Abstract - The present
paper discusses an alternative approach to electroacoustic
composition based on principles of the interdisciplinary
scientific field of Systemics. In this approach, the setting
of the electronic device is prepared in such a way to
be able to organise its own function, according to the
conditions of the sonic environment. I discuss the approaches
of Iannis Xenakis and of Agostino Di Scipio in relation
to Systemics, demonstrating the applications in their
compositional models. In my critique on Di Scipio's approach,
I argue that the composer is giving away a major part
of his control over the work and therefore the notion
of macro-structural form is abandoned. Based on my work
Ephemeron, I show that it is possible to conduct
emerging situations applying the systemic principle of
'equifinality'. Moreover, I argue that it is possible
to acquire control over these situations and their properties
over time so as to develop formal structure.
|
PREFACE
I do not believe that any treatise
of music aesthetics, using rhetorical skills in the domain of
language, and supported by suitable logical arguments, can suggest
an absolute manner of creation or of perception, neither that
it can promise to be more effective than others are. Nevertheless,
a music treatise can demonstrate the framework in which a work
has come into existence and in which it can be appreciated in
a more clear fashion. It can help in the work's appreciation
both in the logical domain and in the purely musical domain. In
respect to that, my conviction is that a study, including criticism
on other approaches, serves only to show the similarities and
the differences between the composer's aesthetical and methodological
position that is willing to suggest, and that of other aesthetical
and methodological positions. Thus, I see no interest in a polemic
treatise of aesthetics other than the pleasure of polemics itself.
In this sense, the current paper that includes criticism mainly
on the conceptual positions of other composers, serves to connect
and distinguish the approach of my work Ephemeron in
connection to theirs.
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses an alternative
approach to electroacoustic composition based on principles of
the interdisciplinary scientific field of Systemics. In this approach,
the setting of the electronic device is prepared in such a way
to be able to organise its own function, according to the conditions
of the sonic environment. In this way, the music result has a
unique character in each performance.
The discussion, placed in the context
of Systemics, starts with an introduction of some fundamental
systemic concepts. By referring to Iannis Xenakis' 'Markovian
Stochastic Music', I present one of the first attempts to apply
in music, concepts deriving from the theory of Cybernetics. Agostino
Di Scipio's critique on Xenakis is examined, as it is one
of the fundamental factors for the conception of his musical application
of Systemics. Di Scipio's model of 'Audible Ecosystemics' is demonstrated,
in which the central role has the concept of a self-organised
system. In my critique on Di Scipio's approach, I argue that the
composer is giving away a major part of his control over the work
by choosing to operate only on the basic organisational level.
In this sense, even though the composer controls the communication
between the system and its environment, he loses control over
the global result. Consequently, the notion of macro-structural
form is abandoned. Moreover, I attempt to define 'self-organized
music' and to establish a general model in the context of electroacoustic
music. For this, I am using Di Scipio's model, interpreting it
through the model of Second-Order Cybernetics.
The last section is devoted on the presentation of my compositional
approach using systemic principles, through my work Ephemeron.
I demonstrate the structure of the model based on the concept
of an 'adaptive living organism' and its first complete application
in the concert hall of ZKM. Through that, I show that it is possible
to conduct emerging situations, applying the systemic principle
of 'equifinality'. Moreover, I claim that it is possible to acquire
control over these situations and their properties over time so
as to develop formal structure.
II.SYSTEMICS AND MUSIC
My research is focused into Systemics
for a period of more than four years. First, the interest started
from a philosophical viewpoint, fascinated from the idea that
everything can be considered and be observed as an organised entity,
as a system. Then, I focused in applying the model and its concepts
into music.
As I have shown in previous studies
(Kollias 2007, Kollias 2008), Systemics can be applied to all
musical creation. However, here I will limit the discussion only
within self-organised electroacoustic music and mainly in connection
with Xenakis' approach and more particular with that of
Di Scipio.
A. Introduction to some
systemic concepts (1)
Before starting the discussion around
self-organised music, I will suggest some concepts of the original
field of Systemics. First of all, Systemics consists of a number
of interconnected interdisciplinary theories, mainly Cybernetics,
General Systems Theory and the more recent Complexity Science.
The main framework of Systemics is the treatment of organised
entities. In this viewpoint, everything can be considered as a
system.
In its abstract sense, as Bertalanffy
explains, 'a system is a whole consisted of interacting parts'
(Bertalanffy 1968). From the perspective of system differentiation
theory, as Luhmann explains, the division between whole
and parts becomes system and environment (Luhmann
1984). In this sense, a part of a system can be considered also
as a system itself within its environment. It is also implied
that the system in question can be itself part of a more complex
system.
Systems can be closed or open. According
to Bertalanffy, closed are the systems 'which are considered
to be isolated from their environment' (Bertalanffy 1968).
These are systems treated by conventional physics as for example
chemical reactions in a closed vessel. As Luhmann puts it, closed
systems are only a 'limit case' (Luhmann 1984). Bertalanffy states
that all living organisms are open systems (Bertalanffy 1968).
He defines an open system as '[...]a system in exchange of
matter with its environment, presenting import and export, building-up
and breaking-down of its material components'.
Bertalanffy explains that in a
closed system, the initial conditions determine a particular final
state (Bertalanffy 1968). Consequently, a change of the initial
conditions results to a different final state. However, this is
not the case in open systems. The notion of equifinality
describes the property of open systems to achieve the same finals
state upon different initial conditions (Bertalanffy 1968). An
example in biology is the property of organisms of the same species
to reach a specific final size even though they start from different
sizes and going through different growth's courses.
B. Xenakis, Cybernetics
and his Markovian Stochastic mechanism
Xenakis' connection between music
and mathematics is well-known. He is considered the first one
who introduced systematically the notion of probability in music
(Xenakis 1955). Even so, what is not so obvious is his connection
of music with Systemics. In a lettre to Hermann Scherchen, in
1957, Xenakis writes: '[...] I found that the transformations
which are on the basis of cybernetics, I have already thought
and used them in Metastaseis without knowing that I was doing
cybernetics!' (Xenakis 1957).(2)
In the description of his 'Markovian Stochastic Music', Xenakis
explains the theory behind Analogique A (1958-59), for
strings and Analogique B (1958-59), for tape (Xenakis
1992). He is using step-by-step the method of Ashby found in An
Introduction to Cybernetics (Ashby 1956). In particular,
Xenakis shows the sonic transformations with matrixes. In addition,
as Ashby, Xenakis starts with determinate transformations continuing
with stochastic transformations.
In his basic hypothesis of 'Markovian
Stochastic Music', Xenakis claims that '[a]ll sound is an
integration of grains, of elementary sonic particles, of sonic
quanta' (Xenakis 1992). According to this hypothesis, it
is possible to analyse and reconstruct any existing sound or even
create non pre-existing sounds as a combination of thousands of
grains. His so-called granular hypothesis is connected with the
production of timbres, where second order sonorities
emerge from clouds of sonic grains. As Di Scipio points out, it
is possible to describe second order sonorities as a question
of emerging properties of sound structures. According to Bregman:
'Sometimes, in the study of perception,
we speak about emergent features. These are global features
that arise at a higher level when information at a lower
level is grouped. [...] Because nature allows structures
to behave in ways that are derived from properties of
parts but are unique to the larger structure, perception
must calculate the properties of structures, taken as
wholes, in order to provide us with valuable information
about them.' (Bregman 1990) |
Concerning Analogique B,
even if it may not be considered a particularly successful application
of the theory, it is very significant since it is regarded as
the first work of granular sound synthesis (Di Scipio 2001). In
the basis of Xenakis' application of his hypothesis, as he describes
it, there is a mechanism, 'the "analogue" of a stochastic
process' (Xenakis 1992). Xenakis explains the compositional
process within his model: 'At first we argue positively by
proposing and offering as evidence the existence itself; and then
we confirm it negatively by opposing it with perturbatory states'
(Xenakis 1992). More precisely, the composer on one hand is causing
perturbations to the mechanism, while on the other hand he lets
the mechanism approach the state of equilibrium. This dialectical
process lets the mechanism manifest itself.
C. Di Scipio's critique
on Xenakis
Di Scipio claims that the stochastic
laws, which Xenakis is using to apply his hypothesis, are not
capable of determining the emergence of second order sonorities
(Di Scipio 2001). He explains: 'Just as the pizzicatos of
Analogique A could not but remain string pizzicatos, however dense
their articulation, the electronic grains in Analogique B remain
just grains and do not build up into more global auditory image.'
Summarizing the conclusions of Di
Scipio, Xenakis' mechanism: 1) it is sensitive only to initial
conditions, 2) its process is oriented towards a goal and 3) the
goal changes upon different initial conditions (Di Scipio 2001).
I have to add here that all of the above clearly show the characteristics
of a 'closed system'.
In addition to the three above conclusions
on the mechanism, Di Scipio claims that in Xenakis' model: 1)
timbre and form are the result of 'one and the same creative
gesture' and that 2) the hypothesis of second order sonorities
can be successfully applied within a self- organised system's
model (Di Scipio 2001). The first point is in reality an interpretation
of Xenakis' model by Di Scipio – an interpretation that
has been proven very fruitful in Di Scipio's music. However, as
the application of the theory suggests, it is not an intrinsic
aspect of the theory. Nevertheless, Di Scipio is using this interpretation
as a fact in order to conclude that Xenakis' mechanism 'tends
to establish itself a self-organising system' (Di Scipio
2001).
D. Di Scipio's Audible Ecosystemics
Although from the conclusions Di
Scipio on Xenakis' model, the two latter conclusions stated above
are personal interpretations, I believe they are proved to be
particularly effective in Di Scipio personal approach. In the
model of Di Scipio, what he calls Audible Eco- Systemic Interface,
he is placing the mechanism of Xenakis in an 'updated' systemic
context. Here, the 'closed system' is replaced by an 'open system',
a 'self- organised system'. In addition, unlike Xenakis' mechanism,
all operations producing the sound result are taking place during
the performance. Consequently, at the same time with an alternative
approach to that of Xenakis, Di Scipio is also suggesting a new
interpretation of live interactive composition.
The basic concept is that the composer
creates a Digital Signal Processing unit (DSP) capable of self-
organisation, a kind of music organism able to 'adapt'
in a given concert space, the organism's environment.
The sound result depends solely on the organism's interactions
with its environment, as there is no pre- recorded material
used at any point during the performance. This adaptation
is the result of the organism's properties, causing changes
to the organism's processes, as a consequence of its constant
communication with the given space's properties.
Finally, in Di Scipio's approach,
the creation of sound material and of musical design is part of
one and only process (Di Scipio 1994). As he describes it, the
composer lets 'global morphological properties of musical
structure emerge from the local conditions in the sonic matter'
(Di Scipio 1994). With his proposition of a Theory of Sonological
Emergence, form becomes the formation of timbre (3).
E. Critique on Di Scipio
In Di Scipio's approach, the composer's
focus of control is deliberately put in one and only temporal
level of organisation, which is the basic micro-temporal level,
consequently letting the higher levels in favour of any occasional
system's spatiotemporal dynamics. In any system, the control of
the basic elements' formation, including their interactions, does
not necessarily signify the control of the formation of the whole
system. Even if there is a controlling process over the design
of a system's level – that is to say the elements, their
properties and their interactions – the emerging properties
of the higher organisational levels have little relevance with
this controlling process.
Di Scipio, in favour of his persistence
of microstructural sonic design, is giving away control
of the formation of the different temporal levels. Consequently,
the composer is losing control over the final result while the
notion of formal structure is abandoned. I do not find any other
reason for this persistence other than to attain continuity among
the different temporal levels of organisation, since each level
above is formed solely from the interactions of the level below
it. Clearly, Di Scipio's approach, at least in principle, is exclusively
a bottom-up organisation. Nevertheless, as Mitchel explains,
all adaptive systems preserve balance between bottom-up and top-down
processes with an optimal balance shifting over time (Mitchel
2006). Di Scipio's model may be a self- organised system but its
organisation lucks the multi-level processing of adaptive systems.
As we show before, according to
the principle of Di Scipio's approach, the system's evolution
in time is the result of its interactions in an elementary level.
Nevertheless, there are certain cases in his practice which a
regulative process can be triggered and change the system's behaviour.
For instance, in some works he is using a process that counts
constantly the sound's activity in space. If it perceives that
there is not enough activity, a set of microphones positioned
in a different space are opened, feeding the ecosystem (Di Scipio
2007). In this case, even if he designs the interactions of a
higher level and he is giving again the control to the system
itself, the process causing the change of behaviour to the
mechanism is not emerging from the basic elements of the system.
It is an automation that, to put it in his own words, 'is
forcing the system to change from the external' (Di Scipio
2001) (4). Notably, even if this process occurs rarely, it contradicts
his theory of microstructural design since this process
establishes differentiation in a higher organisational level and
there is an implication of macro-structural form.
Another conceptual contradiction
is the influence of the performer over the result. In principle,
the role of the performer is deliberately diminished, while it
is the dialogue between the system and the occasional space of
the performance that creates the music. Nonetheless, in some cases,
the performer makes changes to the input of the machine, which
can clearly be considered as an interaction. For example, in the
second work of his series Audible Ecosystemics, Feedback Study
(2003), three 'gesture morphologies' are proposed to
the performer'[a]s a general guideline' (Di Scipio 2003b) (Fig.
1).
|
Fig. 1. The three 'gesture morphologies' over the input
as guidelines to the performer of Feedback Study (Di Scipio
2003b)
|
F. Self-Organised Electroacoustic Music
With the term self-organised
music, I refer to the result of the interactions between
some predefined structures and an occasional context of performance,
through a particular interpretational model. Here, our discussion
is within the context of electroacoustic music. Consequently,
the 'predefined structures' are a particular setting of the DSP,
while the 'interpretational model' is the definition of real time
control parameters, what Di Scipio refers to as Control Signal
Processing (CSP). Based on Di Scipio's self-organised system (Di
Scipio 2003a, Di Scipio 1994, Di Scipio 2007), combined withthe
model of Second-Order Cybernetics (Heylighen and Joslyn 2001),
I have attempted to create a general model of self-organised electroacoustic
music (Fig. 2): The system's goal is to control a number
of preferable variables, which represent specific sonic features.
At the same time, the perturbations on the system are
any unforeseen sounds that destabilize the system's preferable
variables, in other terms noise. The system observes
auditorily its environment, which is the sonic space of the
performance. The process of perception is possible through
the microphones (the sensory organs) representing the sound digitally.
The representation of sound is treated in two different lines:
the DSP and the CSP. Within the CSP setting, combinations of values,
representing specific sonic features, influence the values of
the DSP through a mapping function, which can be linear or non-linear.
In this way, the DSP's characteristics are regulated from the
CSP, at the same time with the DSP's processing. The result of
the system's process acts sonically on the performance space,
translated into sound through the speakers. This sonic action
has an impact on the 'dynamics' of sound in space. Moreover, the
perturbations of the environment influence sound's dynamics
and indirectly destabilize the system. Finally, the circle restarts
by the system perceiving the whole sound result in the performance
space.
|
Fig. 2. A general model of self-organised
electroacoustic music
(interpretation of the schematic description of the model
of second-order cybernetics found in: Heylighen and Joslyn
2001) |
III.EPHEMERON: EQUIFINALITY AND CONTROL IN SELF-ORGANISED
MUSIC
I will now present my work Ephemeron,
a direct result of my research on the field of Systemics and its
applications to music. Through that, I will show that it is possible
to conduct emerging situations, applying the systemic principle
of 'equifinality'. Moreover, I will demonstrate that it is possible
to acquire control over these situations and their properties
in order to use formal structure over time.
A. Ephemeron: The Work
Ephemeron was commissioned
by Pedro Bittencourt and Z.K.M.(5) It was mostly developed at
the Kubus concert hall of Z.K.M. where it was also premiered (6).
The program note provided after the concert was the following:
Microphones wide open were listening
to you, listening to all of you. Sound was flowing from
the speakers manifesting the organism's existence into
the concert hall. You were a unique unit of the audience
with your unique perception. The audience, one entity,
was fed from the organism's sounds, listening through
your ears, listening through everyone's ears. The audience
now is spread. The organism is no more here. |
The program note shows from the auditor's point of view the concept
of the work. The work's ephemeral character is stretched and the
systemic framework is implied.
A characteristic of Ephemeron's
performance is that the sound material feeding the organism, at
least at the beginning, is exclusively the applause deriving from
the responds of the audience to the previous work. The organism
reflects the audience's own action back to it, creating a work
of music out of it.
I will describe the organism's main structure avoiding the confusing
classification among global system, sub-systems and so on. For
that, I will be based on the metaphor of a live organism, using
biological terminology. This terminology is also coherent in the
context of Systemics, giving a clear hierarchical structure.
First, an important clarification
has to be made between the organism's 'genetic' structure
and the organism's manifestation. Staying loyal to the
metaphor, I will use the distinction between the genotype
defined as 'the sum total of the genetic information at all
loci in an individual organism' and the phenotype, the
'observable physical or behavioural properties of an organism
that are produced by the interaction of genotype and environment
during growth and development' (Mai et al. 2005). Here, the
'genotype' is the electronic algorithm. On the other hand, the
organism's 'phenotype' is the sonic manifestation in a particular
spatiotemporal situation. The organism's 'environment', in which
the 'phenotype' results, is the actual space with its particular
acoustic features, including any sound coming from the audience
or from any other source. I will describe the structure of the
organism in terms of control and in terms of spatial distribution.
The structure of the organism in
terms of control over any potential manifestation has three major
parts, which I will call organs. Each organ is consisted
of four tissues. Finally, a tissue is formed from two
cells, which are the basic organisational element.
This hierarchical structure is based on degrees of control (Fig.
3). In the highest organisational level, the performer or the
organism itself can influence parameters that affect all system's
parts. These global parameters control the different organs, controlling
the tissues, which finally control the cells.
|
Fig. 3. The structure
of the organism in terms of control's distribution. Greek
letters stands for cells, Latin letters for tissues and
Latin numerals for organs. |
Apart from the organism's structure in terms of control, the organism
setting in space has also a specific structure according its spatial
distribution through its inputs, i.e. the microphones, and its
outputs, i.e. the speakers. Each cell is manifested from only
one speaker and it is fed from only one microphone. A speaker
may project more than one cell. Each tissue has a unique combination
of inputs and outputs.
|
Fig. 4. The structure of the organs in terms of space.
Arabic numbers stands for speakers, Latin numbers for
tissues, boxed letters for microphones and letters under
parentheses for the use of particular microphones within
each cell |
Before the manifestation of the organism – before the organism's
existence – between its birth and its death, it has to be
adapted to the particular properties of the concert space (Fig.
4). So far, six different 'adaptations' of Ephemeron
have existed in six different concert spaces. The first existence
of Ephemeron was made at the Kubus of Z.K.M., a forty-two
speaker concert hall. Twelve speakers of the lower level, eight
speakers of the highest level and four omnidirectional microphones
were used. As it is shown in Fig. 4, the three organs were distributed
in space using the front, right and left sides of the hall. The
main field of the organism's spatial structure was arranged in
the lower level of speakers. Furthermore, a secondary field was
designed using the higher speaker's level. Except the differentiation
in terms of high and low, between the two fields of manifestation,
there was a difference in density of spatial projection. The higher
structure was a 'folded' manifestation while the lower was an
'unfolded' one. The organism's parts could 'slide' independently
between the two fields (Fig. 5).
|
Fig. 5. The transitions of organ's manifestation between
the two fields |
Regarding the existence of the music organism, I find useful the
metaphor of a plant. Although the seed is not the plant itself,
it contains an infinite number of possible existences of the plant.
The existence of the plant may begin after a seed has entered
in the appropriate environment (a fertile soil, an appropriate
climate etc.) which can provide it with the appropriate amounts
of energy (temperature, water, food etc.). Only then, the seed
can start manifesting the existence of a plant. The plant's growth
will pass through a series of states common to its species (principle
of equifinality). Yet, it will show unique variation in the formation
of his material structure, deriving from the interactions between
its genotype and the environmental factors.
Accordingly, the music organism
is something born within particular circumstances. The 'electronic'
genotype includes infinite number of possible Ephemera. Its existence
is interrelated with the beginning and the end of sound's appearance.
More particularly, the organism starts to exist moments after
energy is provided, by 'consuming' it. It stops existing after
no more energy is left to consume and there is no more to be provided.
In a systemic context, the system manifests itself after the input's
opening and dies some time after the input's closure.
In the basis of Ephemeron,
each cell perceives and interprets the sonic reality of the cell's
environment. Each cell is using dynamic control signal processing
regulated by its perception of loudness, the perceptual equivalent
of sound's intensity. This way there is constant change in the
interpretation of the sonic reality the cell expresses. The basic
function of the cell is to postpone the input information in a
dynamic fashion while the time rate of the result's postponement
is dynamically controlled by the system itself.
From the combination of the sonic
expressions of all cells's interpretations emerge something very
different and much more complex than a mere reflection of the
room's sonic reality. The emerging organism made by this sonic
matter is a unique spatiotemporal expression. Spatial, since it
derives from the setting of the organism in space, and temporal,
as it emerges from all the ecosystemic interactions in a dynamic
fashion.
B. Equifinality –
Control over self-organised electronic music
My main hypothesis is that, if we
consider the music organism as an open system, it is possible
to create certain conditions in which the organism will show tendency
for 'equifinal' behavioural states. As I explained before
regarding 'equifinality', in an open system, 'the same final
state can be reached from different initial conditions and after
disturbances of the process' (Bertalanffy 1968). I believe
that we can influence the system in order to pass from a series
of behavioural states, which can be similar in any constitution
of the same organism under similar circumstances.
Consequently, in this context we
are able to control the system in a basic level, by designing
its elementary structures, and at the same time to acquire control
over a higher organisational level, that of macrostructural form,
without interrupting his ability of self-organisation. In other
terms, we can let the system constitute itself, showing emerging
properties over the different organisational levels and by indirectly
influencing these properties we can acquire a desirable result
of distinctive character. In this approach, the composer is
designing in a microstructural level and at the same time, through
the role of the performer, he is controlling the sound result
from a higher organisational level.
In Ephemeron the above
hypothesis is applied, I believe successfully, achieving to create
a 'live' organism with a specific formal constitution in time.
During the concert, the organism is striving to adapt in the environment
while the performer is directly changing some global parameters
of the system and this way he is obstructing the system's tendency
towards a state of stability. In this fashion, he is changing
the organism's behaviour. The organism reacts by changing
towards another stable state. Moreover, in each behavioural change,
the information that the system perceives from its input is interpreted
in a different fashion and result to a different set of actions.
The composer causes a series of changes in the behaviour of the
organism.
More precisely, the performer during the concert 'interprets'
a series of twenty predefined actions, causing the same number
of behavioural states. His role is 1) to change the global
parameters of the organism's structure causing a sequence of behavioural
states, 2) to monitor the resulting changes of the organism's
manifestation in time. The performer monitors the organism's manifestation
in time, perceiving some expected emerging properties. He then
proceeds with a new action, influencing the organism to the next
change of behaviour. The performer's actions on the machine are
momentary. However, each action makes the system pass through
changes lasting for longer time spans. Each behavioural state
is left active for a period between five and twenty seconds, according
to how long it takes for the desirable properties to emerge.
In the following schematic example,
I demonstrate the principle in practice. The graph of Fig. 6 expresses
the evolution of system's states in terms of time (thin curve).
The thick curve represents the target steady state that the system
states approach each time. As the graph suggests, the system starts
towards a final steady state s5, which will be reached after time
t2. The system passes through a series of states approaching the
final steady state s5. Nevertheless, the performer interrupts
the systems behaviour before the occurrence of s5, by setting
the new target steady state s1. Again, the system changes his
tendency towards the new final steady state s1 that will occur
in t4. Similarly, before s1, he changes to a new target steady
state (s6). This time his lets the system reach s6 in t5. The
system stabilizes in s6 and until the performer sets a new target
state, there is no change to the system.
|
Fig. 6. The evolution of system's states |
IV.CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, I demonstrated some
approaches of electroacoustic composition based on Systemics.
First, I show the connection of Xenakis with Systemics and more
particularly Cybernetics. Xenakis, with the use of his Markovian
Stochastic mechanism as the basis of his model, attempts to apply
the hypothesis of second order sonorities. Di Scipio argues that
the stochastic laws, which Xenakis is using to apply his hypothesis,
are not capable of determining the emergence of second order sonorities.
Di Scipio with his model replaces the 'closed system' of Xenakis
with a self-organised system. This system represents a DSP able
to control its own settings in respect to the interpretation of
sound's perceptual values. All processes take place during the
performance, using exclusively sonic material available in the
concert space.
Regarding Di Scipio's approach,
I explained that the composer's focus of control is deliberately
put in one and only temporal level of organisation (the basic
micro-temporal level), and that this organisation is exclusively
bottom-up. I also showed that Di Scipio's system lucks
the multi-level processing which is characteristic of adaptive
systems. I supposed that the reason for his persistence on designing
only in a microstructural level might be to attain continuity
among the different temporal levels of organisation. Also, I pointed
out two conceptual contradictions in respect to his theory. The
one was that, although the organisation relies only on the microstructural
sonic design, i.e. on the basic level, there are cases where
the system triggers a process that applies control over higher
organisational levels. The other was that, although in principle
it is only the dialog between the system and the occasional space
of the performance that creates the music, there are cases in
which the performer makes changes to the input of the machine,
establishing an interaction with it.
I defined self-organised music as
the result of the interactions between some predefined structures
and an occasional context of performance, through a particular
interpretational model. I also attempted to create a general model
of self-organised electroacoustic music, based on Di Scipio's
model, interpreted through the model of Second-Order Cybernetics.
In the third section, I presented
my work Ephemeron a self-organised system with the metaphor
of a living organism. I made the distinction between its genotype
and its phenotype to distinguish the 'electronic genetic code'
from the manifestation of the organism in the environment. I formulated
a hypothesis based on the systemic principle of 'equifinality'
and I show through the description of Ephemeron's performance
that it is possible to conduct emerging situations. Finally, I
demonstrated that it is possible to acquire control over these
situations and their properties in order to use formal structure
over time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Horacio Vaggione
for providing me with his valuable 'feedback' on the draft of
this paper. I would also like to thank Agostino Di Scipio for
the material and the directions he gave me throughout my Masters
research and for his detailed comments on the final product. In
addition, I have to acknowledge that this research owes a lot
to Pedro Bittencourt and ZKM for the commission and the performance
of my work Ephemeron. It was this occasion that gave
me the opportunity to develop my ideas and apply them in a creative
context. Finally, for the revised version of this paper I would
like to thank Dr. Triantafyllos Gkikopoulos for offering his professional
perspective as a biologist and giving me useful comments.
This article is a revised version of
the paper published under the same title in the Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference of Sound and Music
Computing. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin,
2008, pp.138-146. |
|
NOTES
(1) For a more detailed presentation of Systemics see: Kollias
2007, chapter 2
(2) '[...] j'ai trouvé que des transformations qui sont
à la base de la cybernétique, je les ai déjà
pensées et utilisées dans les Metastaseis, sans
savoir alors que je faisais de la cybernétique!'
(3) Also, as Di Scipio puts it in an interview asked about form:
'I don't think much about form. [...] I just limit myself
to lay down the premises based on which some overall form or orientation
may appear, but I can't say much regarding the shape itself that
eventually appears.' (Anderson 2005)
(4) The quotation is a phrase of Di Scipio addressed to Xenakis'
stochastic mechanism
(5) Zentrum für
Kunst und Medientechnologie, i.e. Center for Art and Media,
Karlsruhe, Germany
(6) For the recording of the first performance of Ephemeron: http://phivos-angelos-kollias.com/
§COMPOSITIONS
REFERENCES
Anderson. C. (2005) "Dynamic networks of sonic
interactions: An interview with Agostino Di Scipio", Computer
Music Journal, vol. 29; no. 3
Online version: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/0148926054798142
(accessed: 22/3/2007)
Ashby, W.R. (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics,
London: Chapman & Hall. Reference to the 2nd edition, 1957
online version, 1999 : http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf
(access: 2/3/2006)
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968) General System
Theory: Foundation, Development, Applications, New York:
George Braziller; Revised edition, 1969; 15th paperback reprint,
2006
Bregman, A. S. (1990) Auditory Scene Analysis,
Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: MIT Press; Reference
to the 2nd paperback edition, 1999
Di Scipio, A. (1994) "Formal Processes of
Timbre Composition, Challenging the Dualistic Paradigm of Computer
Music, A study in Composition Theory (II)", Proceedings
of the ICMC International Computer Music Conference, Aarhus,
S. Francisco: ICMA; electronic version provided by the author
Di Scipio, A. (2001) "Clarification on Xenakis:
The Cybernetics of Stochastic Music", Presences of Iannis
Xenakis. Paris: CDMC, pp.71-84
Di Scipio, A. (2003a) "'Sound is the interface':
From interactive to ecosystemic signal processing", Organised
sound: An international journal of music technology, vol.
8; No. 3, pp.269-277
Di Scipio, A. (2003b) Audible Ecosystemics;
n.2a, Feedback Study; draft version provided by the composer
Di Scipio, A. (2007) Notes and recordings from
the seminars of Agostino Di Scipio in interaction with the participating
students of CCMIX between 26 and 29 March 2007; unedited
material
Heylighen, F. and C. Joslyn, (2001) "Cybernetics
and Second-Order Cybernetics", Encyclopedia of Physical
Science & Technology, ed. R.A. Meyers, New York : Academic
Press; 3rd ed.; pp.155- 170
online version: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Cybernetics-EPST.pdf,
(accessed: 24/7/2007)
Kollias, Ph. A. (2007) La Pensée Systémique
et la Musique, les rapports de Iannis Xenakis et d'Agostino
Di Scipio à la pensée systémique. La proposition
d'un modèle systémique de la musique symbolique,
Unpublished MA Dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris
VIII
Online version: http://phivos-angelos-
kollias.com (accessed: 1/12/2009)
Kollias, Ph. A. (2008) "Music and Systems
Thinking: Xenakis, Di Scipio and a Systemic Model of Symbolic
Music," Proceedings of 5th Conference of Electroacoustic
Music Studies Network, Paris: INA-GRM and University Paris-Sorbonne
Online version: http://www.ems-network.org/ems08/papers/kollias.pdf
(accessed: 1/12/2009)
Luhmann, N. (1984) Soziale Systeme: Grundriß
einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag
Reference to the English edition: Social Systems, translated by
John Bednarz, Jr. and Dirk Baecker, Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press, 1995
Mai, L. L., M.Y. Owl, and M. P. Kersting. (2005)
The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution,
Cambridge University Press, electronic version
Mitchel, M. (2006) "Complex Systems: Network
Thinking", Artificial Inteligence, vol. 170, Issue
18, December 2006, pp.1194-1212
reference to the draft version; online version: http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/06-10-036.pdf
(accessed: 9/6/2008)
Xenakis, I. (1955) "La crise de la musique
sérielle", Gravesaner Blätter Vol.1
; no.1, pp.2-4 ; Republished in: I. Xenakis, Kéleütha,
Edited by Alain Galliari, Introduction of Benoît Gibson,
Paris: L'Arche, 1994
Xenakis, I. (1957) Letter to Hermann Scherchen
of 19 December 1957, Archives Xenakis, National Library of France;
as found in M. Solomos, ‘Les «operations mentales
de la composition » (Xenakis)', Intellectica,
vol. 48-49; issue 1-2; 2008; electronic version
Xenakis, I. (1992) Formalized music: Thought
and mathematics in composition, Harmonologia series; no.
6. New York: Pendragon Press
|