Grammar
I discovered saxophone-controlled feedback in 2015, in my hometown of St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada when I was performing in an ad-hoc group at “Night Music,” a monthly free-improv jam hosted by the renowned Sound Symposium festival. I had positioned my saxophone close to a microphone and when I lifted the bell of my instrument to cover the microphone, a sine-wave-like feedback tone1 emerged from the stage monitor.2 Upon hearing this effect, I tried to recreate it and, by intent or chance, I moved a key and changed the pitch of the feedback tone. Despite this being a completely novel phenomenon to myself, the other musicians, and the audience, I was chastised by the sound technician3 – these sustained tones were not good for the equipment – so I treated this phenomenon as interesting but left it for a later time.
In the first week of my doctoral studies at the University of Toronto in September 2018, I was asked to perform at a Faculty of Music event for incoming graduate students. I agreed to do so and decided that this would be the opportunity to finally explore the feedback phenomenon I had encountered years prior. I had never heard it outside of my own chance encounter at Night Music, so there was no material that I could analyze or draw from – I was not even sure how I would recreate it. I therefore had to begin with the grammar step in the AGNI process. To develop the musical grammar of this imagined feedback saxophone system however, I had to first assemble my microphonic instrumentarium. To do so, I engaged in “comprovisation,” a method that has been a vital component throughout the history of the microphonic process which combines improvising with the composing, or assembly, of an electroacoustic instrumentarium.
According to Richard Dudas, there are “two basic species of composition-improvisation relationships intrinsic in working with electronic and computer music: (1) composing an “instrument” that can be improvised upon in performance, and (2) improvising with tools in order to create pre-compositional material.”4 Dudas uses quotes to signify that the “instrument” is an assemblage of digital software, physical electronic devices, acoustic instruments, and more – in other words an instrumentarium. This composed instrumentarium results from the processes of trial and error, of improvising with equipment, signal chains, positioning, and performance techniques. Through and on the instrumentarium, expressive musical grammar can be developed using further improvisation, trial, and error. Using this approach, I composed the first iteration of my feedback saxophone system and while equipment is not grammar, my instrumentarium is the means through which grammar can be discovered and developed, which is why the comprovisation process is included in the grammar sections of this discussion.
In assembling the instrumentarium that became my initial feedback saxophone system, I experimented with a Shure Beta 57 instrument microphone,5 an ART pre-amplifier,6 and a Yorkville 50KW amplified loudspeaker.7 Figure 5-1 shows the signal chain for this early iteration of my instrumentarium. Attempts to induce feedback with the microphone on a stand did not yield reliable results, so I therefore placed the microphone directly into the bell of my tenor saxophone, as pairing the microphone with the alto saxophone did not work (likely due to the insufficient size of the bell). I adjusted the volume on the pre-amp, dampened the high and boosted the low frequencies on the amplifier equalization knobs, and positioned myself directly in front of the amplifier. This setup allowed me to consistently produce a collection of feedback tones that I could manipulate with the keys of the saxophone without blowing into the instrument.
Figure 5-2 shows an early sketch of some of the feedback gestures I had discovered. They are written according to the first iteration of my notation approach, a two-staff system similar to the notation used in woodwind scoring for “fundamental” fingerings and available overtones. In my notation, one staff shows the required fingering (using the European or “Londeix” system),8 while the other displays the resultant feedback pitch. In this case the fundamental B♭ fingering with additional or subtracted keys is in the top staff, while the resulting feedback pitch is in the bottom staff.
Figure 5-3 shows the pitches I chose for Stride, notated in a similar style but with the staves switched. The fundamental fingerings of B♭ and B in this collection produce feedback pitches a tone higher – C and D♭ – than what would be conventionally produced through blowing but maintain the same semitone relationship. This semitone relationship continues even as keys are similarly added or subtracted from each fundamental fingering. Two additional pitches are made by dampening the reed, notated as “DR,” achieved by pressing the tongue or lower lip against the reed to create a seal against the mouthpiece. These notes form a hexatonic scale that resembles the freygish or hijaz mode used in much Jewish and Arabic music, with the bottom two notes acting as approach notes to the lower tonic (C). Additionally, the C (C E G) and D♭ (D♭F A♭) major triads present in this scale are prominent figures in the piece.
I recorded improvisations using the above material that I reviewed to note successes, new discoveries, and areas to improve. Through this process, I developed the melodic material, which I then organized into cells to ensure improvisation remained part of the interpretation process (fig. 5-4). To create a work that clearly demonstrated the basic functions of my feedback saxophone system, I limited the piece to the above notes and constrained its harmonic and formal complexity. It follows a simple three-part musical structure over five rehearsal letters, is pulse-driven, with rising triads in compound time as the primary source material.10
Implementation
To complete the first cycle of AGNI, this research was implemented (I) as a score and recording. As I discuss in Chapter 1, this type of research-creation is only complete as both exegesis and creative artefact, and is not meant to be understood fully as either/or. The recording can be viewed below and the score is in Appendix 1. The recording and score represent an advanced version of the work that was modified with the newer equipment and techniques I discovered as I created the next piece. When I began working with feedback saxophone, it was not clear it would become the focus of my research, so audio-visual documentation from the very early days is non-existent. While I believe Stride captures the intent and most useful discoveries of this initial foray, early documentation would provide a deeper understanding of this research and would reveal if there were discoveries I have failed to pursue.