1513504

7/25/2019 1513504

1/8

David Tudor in the Late 1980s: Understanding a Secret VoiceAuthor(s): D'Arcy Philip GraySource: Leonardo Music Journal, Vol. 14, Composers inside Electronics: Music after DavidTudor (2004), pp. 41-47Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513504.

Accessed: 12/11/2013 10:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo Music Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 170.210.73.13 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:46:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1513504?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1513504?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

7/25/2019 1513504

2/8

a v i d T u d o r

i n

t h a t e

1 9 8 s :

nderstanding

S e c r e t

V o i c e

D

'Arcy

hilip Gray

l

hemid-to-late

980s as n

mportant

imeor

the field

of

electronic music. The

groundwork

was

being

laid

for the

migration

from

tape

machines to

personal computers,

MIDI

had

recently

been established as an

industry

standard

and a

group

of

people

in Paris

were

developing

a

new com-

puter

music

program

(i.e.

Max).

Meanwhile,

David Tudor

con-

tinued to work with his own

brand

of

electronics,

seemingly

unaware of the changes that were taking place around him.

Tudor's

work from this

period

remains

largely

unknown to

present-day

electronic

musicians,

which is

strange,

as this

was

an

extremely prolific

stage

in his

career. He

composed

14

known

pieces:

the Monnier Series

(six

pieces

created

during

1985-1986);

Hedgehog

1985);

Electronicswith

Talking

Shrimp

(1986);

the WebSeries

(five

pieces

created

1987-1988);

and

VirtualFocus

(1990).

These

pieces

can be divided into two distinct

styles.

The

first,

as seen in the Monnier

Series

(with

Jackie

Matisse

Monnier),

was his use of

radar and ultrasonic

devices

in

conjunction

with

physical

objects.

The

second,

as found in the

Web

eries,

was

his use of

a

vast

library

of

unique recordings, processed

through an elaborate network of analog electronics. My re-

search at the

Getty

Research Institute

(GRI)

looked

mainly

at

the

"source

material

pieces"

from this latter

category

(see

Ap-

pendix

I

for more

information on the research

project).

The

Web eries

pieces

are classics in this

second

style.

In

each

of these

pieces,

unique

pre-recorded

material evolves over

time

into a

huge

spectrum

of

sounds. This

spectrum

is

created

using

a network of

analog processing equipment

interconnected

by

a

switching

matrix. Critical to the Tudor

method

is

the use of

the

performance

space

as

an

instrument. For

each

piece,

the

speaker setup

involves

eight

units

placed

throughout

the

per-

formance

space:

on

their backs

pointing straight

up

at the ceil-

ing,

hung

in the air

pointing

down at the

audience,

on the

sides of the theater pointing up a wall and in any other spots

that

might produce

an

interesting spatial

effect.

Tudor com-

bined these

off-axis

speakers

with

others

placed

on-axis

in

an

effort to

envelop

the room.

In

this

article I

will

try

to shed

light

on

the

mysterious

and

magical

world of David

Tudor's late

work.

I

will use the

Web

Series

pieces

and

my

2003

reconstruction

of

Web

IlforJohn Cage

to

study

Tudor's

methods and discuss

the

problems

of

recon-

structing

and

performing

these

works.

HISTORICALLACEMENT

F

THEWORK

During

the

1950s,

two

major

electronic music

studios

emerged

in Europe: the Groupe de recherche de musique concrete at

Radio France in Paris

(the

Radio-

diffusion

T(elevision

Franaise

or

RTF)

and the Nordwest

Deutscher

Rundfunk

(NWDR)

in

Cologne.

These studios

largely

set

the stan-

dards for

early

development

in

the

new medium of electronic

music.

In North America, John Cage was

working

with

magnetic tape

as

well

(e.g.

Williams

Mix

[1952]).

He

soon

became

keenly

interested, however,

in

adapting

many

of

these studio

techniques

for live

performance.

Along

with Tudor

and others con-

nected to the

Gate

Hill

Co-op

in

Stony

Point,

New

York,

Cage began

to

use

electronic

equipment

onstage

[1].

Cage's

Cartridge

Music

(1960)

is a

landmark

early

example

of this

work.

Tudor had been

collaborating

extensively

with

Cage

since

the

early

1950s

[2].

In

1964,

he

composed

his

first

piece

for

live electronics, Fluorescent ound,for a Robert Rauschenberg

Fig.

1. A D&R

Multigate hops

an

audio

signal:

above)

he

original

audio

signal.

(below)

the

gated

signal.

The

original signal

is

from

Tudor's Web

source material.

(?

D'Arcy

Philip Gray)

1

D'Arcy

Philip

Gray

(musician),

6625 rue

Hurteau,

Montreal,

Quebec,

H4E

2Y7 Canada.

E-mail:

.

ABSTRACT

David

Tudor's

ompositions

f

the ate1980sare omewhat

mysterious.

is rtistic

nd

technical

pproach

as

unique

and anbe seenas a

precursor

to much f the

underground

noise nd vant-rockusichat

permeates

healternative

lub

scene

oday.

he uthor

ses

Tudor's eb

ieces

o

explore

his

ater

work,

tudying

is

methodology

nd he

possibility

of

reconstructing

is

ystems.

?

2004

ISAST

LEONARDO

MUSIC

JOURNAL,

Vol.

14,

pp.

41-47,

2004 41

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/25/2019 1513504

3/8

ii

Fig.

2.

A

Maplin

Auto-Wah

rocesses

he

gated

audio

signal

hown n

Fig.

1.

(@

D'Arcy hilip

Gray)

performance

at the Moderna Museet

in

Stockholm

[3].

Tudor

quickly

developed

as a

composer,

and we can see three dis-

tinct

styles emerge during

these first

years.

These

are:

1. The

Rainforest

Series

(1968-1973),

which

uses

found

objects

as loud-

speakers.

These

objects

are strate-

gically

fitted with detachable

audio

transducers

[4].

Source

material is

selected

specifically

to

highlight

the

natural characteristics

of the

par-

ticular

object.

2.

The

large-scale

environment

of the

Pepsi

Pavilion at

Expo

1970

in

Osaka,

created

by

Tudor and

the

team at

Experiments

in Art

and

Technology

(EAT)

[5].

This series

of

pieces

used a

32-channel

sound

system

and control structure

de-

signed by

Gordon

Mumma. Of note

is a vast

library

of

taped

source ma-

terial

compiled by

Tudor. He

con-

tinued to use much of this material

for the rest of his career.

3.

Untitled

(1972),

an

example

of

Tudor's

work with

feedback oscilla-

tion: the creation of sound elec-

tronically

without

the use of

any

input

sources or oscillators

[6].

The

setup

for this

piece

was

huge

and

complicated

and

typifies

the com-

poser's

search for unstable

systems.

None of these

works used

"conven-

tional" electronic music

devices.

Instead,

they

were

a result of Tudor's

unique

tech-

nological

and

musical vision. Tudor

avoided state-of-the-art

synthesizers

such

as

the

Moog

or

the

Arp.

By

the

mid-

1980s,

he

was

using many

commercial de-

vices,

but not

in

the manner for

which

they

were

designed. Many

of these

in-

struments

were

guitar-effects

pedals

that

he

used as modules of his

tabletop setup.

This "table-core"

7]

approach

to live

sig-

nal

processing

became his

signature.

Its

influence,

although

indirect,

can be

seen, for

example,

in the workof Masami

Akita

(a.k.a. Merzbow)

[8].

During

the

mid-to-late

1980s,

the

world

of electronic music

began

to

move

decisively

toward

the use of

personal

computers

for live

performance.

David

Zicarelli and

Miller Puckette

were work-

ing

on Max at

IRCAM;

Csound contin-

ued to be

developed

into a

powerful

composition

tool at MIT Media

Lab and

elsewhere;

Morton

Subotnik,

who

had

been

using computers

for several

years,

was

then

using

them to track

perform-

ers'

actions

(e.g.

Hungers

[1986])

[9].

Meanwhile,

Tudor

was

continuing

to

work with

his

own

favored

types

of com-

ponents.

He

did

eventually explore

the

use of a

"computer"

for his music:

the

"Neural"

[10],

but

it

was

far removed

from the

type

of machine used

by

Zi-

carelli and Puckette.

As

mentioned

above,

Tudor's

work

during

this

period

consisted of two dis-

tinct

styles.

First,

as evident

in the

Mon-

nier

Series,

there

were

pieces

that

used

radar and ultrasonic devices. Most of

these

were

collaborative

works with

Mon-

nier.

The

radar,

or

example,

was

directed

at

kite

sculptures;

the

electronic

signal

was returned and converted to

an

audio

frequency

on Tudor's

performance

table. Tudor and Monnier also

collabo-

rated with video

artist

Molly

Davies,

work-

ing

with

video,

underwater

kites

and

underwater

microphones.

The

second

style,

as evident

in

the

Web

Series,

involved distinctive recorded-

source material such as a brass

spiderweb

sculpture

or

"talking" hrimp processed

through

a vast

array

of

sound-modifying

equipment.

At

that

time,

these

modifiers

were

largely

commercial

guitar

effects,

but

the

interconnections

were

uniquely

Tudor.

The

pieces

were defined

by

both

a

setup diagram

and an indication

of the

pre-recorded

source material to be used.

Much

of

the source material

was

part

of

a

large library

collected for

the

Pepsi

Pavilion at

Expo

1970.

During

this

period,

the

close associa-

tion

between Tudor and

Merce Cun-

ningham

continued. This

relationship

had begun in 1950 and was formalized in

1953

with

the

creation of the

Merce Cun-

ningham

Dance

Company

(MCDC)

[11].

Many

of Tudor's

pieces

were com-

posed

for

MCDC,

starting

with

Rainforest

(1968)

and

ending

with

Soundings:

Ocean

Diary

(1994).

In

all,

12

pieces

were

com-

posed

for

MCDC,

not

including

collabo-

rative efforts

with

Cage (e.g.

First Week

of

June

[1970]).

Many

of Tudor's

associates

also

composed

for the

company,

includ-

ing

Robert

Ashley, John Cage,

Takehisa

Kosugi

and Michael

Pugliese

[12].

Tudor

continued to work with MCDC,

touring

extensively

until

his health forced

him

to

retire in

the summer of 1995.

THE

WEB

SERIES

Tudor's Web

Series

consists

of three

pieces composed

in

1987-1988 and two

others that share a common instrumen-

tal

setup

(details

to

follow,

below).

The

source material

for

the three

main

pieces

is a

recording

of a

brass,

gold

and

crystal

spiderweb.

The exact

origin

of this

recording

is

unknown,

but Allan Kozinn

wrote

the

following

in

Tudor's New York

Times

obituary:

"The instrument was

a

brass

and

gold spider

web

with

a

crystal

spider. By touching

the web with

brushes,

sponges,

his

fingers,

or

the

spider,

Tudor

produced

sounds that were

amplified

and sent

through

a

computer

sound-

modification

program"

[13].

The

reference

to a

"computer

sound-

modification

program"

is

mistaken,

but

the

description

of the source

material,

al-

though unverifiable,

is

both

interesting

and

possible.

I cannot find

any

other ref-

erence to the

web

sculpture.

It is thus un-

known who

built

it,

where

it

is now and

exactly

what it looked like. Its

specific

use

in the

piece

is also

mysterious,

but I have

included a

hypothesis

below.

Following

is a

listing

of

the

pieces

that

make

up

the

Web eries:

Primary

Pieces

Web

or

John

Cage

(1987)

was commis-

sioned

by

the WDRin

Cologne

for a solo

performance by

Tudor. Web

orJohn Cage

is a

concert-length piece

(60

minutes or

longer).

Webwork

1987)

was made for the

Merce

Cunningham

dance Shards.This

42

Gray,

David Tudor

in

the Late 1980s


7/25/2019 1513504

4/8

is a short

(MCDC

standard

length

is

30

minutes)

version of Web

forJohn

Cage.

Web-

work

premiered

on 4 March

1987 at

the

City

Center Theater

in

New

York.

Web

IlforJohn Cage

(1988)

was

created

for the Alternative Museum

in

New

York.

It

is

unclear what differentiates Web

rom

Web

I,

but

Tudor

sometimes numbered

his

pieces sequentially

from

performance

to performance; a third performance

may

thus have been

called

Web

IllforJohn

Cage.

Web

I

was

performed

on

19

April

1988.

Secondary

Pieces

Haiku

(1987),

according

to

a score

in

the

Tudor Archive at

GRI,

was

performed

at

the Los

Angeles

Festival on 6

September

1987. The score is labeled "Haiku

(6/9/87-w/electronic

web)."

There is

also evidence

in

the GRI archive

indicat-

ing

that Haiku

(1958)

was

a score

by

Cage,

which was found

by

Tudor in a

cookbook

and

performed

at

the

Festival

in 1987. This

lends

credence

to the idea

that

it is a realization

of

a

Cage piece.

Pos-

sibly,

Tudor

simply

used

his

Web

ource

material for

this

performance.

There

is

no further

indication

that

a

piece

enti-

tled Haiku

was ever

composed

by

Cage,

although

there is a

piece

from 1986

en-

titled Haikai.

Five Stone

(1988)

was

made

for the

Merce

Cunningham

dance Five Stone

Wind.

This is a

separate

piece

but has a

very

close connection

to

the WebSeries.

The

source material is different

but the

electronic

setup

is identical

[14].

In

other

words,

Tudor was able to

perform

both

pieces

from

the same

setup.

A

single

score

exists in

the

GRI

archive,

labeled

"Shards/5

Stone

3/90."

(As

noted

above,

Shards s the title

of the

MCDC

dance

for

which

Tudor

composed

Webwork.)

AUDIO-ELECTRONIC

PRINCIPLES OF THE WORK

Nothing typifies

Tudor's work

during

this

period

more than the

process

of

taking

unique pre-recorded

material,

changing

and

layering

it in

real time and

playing

it

through

a multichannel sound

system.

The Web

ieces

are excellent

examples

of

this

type

of

composition.

The

processing

system

depends

on a

central

switching

matrix. The custom ma-

trix routes the

input signal

(i.e.

the

source

tape)

to

any

processor

the

per-

former chooses. This matrix allowed

Tudor a

high degree

of

flexibility

in

per-

formance. He

was

able to

modify

the

original signal

in a

variety

of

ways using

noise

gate, phase

shift,

strong equaliza-

tion and auto filter devices. These ele-

ments

were

used

in

series

or

in

parallel

to

develop layers

of

sound,

all

based

on

the

original

tapes.

Appendix

II

shows the

score

for this

piece,

indicating

the

setup

to

be used.

(The

topic

of

Tudor's scores

is

dealt with

below.)

The

key

elements

in

the

tabletop

setup,

not

including

the

matrix,

are the

noise

gate,

auto filters and

phase

shifters.

A basic understanding of these devices is

necessary

to

grasp

the audio-electronic

principles

at

work

in

these

pieces.

The

description

that follows is

intended

only

as a

guide.

Appendix

II

includes

generic

labels

(e.g.

"auto

filter")

next

to certain

devices as

points

of

reference.

Tudor

used the noise

gate

to create in-

teresting rhythms

from the

original

source.

Figure

1

shows how the

gate

is

able to

"chop"

the

material.

Briefly

stated,

the device

allows

only

strong

sig-

nals to

pass through

while

stopping

weaker ones.

The

auto

filter,

or

envelope-controlled

filter,

adds

an almost vocal

quality

to

the

sound,

especially

when used

in

conjunc-

tion with

the

gate. Figure

2

shows how

an

auto

filter

can

change

the

shape

of the

input,

in

this

case,

the

gated

material

from

the

previous example.

The

third

element

was

the

phase

shifter.

Tudor

often

used this device

in

series

with

the

gate

and auto filter.

Fig-

ure

3

shows

two different

results achieved

through

two different uses of

the

phase

shifter.

Changing

the order of

compo-

nents

in

the series can

drastically change

the

output;

both

options

shown

in

Fig.

3

were available to Tudor.

The final critical

aspect

to

Tudor's

ap-

proach

to

live

audio

was

found not on his

table but in the

performance space

itself.

His use of loudspeakers and their place-

ment

was

revolutionary.

The

spatial po-

sitioning

of

sound was

a

compositional

technique

that threaded its

way through

his entire

career.

In

short,

he

was

using

multichannel audio

long

before

the

term

was

commonly

known

[15].

From his

tabletop,

Tudor had

full control over the

spatialization

of his sounds.

SETUP PROBLEMS

Two

basic

problems

will

confront

anyone

trying

to rebuild one of Tudor's

setups.

The first is the nature of

his

scores,

and

the second is the

limited

availability

of

the electronic

devices that

were

originally

used.

Tudor's scores are found

in

two basic

formats: schematics and matrix

maps.

The schematics look similar

to

electronic

circuit

diagrams

but contain

symbols

re-

ferring

to effects

processors. Simply put,

these

are

setup diagrams

for his

pieces.

Fig.

3. The effects of an

Electro

Harmonix

Small Stone

phaser

utilized in series with the

Auto-Wah:

(above)

audio

signal phased

after

Auto-Wah

processing.

(below)

audio

signal

phased

prior

to

Auto-Wah

processing.

(@

D'Arcy Philip Gray)

i? i??

Gray,

David

Tudor

in

the Late 1980s

43


7/25/2019 1513504

5/8

S--

Mix 15

dl

2

---Mix

16

d2 2

M

1

3

2

4

SW

d

-

3 XI

.

X

M

12

Matrix

dl

1 2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

15

16

d2

d3 MIXER

d4

Aux

1234

5678

12

ADSW

T

DSR

PQ4

DS

I/

X xQ

t D

Fig.

4. Author's schematic for his revival of David

Tudor's

Web

IlforJohn

Cage

or

perfor-

mance

at

Banff

Centre,

2003.

See

Appendix

III

for

explanation

of abbreviations.

(@

D'Arcy

Philip Gray)

Figure

4

is a schematic

of

my

version

of

Web

H

for John

Cage

as

performed

at the

Banff

Centre

in

June

2003.

A

list of the

components

shown

in

Fig.

4,

alongside

their

corresponding

abbreviations,

ap-

pears

in

Appendix

III.

The second

type

of

score,

the matrix

map,

is

a

list of electronic

components

to

be connected

to the

inputs

and/or

out-

puts

of the

central

switching

matrix.

Ap-

pendix

II

includes

my

translation of a

matrix

map

from Tudor's

original

score

at

GRI.

The

problem

with both

types

of

score

is the

cryptic,

even

secretive,

nature of

Tudor's

diagrams

and abbreviations. It is

commonly

known

to the "Tudor Com-

munity"

[16]

that

he

was

reluctant to di-

vulge

specific

information

regarding

his

pieces.

In

fact,

existing

information

(e.g.

scores, notes,

etc.)

on

any

of

his

pieces

can often be considered unreliable

[17].

As for the

processors

themselves,

one

is

inevitably

faced with the

prospect

of

substituting

currently

available devices

for those

originally

used. This

process

of substitution must start with a

proper

identification

of

the function

of

the

orig-

inal

component.

The Shin

Ei

Mute

Box

(aJapanese

guitar pedal

from

the

1970s),

for

example,

is

a

strong

auto filter that

is no

longer

available.

This

device must

be

replaced

with

another

strong

auto

filter.

Further

study

reveals that the Mute

Box is

not

patched

through

the Effect

Loop

Selector

(ELS).

This

indicates that

it

received

"special"

treatment from

Tudor. The ELS is a

switch

that

allows

the

selection of one

or another of the

loops

connected

through

the

device.

(One

can

select

all the

devices

through

the

ELS,

but this results

in

a certain

loss

of

gain

and

bleeding

of

the

signal.

It

is

unlikely

that this

would have been

done to

any

great

extent.)

I

made

numerous

substitutions for

my

2003 Banff

performance.

For

specific

ex-

amples, please

compare

the

component

lists in

Appendices

II

and

III.

Based on

my background

with the

composer,

his

electronic

systems

and

his

own

perfor-

mances,

I

feel that

my

realization of

the

"score"wassuccessful. The resulting per-

formance bore a

strong

resemblance

to

Tudor's own

performances

of

the

piece.

A

number

of

attempts

have been made

to reconstruct the

circuitry

of

missing

components

to Tudor's

setups.

Although

further discussion is

outside

the

scope

of

this

paper,

I

will mention that

bothJohn

D.S. Adams

of

Stonehouse

Sound

in

Toronto and I

have made

separate

efforts

to rebuild the

analog

circuitry.

Both

Ron

Kuivila of

Wesleyan University

and

Mark

Trayle

of

the California Institute of the

Arts have worked on

digital

reconstruc-

tions.

A final

note

on

the

setup:

The

spider-

web

sculpture

used to make

the

original

source material

recordings

was not

nec-

essarily part

of

the

performance

setup.

It

appears

on some matrix

maps

and not on

others. Tudor used the Neural Network

Synthesizer

in

a similar

way (e.g.

in

Neural

Network

Plus

[1991]).

Sometimes Tudor

included

the Neural as an "extra" o his

performance.

I am

assuming

that he

treated the web

sculpture

in

the same

way.

PERFORMANCEROBLEMS

After

rebuilding

the

setup,

two

problems

remain.

The first of these relates to

the

source material. As mentioned

above,

the

source material for the three

principal

Web

pieces

is a series of

recordings

of

brass,

gold

and

crystal spiderwebs.

This

is not

indicated

in the

score,

but in a

handwritten

program

note found in the

GRI

archive.

In

the case

of

these

pieces,

there are also several

clearly

labeled

tapes

and a recorded

performance.

As

such,

the

question

of source material is

easily

answered. Other

pieces, unfortunately,

are not as clear.

During

my

research

pe-

riod at

GRI,

I

spent

a

significant

amount

of

time

trying

to reconstruct Tudor's

Fragments

1984).

In this

case,

I

have

fully

deciphered

the

score,

but there is no in-

dication as to the source

material. Until

this

problem

can be

solved,

the

piece

in

un-performable.

The

second

problem,

not addressed

by

Tudor's

scores,

is that of

how

the

pieces

evolve over time. The

solution to this

problem

is a

study

of Tudor's

perfor-

mance

practices:

the

context

in

which he

44

;,?a,

David Tudor

in

the Late 1980s


7/25/2019 1513504

6/8

was

composing

and

performing.

The

two

main

points

to

consider are

Tudor's

long

relationships

with

John

Cage

and

Merce

Cunningham

and his

training

as a

classi-

cal

pianist

(and

organist)

[18].

Tudor's

performances

took

on

a

Cagean

aesthetic

[19].

Tudor

himself was

very

concerned about

creating

interest-

ing

sounds-sounds that would

surprise

him in performance. As such, any per-

formance of Tudor's music must some-

how address

this

aspect

of

Cage's

music.

The

performer

must be

willing

to search

for

interesting

material. In Tudor's

words:

"If

I

like

something,

I

tend to let

it run itself or

I see

what

is

behind it that

could be released"

[20].

In

stark contrast to this

motif is the in-

fluence

of

Tudor's classical

training

on

his

performances.

This traditional

sensi-

bility

showed itself

in

Tudor's love

of

19th-century piano

repertoire-music

he

often

played

for his own

personal enjoy-

ment

during

the

Stony

Point

years-and

his

tendency

to

occasional

traditional

musical

gestures

[21].

Simply put,

Tudor

sought

to

control climaxes

throughout

the

performance.

Somehow,

the

two

contrasting

ideas of

freedom and

control are

very

represen-

tative of Tudor

as

a

musician.

The need

to balance

them is

extremely important

for

anyone

attempting

to

perform

one

of

his

pieces.

Tudor

looked for

instability

in

his

systems,

and this balance of freedom

and control is

yet

another

element

of

the

unstable

situation.

In

short,

he was

always

looking

for a

complex

situation

in

which

he could

not

predict

the final

outcome.

His efforts

then

proceeded

in reaction to

the

situation

[22].

Sometimes

I

do

something

which

pro-

duces

an

abrupt change

and

then I have

to decide what to do. I can

incorporate

the

change process

and continue

doing

that

or I

can

accept

the

change

and

try

to

establish

(it).

It

all

depends

on how

you

feel about time.... When

I become mas-

ter of the piece I can do things like that

quite

deliberately,

hen

we'll find out

what

the natural format in time will be

[23].

For the most

part,

the

problems

that

occur in

performance

of the

WebSeries

pieces

are a result of the aforementioned

complex

situation.

In

both rehearsal

and

performance,

it

is

very

difficult to

keep

track of

signal routing,

distortion and the

need to create an

interesting output.

The

initial reaction of a novice

might

be sim-

ply

to

give

in to the

complex

situation,

but Tudor's goal was alwaysto try to con-

trol the situation. If he ever

fully

achieved

this

goal,

he

would

change

the

parame-

ters

of

the

setup

to

force himself once

again

into a new level of

complexity.

In

many ways

he

enjoyed

the

hunt as much

as the end

result:

"I

can't

distinguish

be-

tween the

experiment

and the

perfor-

mance.

If I

do

that,

I'm

getting

into ...

the

product

and

there's

no

prod-

uct here"

[24].

ANALYSIS

OF THE

WORK'S

ULTIMATEPERFORMABILITY

At this

point,

the three

primary

Web

Se-

ries

pieces

can be considered to be

per-

formable.

The

first

performance

after

Tudor's

passing

in

1996 was a result of

my

efforts and research at

GRI.

This

per-

formance of

Web

II

for

John Cage

took

place

on

26

June

2003

in

the

Rice

Tele-

vision Studio at

the

Banff Centre for the

Arts

in

the

Canadian Rockies. This was a

presentation

of the

24th

International

Audio

Engineering Society

Conference

"Multichannel Audio:

The

New

Reality."

Of the

secondary pieces

in the series,

the

only

one that

is

performable

is Five

Stone.This was

performed

a number

of

times

by John

D.S. Adams

during

1995-1996 as

part

of

the

Merce

Cun-

ningham

Dance

Company

Event

per-

formances. Haiku remains somewhat

of

a

mystery.

In

all

likelihood,

this was a

"one-off":

something

that Tudor

per-

formed

only

once.

Although

there remains

the

issue of

the

missing

components

of the

original

setup, replacements

have been found

that are

acceptable.

Over time

(via

used

guitar shops, eBay,

etc.),

many

of the

original components

will be found.

Ap-

propriate

to the Tudor

aesthetic is

the

act

of

exploring-even

when it comes

to

shopping.

The

main

unanswered

question

is:

What

are the

real differences between

the

three

pieces?

My hypothesis

is that

the

Web

forJohn Cage

pieces

are

simply

longer

versions of the

piece

for

MCDC

and

that

the different versions of the ma-

terial should be seen as one piece with a

flexible duration.

LOOKING

FORWARD

Through

the

process

of

reviving

the Web

Series

pieces,

I

gained

valuable

experi-

ence

in the

reconstruction ofTudor's set-

ups

from this

period.

This

creates

the

possibility,

with further

research,

of re-

viving

Sextet

or

Seven

(1982),

Fragments

(1984)

and

Hedgehog

(1985).

These

pieces

all bear some resemblance to the

Web ieces.

With a revivalof these

works,

there can

be a

living

reference to this music

in

live

performance.

Such a reference

already

exists

with

other

works,

such as

Rainforest

IV

(which

has had

numerous

perfor-

mances

since

its

revival

in

1996),

the

Neural

Series

performed

numerous

times

since

1998)

and

Untitled

revived

byJohn

D.S.

Adams

in

1998).

In

short,

this

brings

us

a

large

step

closer to

a

body

of

Tudor's

work that can be

heard

in

live

perfor-

mance.

As

both

a

pianist

and as a

composer,

Tudor alwaysworked outside the main-

stream. While Robert

Moog

put

together

custom

synthesizers,

Tudor worked with

his

phase

feedback circuits. While David

Zicarelli and

Miller Puckette were

put-

ting together

plans

to commercialize

Max,

Tudor was

working

on his own

unique systems

to

process

his vast

library

of source material

in

real time.

Tudor's work as

a

performer

is

of

con-

siderable

importance

in

the context of

mid-20th-century

music. As a

pianist,

his

influence touched

composers

such as

Cage,

Christian Wolff, Karlheinz Stock-

hausen and

many

others. His work

in

composing

for

unique,

unstable

systems

should be of

great

value to

those work-

ing

in the

field of

live electronic music

today.

His influence can be

seen

in

the

work of Gordon

Mumma,

Pauline

Oli-

veros,

David

Behrman,

Paul

DeMarinis,

Bill

Viola and

many

other

colleagues.

Despite

this,

Tudor's music has

re-

mained

largely

a

mystery.

His

influence

will continue to

grow,

given

a better un-

derstanding

of

his

systems

and live

per-

formances of his

music.

Like that of

Merzbow,

Tudor's

music

has a secret

voice that

is

waiting

to be

exposed.

Acknowledgments

The

author

greatly acknowledges

the

support

of the

Getty

Research Institute

for

the Arts and Humanities

and

the Canada Council for

the

Arts

(Music

and

Media Arts

Sections)

for their

support

in

research-

ing

this

material.

A

special acknowledgment

goes

to

John

D.S.

Adams

of Toronto for his advice

and

sup-

port.

APPENDIX

I:

THE RESEARCH

PROJECT

Appendix

I

outlines

my

research

project

conducted

at GRI in

2001;

the abstract of

my project

proposal, presented

to GRI

in

2000,

is

followed

by my summary report

written at the

completion

of the

project

(and

later edited in

2003).

Abstract:

22

March

2000

My

research

project

will focus on the elec-

tronic

compositions

of David Tudor that

are currently unperformable. Since 1995,

I have been

actively

nvolvedin

many proj-

ects

relating

to

Tudor's music. Research

in

the

GRI

archives would enable me to

produce

a more

complete survey

of

GraW,

David Tudor in the Late 1980s

45


7/25/2019 1513504

7/8

Tudor's

music

than

presently

exists. This

will

make some of the most

influential

work in the field of live electronic

per-

formance

available

to

others,

both

within

the medium

of

live

performance

and

through lecture/workshops.

Summary Report

Prepared

by

D'Arcy

Philip

Gray

for the

Getty

Research Institute (edited Decem-

ber

2003)

Re:

David Tudor

Library

Research

Grant,

8-13

January

2001

During

the

first

2

days,

I

made a

superfi-

cial

study

of the

materials

available to me

(mostly

of Box 3: Electronic

Work

and

the

Finding

Aid

for Audio

Material)

in

order

to more

accurately

assess

the like-

lihood of

reviving

one

of

Tudor's com-

positions.

I

quickly

realized that there

was

much more information that I had

orig-

inally expected.

By

the third

day,

I

was be-

ginning

to sketch out the

setup

diagrams

for

Hedgehogand

Monobird.

he

last

3

days

of

my

research were

spent finalizing

as

many

details of all

eight

works as

possi-

ble

in

order

to

ensure

a smooth transi-

tion into the

rehearsal/performance

phase

of the

project.

The work resulted

in

detailed

infor-

mation

of the

following pieces:

Monobird

(1972);

Microphone--Mills

ersion

(1973);

Forest

Speech

(1976);

Fragments

(1984);

Hedgehog

1985);

Electronicswith

Talking

Shrimp

1986);

Webwork

1987);

and

Web

forJohn Cage

11H

1988).

All of the above

pieces

are

close

to

being performable.

The

goal

is to

revive

all

of them for

live

performance

in the

near

future.

Bibliography

The David

Tudor

Papers,

1884-1998

(Bulk 1940-1996)

Series IA.

Tudor,

early

1940s-1994

Series IIA.General Projects, 1949-1996

Series IIB. Merce

Cunningham

Dance

Company,

1953-1996

Series III. Electronic

Files,

1950s-1990s

Series X. Audio

and Visual

Tapes

APPENDIX II:

TUDOR'S WEBII

FOR

OHN

CAGEMATRIXMAP

The

following

is a translation of

Tudor's

original

matrix

map

for

the Web

HII

er-

formance at the

Alternative Museum on

19

April

1988. The

original

document

is part of the Tudor Papers Archive at

GRI. See

Appendix

III for a

list of com-

ponents

for the

2003

revival at the Banff

Centre.

The

numbers

are the channels on the

matrix

map.

The left-hand list is

original

label

from

Tudor's

list,

the

right-hand

list

is

my

explanation.

Please

note

that

any

input

can

be

sent to

any

output using

the

matrix.

Matrix

Inputs

Signals

are

coming

to the matrix from

the following sources:

1

tape

1-left channel

of

source

tape

2

tape r-right

channel of source

tape

3 mic

to Korg

Tone-Booster-direct

out from mixer's mic

preamp

to

Korg

pedal

5

multigate-D&R Multigate

7

ELS-Effects

Loop

Selector

8 Prod-this remains

unclear,

but could

be a feed from the

spiderweb sculp-

ture

9 TC Phaser-TC Electronics Phaser

pedal

Matrix

Outputs

Signal

is

leaving

the matrix and

going

to

the

following

sources:

2

Multigate

to

Matrix-D&R

Multigate

9 to Mix ONE 1-1st Teac Model

II

mixer

10

to

Mix

TWO

1-2nd

Teac Model II

mixer

11

ELS

to Matrix

input

7-to

the Ef-

fects

Loop

Selector,

then to Matrix

12

Mute Box to Mix

TWO

4--Shin

Ei

Mute

Box

pedal

(auto filter)

19 to Mix ONE 2-1st Teac Model II

mixer

20

to Mix TWO

2-2nd

Teac Model

II

Mixer

21

TC Phaser to Matrix-to

TC Elec-

tronics Phaser

pedal,

then to Matrix

22

TC Phaser to Mix ONE 3-to other

TC Electronics Phaser

pedal

27-28

Auto Pan

rears-2

Accessit Auto

Panners for

channels 5-8

29-30

Auto Pan fronts-to other

2

Accessit Auto

Panners

for

channels

1-4

Effects

Loop

Selector

1

Attack

EQ-Electro

Harmonix

Attack

Equalizer

(auto

filter)

2

Auto

Filter to

Mutron-Ibanez Auto

Filter to Mutron II

(auto

filter to

phase

shifter)

3

Dynamic

Filter-Boss

Dynamic

Filter

(auto filter)

4

Mutron

II

to Auto Filter-another

Mutron II to

another Ibanez Auto

Filter

Mixes

Mix

One:

outputs

to house

system

1-4

Mix

Two:

outputs

to

house

system

5-8

APPENDIX

III: BANFF

2003

PERFORMANCE

Component

list

from

author's schematic

of

Web

IHforJohn

Cage

rom the

2003

per-

formance at the Banff Centre.

Figure

4

shows the

importance

of the

matrix. This device allows the

performer

to send

any

input

(left

side)

to

any

out-

put (right side).

The boxes

represent

the

components

of the

setup,

mostly

com-

mercial

guitar pedals.

The lines

represent

the

patch-cords

(cables)

that

connect

the

components.

Each

component changes

the sound in some

way.

Please refer to

"Audio-Electronic

Principles

of the

Work,"

earlier in this

article,

for

exam-

ples

of

how

the

devices

change

the

sound.

AF-Maxxon Auto Filter

CD-Compact

Disc

(i.e.

recorded

source

material)

CS2-Boss CS2Compressor/Sustainer

D&R-D&R

Multigate

dl-d4-Direct

outputs

from Main

Mixer

DODPh-DOD Stereo

Phaser,

one

channel

to

main

mix

DS-Maplin

Auto

Wah,

output split,

one channel to

main

mix

FL-Panner with tone

control,

like

"Flying

Pan"

HE-DOD

Harmonic

Enhancer

Mix-Realistic

4

Channel

Microphone

Mixer

MXR-MXR 10-Band Graphic Equal-

izer

PAN-Panner

(one

input

alternates

between two

outputs)

PQ4--Boss

PQ4

Parametric

Equalizer

PS-Boss

PS3

Dual Pitch Shifter

SS-Electro Harmonix Small Stone

(phaser),

from

Direct out

of

Worm

SW-Realistic Channel

Selector

(re-

places

ELS

in

Tudor's

setup)

W-Electro Harmonix

Worm

(phaser)

Note

This version

of the score

incorporates

elements from

a matrix

map

for Webwork

s well.

Also,

channels 7-8

on the

output

side of the matrix

were not

connected

in

order to

simplify cabling.

The numbers

1-8 on the

Mixer

are

the main

outputs;

as

such,

they are con-

nected to

amplifiers

and

speakers.

References

and

Notes

1.

Peter

Manning,

Electronic nd

Computer

Music

(Ox-

ford,

U.K.: Clarendon

Press,

1993).

2.

"Without close

association with David

Tudor,

the

pianist,

my

recent

work,

that

of the last 15

years,

would be

unthinkable."John

Cage,

in

Richard

Koste-

lanetz, ed., John Cage:An Anthology New York: da

Capo

Press,

1970)

p.

143.

3.

D'Arcy

Philip Gray,

"The

Art

of the

Impossible,"

Musicworks,

No. 69

(December

1997)

pp.

18-21.

46

Gray,

David

Tudor

in

the Late

1980s


7/25/2019 1513504

8/8

4.

Wendy

Stern,

ed.,

Window n the

Work:David

udor's

Rainforest

V

(New

York: Lincoln Center

Institute,

1998).

5.

Billy

Klfiver,

Julie

Martin and Barbara

Rose, ed.,

Pavilion

(New

York:

Dutton,

1972).

6.

John

D.S.

Adams,

"Giant Oscillations: The Birth

of

Toneburst,"

Musicworks,

o.

69

(1997)

pp.

14-17.

7.

1

have

adopted

this term

from

the

world

of "Noise

Music." It

normally

refers to a musician

performing

with a

collection

of

gadgets (samplers,

effects

boxes,

etc.) on a table.A reviewbyLOB (the InstagonFoun-

dation)

shows

the term

in

its natural habitat: "Next

up

was

JOHN

WIESE who

pulled

no

punches

and

left no

surprizes

with his

signature

over the

top

bom-

bastic harsh electronics..

.

lots of knob

turning

and

toggle

fondling..,

.pure

ripping

table-core."

See

.

8. "Armed with an arsenal of battered electronic

equipment,

broken

guitars,

and

defective

tape

recorders,

Akita

began

to

explore

the

possibilities

of

using

feedback instead of musical notation to create

music-by

tapping

into

the

'secret

voice,

the

un-

conscious

libido' of

the

equipment

and

controlling

it." Edwin

Pouncey,

"Consumed

by

Noise,"

The

Wire,

No.

198

(August

2000)

p.

30.

9. Joel Chadabe, ElectricSound: ThePast and Promise

ofElectronic

Music

(Upper

Saddle

River,

NJ:

Prentice

Hall,

1997)

p.

219.

10.

"In

1989-1990 Tudor was

approached

by

Forrest

Warthman and

a

group

of

engineers

from Intel

(most

notably

Mark

Holler).

The result was the

Neural Network

Synthesizer (familiarly

known as

the

Neural),

a

customized collection of neural net-

work

microchips

that can

process

many signals

in

parallel,

not unlike the human brain." See

Gray

[3]

p.

21.

11. Susan

Sontag,

ed.,

Dancerson a Plane

(London:

Anthony

D'Offay Gallery,

1989).

12.

Tudor's

pieces

for

MCDC

were:

Rainforest

1968)

for MCDC's

RainForest;

Toneburst

1975)

for

Sound-

dance; Weatherings

1979)

for

Exchange;

Phonemes

(1981)

for

Channels/Inserts;

extet

for

Seven

1982)

for

Quartet;

ragments

1984)

for

Phrases;

Webwork

1987)

for

Shards;

Five Stone

(1988)

for Five Stone

Wind;

Vir-

tual Focus

(1990)

for

Polarity;

Neural NetworkPlus

(1991)

for

Enter;

Untitled

1975/1994

(1994)

for re-

vival

of

Sounddance;

and

Soundings:

Ocean

Diary

(1994)

for

Ocean.

Other

works

for MCDC

during

the late

1980s

in-

cluded:

John King:

Gliss in

Sighs

(1985)

for

Native

Green;

manuel Dimas de Melo Pimenta:

ShortWaves

(1985)

for

Fabrications;

Takehisa

Kosugi: Assemblage

(1985)

for

Grange

Eve,

John

Cage:

Voiceless

Essay

(1986)

for

Points in

Space;

Takehisa

Kosugi: Rhap-

sody

(1987)

for

Carousal;

Robert

Ashley:

Problems n

the

Flying

Saucer

1988)

for

Eleven;

van

Tcherepnin:

The CreativeAct

(1989)

for

Field and

Figures;

Michael

Pugliese:

Peace

Talks

(1989)

for

August Pace;

John

Cage: Sculptures

Musicales

1989)

for

Inventions;

and

Takehisa

Kosugi: Spectra

1989)

for

Cargo-X.

eeJohn

D.S.

Adams,

"MCDC

Music/Dance

Chronology,"

un-

published,

circa

1994.

13. Allan

Kozinn,

"David

Tudor,

70,

Electronic Com-

poser,

Dies,"

New York

Times,

15

August

1996,

sec.

D,

p.

23.

14.

John

D.S.

Adams,

Tudor's

assistant,

friend and

collaborator

in

the

early

1990s,

indicates that the

source material for Five Stonerelied

heavily

on seis-

mic

recordings

of

underground

earthquakes.

15. More information can be found in

Gray

[3].

16.

This

term

refers

to

a loose collection of

individ-

uals,

including

members of

Composers

Inside Elec-

tronics,

members

of

the Merce

Cunningham

Dance

Company,

friends,

collaborators and other

people

whose lives were

directly

touched

by

Tudor.

17.

Matt

Rogalsky,

"DavidTudor's Virtual

Focus,"

Mu-

sicworks,

No. 73

(1999)

pp.

21-23.

18.

I

use

the term

"classical"

n

the

generic

sense of

"classical

music,"

not music from

the Classical Pe-

riod. The term

implies

traditional Western conser-

vatory training.

19.

"In

1952,

with Morton

Feldman,

Christian

Wolff,

Earle

Brown,

and

David

Tudor,

I had taken

steps

to

make

a music that

was

just

sounds,

sounds free of

memory

and

tastes

...

sounds

free of

fixed relations

between two or more of them

.... "John Cage,

M:

Writings

67-'72

(Hanover,

NH:

Wesleyan

Univ\

Press,

1973)

p.

xiii.

20. David

Tudor,

transcript

of

question-and-answer

session

with audience

members

on

29

September

1985. This was a

pre-concert

talk

before a

perfor-

mance of

Hedgehog

or

Mobius in

Boston.

A

record-

ing

of both the talk and the

performance

can be

found in the GRIarchive.

21.

Rogalsky

[17].

22.

Peter

Zaparinuk,

"David Tudor's

Performance

Composition,"

Musicworks,

o.

71

(1998)

pp.

47-51.

23.

Tudor

[20].

24.

Tudor

[20].

Manuscript

eceived

25

December

2003.

D

'Arcy

hilip

Gray

erforms egular

olo

and

chambermusic

concerts

n

various

parts

of

Canadaas a

percussionist

nd electronicmu-

sician. From1993 to 1995 Grayperformed

regularly

with theMerce

Cunningham

Dance

Company

fNew

York,

where

e

began

o work

closely

with David Tudor

In

1998,

he took

part

in a

revival

of

Tudor's

Rainforest IV at

theLincoln

Center n

New York.

ince

1998,

he

has

beena

member

of

theMotionEnsemble

(Fredericton).

n recent

monthshe has

given

solo

performances

n

Holland,

Germany,

Montreal,

and

at

the

Banff

Centre,

and

re-

leased a

recording

ofJohn

Cage's

music

or

Mode records

n

New York.His next

project

will

incorporate

eedback

ystems

with

gestural

controllers.

Gray,

David

Tudor in

the Late 1980s 47

This content downloaded from 170.210.73.13 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:46:55 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

1513504

Documents

Transcript of 1513504