for amplified ensemble (2-5 players) and networked laptops
The title of this piece is borrowed from a Jasper Johns painting from 1959. Johns’ works have been a point of inspiration for many decades, due to his abstraction of found materials into artworks that are recognised and appreciated on their own merit. Like Johns’ painting, this composition focuses on colour, and the blurred boundary of shape and meaning. It also focuses on play; as in the playful interaction of juxtaposed colour in space and time, and the playful transformation of found material. This reference to the ‘found’, and the ‘being’ of itself, is a central focus of this composition, and like Johns’ works the focus is not on the source materials but on the articulation of those through the artist’s abstraction into something else that is, at all times, the source, the process, the result and the interpretation.
False Start was commissioned by the Icebreaker Ensemble.
NOTE: These scores are based in software. Although they share many similar properties to that of paper based/traditional scoring methods, they also benefit from the usability and functionality of dynamic software environments. The visual information will be familiar to the musician and welcomed by a curious spirit of adventure. Above all, these scores are responsive, evolving as the performance progresses – giving the feeling of being alive – and should be considered as co-operative creative partners.
-
This score is based in Max/MSP. This must be downloaded and installed prior to operation.
-
Some of the folders contain a document called 'get_files'. These provide a link to media files stored on Dropbox that are required to operate the score. These must be downloaded first and placed in each of the correspondng folders.
Commissioned by Icebreaker Ensemble First performance: Instrumentation: Duration: 22 March 2015 Icebreaker Ensemble: James Poke, flute; Bradley Grant, soprano saxophone and bass clarinet; James Woodrow, electric guitar; Walter Fabeck, piano; Audrey Riley, cello. Audiograft festival, Oxford, UK Small ensemble (2 to 5 players) with networked laptops (1 each) c. 14’30 minutes
The title of this piece is borrowed from a Jasper Johns painting from 1959. Johns’ works have been a point of inspiration for many decades, due to his abstraction of found materials into artworks that are recognised and appreciated on their own merit. Like Johns' painting, this composition focuses on colour, and the blurred boundary of shape and meaning. It also focuses on play; as in the playful interaction of juxtaposed colour in space and time, and the playful transformation of found material. This reference to the ‘found’, and the ‘being’ of itself, is a central focus of this composition, and like Johns’ works the focus is not on the source materials but on the articulation of those through the artist’s abstraction into something else that is, at all times, the source, the process, the result and the interpretation.
The composer expresses his sincere thanks to Jonathan Eato and Audrey Riley for giving permission to use recorded samples of their instruments as part of the interactive soundscape. Dedicated to Max (happy birthday)
The composition is in three parts: A, B, A. The score is open to interpretation. The characteristic of part A is energetic and rhythmical (Sonic Youth meets Sun Ra). Part B is free from time (like drops of ink in an ocean of sound). The composition also includes an electroacoustic element. This is generative and will respond to the ensemble over time.
The score presented on each screen is generated from a fixed library of found material. The flow of fragments will never be the same. Part A will be presented in Black ink, Part B in Blue.
To start the piece the M.D. will click start on her laptop. This will start all the laptops going: the screen will fill with the score, or turn black depending on the choices made by the computational intelligence. The composition has started. NOTE:
If an individual’s screen has not changed to play mode, then that player must click ‘start’ manually. Once the composition has been played through once, it is necessary to close it and reload for the next run through.
1.1 The onscreen score is open to interpretation by each musician. It should contribute to your on-going understanding of the music, and your place within that flow. As such, you are free to make decisions about interpretation &c. as long as they are in the spirit of the piece. 1.2 The on-screen score is not the total sum of the musical information that contributes to an interpretation of this composition. It needs to form part of an on-going, co-operative relationship between the humans and the computers; the visual materials and the aural sounds. As such, the scores invite interpretation and rely on the musicianship of the individual to complete the music. 1.3 This interpretation should be playful (noun and verb), and meaningful to the individual. 1.4 The composer offers each musician these words to help define a playful engagement with the onscreen and aural materials: Mutate Abstract Transform 1.5 These will guide you and your relationship with the materials, and their relationship with you. AND 1.6 Your relationship with music and music’s relationship with your creativity. 1.7 It is important to note that the onscreen materials and the score in general are ingredients towards play: playful mutation, playful abstraction, and playful transformation. This is the spirit of the piece. 1.8 They are an incitement for your creativity, as such, you must find value in everything that you contribute to the on-going development of the music: playful, abstract, concrete, transformational or a combination of these. This is the spirit of the piece. 2.1 During performance, the idiosyncrasies of the score will require the individual musician to make certain choices or decisions. For example, the music might be indicating the key of F, meanwhile the score might show an F#. There is no defined rule here for interpretation; the correct response from the individual will depend on their rationalisation of that decision at that point in time, and within their on-going understanding of the co-operative music making. 2.2 Key signatures and notational spellings should be regarded as a great attractors for the harmonic language of each section, as such, an individual is free to gravitate towards it, or be propelled away from it. 2.3 When the screen changes mid-phrase, how the individual decides to deal with that is, again, a matter of judgement at that given moment in time, and that given flow of understanding. The complexity of the phrase will also dictate when and how the individual adopts it. 2.4 In section B, the individual is free from all phraseology presented on screen. As such, they can choose singles notes out of sequence, hold quavers for many minutes, or sound an idea inspired by something on the screen (like drops of ink in an ocean of sound). 2.5 Of paramount importance is that each musician enters into the spirit of the piece.
- Setup in a comfortable position. The screen of the laptop must be visible to the performer and at the correct height.
- Make sure each player has a laptop with the performance app on the desktop: one with MD version, others with drone (a separate laptop containing the rhythm part will be positioned near the sound mixing desk)
- Ensure each has enough battery life, screen saver is off, and notifications on silent
The priority for network setup (1 desirable – 4 less desirable)
- LAN over dedicated wireless router
- LAN over dedicated Ethernet router
- LAN over computer to computer network
- Internet network or hotspot (wireless or hardwire) If network communications fails across all laptops, partially fails on some, or has drop-outs, then continue without network functionality on those machines: the composition and the software apps are designed to work autonomously if this occurs. Although this situation is not desirable, a performance within this scenario is acceptable.
The general mix is equal between musicians and this rhythm part. The internal microphone of the laptop is to remain active as it records the live sound for part B and A2 (it is set to off for part A1). The input level should never be hot: ideally it should remain 6-12 dB lower than the generative rhythm track. This should provide an abstract 'reverb' sound to the mix. It is possible to use an iPad to control the mix of the individual parts. The mix and control screen can be accessed through an iPad using Mira software.