but that’s trivial. I think the main disadvantage is that
it does cut down what venues one can use. Otherwise I don’t see any disadvantage at all - quite
the contrary.
231

2. Has your approach to composing music with electronic elements changed during the course
of your career?

I’ve been using electronics since 1970, and I was one of the first to use computer programming.
Of course that has changed out of all recognition! My approach to composing music with
electronics has necessarily changed according to what is possible, and now we’re at a wonderful
stage where real-time processing is so very quick and efficient that very different things are
possible in real-time. So gradually over the years I’ve mixed more and more real time with tape
or recorded sounds, until now when it’s virtually all real-time. But it’s difficult to define exactly
how the music is different.

3. Has your compositional style been significantly affected by technological developments?

The research that has gone on into sound, by means of those programs of treatments of sound,
has been very exciting and very inspiring, so that has influenced me a lot. And the delving into
the sound, into the nature of sound, has influenced my writing. The research has often been
through a microscope as it were, into the tiny components of complex sound, and composing
with those tiny components. So composition has changed, going deeper and deeper into the
microscopic world of sound. And that would influence orchestral writing too, because in
spectral composition of course, the analysis of the sound is often used when writing for other
instruments. The electronic analysis, or computer analysis, is transferred onto the violins or
whatever.

4. Where does Ricercare una Melodia fit into your development as an electronic composer?

It’s 1984, isn’t it. It is quite a simple piece of course, and after I’d been composing very
complex things at IRCAM in Paris, so it fits into that knowledge which I got from those first few
years at IRCAM, which is a big research centre with a lot of scientists and composers. So
Ricercare was obviously not a big piece of research, and at that time you had to use tape
recorders; there was no other way of doing it.
232

5. What and/or who were your influences when you were composing this piece?

The idea of the piece is that it starts off with searching, rather fugal searching like a ricercar, and
at the same time it becomes slower, and deeper and deeper and deeper. And this is a kind of
psychological progression, a rather exciting state of mind progressing to a calmer and deeper
one, eventually like a state of meditation. So that was the idea. It was a little bit Stockhausen-
en, I think that would be the influence.

6. Why did you decide to use tape-loop technology in the composition of this piece?

That was the only possibility, and now of course it’s always done without tape loop and with
computer programming. But it was quite difficult. Stockhausen had used a lot of tape loop
technology, and that really influenced it. So I decided to use it, but it’s quite difficult, because
when you got to the second half, the second tape recorder would start to run slower, at half
speed, and the tape would accumulate on the floor. It would often get into a tangle, and it would
be difficult to feed into the tape recorder properly. So it was quite a hair-raising piece to perform
originally. We had a bunch of performances with the tape loop technology, and I think they
never actually went wrong, but they were pretty scary. I think that answers number seven too,
but of course you could say the technology influenced the thinking of the piece, the technology
of slowing down to half-speed and feeding back. But it was just a demonstration or a research of
that technology, which I liked for metaphysical reasons, perhaps.

7. Did you find it allowed you to easily produce the results you were seeking?

See above.

8. Some composers tend to favor a close relationship between the electronic elements of their
compositions and the acoustic characteristics of the instruments for which they are written. This
233

is obviously an important relationship in Ricercare una Melodia. Do you feel this is an


important relationship in general?

Yes. That’s obviously very important in Ricercare, and in general I feel that, yes. I always like
the electronics to be a close extension of the instrument, not something completely different.
I’ve always wanted to keep very close, because I’m merely an instrumental composer who has
turned to electronics for an extension of instrumental thinking, and that’s my difference with
quite a lot of composers.

9. The musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.) elements and the electronic elements of
Ricercare una Melodia appear closely related to each other. Is this an important relationship
for you?

That’s already answered; very important.

10. How did this relationship shape your compositional process?

I think I go back to classical talking, really, it’s about development, like in Beethoven or
something. You think of electronics as a technique of developing an idea. There will be a
statement of an idea, and then with the electronics you can develop it into distant regions, and
not just the notes, but obviously the whole timbre, the whole acoustic structure of the idea. I feel
quite classically about that. That would be true of most of my works with electronics.

11. What was your motivation behind composing this piece?

The motivation, I think I touched on - it's a sort of idea of slowing down, of calming the mind, a
trumpet piece which would go into a different region, becoming like a tuba if you want, and
being in all the pitch levels of the brass, and getting slower and slower. So this is the kind of
poetry of the piece, an expansion downwards and getting slower, and all the psychology of that.
234

12. Did you write it with a particular performer in mind? Is there something special about the
way he/she plays that influenced you?

I wrote it for Jonathan Impett. He’s a good player, but I haven’t worked with him on it for
twenty years, I should think. I don’t know if he still does it. But I’ve worked with many, many
other trumpeters.

13. Do you have any advice for performers of this work?

I think the main piece of advice would be the difficulty and importance of finding a good line in
the second part of the piece, because the trumpet becomes rather detached from the rhythms of
the slow electronics, and it needs to create a very coherent melody, and not be too much
obsessed keeping exactly with the parts underneath which are always different in every
performance. And therefore I often urge the players to practice playing the line without the
electronics, as if it was an unaccompanied piece of trumpet music and really be sure to grasp the
line as you want it, and make it work in itself. Sometimes you have to pause a little bit longer,
listen for something, but then you start again. Just make it really work.

14. Do you wish to make any comments regarding your philosophy of composition, especially
with regard to music involving electronics?

I have written a lot about this here and there. In a word, I would say electronics makes music
more ambiguous. That is a very important thing for me. Music must have many meanings.
Good music and music I write is subtle, in a way, that it’s not obvious. It is not chaotic, and it’s
not too obvious and banal. Somewhere in between there is this ambiguity: things are not always
what they seem, they are changing into other things, they are always transforming, and
electronics is a great way of transforming. You can even transform a trumpet into a tuba, as
you’ve seen in this piece. This is a simple piece, but in many electronic pieces, the function of
the electronics is to create considerable ambiguity, I think.
235

15. Do you have any thoughts regarding the future of this genre of music?

I think that the future of this genre is vast. I think we’re only just at the edge of it, because I see
history, rather in the west, as an evolving process. If you look from the 17th C onwards, we have
the violins developing first, and then we have the woodwinds taking shape in the 18th C, and then
the brass becoming so important and chromatic in the 19th C, with the tuba being added, and the
trombones, and the horns having valves. Everything becomes much more important in the brass
department in the 19th C. And then we have the percussion of course in the 20th C. And now
there’s been nothing since then except electronics, and that is a really big thing, because it’s such
an enormous expansion of possibilities. There are some things against it, I mean economics,
people’s conservatism is not very welcoming of electronics, and of course it’s very easy to make
bad electronics. Although I suppose it was easy to make bad chromatic brass music in the 19th
C, and bad percussion music in the 20th! Anyway, for one reason or another, it is very slow in
coming to the main concert hall, but I think it will change. Slowly but surely, things will change.

D.4 - Transcript of interview with David Cope. Interview questions


answered by email.

27 July, 2010

1. What do you feel are some advantages or disadvantages of combining acoustic instruments
with electronic elements that don’t exist in a purely acoustic setting?

The interplay between a strictly determined track and a freer more musical track.

2. Has your approach to composing music with electronic elements changed during the course
of your career?

Yes. Technology takes time to learn and as I have learned, I’ve become much better at it.
236

3. Is there a meaning in the whispered syllables employed in Extensions, and if so what is it?

No strict meaning, just emotives.

4. Where does Extensions fit into your development as an electronic composer?

It brought me back to live performance.

5. Some composers tend to favor a close relationship between the electronic elements of their
compositions and the acoustic characteristics of the instruments for which they are written, and
this is obviously the case in Extensions. Do you feel this is an important relationship in general?

Absolutely.

6. What was your motivation behind composing this piece?

Bob Levy asked me to write it.

7. Did you write it with a particular performer in mind?

Above.

8. Why did you decide to compose a piece using prerecorded trumpet tracks?

Initially because I didn’t have the resources to use electronic sounds at the time. But also,
because I am in love with large ensembles and wanted one here.
237

9. Did you find it allowed you to easily produce the results you were seeking?

Nothing is easy.

10. What and/or who were your influences when you were composing this piece?

Long time ago. Probably Berio and Ligeti.

11. How are the musical (i.e. formal, tonal, pitch, dynamic, etc.) elements affected by the
electronic elements in Extensions?

Not at all I hope. There are no electronic timbres.

12. Did the relationship between the musical and electronic elements affect your compositional
process?

Not that I remember.

13. Do you have any advice for performers of this work?

Make the tape part as carefully as possible so that the timbres on the tape sound as real and
present as the live trumpet does.

14. Do you wish to make any comments regarding your philosophy of composition, especially
with regard to music involving electronics?

The ability to create rhythms that humans could not possible perform has both good and bad
elements. This is true of electronic timbres as well as recorded and then spliced sounds.
238

15. Do you have any thoughts regarding the future of this genre of music?

Not many prefer it today, though I think, like everything, it will return.