AHISTORYOFELECTRONIC MUSICPIONEERS David Dunn · AHISTORYOFELECTRONIC MUSICPIONEERS David Dunn...

A HISTORY OF ELECTRONIC MUSIC PIONEERS

Dav id Dunn

"When intellectual formulations are treated simplyby relegating them to the past and permitting thesimplepassage oftime tosubstitutefordevelopment,thesuspicion isjustified thatsuchformulations havenot really been mastered, but rather they are beingsuppressed ."

-Theodor W. Adorno

"It is the historical necessity, if there is a historicalnecessity in history, that anewdecade ofelectronictelevision shouldfollow to the past decade of elec-tronic music."

-Nam June Paik (1965)

INTRODUCTION :

Historical facts reinforce the obvious realizationthat the major cultural impetus which spawnedvideo image experimentation was the AmericanSixties . As aresponse to thatcultural climate, itwasmore a perceptual movement than an artistic one inthe sense thatits practitioners desired an electronicequivalent tothe sensory and physiological tremen-dums which came to life during the Vietnam War .Principal among these was the psychedelic experi-ence with its radical experiential assault on thenature ofperception andvisual phenomena. Armedwith a new visual ontology, whatever art image-making tradition informed them it was less a cine-matic onethan an overt counter-culturalreactiontotelevision as a mainstreaminstitution and purveyorof images that were deemed politically false . Theviolence of technology that television personified,both metaphorically and literally through the warimages it disseminated, represented a source for

Photo : Salvatore Martirano's SAL-MAR CONSTRUCTION, 1969-72, set up for concert at StateUniversity of NewYork (SUNY), Stonybrook, Long Island . Courtesy of Salvatore Martirano

renewal in the electronic reconstruction of archaicperception.

It is specifically a concern for the expansion ofhuman perception through a technological strate-gem that links those tumultuous years of aestheticand technical experimentation with the 20th cen-tury history of modernist exploration of electronicpotentials, primarily exemplified by the lineage ofartistic research initiated by electronic sound andmusic experimentation beginning as far back as1906 with the invention ofthe Telharmonium. Thisessay traces some of that early history and itsimplications for our current historicalpredicament .The other essential argument put forth here is thata more recent period of video experimentation,beginning in the 1960's, is only one of the laterchapters in a history of failed utopianism thatdominates the artistic exploration and use of tech-nology throughout the 20th century .

Thefollowing pages present anhistorical contextfor the specific focus of this exhibition on earlypioneers of electronic art . Prior to the 1960's, thefocus is, of necessity, predominantly upon elec-tronic sound tool making and electroacoustic aes-thetics as antecedant to the more relevant discus-sion of the emergence of electronic image genera-tion/processing tools and aesthetics . Ourintentionis to frame this image-making tradition within therealization that many of its concerns were firstarticulated within an audio technology domain andthat they repeat, within the higher frequency spec-trum of visual information, similar issues encoun-tered within the electronic music/sound art tradi-tions . In fact, it can be argued that many of theinnovators within this period of electronic image-making evolved directly from participation in the

21

EIGENW ELT DER APPARATEWELT

electronic music experimentation of that time period.Since the exhibition itself attempts to depict these individuals

and their art through the perspective of the actual means ofproduction, as exemplified by the generative tools, it must bepointed out that the physical objects on display are not to beregarded as aesthetic objects per se but rather as instrumentswhich facilitate the articulation of both aesthetic products andideological viewpoints . It ispredominantly theprocesswhich is onexhibit. In this regardwe have attempted to presenttheideas andartworkwhich emergedfrom these processes as intrinsic parts ofideological systemswhichmust also beframed within anhistoricalcontext . We have therefore provided access to the video/audio artand other cultural artifacts directly from this text (i .e ., barcodes)as it unfolds in chronological sequence . Likewise, this essaydiscusses this historywith anemphasis on issueswhichreinforcea systemic process view of a complex set of dialectics (e .g .modernist versus representationist aesthetics, and artistic ver-sus industrial/technocratic ideologies) .

EARLY PIONEERS :

One ofthe persistent realities ofhistoryis that the facts whichwe inherit as descriptions of historical events are not neutral .They are invested with the biases of individual and/or groupparticipants, those who have survived or, more significantly,those who have acquired sufficient power to control how thathistoryiswritten . In attemptingto compile this chronology, it hasbeen my intention to present a story whose major signpostsinclude those who have made substantive contributions butremainuncelebrated, inaddition tothose figureswho have merelybecomefamous forbeing famous .The reader shouldbearinmindthatthis is abriefchronologythat must ofnecessity neglect otherevents and individuals whose work wasjust as valid . It is also animportant feature ofthishistorythatthe artisticuse oftechnologyhas too often been criticized as an indication ofa de-humanizingtrend by a culture which actually embraces such technology inmost other facets of its deepest fabric . It appears to abhor thatwhich mirrors its fundamental workings and yet offers an alter-native to its own violence . In view of this suspicion I have chosento write this chronology from a position that regards the artisticacquisitionoftechnologyas one ofthefew arenaswhereacreativecritique of the so-called technological era has been possible.

to the MUSIC stations .

One of the earliest documented musical instruments based

HIII

I IIIIupon electronic principles was the CLAVECIN ELECTRIQUEdesigned by thejesuit priest Jean-Baptiste Delaborde in France,1759 . The device used a keyboard control based upon simpleelectrostatic principles .

22

All barcodes in this article pertain

The spirit ofinvention which immediately preceeded the turnof this century was synchronous with a cultural enthusiasmabout thenewtechnologies that was unprecedented. Individualssuch as Bell, Edison, and Tesla became culture heroes whoushered in an ideology of industrial progress founded upon thepower of harnessed electricity. Amongst this assemblage ofinventor industrialists was DR. THADDEUS CAHILL, inventor ofthe electric typewriter, designer and builder of the first musicalsynthesizer and, by default, originator ofindustrial muzak. Whileafewattempts to buildelectronicmusicalinstruments weremadein the late 19th centurybyElisha Gray, Ernst Lorenz, andWilliamDuddell, they were fairly tentative or simply the curious bypro-ducts ofother researchinto electrical phenomena. One exceptionwas themusical instrument called the CHORALCELO built in theUnited States by Melvin L. Severyand George B . Sinclair between1888 and 1908 . Cahill's invention, the TELHARMONIUM, how-ever, remains the most ambitious attempt to construct a viableelectronic musical instrument ever conceived .

Working against incredible technical difficulties, Cahill suc-ceeded in 1900 to construct the first prototype of the TELHAR-MONIUM and by 1906, a fairly complete realization ofhis vision .This electro-mechanical device consisted of 145 rheotome/alternators capable ofproducing fiveoctaves ofvariableharmoniccontent in imitation of orchestral tone colors . Its prinicipal ofoperation consisted ofwhatwe now refer to as additive synthesisand was controlled from two touch-sensitive keyboards capableof timbral, amplitude and other articulatory selections . SinceCahill's machinewas inventedbeforeelectronic amplification wasavailable he had to build alternators that produced more than10,000 watts . As a result the instrument was quite immense,weighing approximately 200 tons . When it was shipped fromHolyoke, Massachusetts to New York City, over thirty railroadflatcars were enlisted in the effort.

While Cahill's initial intention was simply to realize a trulysophisticated electronic instrument that could perform tradi-tional repetoire, he quickly pursued its industrial application ina plan to provide direct music to homes and offices as the strategyto fund its construction . He founded the NewYork Electric MusicCompanywith this intent and began to supply realtime perform-ances of popular classics to subscribers over telephone lines .Ultimately the business failed due to insurmountable technicaland legal difficulties, ceasing operations in 1911 .

TheTelharmonium andits inventor represents one ofthemostspectacular examples ofone side ofarecurrent dialecticwhichwewill see demonstrated repeatedly throughout the 20th centuryhistory ofthe artistic use ofelectronic technology. Cahill personi-fies the industrial ideology of invention which seeks to imitatemore efficiently the status quo . Such an ideology desires to

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN


summ arize existent knowledge through a new technology andthereby provide amarketable representation ofcurrent reality . Incontrast to this view, the modernist ideology evolved to assert ananti-representationist use oftechnologywhich sought to expandhuman perception through the acquisition of new technicalmeans . Itdesired to seek the unknown as new phenomenologicaland experiential understandings which shattered models of theso-called "real" .

The modernist agenda is brilliantly summarized by the follow-ing quote by Hugo Ball :

"It is true thatforus artis not an end in itself, we have lost too manyofour illusionsfor that. Artisforus an occasionforsocial criticism,andfor real understanding ofthe age we live in. . .Dada was not aschool of artists, but an alarm signal against declining values,routine andspeculations, adesperate appeal, onbehalfofallformsofart,for a creative basis on which to build a new and universalconsciousness ofart."

Many composers at the beginning of this century dreamed ofnew electronic technologies that could expand the palette ofsound and tunings ofwhich music and musicalinstruments thenconsisted. Their interest was not to use the emerging electronicpotential to imitate existant forms, but rather to go beyond whatwas already known . In the same year that Cahill finalized theTelharmonium and moved it to New York City, the composerFERRUCCIO BUSONI wrote his Entwurfeiner neuenAsthetikderTonkunst (Sketch of a New Aesthetic of Music) wherein heproposed the necessity for an expansion of the chromatic scaleand new (possibly electrical) instruments to realize it . Manycomposers embraced this idea and began to conceptualize whatsuch a music should consist of. In the following year, theAustralian composer PERCY GRAINGER was already convincedthat his concept of FREE MUSIC could only be realized throughuse of electro-mechanical devices . By 1908 the Futurist Mani-festo was published and the modernist ideology began its artists'revolt against existant social and cultural values . In 1913 LuigiRussolo wrote The Art ofNoise, declaring that the "evolution ofmusic is paralled by the multiplication of the machine" . By theend ofthatyear, RUSSOLO AND UGO PIATTI had constructed anorchestra of electro-mechanical noise instruments (intonaru-mori) capable of realizing their vision of a sound art whichshattered the musical status quo . Russolo desired to create asound based art form out of the noise of modern life . His noiseintoning devices presented their array of "howlers, boomers,cracklers, scrapers, exploders, buzzers, gurglers, andwhistles" tobewildered audiences in Italy, LONDON, and finally Paris in 1921,where he gained the attention of Varese and Stravinsky. Soon

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

after this concert the instruments were apparently only usedcommercially for generating sound effects and were abandonedby Russolo in 1930 .

Throughout the second decade of the 20th century there wasan unprecedented amount of experimental music activity muchof which involved discourse about the necessity for new instru-mentalresources capable ofrealizing the emerging theorieswhichrejected traditional compositional processes . Composers such asIves, Satie, Cowell, VARESE, and Schoenberg were advancing thestructural and instrumentalresources for music . Itwas into thisintellectual climate, and into the cultural changes brought on bythe Russian Revolution, that LEON THEREMIN (Lev SergeyevichTermen) introduced the Aetherophone (later known as the Ther-emin), a new electronic instrument based on radio-frequencyoscillations controlled by hands moving in space over two anten-nae . The extraordinary flexibility of the instrument not onlyallowed fortheperformanceoftraditional repetoirebutalso awiderange ofneweffects . The theatricality ofits playing technique andthe uniqueness ofits sound made the Theremin the most radicalmusical instrument innovation of the early 20th century .

The success of the Theremin brought its inventor a modestcelebrity status . In the following years he introduced the instru-ment to Vladimir Lenin, invented one of the earliest televisiondevices, and movedto NewYorkCity . There he gave concertswithLeopold Stokowski, entertained Albert Einstein and married ablack dancer named Lavinia Williams . In 1932 he collaboratedwith the electronic image pioneer MARY ELLEN BUTE to displaymathematical formulas on a CRTsynchronized to music . He alsocontinued to invent newinstruments such as the Rhythmicon, acomplex cross-rhythm instrument produced in collaborationwith HENRY COWELL . Upon his return to the Soviet Union in1938, Theremin was placed under house arrest and directed toworkfor the state oncommunications and surveillance technolo-gies until his retirement in the late 1960's .

In many ways, Leon Theremin represents an archetypal ex-ample of the artist/engineer whose brilliant initial career iscoopted by industry or government . In his case the irony isparticularly poignant in that he invented his instruments in thefull flowering ofthe Bolshevik enthusiasmfor progressive cultureunder Lenin and subsequently fellprey to Stalin's ideologyoffearand repression . Theremin was prevented until 1991 (at 95 yearsofage) from stepping foot outside the USSRbecausehepossessedclassified information about radar and surveillance technologiesthat had been obsolete for years . This suppression ofinnovationthrough institutional ambivalence, censorship or co-optation isalso one ofthe recurrentpatterns ofthe artistic use oftechnologythroughout the 20th century . What often begins with the desireto expand humanperception ends with commoditization or direct

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN


repression .By the end of the 1920's a large assortment of new electronic

musical instruments had been developed . In Germany JORGMAGERhadbeenexperimentingwith the designofnewelectronicinstruments . Themost successfulwas the SPHAROPHON, a radiofrequency oscillator based keyboard instrument capable of pro-ducing quarter-tone divisions ofthe octave . Mager's instrumentsused loudspeakers with unique driver systems and shapes toachieve a variety of sounds . Maurice Martenot introduced hisOndes Martenot in France where the instrument rapidly gainedacceptance with a wide assortment of established composers .Newworks werewrittenfortheinstrumentbyMilhaud, Honegger,Jolivet, VARESE and eventually MESSIAEN who wrote Fete desBelles Eauxfor an ensemble ofsix Ondes Martenots in 1937 andlater as a solo instrument in his 3PE777FS LI7URGIES of 1944 .The Ondes Martenot was based upon similar technology as theTheremin and Spharophon butintroduced a much more sophis-ticated and flexible control strategy .

Other new instruments introduced around this time were theDynaphone ofRene Bertrand, the Hellertion of Bruno Helbergerand Peter Lertes, and an organlike "synthesis" instrument de-vised byJ . Givelet andE . Coupleauxwhichused a punchedpaperroll control system for audio oscillators constructed with over 700vacuum tubes . One of the longest lived of this generation ofelectronic instruments was the TRAUTONIUM of Dr . FriedrichTrautwein . This keyboard instrument was based upon distinctlydifferent technology than the principles previously mentioned . Itwas one ofthe first instruments to use aneon-tube oscillator andits unique sound couldbe selectively filtered during performance .Its resonance filters could emphasize specific overtone regions .Theinstrumentwas developedin conjunctionwith theHochschulefur Music in Berlin where a research program for compositionalmanipulation of phonograph recordings had been founded twoyears earlier in 1928 . The composer PAUL HINDEMITH partici-pated in both of these endeavors, composing a Concertino for7rautonium and String Orchestra and a sound montage baseduponphonographrecordmanipulations ofvoiceandinstruments .Other composers who wrotefortheTrautoniumincluded RichardStrauss and Werner Egk. The greatest virtuoso ofthis instrumentwas the composer OSKAR SALA who performed on it, and madetechnical improvements, into the 1950's . Also about this time,the composer Robert Beyer published a curious paper about"space" or "room music" entitled Das Problem der KommenderMusik that gained little attention from his colleagues (Beyer'ssubsequent role in the history of electronic music will be dis-cussed later) .

The German experiments inphonographmanipulation consti-tute one ofthe first attempts at organizing sound electronically

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

thatwas not basedupon aninstrumental model . While this initialattempt at the stipulation of sound events through a kind ofsculptural moulding of recorded materials was short lived, it setin motion one ofthe principle approaches to electronic composi-tionto becomedominantin decades to come: the electronic musicstudio . Other attempts ata non-instrumental approach to soundorganization began in 1930 within both the USSR and Germany .With the invention of optical sound tracks for film a number oftheorists become inspired to experiment with synthetic soundgenerated through standard animation film techniques . In theUSSR two centers for this research were established : A.M .Avzaamov, N.Y . Zhelinsky, and N.V . VOINOV experimented attheScientific Experimental Film Institute in Leningrad while E.ASCHOLPO and G.M . Rimski-Korsakov performed similar re-search atthe Leningrad Conservatory. In the sameyear, Bauhausartists performed experiments with hand-drawn waveformsconverted into sound through photoelectric cells . Two otherGerman artists, RUDOLPH PFENNINGER and OSCAR FISCH-INGER worked separately at about this time exploring syntheticsound generationthrough techniques thatwere similar to Voinovand Avzaanov.A dramatic increase in new electronic instruments soon

appeared in subsequent years. All of them seem to have hadfascinating if not outrightly absurd names : the Sonorous Cross ;the ELECTROCHORD ; the Ondioline ; the CLAVIOLINE; the Ka-leidophon ; the Electronium Pi ; the Multimonica; the Pianophon ;the Tuttivox; the Mellertion; the Emicon ; the Melodium ; theOscillion; the Magnetton ; the Photophone ; the Orgatron ; thePhotona; and the PARTITUROPHON. While most of these instru-ments wereintended to produce new sonic resources, somewereintended to replicate familiar instrumental sounds of the pipeorgan variety . It is precisely this desire to replicate the familiarwhich spawned the other major tradition ofelectronic instrumentdesign: thelarge families ofelectricorgans and pianosthatbeganto appearinthe early 1930's . LAURENS HAMMOND builthis firstelectronic organ in 1929 using the same tone-wheel process asCahill's Telharmonium . Electronic organs built in the followingyears by Hammond included the NOVACHORD and the Solovox .While Hammond's organ's were rejected by pipe organ enthusi-asts because its additive synthesis technique sounded too "elec-tronic," he was the first to achieve both stable intonation throughsynchronized electromechanical sound generators and massproduction of an electronic musical instrument, setting a prece-dent for popular acceptance . Hammond also patented a springreverberation technique that is still widely used.

The Warbo Formant Organ (1937) was one of the first trulypolyphonic electronic instruments that could be considered apredecessor ofcurrent electronic organs . Its designerthe German

DAVID DUNN


engineer HARALD BODE was one of the central figures in thehistory ofelectronic music in both Europe and the United States .Not only did he contribute to instrument design from the 1930'son, he was one of the principle engineers in establishing theclassic tapemusic studios in Europe . His contributions straddledthe two major designtraditions ofnewsounds versus imitation oftraditional ones without much bias since he was primarily anengineer interested in providing tools for a wide range of musi-cians . Other instruments which he subsequently built includedthe Melodium, the MELOCHORD and the Polychord (Bode's othercontributions will be discussed later in this essay) .

By the late 1930's there was an increase of experimentalactivity in both Europe and the United States . 1938 saw theinstallation ofthe ANS Synthesizer at the Moscow ExperimentalMusic Studio . JOHN CAGE began his long fascination with elec-tronic sound sources in 1939 withthe presentation of ImaginaryLandscape No . 1, a live performance work whose score includesa part for disc recordings performed on a variable speed phono-graph . A number of similar works utilizing recorded sound andelectronic sound sources followed . Cage had also been one ofthemost active proselytizers for electronic music through his writ-ings, as were EdgardVarese, Joseph Schillinger, Leopold Stokow-ski, Henry Cowell, Carlos Chavez and PERCY GRAINGER . It wasduring the 1930's that Grainger seriously began to pursue thebuilding of technological tools capable of realizing his radicalconcept of FREE MUSIC notated as spatial non-tempered struc-tures on graph paper . He composed such a workfor an ensembleof four Theremins (1937) and began to collaborate with BurnettCross to design a series of synchronized oscillator instrumentscontrolled by a paper tape roll mechanism . These instrumentssaw a number ofincarnations until Grainger's death in 1961 .

In 1939 Homer Dudley created the voder and the vocoder fornon-musical applications associated with speech analysis . TheVODER was a keyboard-operated encoding instrument consist-ing of bandpass channels for the simulation ofresonances in thehumanvoice . It also contained tone and noisesources forimitatingvowels and consonants. The VOCODER was the correspondingdecoder which consisted of an analyzer and synthesizer foranalyzing and then reconstituting the same speech. Besidesbeing one ofthe first soundmodification devices, the vocoderwasto take on an important role in electronic music as a voiceprocessing device that is still widely in use today .

The important technical achievements ofthe 1930's includedthe first successful television transmission and major innova-tions in audio recording . Since the turn ofthe century, researchinto improving upon the magnetic wire recorder, invented byVALDEMAR POULSEN, had steadily progressed . A variety ofimprovements had been made, most notably the use of electrical





amplification and the invention of the Alternating Current biastechnique . The next major improvementwas the replacement ofwire with steel bands, a fairly successful technology that playeda significant rolein the secret police ofthe Naziparty. TheGermanscientist Fritz Pfleumer had begun to experiment with oxide-coated paper and plastic tape as early as 1927 and the I.G .Farbenindustrie introduced the first practical plastic recordingtape in 1932 . Themost successful ofthe early magnetic recordingdevices was undoubtedly the AEG Magnetophone introduced in1935 at the Berlin Radio Fair. This device was to become theprototypical magnetictaperecorderandwasvastly superiorto thewire recorders then in use. By 1945 the Magnetophone adoptedoxide-coated paper tape . After World War II the patents for thistechnologywere transfered to the United States as war booty andfurther improvements in tapetechnologyprogressed there . Wide-spread commercial manufacturing and distribution of magnetictape recorders became a reality by 1950 .

The influence of World War II upon the arts was obviouslydrastic . Most experimental creative activity ceased and technicalinnovation was almost exclusively dominated by military needs .European music was the most seriously affected with electronicmusic research remaining dormant until the late 1940's . How-ever,withmagnetic tape recordingtechnologynow a reality, a newperiod of rapid innovation took place. At the center of this newactivity was the ascendancy of the tape music studio as bothcompositional tool and research institution. Taperecording revo-lutionized electronic music more than any other single event inthat it provided a flexible means to both store and manipulatesound events . The resultwas the defining of electronic music asa true genre . While the history of this genre before 1950 hasprimarily focused upon instrument designers, after 1950 theemphasis shifts towards the composers who consolidated thetechnical gains of the first halfof the 20th century.

Just prior to the event of the tape recorder, PIERRESCHAEFFER had begun his experiments with manipulation ofphonographrecordings and quickly evolved a theoretical positionwhich he named Musique Concrete in order to emphasize thesculptural aspectofhowthe sounds were manipulated . Schaefferpredominantly used sounds of the environment that had beenrecorded through microphones onto disc and later tape . These"sound objects" were then manipulated as pieces of sound thatcould be spliced into new time relationships, processed througha variety of devices, transposed to different frequency registersthrough tape speed variations, and ultimately combined into amontage of various mixtures of sounds back onto tape . In 1948Schaeffer was joined by the engineer Jacques Poullin whosubsequently played a significant role in the technical evolutionoftape musicin France . That same year sawthe initial broadcast

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN

29


of Musique Concrete over French Radio and was billed as a`concert de bruits' . The composer PIERRE HENRY then joinedSchaeffer and Poullin in 1949 . Together they constructed theSYMPHOA71EPOUR UN HOMMESEUL, one ofthe true classics ofthe genre completed before they had access to tape recorders .

By 1950 Schaefferand Henrywere workingwithmagnetic tapeand the evolution ofmusique concrete proceeded at a fast pace .The first public performance was given in that same year at theEcole Normale deMusique . In thefollowing year, French NationalRadio installed a sophisticated studio for the GroupforResearchon Musique Concrete . Over thenext fewyears significant compos-ers began to be attracted to the studio including Pierre Boulez,Michel Philippot, Jean Barraque, Phillipe Arthuys, EDGARDVARESE, and OLIVIER MESSIAEN . In 1954 Varese composed thetape part to DESERTS for orchestra and tapeat the studio and thework saw its infamous premiere in December ofthat year.

Since Musique Concrete was both a musical and aestheticresearch project, a variety of theoretical writings emerged toarticulate the movement's progress . Ofprincipal importancewasSchaeffer's book A is recherche d'une musique concrete . In it hedescribes the group's experiments in a pseudo-scientific mannerthat forms a lexicon of sounds and their distinctive characteris-tics which should determine compositional criteria and organiza-tion. In collaboration with A . Moles, Schaeffer specified a classi-fication system for acoustical material according to orders ofmagnitude and other criteria . In many ways these efforts set thedirection for the positivist philosophical bias that has dominatedthe"research" emphasis ofelectronicmusicinstitutionsin Franceand elsewhere .

The sonic and musical characteristics of early musique con-cretewere pejoratively described by Olivier Messiaen as contain-ing a high level of surrealistic agony and literary descriptivism .The movement's evolution saw most of the participating compos-ers including Schaeffer move awayfrom the extreme dislocationsof sound and distortion associated with its early compositionsand simple techniques . Underlying the early works was a farilyconsistentphilosophy best exemplified by a statementbySchaef-fer :

"I belong to a generation which is largely torn by dualisms . Thecatechism taught to men who are now middle-aged was a tradi-tional one, traditionally absurd : spirit is opposed to matter, poetryto technique, progress to tradition, individual to thegroup andhowmuch else . From all this it takesjustone more step toconclude thatthe world is absurd, full of unbearable contradictions . Thus aviolent desire to deny, to destroy one ofthe concepts, especially inthe realm ofform, where, according to Malraux, the Absolute iscoined. Fashionfaintheartedly approved this nihilism

Ifmusique concrete were to contribute to this movement, if, hastilyadopted, stupidly understood, it had only to add its additionalbellowing, its new negation, after so much smearing ofthe lines,denial ofgolden rules (such as that ofthe scale), I should considermyselfrather unwelcome. I have the right to justify my demand,and the duty to lead possible successors to this intellectuallyhonest work, to the extent to whichI have helped to discoveranewway to create sound, and the means-as yetapproximate-togiveitform.

. . . Photography, whether the fact be denied or admitted, hascompletely upset painting,just as the recording ofsound is aboutto upset music . . . . For all that, traditional music is not denied; anymore than the theatre is supplantedby the cinema . Somethingnewis added: anew art ofsound. Am I wrong in still calling it music?"

While the tape studio is still a major technical and creativeforce in electronic music, its early history marks a specific periodof technical and stylistic activity. As recording technology beganto reveal itself to composers, many of whom had been anxiouslyawaiting such a breakthrough, some composers began to workunder the auspices of broadcast radio stations and recordingstudios withprofessional taperecorders and test equipment in offhours . Others began to scrounge and share equipmentwhereverpossible, forming informal cooperatives based upon availabletechnology. While Schaefferwas definingmusique concrete, otherindependent composers were experimenting with tape and elec-tronic sound sources . The end of 1940's saw French composerPaul Boisselet compose some of the earliest live performanceworks for instruments, tape recorders and electronic oscillators .In the United States, Bebe and Louis Barron began theirpioneer-ingexperiments with tape collage. As earlyas 1948 the Canadiancomposer/engineer Hugh Le Caine was hired by the NationalResearch Council of Canadato begin building electronic musicalinstruments .

In parallel to all ofthese events, another major lineage of tapestudio activity began to emerge in Germany. According to theGerman physicist Werner Meyer-Eppler the events comprisingthe German electronic music history during this time are asfollows . In 1948 the inventor of the Vocoder, Homer Dudley,demonstratedfor Meyer-Eppler his device . Meyer-Eppler subse-quentlyused a tape recording ofthe Vocoder to illustrate alecturehe gavein 1949 called DevelopmentalPossibilities ofSound. Intheaudiencewas theaforementioned RobertBeyer, nowemployed atthe Northwest German Radio, Cologne . Beyer must have beenprofoundly impressed by the presentation since it was decidedthat lectures should be formulated on the topic of "electronicmusic" for the International Summer School for New Music in

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN

31


Darmstadtthefollowing year. Much ofthe subsequentlecture byMeyer-Eppler containedmaterialfrom his classicbook, ElectronicTone Generation, Electronic Music, and Synthetic Speech.

By 1951 Meyer-Eppler began a series of experiments withsynthetically generated sounds using Harald Bode's Melochordand an AEG magnetic tape recorder. Together with Robert Beyerand Herbert Eimert, Meyer-Eppler presented his research as aradio program called "The World of Sound of Electronic Music"over German Radio, Cologne . This broadcast helped to convinceofficials and technicians of the Cologne radio station to sponseran official studio for electronic music . From its beginning theCOLOGNESTUDIO differentiated itselffromtheMusiqueConcreteactivities in Paris by limiting itself to "pure" electronic soundsources thatcould be manipulatd through precise compositionaltechniques derived from Serialism.

While one of the earliest compositional outcomes from theinfluence of Meyer-Eppler was Bruno Maderna's collaborationwith him entitled Musica su dueDimensioni for flute, percussion,and loudspeaker, most of the other works that followed werestrictly concerned with utilizing only electronic sounds such aspure sine-waves . One of the first attempts at creating this laborintensive formofstudiobased additive synthesiswas KARLHEINZSTOCKHAUSEN who created his Etude out ofpure sine-waves atthe Paris studio in 1952 . Similar works were produced at theCologne facilities by Beyer and Eimert at about this time andsubsequently followed by the more sophisticated attempts byStockhausen, Studie I (1953) and STUDIE II (1954) . In 1954 apublic concert was presented by Cologne radio that includedworks by Stockhausen, Goeyvaerts, Pousseur, Gredinger, andEimert . Soon other composers began working at the Colognestudioincluding Koenig, Heiss, Klebe, KAGEL, LIGETI, BRUN andERNST KRENEK . The later composer completed his Spiritus In-telligentiae Sanctus at the Cologne studio in 1956 . This workalong with Stockhausen's GESANG DERJIINGLINGE, composedat the same time, signify the end ofthe short-lived pure electronicemphasis claimed by the Cologne school . Both works usedelectronically-generated sounds in combination with techniquesand sound sources associated with musique concrete.

While the distinction usually posited between the early Parisand Cologneschools oftape music composition emphasizes eitherthe nature of the sound sources or the presence of an organiza-tional bias such as Serialism, I tend to viewthis distinction morein terms ofa reorganization at mid-century oftherepresentation-ist versus modernist dialect which appeared in prior decades .Even though Schaeffer and his colleagues were consciouslyaligned in overt ways with the Futurists concern with noise, theytended to rely on dramatic expression that was dependent uponillusionistic associations tothe sounds undergoingdeconstruction .

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillilI

The early Cologne school appears to have been concerned with anauthentic and didactic display of the electronic material and itsprimarycodes as ifitwere possible to revealthe metaphysical andintrinsic nature of the material as a new perceptual resource .Obviously the technical limitations ofthe studio at that time, inaddition to the aesthetic demands imposed by the current issuesof musicality, made their initial pursuit too problematic .

Concurrent with the tape studio developments in France andGermanythere were significant advances occuring in the UnitedStates . While there was not yet any significant institutionalsupport for the experimentalworkbeing pursuedbyindependentcomposers, some informal projects began to emerge . The MusicforMagneticTape Projectwasformedin 1951 byJOHN CAGE, EarleBrown, Christian Wolff, David Tudor, and Morton Feldman andlasted until 1954 . Sincethe group hadno permanent facility, theyrelied on borrowedtime in commercialsound studios such as thatmaintained by Bebe and Louis Barron or used borrowed equip-ment that they could share . The most important work to haveemerged from this collective was Cage's WILLIAM'S MIX. Thecomposition used hundreds of prerecorded sounds from theBarron's library as the source from which to fulfill the demandsof a meticulously notated score that specified not only thecategories of sounds to be used at any particular time but alsohow the sounds were to be spliced and edited. Thework requiredover nine months ofintensive labor on the part of Cage, Brownand Tudor to assemble . While the final work may not havesounded to untutored ears as very distinct from the other tapeworks produced in France or Cologne at the same time, itnevertheless representedaradical compositionaland philosophi-cal challenge to these other schools of thought .

In the same year as Cage's William's Mix, VLADIMIR USSA-CHEVSKY gave a public demonstration ofhis tape music experi-ments at Columbia University. Working in almost completeisolation from the other experimenters in Europe and the UnitedStates, Ussachevsky began to explore tape manipulation ofelectronic andinstrumental sounds with very limited resources .He was soon joined by OTTO LUENING and the two began tocompose in earnest some of the first tape compositions in theUnited States at the home of Henry Cowell in Woodstock, NewYork: Fantasy inSpace, LowSpeed, and Sonic Contours .Theworks,aftercompletion inUssachevsky's living room in NewYorkand inthe basement studio of Arturo Toscanini's Riverdale home, werepresented at the Museum of Modern Art in October of 1952 .

Throughout the 1950's important work in electronic musicexperimentation only accelerated at a rapid pace . In 1953 anItalian electronic music studio (Studio de Fonologia) was estab-lished at the Radio Audizioni Italiane in Milan. During its earlyyears the studio attracted many important international figures

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN


including LUCIANO BERIO, Niccolo Castiglioni, Aldo Clementi,Bruno Maderna, LUIGI NONO,JohnCage, HenriPousseur, AndreBoucourechliev, and Bengt Hambraeus. Studios were also estab-lished at the Philips research labs in Eindhoven and at NHK(Japanese Broadcasting System) in 1955. In that same year theDavid Sarnoff Laboratories of RCA in Princeton, New Jerseyintroduced the OLSON-BELAR SOUND SYNTHESIZER to thepublic . Asitsname states, thisinstrumentis generallyconsideredthe first modern "synthesizer" and was built with the specificintention of synthesizing traditional instrumental timbres for themanufacture ofpopular music. In an interesting reversal of theusual industrial absorption of artistic innovation, the machineproved inappropriate for its original intent and was later usedentirely for electronic music experimentation and composition .Since the device was based upon a combination ofadditive andsubtractive synthesis strategies, with a control system consistingof a punched paper roll or tab-card programming scheme, it wasan extremelysophisticatedinstrument forits time . Notonlycoulda composergenerate, combineandfilter sounds fromthemachine'stuning-fork oscillators and white-noise generators, sounds couldbe input from a microphone for modification. Ultimately thedevice's design philosophy favored fairly classical concepts ofmusical structure such as precise control of twelve-tone pitchmaterial andwas thereforefavored bycomposers working withinthe serial genre.

The first composers to work with the Olson-Belar SoundSynthesizer (later known as the RCA Music Synthesizer) wereVLADIMIR USSACHEVSKY, OTTO LEUNINGand MILTON BAB-BITTwho managed to initially gain access to it at theRCA Labs .Within a few years this trio of composers in addition to RogerSessions managed to acquire the device onapermanent basis forthenewlyestablished Columbia-Princeton Electronic MusicCenterin NewYork City . Because of its advanced facilities and policy ofencouragementto contemporary composers, the center attracteda large number ofinternationalfigures such asALICE SHIELDS,PRIL SMILEY, Michiko Toyama, Biilent Arel, Mario Davidovsky,Halim El-Dabh, Mel Powell, Jacob Druckman, CharlesWourinen,and Edgard Varese .

In 1958the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana estab-lished the Studio for Experimental Music. Under the initialdirection ofLEJARENHILLER the studio became one ofthe mostimportant centers for electronic music research in the UnitedStates . Two years earlier, Hiller, who was also a professionalchemist, applied his scientific knowledge of digital computers tothe composition of the ILLIAC SUITE FOR STRING QUARTET, oneofthe first attempts at serious computer-aided musical composi-tion. In subsequent years the resident faculty connectedwith theStudio for Experimental Music included composers HERBERT

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

BRUN,KENNETHGABURO, andSALVATOREMARTIRANO alongwith the engineer James Beauchamp whose Harmonic ToneGeneratorwas one ofthe most interesting specialsound generat-ing instruments ofthe period .

By the end of the decade PIERRE SCHAEFFERhad reorgan-ized the Paris studio into the Groupe deRecherches de Musicalesand had abandoned the term musique concrete . His staff wasjoined atthistimebyLUCFERRARI and Fran(;ois-Bernard Mache,and later by Fran(;ois Bayle and Bernard Parmegiani . The Greekcomposer, architect and mathematician YANNIS XENAKIS wasalso working at the Paris facility as was LUCIANO BERIO.Xenakisproducedhis classiccompositionDMMORPHOSESin 1957in which he formulated a theory of density change which intro-duced a new category of sounds and structure into musiqueconcrete .

In addition to the major technical developments and burgeon-ingstudiosjust outlined therewas also a dramatic increase intheactual composition of substantial works. From 1950 to 1960 thevocabulary oftapemusicshiftedfromthefairlypure experimentalworks which characterized the classic Paris and Cologne schoolsto more complex and expressive works which explored a widerange of compositional styles . More and more works began toappear by the mid-1950's which addressed the concept of com-bining taped sounds with live instruments andvoices . There wasalso a tentative interest, and a few attempts, at incorporatingtaped electronic sounds into theatrical works. While the range ofissues being explored was extremely broad, much of the work inthe various tape studios wasan extension ofthe Serialism whichdominated instrumental music. By the end of the decade newstructural concepts began to emerge from working with the newelectronic sound sources that influenced instrumental music.This expansion oftimbral and organizational resources broughtstrict Serialism into question .

In order to summarize the activity of the classic tape studioperiod a brief survey of some of the major works of the 1950's iscalled for. This list is not intended to be exhaustive but only toprovide a few points of reference:

1949) Schaeffer and Henry: SYMPHONIE POUR UNHOMME SEUL

1951) Grainger: FREE MUSIC

1952) Maderna: Musica su due Dimensioni; Cage: William's Mix,Leuning: Fantasy in Space; Ussachevsky: Sonic Contours ; Bran :Concerto de Janvier

DAVID DUNN

1953) Schaeffer and Henry: ORPHEE; Stockhausen: Studie 1

111111


1954) Varese : DESERTS; Stockhausen : Studie II; Leuning andUssachevsky : APoem in Cycles and Bells

1955) B . & L . Barron: soundtrack to Forbidden Planet

1956) Krenek: Spiritus Intelligentiae Sanctus; Stockhausen :GESANGDERJIINGLINGE, Berio : Mutazioni; Maderna: Notturno ;Hiller : ILLIAC SUITE FOR STRING QUARTET

1957) Xenakis : DIAMORPHOSES ; Pousseur: Scambi; Badings :Euoiutionen

1958) Varese : POEME ELECTRONIQUE ; Ligeti : ARTIKULATION,Kagel : Transici6n I, Cage: FONTANA MIX; Berio : THEMA-OMAGGIOA JOYCE; Xenakis : Concret P-H II; Pousseur: RIMESPOUR DIFFEREN'IES SOURCESSONORES

1959) Kagel: Transici6n II; Cage : INDETERMINACY

1960) Berio : Differences ; Gerhard : Collages ; Maxfield : NIGHTMUSIC; Ashley: The Fourth of July ; Takemitsu : Water Music;Xenakis : Orient-Occident III

By 1960 the evolution of the tape studio was progressingdramatically. In Europe the institutional support only increasedand saw a mutual interest arise from both the broadcast centersand from academia . Forinstanceitwasin 1960 thatthe electronicmusic studio at the Philips research labs was transferred to theINSTITUTE OF SONOLOGY at the University of Utrecht. Whilein the United States it was always the universities that estab-lished serious electronic music facilities, that situation wasproblematic for certain composers who resisted the institutionalmileau . Composers such as Gordon MUMMA and ROBERTASHLEY had been working independently with tape music since1956 by gathering together their own technical resources . Othercomposers who were interested in using electronics found thatthe tape medium was unsuited to their ideas . JOHN CAGE, forinstance, came to reject the whole aesthetic that accompaniedtape composition as incompatiblewith his philosophy ofindeter-minacy andlive performance . Some composers began to seek outother technical solutions in order to specify more precise com-positional controlthan the tape studio couldprovide them . Itwasinto this climate of shifting needs that a variety ofnew electronicdevices emerged .

The coming of the 1960's saw a gradual cultural revolution



which was co-synchronous with a distinct acceleration of newmedia technologies . While the invention ofthe transistor in 1948at Bell Laboratories had begun to impact electronic manufactur-ing, it was during the early 1960's that major advances inelectronic design took shape . The subsequent innovations andtheir impact upon electronic music were multifold and anyunderstanding of them must be couched in separate categoriesfor the sake ofconvenience . The categories to be delineated are 1)the emergence ofthevoltage-controlled analog synthesizer ; 2) theevolution of computer music ; 3) live electronic performancepractice; and 4) the explosion of multi-media. However, it isimportant thatthereaderappreciatethatthetechnical categoriesunder discussionwereneverexclusive butinfactinterpenetratedfreely inthe compositional and performance styles ofmusicians .It is also necessary to point out that any characterization of oneform of technical means as superior to another (i .e . computersversus synthesizers) is not intentional . It is the author's conten-tion that the very nature of the symbiosis between machine andartist is such that each instrument, studio facility, or computerprogram yields its own working method and unique artisticproduce . Preferences between technological resources emergefrom a match between a certain machine and the imaginativeintent of an artist, and not from qualities that are hierarchicallygermane to the history of technological innovation . Claims fortechnological efficiency may be relevant to a very limited contextbut are ultimately absurd when viewed from a broader perspec-tive of actual creative achievement .

1) THE VOLTAGE-CONTROLLEDANALOG SYNTHESIZER

A definition: Unfortunately the term "synthesizer" is a grossmisnomer. Since there is nothing synthetic about the soundsgenerated from this class of analog electronic instruments, andsince they do not "synthesize" other sounds, the term is more theresult of a conceptual confusion emanating from industrialnonsense about how these instruments "imitate" traditionalacoustic ones . However, since the term has stuck, becomingprogressively moreingrained over theyears, I will use theterm forthe sake of convenience . In reality the analog voltage-controlledsynthesizer is a collection of waveform and noise generators,modifiers (such as filters, ring modulators, amplifiers), mixersand control devices packaged in modular or integrated form. Thegenerators produce an electronic signal which can be patchedthrough the modifiers and into a mixer or amplifier where it ismade audible through loudspeakers . This sequence ofintercon-nections constitutes a signal path which is determined by means


of patch cords, switches, or matrix pinboards . Changes in thebehaviors of the devices (such as pitch or loudness) along thesignal path are controlled from other devices which producecontrolvoltages .These controlvoltagesources canbe a keyboard,a ribbon controller, a randomvoltage source, an envelopegenera-tor or any other compatible voltage source .

The story of the analog "synthesizer" has no single beginning .In fact, its genesis is an excellent exampleofhow a goodidea oftenemerges simultaneously in different geographiclocationsto fulfilla generalized need . In this case the need was to consolidate thevarious electronic sound generators, modifiers and control de-vices distributed in fairlybulkyform throughout the classic tapestudio . The reason for doing this was quite straight forward: toprovide a personal electronicsystem to individual composers thatwas specifically designed for music composition and/or liveperformance, and which had the approximate technical capabil-ityofthe classic tape studio at a lowercost. The geographiclocaleswhere this simultaneously occurred were the east coast of theUnited States, San Francisco, Rome and Australia .

The concept of modularityusually associated with the analogsynthesizer must be credited to Harald Bode who in 1960completed the construction of his MODULAR SOUND MODIFI-CATION SYSTEM . In many ways this device predicted the moreconcise and powerful modular synthesizers that began to bedesigned in the early 1960's and consisted of a ring modulator,envelope follower, tone-burst-responsive envelope generator,voltage-controlled amplifier, filters, mixers, pitch extractor,comparatorandfrequency divider, and atape loop repeater . Thisdevicemay have had some indirectinfluence on Robert Moog buttheideafor his modular synthesizer appears to have evolvedfromanother set of circumstances .

In 1963, MOOG was selling transistorized Theremins in kitform from his home in Ithaca, New York. Early in 1964 thecomposer Herbert Deutsch was using one of these instrumentsand the two began to discuss the application of solid-statetechnologyto the design ofnewinstruments and systems . Thesediscussions led Moog to complete his firstprototype ofa modularelectronic music synthesizer later that year . By 1966 the firstproduction model was available from the new company he hadformedtoproduce this instrument . Thefirst systems which Moogproduced were principally designed for studio applications andwere generally large modular assemblages that contained volt-age-controlled oscillators, filters, voltage-controlled amplifiers,envelope generators, and a traditional style keyboard for voltage-control of the other modules . Interconnection between the mod-ules was achieved through patch cords . By 1969 Moog saw thenecessity for a smaller portable instrument and began to manu-facture the Mini Moog, a concise version ofthe studio system that

11111111111111111111111111 AN 11111111111

contained an oscillator bank, filter, mixer, VCAand keyboard . Asan instrument designer Moogwas always apractical engineer. Hisbasically commercial but egalitarian philosophy is best exempli-fied by some ofthe advertising copy which accompanied the MiniMoog in 1969 and resulted in its becoming the most widely usedsynthesizer in the "music industry":

"R.A. Moog, Inc. built itsfirst synthesizer components in 1964. Atthat time, the electronic music synthesizer was a cumbersomelaboratory curiosity, virtually unknown to the listening public .Today, theMoogsynthesizerhasproven its indispensability throughits widespread acceptance . Moog synthesizers are in use in hun-dreds ofstudios maintained by universities, recording companies,andprivate composers throughout the world. Dozens ofsuccessfulrecordings,film scores, and concert pieces have been realized onMoog synthesizers. The basic synthesizerconceptas developed byR.A . Moog, Inc., as well as a large numberoftechnological innova-tions, have literally revolutionized the contemporarymusicalscene,and have been instrumental in bringing electronic music into themainstream ofpopular listening .

In designing the Mini Moog, R. A. Moog engineers talked withhundreds ofmusicians tofind out what they wanted in aperform-ance synthesizer. Many prototypes were built over the past twoyears, and tried out by musicians in actual live-performancesituations . Mini Moog circuitry is a combination ofour timeprovenand reliable designs with the latest developments in technologyand electronic components .

The result is an instrument which is applicable to studio composi-tion as muchas to liveperformance, to elementary and highschoolmusic education as much as to university instruction, to thedemands of commercial music as much as to the needs of theexperimental avant garde. The Mini Moog offers a truly uniquecombination ofversatility, playability, convenience, and reliabilityat an eminently reasonable price."

In contrast to Moog's industrial stance, the rather counter-cultural design philosophy ofDONALD BUCHLA and his voltage-controlled synthesizers can partially be attributed to the geo-graphic locale and cultural circumstances of their genesis. In1961 San Francisco was beginning to emerge as a major culturalcenterwith severalvanguard composers organizing concerts andother performance events . MORTON SUBOTNICK was startinghis career in electronic music experimentation, as were PAULINEOLIVEROS, RamonSenderandTERRYRILEY. Aprimitivestudiohad been started at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music bySenderwhere he and Oliveros hadbegun a series ofexperimental

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN

39


music concerts . In 1962this equipmentand otherresourcesfromelectronic surplus sources were pooled together by Sender andSubotnick to form the San Francisco Tape Music Center whichwas later moved to Mills College in 1966 . Because of the severelimitations of the equipment, Subotnick and Sender sought outthe help of a competent engineerin 1962 to realize a design theyhad concocted for an optically based sound generating instru-ment. Afterafewfailures at hiring an engineerthey metDONALDBUCHLA who realized their design but subsequently convincedthem that this was the wrong approach for solving their equip-ment needs . Their subsequent discussions resulted in the con-cept of a modular system . Subotnick describes their idea in thefollowing terms :

"Our idea was to build the black box that would be a paletteforcomposers in theirhomes. Itwould be theirstudio. The ideawas todesign it so that it was likeananalog computer. Itwas nota musicalinstrument but it was modular. . .It was a collection ofmodules ofvoltage-controlled envelopegenerators and it had sequencers in itrightoffthe baL. .It wasa collection ofmodules that you wouldputtogether. There were no two systems the same until CBS boughtit. . . Our goal was that it should be under $400 for the entireinstrument and we came very close. That's why the originalinstrument Ifundraisedfor was under $500."

Buchla's design approach differed markedly from Moog. Rightfromthe start Buchla rejectedtheidea ofa "synthesizer" and hasresisted the word ever since . He never wanted to "synthesize"familiar sounds but rather emphasized new timbral possibilities .He stressed the complexity that could arise out of randomnessand was intrigued with the design of new control devices otherthan the standard keyboard . He summarizes his philosophy anddistinguishes it from Moog's in the following statement:

"I would say that philosophically the prime difference in ourapproaches was that I separated sound and stricture and hedidn't. Control voltages were interchangeable with audio. Theadvantageofthat is thathe required only one kind ofconnectorandthat modules could serve more than one purpose. There wereseveral drawbacks to that kind ofgeneral approach, one ofthembeing that amodule designed to work in the structural domain atthe same time as the audio domain has to make compromises. DCoffset doesn't make any difference in the sound domain but itmakesabig difference in thestructural domain, whereas harmonicdistortion makes very little difference in the control area but it canbe very significant intheaudioareas. Youalso have amatterofjustbeing able to discern what's happening in a system by looking atit. Ifyou have a very complexpateh, it's nice to be able to tell what

11111111111111111111111111111

aspect ofthepatch is the structural part ofthe music versus whatis thesignalpathandsoon . There's a big difference in whetheryoudeal with linear versus exponentialfunctions at the control leveland that was a very inhibiting factor in Moog's more generalapproach.

Uncertainty is the basisfor alot ofmy work. One always operatessomewhere between the totally predictable and the totally unpre-dictable and to me the "source ofuncertainty, " as we called it, wasaway ofaiding the composer. Thepredictabilities could be highlydefined or you could have asequence oftotally random numbers.We had voltage control ofthe randomness andofthe rate ofchangeso that you could randomize the rate of change. In this way youcould make patterns that were ofmore interest than patterns thatare totally random"

While the early Buchla instruments contained many of thesame modularfunctions as the Moog, it also contained a numberof unique devices such as its random control voltage sources,sequencers and voltage-controlled spatial panners . Buchla hasmaintained his unique design philosphy over the interveningyears producing a series of highly advanced instruments oftenincorporating hybrid digital circuitry and unique control inter-faces .

The othermajorvoltage-controlled synthesizers to arise at thistime (1964) were the Synket, a highlyportableinstrument builtbyPaul Ketoff, and a unique machine designed by Tony Furse inAustralia . According to composer Joel Chadabe, the SYNKETresulted from discussions between himself, Otto Leuning andJOHN EATON whilethese composers were inresidencein Rome .

z 1 f

Don Buchla in his Berkeley, California studio with several of his creations, late 1970's . Coutesy of Don Buchla .

DAVID DUNN

Y S

41


Chadabe had recently inspected the developmental work ofRobert Moog and conveyed this to Eaton and Leuning . Theengineer Paul Ketoffwas enlisted to build a performance orientedinstrument for Eaton who subsequently became the virtuoso onthis small synthesizer, using it extensively in subsequent years .The machine built by Furse was the initial foray into electronicinstrument design by this brilliant Australian engineer . He laterbecame the principal figure in the design of some of the earliestand most sophisticated digital synthesizers of the 1970's .

After these initial efforts anumber ofotherAmerican designersand manufacturers followed the lead ofBuchla and Moog . One ofthe most successful was the ARP SYNTHESIZER built byTonus,Inc . with design innovations by the team of Dennis Colin andDavid Friend . The studio version of the ARP was introduced in1970 and basically imitated modular features of the Moog andBuchla instruments . A year later they introduced a smallerportable version which included a preset patching scheme thatsimplified theinstrument's functionforthe average pop-orientedperformingmusician . Othermanufacturers included EML, makersof the ELECTRO-COMP, a small synthesizer orientedto the edu-cational market; OBERHIEM, one of the earliest polyphonic syn-thesizers ; muSonics' SONIC V SYNTHESIZER ; PAIA, makers ofasynthesizer in kit form; Roland ; Korg; and the highly sophisti-cated line of modular analog synthesizer systems designed andmanufactured by Serge Tcherepnin and referred to as SergeModular Music Systems .

In Europe the major manufacturer was undoubtedly EMS, aBritish company founded by its chief designer Peter Zinovieff.EMS built the Synthi 100, a large integrated system whichintroduced a matrix-pinboard patching system, and a smallportable synthesizer based on similar design principles initiallycalled the Putney but later modified into the SYNTHI A or Port-abella . This later instrumentbecame very popular with a numberof composers who used it in live performance situations .

One of the more interesting footnotes to this history of theanalog synthesizer is the rather problematic relationship thatmany of the designers have had with commercialization and thesubsequent solution of manufacturing problems . While thecommercial potential for these instruments became evident veryearly on in the 1960's, the different aesthetic and design philoso-phies ofthe engineers demanded that they deal with this realiza-tion in different ways . Buchla, who early on got burnt by largercorporate interests, has dealt with the burden of marketing byessentially remaining a cottageindustry, assemblingand market-inghis instruments from his home in Berkeley, California. In thecase of MOOG, who as a fairly competent businessman grew asmallbusiness inhishomeinto a distinctlycommercial endeavor,even heultimatelyleft Moog Musicin 1977, afterthecompanyhad

42





been acquired by two larger corporations, to pursue his owndesign interests .

It is important to remember that the advent of the analogvoltage-controlled synthesizer occurred within the context ofthecontinueddevelopment ofthetape studiowhichnowincludedthesynthesizer as an essential part of its new identity as theelectronic music studio . It was estimated in 1968 that 556 non-private electronic music studios had been established in 39countries . An estimated 5,140 compositions existed in the me-dium by that time .

Some ofthelandmarkvoltage-controlled "synthesizer" compo-sitions of the 1960's include works created with the "manufac-tured" machines of Buchla and Moog but other devices werecertainly also used extensively. Most of these works were tapecompositionsthat usedthe synthesizer as resource . The followinglist includes a few of the representative tape compositions andworks for tape with live performers made during the 1960's withsynthesizers and other sound sources .

1960) Stockhausen : KONTAKTE; Mache : Volumes;

1961) Berio : VISAGE; Dockstader : TWO FRAGMENTS FROMAPOCALYPSE

1962) Xenakis : BOHOR I; Philippot: Etude III; Parmegiani :DANSE;

1963) Bayle : PORTRAITS DE L'OISEAU-QUI-N'EXISTE-PAS ;Nordheim: EPITAFFIO

1964) Babbitt: Ensemblesfor Synthesizer; Briin : Futility ; Nono :LA FABBRICA ILLUMINATA

1965) Gaburo : LEMONDROPS, Mimaroglu : Agony; Davidovsky :Synchronisms No . 3;

1966) Oliveros : IOFIV Druckman : Animus I,

1967) Subotnick: SILVER APPLES OF THEMOON; Eaton : CON-CERTPIECEFORSYN-KETANDSYMPHONYORCHESTRA; Koenig :Terminus X, Smiley: ECLIPSE;

1968) Carlos : Switched-On Bach ; Gaburo : DANTE'S JOYNTE;Nono: CON'IRAPPUNTO DIALETTICO ALLA MEN'IE

DAVID DUNN


1969) Wuorinen : TIME'S ENCOMIUM; Ferrari : MUSIC PROME-NADE

1970) Arel : Stereo Electronic MusicNo. 2; Lucier : IAM SITTINGINA ROOM

2) COMPUTER MUSIC

A distinction : Analog refers to systems where a physicalquantity is represented by an analogous physical quantity . Thetraditional audio recording chain demonstrates this quite wellsince each stage oftranslation throughout constitutes a physicalsystem that is analogous to the previous one in the chain. Thefluctuations of air molecules which constitute sound are trans-lated into fluctuations of electrons by a microphone diaphram .These electrons are then converted via a bias current of a taperecorder into patterns of magnetic particles on a piece of tape .Upon playback the process can be reversed resulting in thesefluctuations of electrons being amplified into fluctuations of aloudspeaker cone in space . The final displacement of air mole-cules results in an analogous representation of the originalsounds that were recorded. Digital refers to systems where aphysical quantity is represented through a counting process . Indigital computers this counting process consists of a two-digitbinary coding of electrical on-off switching states . In computermusic the resultant digital code represents the various parame-ters of sound and its organization .

As early as 1954, the composerYANNIS XENAKIS had used acomputerto aid incalculating thevelocitytrajectories ofglissandifor his orchestral composition Metastasis . Since his backgroundincluded a strong mathematical education, this was a naturaldevelopment in keeping with his formal interest in combiningmathematics andmusic . The searchthathad begun earlier inthecentury for new sounds and organizing principles that could bemathematically rationalized hadbecome a dominant issue bythemid-1950's . Serial composers like MILTON BABBIT had beendreaming of an appropriate machine to assist in complex com-positionalorganization . While theRCAMusic Synthesizer fulfilledmuch ofthis needfor Babbitt, other composers desired even moremachine-assisted control. LEJAREN HILLER, aformer student ofBabbitt, saw the compositional potential in the early generationof digital computers and generated the Illiac Suite for stringquartet as a demonstration of this promise in 1956 .

Xenakis continued to develop, in a much more sophisticatedmanner, his unique approachto computer-assisted instrumentalcomposition . Between 1956 and 1962 he composed a number ofworks such as MorismaAmorisma using the computer as a


11111111111111111111111111111

mathematical aid for finalizing calculations that were applied toinstrumental scores . Xenakis stated that his use ofprobabilistictheoriesand the IBM 7090 computer enabled himto advance " . . .aform of composition which is notthe object initelf, but an idea initself, that is to say, the beginnings of a family of compositions ."

The early vision ofwhy computers should be applied to musicwas elegantly expressed by the scientist Heinz Von Foerster:

"Accepting the possibilities of extensions in sounds and scales,how do we determine the new rules of synchronism and succes-sion?

It is at this point, where the complexity ofthe problem appears togetout ofhand, thatcomputers come to ourassistance, not merelyas ancillary tools but as essential components in the complexprocess ofgenerating auditory signals thatfufill avariety ofnewprinciples of a generalized aesthetics and are not confined toconventional methods ofsoundgeneration byagiven setofmusicalinstruments orscales nor toagivensetofrules ofsynchronismandsuccession based upon these very instruments and scales . Thesearch for those new principles, algorithms, and values is, ofcourse, in itselfsymbolicfor our times."

The actual use of the computer to generate sound firstoccurred at BellLabs where Max Mathews usedaprimitive digitalto analog converter to demonstrate this possibility in 1957 .Mathews became the central figure at Bell Labs in the technicalevolution of computer generated sound research and composi-tional programming with computer over the next decade. In 1961hewasjoined by the composer JAMES TENNEYwho had recentlygraduated from the University of Illinois where he had workedwithHiller and Gaburo to finish a major theoretical thesis entitledMeta 4Hodos For Tenney, the Bell Lab residency was a signifi-cant opportunity to apply his advanced theoretical thinking(involving the application of theories from Gestalt Psychology tomusic and sound perception) into the compositional domain .From 1961 to 1964 he completed a series ofworks which includewhatare probably thefirst serious compositions usingthe MUSICIV program of Max Mathews and Joan Miller and therefore thefirst serious compositions using computer-generated sounds :Noise Study, Four Stochastic Studies, Dialogue, Stochastic StringQuartet, Ergodos I, Ergodos II, and PHASES .

In the following extraordinarily candid statement, Tenneydescribes his pioneering efforts at Bell Labs :

"I arrived at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in September, 1961,with thefollowing musical and intellectual baggage:1. numerous instrumental compositions reflecting the influence of

DAVID DUNN

III 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111


Webern and Uarese ;2. two tape-pieces, produced in the Electronic Music Laboratory atthe University of Illinois - both employing familiar, `concrete'sounds, modified in various ways;3. alongpaper("Meta4Hodos,APhenomenology of20thCenturyMusic and an Approach to the Study of Form", June, 1961), inwhich a descriptive terminology and certain structural principleswere developed, borrowing heavily from Gestalt psychology. Thecentraipointofthepaperlnvolves theclang, orprimaryauralGestalt,andbasiclawsofperceptual organizationofclangs, clang-elements,and sequences (a high-order Gestalt-unit consisting of severalclangs).4. A dissatisfaction with all the purely synthetic electronic musicthat Ihadheardup to thattime,particularly withrespecttotimbre ;5. ideas stemmingfrom my studies ofacoustics, electronics and -especially - information theory, begun in Hiller's class at theUniversity ofIllinois ; andfinally6. a growing interest in the work and ideas ofJohn Cage.I leave in March, 1964, with :1. six tape-compositions ofcomputer-generated sounds - ofwhichall butthefirst were alsocomposedby means ofthe computer, andseveral instrumental pieces whose composition involved the com-puter in one way or another,2. afar better understanding ofthephysical basis oftimbre, andasense ofhaving achieved a significant extension ofthe range oftimbres possible by synthetic means;3. a curious history of renunciations of one after another of thetraditional attitudes about music, due primarily to gradually morethorough assimilation ofthe insights ofJohn Cage.In my two-and-a-halfyears here I have begun many more compo-sitions than I have completed, asked more questions than I couldfind answers for, and perhaps failed more often than I havesucceeded. But I think it could not have been much different. Themedium is newand requires newways ofthinking andfeeiing . Twoyears are hardly enough to have become thoroughly acclimated toit, but theprocess has at least begun."

In 1965 the research at Bell Labs resulted in the successfulreproduction of an instrumentaltimbre : atrumpetwaveformwasrecordedandthen converted into anumerical representation andwhen converted back into analog form was deemed virtuallyindistinguisablefromits source.ThisaccomplishmentbyMathews,Miller and the French composer JEAN-CLAUDE RISSET marksthe beginning ofthe recapitulation ofthe traditional representa-tionist versus modernist dialectic in the new context of digitalcomputing . When contrasted against Tenney's use of the com-puterto obtainentirelynovelwaveforms and structural complexi-ties, the use of such immense technological resources to repro-duce the sound of a trumpet, appeared to many composers to be46

11111111111111111111111111111

a gigantic exercise in misplaced concreteness . When seen in thesubsequent historicallight ofthe recent breakthroughs of digitalrecording and sampling technologies that can be traced back tothis initial experiment, the original computing expense certainlyappears to have been vindicated. However, the dialectic ofrepre-sentationism and modernism has only become more problematicin the intervening years .

The development of computer music has from its inceptionbeen so critically linked to advances in hardware and softwarethat its practitioners have, until recently, constituted a distinctclass of specialized enthusiasts within the larger context ofelectronic music . The challenge that early computers and com-puting environments presented to creative musical work wasimmense . In retrospect, the task of learning to program and pitone's musical intelligence against the machine constraints ofthose early days now takes on an almost heroic aire . In fact, thedevelopment of computer music composition is definitely linkedto the evolution of greater interface transparency such that thetask of composition could be freed up from the other arduoustasks associated with programming. The first stage in this evolu-tion was the design of specific music-oriented programs such asMUSIC IV. The 1960's saw gradual additions to these languagessuch as MUSIC IVB (a greatly expanded assembly languageversionby GodfreyWinham and Hubert S . Howe) ; MUSIC IVBF (afortranversion ofMUSIC IVB) ; and MUSIC360 (a music programwrittenfor theIBM 360 computer by Barry Vercoe) . ThecomposerCharles Dodge wrote during this time about the intent of thesemusic programs for sound synthesis :

"It is through simulating the operations ofan ideal electronic musicstudio with an unlimited amount of equipment that a digitalcomputer synthesizes sound. Thefirst computer sound synthesisprogram that was truly general purpose (i .e ., one that could, intheory, produce any sound) was created at the Bell TelephoneLaboratories in the late 1950's . Acomposer using such aprogrammust typicallyprovide: (1) Storedfunctions which will reside in thecomputer's memory representing waveforms tobe used bythe unitgenerators of the program. (2) "Instruments" of his own designwhich logically interconnect these unit generators. (Unit gen-erators are subprograms that simulate all the sound generation,modification, and storage devices of the ideal electronic musicstudio.) The computer "instruments" play the notes ofthe compo-sition. (3) Notes may correspond to thefamiliar "pitch in time" or,alternatively, may represent some convenient way ofdividing thetime continuum."

By the end ofthe 1960's computer sound synthesis researchsaw a large number of new programs in operation at a variety ofacademic and private institutions . The demands ofthe medium


however were still quite tedious and, regardless ofthe increasedsophistication in control, remained a tape medium as its finalproduct . Some composers had taken the initial steps towardsusing the computer for realtime performance by linking thepowerful control functions ofthe digital computer to the soundgenerators and modifiers of the analog synthesizer . We will dealwiththespecifics ofthis developmentinthe nextsection. From itsearliest daysthe useofthe computer in music can be dividedintotwo fairly distinct categories even though these categories havebeen blurred in some compositions : 1) those composers inter-ested in using the computer predominantly as a compositionaldevice to generate structural relationships that could not beimagined otherwise and 2) the use of the computer to generatenew synthetic waveforms and timbres .

A few of the pioneering works of computer music from 1961to 1971 are the following:

1961) Tenney: Noise Study

1962) Tenney: Four Stochastic Studies

1963) Tenney: PHASES

1964) Randall: QUARTETS INPAIRS

1965) Randall: MUDGETT

1966) Randall: Lyric Variations

1967) Hiller: Cosahedron

1968) Bran : INDEFRAUDIBLES; Risset : COMPUTERSUITEFROMLITTLE BOY

1969) Dodge: CHANGES; Risset : Mutations I

1970) Dodge: EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD

1971) Chowning: SABELITHE

3) LIVE ELECTRONIC PERFORMANCEPRACTICE

A Definition : For the sake of convenience I will define liveelectronic music as that in which electronic sound generation,processing and control predominantly occurs in realtime during

a performance in front of an audience .The idea that the concept of live performance with electronic

sounds should have a special status may seem ludicrous to manyreaders . Obviouslymusic has always been a performance art andthe primary usage ofelectronic musical instruments before 1950was almost always in a live performance situation . However, itmust be remembered that the defining of electronic music as itsown genre really came into being with the tape studios of the1950's and that the beginnings of live electronic performancepractice in the 1960's was in large part a reaction to both agrowing dissatisfaction with the perceived sterility of tape musicin performance (sound emanating from loudspeakers and littleelse) and the emergenceofthe various philosophical influences ofchance, indeterminacy, improvisation andsocialexperfmentation .

The issue of combining tape with traditional acoustic instru-ments was a major one ever since Maderna, Varese, Luening andUssachevsky firstintroduced suchworks inthe 1950's . Avarietyof composers continued to address this problem with increasingvigor into the 1960's . For many it was merely a means forexpanding the timbral resources of the orchestral instrumentsthey had been writing for, while for others it was a specificcompositional concern that dealtwith the expansion ofstructuralaspects of performance in physical space . For instance MARIODAVIDOVSKYand KENNETH GABUROhave bothwritten a seriesofcompositions which address the complex contrapuntal dynam-ics betweenlive performers and tape : Davidovsky's Synchronisms1-8 and Gaburo's Antiphonies 1-11 . These works demand awidevariety of combinations oftape channels, instruments and voicesin live performance contexts . In these and similarworks by othercomposers thetape soundsare derivedfrom allmannerofsourcesand techniques including computer synthesis . The repertory forcombinations ofinstruments and tape grewto immense interna-tional proportions during the 1960's and included works fromAustralia, NorthAmerica, SouthAmerica, Western Europe, EasternEurope, Japan, and the Middle East. An example of how onecomposer viewed the dynamics of relationship between tape andperformers is stated by Kenneth Gaburo :

"On afundamental level ANTIPHONY III is a physical interplaybetween live performers and two speaker systems (tape) . Inperformance, 16 soloists are divided into 4 groups, with onesoprano, alto, tenor, and bass in each. The groups are spatiallyseparated from each other and from the speakers . Antiphonalaspects develop between andamong theperformers within eachgroup, between and among groups, between the speakers, andbetween andamong the groups and speakers .

On another level Antiphony III is an auditory interplay betweentape and live bands. The tape band may be divided into 3 broad

DAVID DUNN


49


compositional classes: (1) quasi-duplication of live sounds, (2)electro-mechanical transforms ofthese beyond the capabilities oflive performers, and (3) movement into complementary acousticregions of synthesized electronic sound. Incidentally, I term theunion of these classes electronics, as distinctfrom tape contentwhich is pure concrete-mixing or electronic sound synthesis. Thelive bandencompasses abroad spectrumfrom normal singing tovocal transmission having electronically associated characteris-tics. The total tape-live interplay, therefore, is the result ofdiscretemixtures of sound, all having the properties of the voice as acommon point ofdeparture."

Another important aesthetic shift that occurred within thetape studio environment was the desire to compose onto tapeusing realtimeprocesses that didnot require subsequent editing .PAULINEOLIVEROSandRichard Maxfieldwereearlypractitionersof innovative techniques that allowed for live performance in thestudio . Oliveros composed IofIV (1966) inthis manner using tapedelay and mixer feedback systems . Other composers discoveredsynthesizer patches that would allow for autonomous behaviorsto emerge from the complex interactions of voltage-control de-vices . The output from these systems could be recorded asversions on tape or amplified in live performance with someperformer modification . Entropical Paradise (1969) by DouglasLeedy is a classic example of such a composition for the BuchlaSynthesizer .

The largest and most innovative category of live electronicmusic to cometo fruition inthe 1960's was theuse ofsynthesizersand custom electronic circuitry to both generate sounds andprocess others, such as voice and/or instruments, in realtimeperformance. The most simplistic example of this applicationextendsbackto theveryfirstuse ofelectronic amplificationbytheearly instruments ofthe 1930's . During the 1950's JOHN CAGEand DAVID TUDOR used microphones and amplification as com-positional devices to emphasize the smallsounds and resonancesof the piano interior . In 1960 Cage extended this idea to the useofphonograph cartridgesandcontactmicrophones in CARTRIDGEMUSIC. The work focused upon the intentional amplification ofsmall sounds revealed through an indeterminate process . Cagedescribed the aural product: "The sounds which resultare noises,some complex, others extremely simple such as amplifierfeed-back, loud-speaker hum, etc . (All sounds, even those ordinarilythought to be undesirable, are accepted in this music.)"

ForCage the abandonment oftapemusic and the move towardlive electronic performance was an essential outgrowth of hisphilosophy of indeterminacy . Cage's aesthetic position necessi-tated the theatricality and unpredictability of live performancesince he desired a circumstance where individual value judge-

ments would not intrude upon the revelation and perception ofnew possibilities . Into the 1960's his fascination for electronicsounds in indeterminate circumstances continued to evolve andbecome inclusive ofan ethical argument for the appropriatenessof artists working with technology as critics and mirrors oftheircultural environment . Cage composed a large number of suchworks during the 1960's often enlisting theinspired assistance oflike-minded composer/performers such as DavidTudor, GordonMumma, David Behrman, and Lowell Cross . Among the mostfamous of these works was the series of compositions entitledVARIATIONS of which there numbered eight by the end of thedecade . These works were really highly complex and indetermi-nate happenings that often used a wide range of electronictechniques and sound sources .

The composer/performer DAVID TUDOR was the musicianmostcloselyassociated with Cage duringthe 1960's .As a brilliantconcert pianist during the 1950's he had championed the worksof major avant-garde composers and then shifted his perform-ance activities to electronics during the 1960's, performing othercomposer's live-electronic works and his own . His most famouscomposition, RAINFOREST, and its multifarious performancessince it was conceived in 1968, almost constitute a musical sub-culture of electronic sound research. The work requires thefabrication of special resonating objects and sculptural con-structs which serve as one-of-a-kind loudspeakers whentransducers are attached to them.Theconstructed "loudspeakers"function to amplify and produce both additive and subtractivetransformations of source sounds such as basic electronicwaveforms . Inmorerecentperformances thesoundshaveincludeda wide selection ofprerecorded materials .

While liveelectronicmusicinthe 1960's waspredominantlyanAmerican genre, activity in Europe and Japan also began toemerge . The foremost European composer to embrace live elec-tronic techniques in performance was KARLHEINZ STOCK-HAUSEN. By 1964 hewas experimenting withthe staightforwardelectronic filtering of an amplified tam-tam in MICROPHONIE I.Subsequent works for a variety ofinstrumental ensembles and/orvoices, such as Prozessionor Stimmung, explored verybasicbutingenious use of amplification, filtering and ring modulationtechniques in realtime performance . In a statement about theexperimentation that led to these works Stockhausen conveys aclear sense of the spirit of exploration into sound itself thatpurveyed much ofthe live electronic work of the 1960's :

"Last summerI made afew experiments by activating the tam-tamwith the mostdisparatecollection ofmaterials Icouldfindaboutthehouse -glass, metal, wood, rubber, synthetic materials- at the

DAVID DUNN


51


same time linking up a hand-held microphone (highly directional)to an electric filter and connecting thefilter output to an amplifierunit whose output wasaudible through loudspeakers . Meanwhilemy colleague Taap Spekaltered the settings ofthefilter and volumecontrols in animprovisatory way. At the same time we recordedtheresults on tape. This tape-recording of our first experiences in`microphony' wasadiscovery ofthegreatestimportanceforme . Wehadcome to no sortofagreement.I used suchofthe materials Ihadcollected as I thought best and listened-in to the tam-tam surfacewith the microphonejust as a doctor might listen-in to abody withhis stethoscope ; Spek reacted equally spontaneously to what heheard as theproduct ofourjoint activity ."

In many ways the evolution of live electronic music parallelsthe increasing technological sophistication of its practitioners . Inthe early 1960's most of the works within this genre wereconcerned with fairly simple realtime processing ofinstrumentalsounds and voices . Like Stockhausen's work fromthis period thismay have been as basic as the manipulation of a live performerthrough audio filters, tape loops or the performer's interactionwithacoustic feedback. ROBERTASHLEY'S Woman (1964) is anexample of the use of high amplification of voice to achievefeedback that alters the voice and a prerecorded tape .

By the end ofthe decade a number ofcomposers had techno-logically progressed to designing their own custom circuitry. Forexample, GORDON MUMMA'SMESA (1966) andHORNPIPE (1967)are both examples of instrumental pieces that use custom-builtelectronics capable of semi-automatic response to the soundsgenerated by the performer or resonances of the performancespace. One composer whose work illustrates a continuity ofgraduallyincreasingtechnical sophisticationis DAVID BEHRMAN.From fairly rudimentary uses of electronic effects in the early1960's his work progressed through various stages of live elec-tronic complexificationto compositions likeRUN'lHROUGH (1968),where custom-built circuitryand a photo electric sound distribu-tion matrix is activated by performers with flashlights .

This trend toward new performance situations in which thetechnologyfunctionedas structurally intrinsictothecompositioncontinued to gain favor. Many composers began to experimentwith a vast array of electronic control devices and unique soundsources which often required audio engineers and technicians tofunction as performing musicians, and musicians to be techni-cally competent. Since the number of such works proliferatedrapidly, a few examples ofthe range ofactivities during the 1960'smustsuffice. In 1965, ALVINLUCIERpresented his MusicforSoloPerformer 1965whichused amplified brainwave signals to articu-late the sympathetic resonances of an orchestra of percussioninstruments . John Mizelle's Photo Oscillations (1969) used mul-

52

tiple lasers as light sources through which the performers walkedin order to trigger a variety of photo-cell activated circuits .PendulumMusic (1968) by Steve Reich simplyused microphonessuspended overloudspeakers fromlong cables . The microphoneswere set in motion and allowed to generate patterns of feedbackas theypassed over the loudspeakers . For these works, and manyothers likethem, the structural dictateswhich emergedout ofthenature ofthe chosen technology also defined a particular compo-sition as a unique environmental and theatrical experience .

Co-synchronous with the technical and aesthetic advancesthatwere occurring in live performance that I havejust outlined,the use of digital computers in live performance began to slowlyemerge in the late 1960's . The most comprehensive achievementat marrying digital control sophistication to the realtime soundgeneration capabilities oftheanalog synthesizerwas probablytheSAL-MAR CONSTRUCTION (1969) of SALVATORE MARTIRANO .This hybrid system evolved over several years with the help ofmany colleagues and students at the University of Illinois . Con-sidered by Martirano to be a composition unto itself, the machineconsisted of a motley assortment of custom-built analog anddigital circuitry controlled from a completely uniqueinterface anddistributed through multiple channels of loudspeakers sus-pended throughout the performance space . Martirano describeshis work as follows :

"The SAL-MARCONSTRUCTION was designed,financed and builtin 1969-1972 by engineers Divilbiss, FYanco, Borovec and com-poser Martirano here at the University of Illinois . It is a hybridsystem in which TTL logical circuits (small and medium scaleintegration) drive analog modules, suchas voltage-controlled oscil-lators, amplifiers andfilters . TheSMCweighs 15001bs crated andmeasures 8'x5'x3' .

It can be set-up at one end of the space with a `spider web' ofspeaker wire going out to 24 plexiglass enclosed speakers thathang in a variety ofpatterns about the space. The speakers weighabout 61bs . each, and aregently mobile according to air currents inthe space. Achanging pattern ofsound-traffic by 4 independentlycontrolledprograms produces richtimbres thatoccur as the movingsource ofsound causes the soundto literally bump into itselfin theair, thus effecting phase cancellation and addition ofthe signal .

The controlpanel has 291 touch-sensitive set/reset switches thatarepatchedso that atreeofdiversesignalpaths is available to theperformer. Theoutputoftheswitch is eitherset `outl 'orreset `out2' .Further the 291 switches are multiplexed down 4 levels . Theunique characteristic of the switch is that it can be driven bothmanuallyandlogically, whichallows human/machineinteraction.

11111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN


Most innovativefeature ofthe human/machine interface is that itallows the user to switchfrom control ofmacro to micro parametersof the information output. This is analogous to azoom lens on acamera . Apianist remains at one level only, that is, on the keys . Itis possible to assignperformer actions toAUTOand allow the SMCto make all decisions."

One of the major difficulties with the hybrid performancesystems of the late 1960's and early 1970's was the sheer size ofdigital computers. One solution to this problemwas presented byGORDON MUMMAinhis composition Conspiracy 8 (1970) . Whenthe piece was presented at New York s Guggenheim Museum, aremote data-link was established to a computer in Boston whichreceived information about the performance in progress . In turnthis computer then issued instructions to the performers andgenerated sounds which were also transmitted to the perform-ance site through data-link .

Starting in 1970 an ambitious attempt at using the new mini-computers was initiated by Ed Kobrin, a former student andcolleague ofMartirano's . Starting in Illinois in collaboration withengineer Jeff Mack, and continuing at the Center for MusicExperiment at the University of California, San Diego, Kobrindesigned an extremely sophisticated hybrid system (actuallyreferred to as HYBRID ITHROUGH V) that interfaced a mini-computer to an array of voltage-controlled electronic soundmodules . As a live performance electronic instrument, its six-voice polyphony, complexity and speed ofinteraction madeit themost powerful realtime system ofits time . One of its versions isdescribed by Kobrin :

"The most recent system consists ofaPDP 11 computer with 16kwordsofcore memory, dual digitalcassette unit, CRTterminal withASCII keyboard, and apiano-type keyboard. A digital interfaceconsisting ofinterrupt modules, address decoding circuitry, 8and10 bitdigital to analog converters with holding registers, program-mable counters and a series of tracking and status registers ishardwired to a synthesizer. The musicgenerated is distributed to16 speakers creating a controlled sound environment."

Perhaps the most radical and innovative aspect of live elec-tronic performance practice to emerge during this time was theappearance ofanewform of collective music making . In Europe,NorthAmerica and Japan several important groups ofmusiciansbegan to collaborate in collective compositional, improvisational,and theatrical activities that relied heavily upon the new elec-tronic technologies . Some ofthereasonsforthis trendwere : 1) theperformance demands of the technology itself which often re-quired multiple performers to accomplish basic tasks ; 2) the


improvisatory and open-ended nature of some ofthe music wasfriendly and/or philosophically biased towards a diverse andflexible number ofparticipants ; and 3) the cultural and politicalclimate was particularly attuned to encouraging social experi-mentation .

As early as 1960, the ONCE Group had formed in Ann Arbor,Michigan . Comprised ofa diverse group ofarchitects, composers,dancers, filmmakers, sculptors and theater people, the ONCEGROUP presented the annual ONCE FESTIVAL . The principalcomposers of this group consisted of George Cacioppo, RogerReynolds, Donald Scavarda, RobertAshley and Gordon Mumma,most ofwhom were actively exploring tape music and developinglive electronic techniques . In 1966 Ashley and Mumma joinedforces with David Behrman and Alvin Lucier to create one ofthemostinfluential liveelectronicperformanceensembles, the SONICARTS UNION While its members would collaborate in the realiza-tion ofcompositions by its members, and by other composers, itwas not concerned with collaborative composition or improvisa-tionlike manyother groups that hadformed aboutthe same time .

Concurrent with the ONCE Group activities were the concertsand events presented by the participants of the San FranciscoTape Music Center such as Pauline Olfveros, Terry Riley, RamonSender and Morton Subotnick. Likewise a powerful center forcollaborative activity had developed at the University of Illinois,Champaign/Urbana where Herbert Bran, Kenneth Gaburo, Le-jaren Hiller, Salvatore Martirano, and James Tenney had beenworking. By the late 1960's a similarly vital academic scene hadformed at the University ofCalifornia, San Diego where Gaburo,Olfveros, Reynolds and Robert Erickson were now teaching .

In Europe several innovative collectives had also formed. Toperform his ownmusic Stockhausen had gatheredtogether a liveelectronic music ensemble consisting of Alfred Alings, HaraldBoje, Peter Eotvos, Johannes Fritsch, Rolf Gehlhaar, and AloysKontarsky. In 1964 an international collective called the Gruppodi Improvisazione Nuova Consonanza was created in Rome forperforming live electronic music . Two years later, Rome also sawthe formation ofMusica Elettronica Viva, one ofthe most radicalelectronic performance collectives to advance group improvisa-tion that often involved audience participation. In its originalincarnation the group included Allan Bryant, Alvin Curran, JohnPhetteplace, Frederic Rzewski, and Richard Teitelbaum .

The other majorcollaborative group concerned with the impli-cations ofelectronic technologywasAMMin England . Founded in1965 byjazz musicians Keith Rowe, Lou Gare and Eddie Provost,and the experimental genius Cornelius Cardew, the group fo-cused its energy into highly eclectic but disciplined improvisa-tionswith electro-acoustic materials . Inmanyways the groupwasan intentional social experiment the experience ofwhich deeply

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN


informedthesubsequentScratchOrchestra collectiveofCardew'S .One final category of live electronic performance practice

involves the more focused activities of the Minimalist composersof the 1960's. These composers and their activities were involvedwith both individual and collective performance activities and inlarge part confused the boundaries between the so-called "seri-ous" avant-garde and popularmusic .The composerTERRY RILEYexemplifies this idea quite dramatically. During the late 1960'sRiley created avery popular form ofsolo performance using windinstruments, keyboards and voice with tape delay systems thatwas an outgrowth from his early experiments into pattern musicand his growing interest in Indian music . In 1964 the New Yorkcomposer LaMonte Young formed THE THEATRE OF ETERNALMUSIC to realize his extended investigations into pure verticalharmonic relationships and tunings . The ensemble consisted ofstring instruments, singing voices and precisely tuned dronesgenerated by audio oscillators . In early performances theperformers included John Cale, Tony Conrad, LaMonte Young,and Marian Zazeela .

Avery brief list ofsignificant live electronic music works ofthe1960's is the following:

1960) Cage : CARTRIDGEMUSIC

1964) Young : The Tortoise, His Dreams and Journeys; Sender :DesertAmbulance ; Ashley: Wolfinan; Stockhausen : Mikrophonie I

1965) Lucier: Musicfor Solo Performer

1966) Mumma: MESA

1967) Stockhausen : PROZESSION; Mumma: HORNPIPE

1968) Tudor : RAINFOREST, Behrman : RUNTHROUGH

1969) Cage and Hiller: HPSCHD; Martirano : Sal-Mar Construc-tion; Mizelle: Photo Oscillations

1970) Rosenboom: Ecology of the Skin

4) MULTI-MEDIA

The historical antecedants for mixed-media connect multiplethreads ofartistic traditions as diverse as theatre, cinema, music,

IIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

sculpture, literature, and dance . Since the extreme eclecticism ofthis topic and the sheervolume ofactivity associatedwith itistoovastfor the focus ofthis essay, Iwill onlybe concerned with a fewexamples of mixed-media activities during the 1960's that im-pacted the electronic art and music traditions from which subse-quent video experimentation emerged .

Much of the previously discussed live electronic music ofthe1960's can be placedwithin themixed-media category inthat theperformance circumstances demanded by the technology wereintentionally theatrical or environmental. This emphasis on howtechnology could help to articulate new spatial relationships andheightened interaction between the physical senses was sharedwith many other artists from the visual, theatrical and dancetraditions . Many new terms arose to describe the resultingexperiments ofvarious individuals and groups such as "happen-ings," "events," "action theatre," "environments", orwhatRichardKostelanetz called "The Theatre of Mixed-Means ." In many waysthe aesthetic challenge and collaborative agenda ofthese projectswas conceptually linked to the various counter-cultural move-ments and social experiments of the decade . For some artiststhese activities were a direct continuity from participation in theavant-garde movements ofthe 1950's such as Fluxus, electronicmusic, "kinetic sculpture," Abstact Expressionism and Pop Art,and for others theywere a fulfillment ofideas aboutthemerger ofart and science initiated by the 1930's Bauhaus artists .

Many of the performance groups already mentioned wereengaged in mixed-media as their principal activity. In Michigan,the ONCE Group had been preceded by the Manifestations : Lightand Sound performances and Space Theatre of Milton Cohen asearly as 1956 . The filmmaker Jordan Belson and Henry Jacobsorganized the Vortexperformancesin San Francisco the followingyear . Japan saw the formation of Tokyo's Group Ongaku andSogetsu Art Center with Kuniharu Akiyama, Toshi Ichiyanagi,Joji Yuasa, Takahisa Kosugi, and Chieko Shiomi in the early1960's . At the same time were the ritual oriented activities ofLaMonte Young's THETHEATREOFETERNALMUSIC . The groupPuisa was particulalry active through the late sixties stagingenvironmental lightandsoundworks such astheBOSTONPUBLICGARDENS DEMONSTRATION (1968) that used 55 xenon strobelights placed underwater in the garden's four-acre pond . On topof the water were placed 52 polyplanar loudspeakers which werecontrolled, along with the lights, by computer and prerecordedmagnetic tape . This resulted in streams oflight and sound beingprojectedthroughoutthepark at high speeds . At the heart ofthisevent was the unique HYBRID DIGITAL/ANALOG AUDIO SYN-THESIZER which Pulsa designed and used in most of theirsubsequent performance events .

In 1962, the USCO formed as a radical collective ofartists and

11111111111111111111111111111

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111

DAVID DUNN

57


engineers dedicated to collective action and anonymity. Some ofthe artists involved were Gerd Stern, StanVan Der Beek, andJudYalkut . As Douglas Davis describes them :

"USCO's leaders were strongly influenced by McLuhan's ideas asexpressed in his book Understanding Media. Their environ-ments-performed in galleries, churches, schools, and museumsacross the United States-increased in complexity with time,culminating in muitiscreen audiovisual "worlds" and strobe envi-ronments . They saw technology as a means of bringing peopletogether in a new and sophisticated tribalism. In pursuit of thatideal, they lived, worked, and created together in virtual anonym-ity . "

Theinfluence ofMcLuhan also had a strong impactupon JohnCage during this period and marks a shift in his work toward amore politically and socially engaged discourse . This shift wasexemplified in two of his major works during the 1960's whichwerelarge multi-media extravaganza's stagedduring residenciesat the University of Illinois in 1967 and 1969 : Musicircus andHPSCHD . The later work was conceived in collaboration withLejaren Hiller and subsequently used 51 computer-generatedsound tapes, in addition to seven harpsichords and numerousfilm projections by Ronald Nameth .

Another example of a major mixed-media work composedduring the 1960's is the TEATRO PROBABILISTICO HI (1968) foractors, musicians, dancers, light, TV cameras, public and trafficconductor by the brazilian composer JOCY DE OLIVEIRA. Shedescribes her work in the following terms that areindicative of atypical attitude toward mixed-media performance at that time :

"This piece is an exercise in searchingfor totalperception leadingto a global event which tends to eliminate the set role ofpublicversus performers through a complementary interaction . Thecommunity life and the urban space are usedfor this purpose. Italso includes the TV communication on apermutation of live andvideo tape andatransmutationfromutilitarian-camera to creativecamera .

The performer is equally an actor, musician, dancer, light, TVcamera/video artist or public. They all are directed by a trafficconductor. He represents the complex contradiction ofexplicit andimplicit. He is a kindofmilitary Godwhocontrols thefreedom ofthepowers by dictating orders through signs. He has power overeverything and yet he cannot predict everything . The performersimprovise on a time-event structure, according to general direc-tions . The number of performers is determined by the spacepossibilities. It is preferable to use a downtown pedestrian area.

11111111111111111111111111111

Theconductorshould be located in the center oftheperforming areavisible to the performers (over a platform) . He should wear auniform representing any high rank.

For the public as well as the performers this is an exercise insearchingfor a total experience in complete perception."

One of the most important intellectual concerns to emerge atthis time amongst most ofthese artistswas an explicit embracingof technology as a creative counter-cultural force . In addition toMcLuhan, the figure of Buckminster Fuller had a profoundinfluence upon an entire generation of artists . Fuller's assertionthat the radical and often negative changes wrought by techno-logical innovation were also opportunities for properunderstand-ing and redirection ofresources became an organizing principlefor vanguard thinkers in the arts . The need to take technologyseriously as the social environment in which artists lived andformulated critical relationships with the culture atlarge becameformalized in projects suchas Experiments inArtand Technology,Inc . and the various festivals and events they sponsored : NineEvenings: Theater and Engineering; Some More Beginnings ; theseriesofperformancespresented atAutomationHousein NewYorkCity during the late 1960's ; and the PEPSI-COLA PAVILIONFOREXPO 70 in Osaka, Japan . One of the participants in Expo 70,Gordon Mumrna, describes the immense complexity and sophis-tication that mixed-media presentations had evolved into by thattime:

"The mostremarkableofall multi-media collaborations was proba-bly the Pepsi-Cola Pavilion for Expo 70 in Osaka. This projectincluded many ideas distilledfromprevious multi-media activities,and significantly advanced both the art and technology by numer-ous innovations . The Expo 70 pavilion was remarkableforseveralreasons . It was an international collaboration ofdozens ofartists,as many engineers, and numerous industries, all coordinated byExperiments in Art and Technology, Inc . From several hundredproposals, the projects oftwenty-eightartists and musicians wereselectedforpresentation in thepavilion . The outside ofthepavilionwas a 120foot-diametergeodesic dome ofwhiteplastic and steel,enshrouded by an ever-changing, artificially generated water-vapor cloud . The public plaza infront of the pavilion containedseven man-sized, sound-emitting floats, that moved slowly andchanged direction when touched . A thirty foot polar heliostatsculpture tracked the sun and reflected a tenfoot-diameter sun-beamfrom its elliptical mirror through the cloud onto the pavilion.The inside ofthe pavilion consisted oftwo large spaces, one black-walled and clam-shaped, the othera ninety foot high hemispheri-cal mirrordome. The sound and light environment ofthese spaces

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN

59


wasachievedby an innovative audioand opticalsystemconsistingof state-of-the-art analog audio circuitry, with krypton-laser,tungston, quartz-iodide, and xenon lighting, all controlled by aspecially designed digital computer programmingfacility .

The sound, light, and control systems, and their integration withthe unique hemispherical acoustics andoptics ofthepavilion, werecontrolledfrom amovable console. On this console the lighting andsoundhadseparatepanelsfrom which the intensities, colors, anddirections ofthe lighting, pitches, loudness, timbre, and directionsof the sound could be controlled by live performers. The sound-moving capabilities ofthe dome were achieved witharhombic gridof thirty-seven loudspeakers surrounding the dome, and weredesigned to allow the movementofsoundsfrompoint, straight line,curved, andfield types ofsources. The speed ofmovement couldvaryfromextremely slow tofastenough to lose the senseofmotion.The sounds to be heard could befrom any live, taped, or synthe-sized source, and up to thirty-two different inputs could be con-trolled at one time. Furthermore, it was possible to electronicallymodify these inputs by using eight channels of moderation cir-cuitry that could change the pitch, loudness, and timbre in a vastnumber ofcombinations . Another console panel contained digitalcircuitry that could be programmed to automatically control as-pects ofthe light andsound. By their programming ofthis controlpanel, the performers could delegate any amount ofthe light andsoundfunctions to the digital circuitry. Thus, at one extreme thepavilioncould be entirely a live-performance instrument, and attheother, an automated environment . The most important designconcept ofthe pavilion was that it was alive-performance, multi-mediainstrument. Between the extremes ofmanual andautomaticcontrol ofso many aspects ofenvironment, the artist could estab-lish all sorts of sophisticated man-machine performance interac-tions."

CONSOLIDATION : THE 1970AND SO'S

The beginning of the 1970's saw a continuation ofmost ofthedevelopments initiated in the 1960's . Activities were extremelydiverse and included all the varieties of electronic music genrespreviously established throughout the 20th century. Academictape studios continued to thrive with a great deal of uniquecustom-built hardwarebeing conceived byengineers, composersand students . Hundreds of private studios were also establishedas the price oftechnology became more affordable for individualartists . Many more novel strategies for integrating tape and liveperformerswere advanced as were newconcepts for live electron-ics and multi-media . A greatrush ofactivity in new circuit design


also took place and the now familiar pattern of continual mini-aturization with increased power and memory expansion forcomputers began to become evident. Along with this increasedlevel of electronic music activity two significant developmentsbecame evident : 1) what hadbeen for decades apioneering fringeactivity within the larger context of music as a cultural activitynow begins to become dominant ; and 2) the commercial andsophisticated industrial manufacturing of electronic music sys-tems and materials that had been fairly esoteric emerges inresponse to this awareness . The result of these new factorssignals the end of the pioneering era ofelectronic music and thebeginning of a post-modern aesthetic that is predominantlydriven by commercial market forces .

By the end ofthe 1970's mostinnovations in hardware designhad been taken over by industry in response to the emergingneeds ofpopular culture . The film andmusic "industries" becamethe major forces in establishing technical standards which im-pacted subsequent electronic music hardware design . While theindustrial representationist agenda succeeded in the guise ofpopular culture, somepioneering creative work continued withinthe divergent contexts of academic tape studios and computermusic research centers and in the non-institutional aestheticresearch ofindividual composers . While specialized venues stillexist where experimental work can be heard, it has been anincreasing tendency thataccess to such work has gottenprogres-sively more problematic .

One ofthemostimportant shifts to occurinthe 1980'swas theprogressive move toward the abandonment of analog electronicsin favor of digital systems which could potentially recapitualateand summarize the prior history of electronic music in standard-ized forms . By the mid-1980's the industrial onslaught ofhighlyredundant MIDI interfaceable digital synthesizers, processors,and samplers even began to displace the commercial merchan-dizing of traditional acoustic orchestral and band instruments .By 1990 the presence of these commercial technologies hadbecome a ubiquitous cultural presence that largely defined thenature of the music being produced .

CONCLUSION

What beganinthis centuryas a utopianandvaguely Romanticpassion, namelythat technologyoffered anopportunity to expandhuman perception and provide new avenues for the discovery ofreality, subsequently evolved through the 1960's into an intoxi-cation with this humanistic agenda as a social critique andcounter-cultural movement . The ironyis thatmany ofthe artist'swho were most concerned with technology as a counter-cultural

11111111111111111111111111111

DAVID DUNN

61


social critique builttools that ultimately became the resources foran industrial movement that in large part eradicated their ideo-logical concerns . Most of these artists and their work have falleninto the annonymous cracks of a consumer culture that nowregards their experimentation merely as inherited technical R &D . While the mass distribution ofthe electronic means ofmusicalproduction appears to be an egalitarian success, as a worst casescenario it may also signify the suffocation of the modernistdream at the hands of industrial profiteering . To quote thephilosopher Jacques Attali : "What is caned music today is all toooftentenonly adisguiseforthemonologueofpower. However, and thisis the supreme irony of it all, never before have musicians tried sohard to communicate with their audience, and never before hasthat communication been so deceiving . Music now seems hardlymore than asomewhat clumsy excusefor the self-glorification ofmusicians and the growth ofanew industrial sector."

From a slightly more optimistic perspective, the current dis-solving ofemphasis uponheroic individual artistic contributions,within the context ofthe current proliferation ofmusical technol-ogy, may signify the emergence ofa new socio-political structure :the means to create transcends the created objects and thepersonality ofthe object's creator . The mass dissemination ofnewtools and instruments either signifies the complete failure ofthemodernist agenda or it signifies the culminating expression ofcommoditization through mass pro-duction of the tools necessary to de-construct the redundant loop of con-sumption. After decades of sellingrecords as a replacement forthe expe-rience of creative action, the musicindustrynow sells the toolswhichmayfacilitate that creative participation .We shift emphasis to the means ofproduction instead of the productionof consumer demand .

Whichever way the evolution ofelectronic music unfolds will dependupon the dynamical properties of adialectical synthesis between industrialforces and the survival ofthemodernist beliefinthe necessityfor technology as a humanistic potential. Whether the currentusers of these tools can resist the redundancy of industrialdetermined design biases, induced by the cliches of commercialmarket forces, depends upon the continuation of a beliefin thenecessityforalternative voices willing to articulate thatwhichthestatus quo is unwillingly to hear .

David Dunn, 1970s

AHISTORYOFELECTRONIC MUSICPIONEERS David Dunn · AHISTORYOFELECTRONIC MUSICPIONEERS David Dunn...

Documents

Transcript of AHISTORYOFELECTRONIC MUSICPIONEERS David Dunn · AHISTORYOFELECTRONIC MUSICPIONEERS David Dunn...