The process of grasping and understanding the differences in quality and proxemics of piezo sounds is a long process which relies on auditory skills of memorization. The role of auditory memory in our experience of music is described very well by Bob Snyder in his book Music and Memory (Snyder, 2000). Here the author addresses the abilities and limits of our memory in the organization, recognition and recollection of sound events. Snyder suggests that our memory is organized on a model consisting of three processes: an early-processing echoic memory, a short-term memory and a long-term memory. Each of these three memories differently processes information that comes to our ears. Each memory functions on a different time scale, that for Snyder loosely relates to a different time level of music organization, called respectively “level of event fusion”, “melodic and rhythmic level”, and “formal level”. Note that these time levels resemble those of the above mentioned definition given by Curtis Road: the “level of event fusion” would correspond to the “sound object time scale”, the “melodic and rhythmic level” to the “meso time scale” and the “formal level” to the “macro time scale”.
Within these processes, acoustic features are extracted from continuous data of echoic memory and then bound together and organized into groupings based on similarity and proximity in perceptual categories, which later becomes conceptual, in long term memory. These different memory processes do not function completely independently of each other. The processes are intertwined in the building and in the actual consolidation of long-term memories. The whole process may be understood as a recursive one, that can occur either spontaneously, or as a result of conscious efforts. The recursiveness lies in the fact that each time a specific sound is heard once more, our memory activates the process of storing more accurate information about that sound, starting from the last aural memory of that specific sound. The recursiveness lies in the fact that each time a specific sound is heard once more, our memory activates the process of storing more accurate information about that sound, starting from the last aural memory of that specific sound. As a composer, getting conscious of the distinction of three processes of memory based on three different time levels has led me to understand the need for iterative listening to the instrumental sound matter, in order for its aural memory to achieve a certain level of definition during the compositional process.Then, as the abstraction of sonic images becomes clearer, the necessity to notate the aural memory of the gestures tested and experienced starts to emerge, in order to find a way to bring the sonic image from its 'inside' time to the 'outside' time of composition. The visual translation of the sonic image becomes, therefore, part of the process of comprehension and acquisition of the sonic material, crucial in turn to its manipulation, transformation and formal organization within the compositional structure. In the visual translation of any sound image, notation comes into play as a tool for the composer to give a shape to her own aural memory. Auditory imagination is helped to recall different sounds by visual cues, graphically represented with a symbol or a set of symbols. Therefore, notation becomes a means for the composer, as it has been the case for the last few centuries of Western composed music. We can observe with Impett:
Symbol-manipulation lies at the heart of Western composition. The symbolic representation and manipulation afforded by technology from wax tablet to computer constitute a form of conceptual prosthesis. Virtual, mental quasi-external representations are both more ephemeral and more plastic than their material counterparts. The points at which a current state is externalized constitute a unique signature in the compositional process (Impett, 2016, p.661).
The uniqueness of this signature lies in the personal set of choices made by the composer herself. This decision-making process requires constant negotiation between the mental representation of each sonic idea and its physical representation in a visual form. Therefore, the process is again to be considered as recursive. It is part of the composer's task then to decide how to translate the sonic image into a visual one. The composer has to choose what features of the sonic image she needs to graphically represent and how. Negotiation within the limits of the visual representation is required to define the amount of information that could be delivered by the notation, in order to define and make clearer specific features of a certain sound event.
In my compositional practice, I've found a personal strategy to specify and integrate the use of piezo in a form of consolidated notation. What I am usually concerned to define and indicate are the aspects corresponding to the same parameters through which I tend to design different sound gestures, i.e. the movement that has to be done within the physical space of the instrument in order to produce the related sonic idea; where the action has to take place, as well as the material/tool involved in the production of sound (the string, the wood, the bow, the piezo, the plectrum, fingers/nails, etc..); the temporality of the gesture, intended as the internal duration of the sound event or its rhythmic contour; and the quantity of energy – the dynamic – to be put in the action. This attitude is somehow linked to the embodied and perceptual nature of music-making, in which the physical production of sound is understood as tangible, through its situated and embedded experience. But crucial in my personal experience is also the fact that thanks to the graphical representation of the sonic gesture through which the performer produces a specific sound, the mental image of a certain sonic idea becomes clearer and more precise.
In order to define and design the visual representation of different sonic images, I rely on different ways to notate scores. They go from a more traditional/descriptive notation to a more prescriptive action-notation – which is now recognized as a quite established mode, inherited from Helmut Lachenmann's work – to direct description of techniques used through verbal instructions or symbols. The latter are usually explained in detail in the performance notes, so that the score can be less dense and easier to read (see performance notes of Residual). Prescriptive action-notation in particular, indicates mechanical properties of the sound production, such as the direction and the energy of the movements that the performer is asked to do (Ornig, 2013). An example is found in the first bars of Residual in which the percussion (timpani) and the cello share similar gestures, which appear similar also in the way they are notated. The notation does not describe the sound result, but the action that the performer has to do. The movements that have to be done are prescribed by lines and arrows which resemble the alternating of right and left hands for the timpani, and the alternating of the direction of the bow of the cello, which is here moving vertically on the string. More detailed info about the space and tool/material involved are given both by symbols and verbal instructions: two different symbols – whose meaning is described in the performance notes – indicate whether the action on the surface of the timpani has to be done with the nails or fingertips, while the fact that the surface is amplified through piezo has already been explained in the preliminary notes. The black diamond-head of the cello indicates instead the approximate position in which the piezo has to be placed on the string – in this case the fourth string, as indicated by the roman number. The rhythmic contour of each gesture is traditionally notated by the alternation of quarter-notes and chromas within each 4/4 bar. The energy to be put in the action is notated with traditional dynamic symbols of p, mp, mf, etc and the crescendo and decrescendo lines.
The attempt to define as precisely as possible the different sound gestures is a recursive process that happens both at a visual and at an aural level. This recursive process of defining and re-defining becomes fundamental in the compositional practice. Through notation, the gestural structure in which the sounding matter is inscribed comes to constitute the starting material of my work, and, once I get a better understanding of the sound material I want to work on, that material tends to reveal its potentialities more easily. Around each sonic image, others come into being, by analogy, symmetry or opposition, through an interplay between the aural memory and the aural imagination. From then on, the work can more easily progress within other time levels, namely within the meso time level in which musical ideas unfold and the macro time level of the structural form of the piece – corresponding to Snyder's “melodic and rhythmic level” and “formal level” –.
Architecture-wise, a piece is usually built by various sonic images differently organized in time, which interweave to produce multiple stratifications or successions of varying temporal dimensions (for examples from my practice see ch.4, especially sections 4.3, 4.7). During the compositional process many decisions are taken simultaneously, constantly zooming in and out between different time-scales of music organization. Compared to the retrospective perception of listening, the composer works in prospect, imagining sounds, their succession and combination, though a complex set of operations. As outlined by Impett:
Composition is a reflexive, iterative process of inscription. The work, once named as such and externalizable to some degree, passes circularly between inner and outer states. It passes through internal and external representations – mostly partial or compressed, some projected in mental rather than physical space, not all necessary conscious or observable – and phenomenological experience real or imagined. At each state-change the work is re-mediated by the composer, whose decision-making process is conditioned by the full complexity of human experience. This entire activity informs the simultaneous development of the composer’s understanding of the particular work in its autonomy, of their own creativity and of music more broadly. Environment (culture, technology) and agents (composer, work) coevolve at different rates (Impett, 2016, p.457).
In my daily practice, again, I rely on notation as a tool to get control over each “state-change” of the work. I got used to constructing on paper a spatial representation of time, to visually represent the macro time level of the formal and architectural structure of the composition. My drafts are usually sketched on paper, following a timeline, placed on top of the score. Timelines are tools that enable me to visualize the disposition and the development of different sound-events in time, the possible relationships between them, and to get an overview of the global form of the piece. Just in a few occasions timelines are preserved in the final version of the score, as in the specific case of et ego, (see ch.4.2). The adoption of a timeline reveals a 'left-to-right' reading habit, which comes from the assimilation of traditional notation, as well as from frequent use of sound-editing software, in which the waveform is usually represented in the time-domain.
The representation mode chosen by the composer reflects her personal experience, within her own specific technological and social environment. Since the composer usually operates within the same environment in which the performer acts, it is often the case that performer and composer share similar codes. Hence, the score might be also understood as the interface to share sonic ideas, through their visual inscription, and to provide a set of instructions for the performance of the piece. The role of notation in supporting mnemonic activities is crucial also for performers, who need to memorize a different way of playing and interacting with her own instrument. Notation supports a shared comprehension through a set of agreed symbols. The possibility to collaborate with performers adds a great value to each project. First of all, it is very important that performers could have the possibility to get familiar with the peculiar technology of piezo, becoming aware of their way to alter the instrumental system by the means of hyper-amplification. Secondly, performers, with their own expertise and engagement, usually enhance the results of my experimental moments of improvisation. Through rehearsals and moments of discussion, different performers have provided me with useful feedback about the collected sound material, enhancing the definition of playing techniques and notation of single gestures.
The way I rely on notation in my compositional practice is almost constant, even if a few exceptions have to be mentioned. Hidden Traces is an open-form piece for guitar and electronics, conceived for an exhibition in the Belgian Art Gallery Be-Part in Waregem, in April 2019. I was asked to propose a piece that I would have performed by myself. As a composer, I am usually more concerned with writing pieces for someone else. So, this was quite an uncommon request, that led me to adopt what is an unusual solution for me, i.e. the realization of an open-form piece, of about 12 to 15 minutes. The overall control is left to the performer, who has however to follow a certain set of indications, also regarding the formal structure. The technical setup resembles that of PianoMusicBox_1: two transducers are placed on the soundboard of the guitar, to amplify both the instrumental and live-processed sound through the body of the guitar. Two piezos are, instead, employed with two different functions. The performer uses the first piezo to play on the strings and on various points of the surface of the guitar, while the second piezo has to be fixed on the soundboard to act as a “listener”, providing information for the electronics. Hidden Traces has been premiered in Belgium by myself, and then in the UK and in Germany by the guitarist Seth Josel. For this piece, I have never gone through the usual process of notating gestures that I have been experimenting with during the exploration of the instrument; rather, I have focused more on getting control of different electronic processes, which allowed me to improvise with a certain set of predetermined material. As long as I was the only performer of the piece, I relied on my gestural memory to improvise, using just a draft as a reference point, with an approximate timeline for the general structure of events, and some reminders about how the MIDI controller was programmed. Only when there was the occasion to have the piece performed by the guitarist Seth Josel, did I sketch out a more precise set of instructions (see the related section of ch.4), realising that the actual score was, for a large part, already embedded in the code of the software that controls all the electronics processes. During the whole compositional process, in fact, I relied mostly on the software as the main composing environment, rather than on more familiar tools such as pencil and paper. The whole process of externalization of sonic images through their inscription on paper, has been somehow condensed in the programming of the code. Consequently, the final score has come to be a set of textual instructions for the performer, who is asked to be fully aware of all the different electronic processes that she has to control, in order to move freely within an open structure, which has, nevertheless, a few fixed points regarding the succession of different events. In this particular case, I have observed that, more than ever, preliminary work with the performer has been fundamental; in the "score", a large amount of information about possible playing techniques – that are in part left to the expertise and to the personal creativity of the performer – is missing, while the functioning of the system made of piezos, transducers, and various electronic processes, requires certain skills that the performer might have to learn.
>> go to 3.5 The Role of Memory in Storing, Anticipating and Archiving