From McLaren re notation

From: mclaren
Subject: Xenharmonic scores
--
After hearing my music, most people ask: "Do
you have scores?"
The answer is always: "Yes--the scores are
MIDI files."
To which the inevitable reply is, "No, I mean
do you have actual *scores*?"
"Yes. Here are the MIDI files."
"No, I mean SCORES. Real SCORES."
"The MIDI files are the scores."
"No, I mean *SCORES*..."
And so on.
Years and years ago, it became clear to me that
[1] no one was going to perform my non-12 music,
which didn't matter in the slightest because
[2] it was *impossible* to perform my non-12 music
even if anyone wanted to (care to gather together
an orchestral ensemble capable of performing in
the 21st root of 17? I'll wait while you hacksaw
the clarinets and blowtorch the trombones... Oh,
yes, we'll need a tempo track for every member of
the orchestra too...)
[3] Using a computer to store MIDI sequences allows
compositional techniques essentially impossible to
notate meaningfully in traditional western ways.
Example: You've got a 46 tone equal tempered scale
with a canon in which the follower uses notes 60%
f the leader and in which the second voice uses
notes 70% of the leader. This is not just measure-by-
measure, mind you, but in fact tempos of 100% against
60% against 70%. This is 56 tone #1 from
side 2, McLaren - Microtonal Music Vol. 2.
There is no way to write this piece down using
conventional western notation without so distorting
the notation by tying notes across barlines and
using bizarre accidentals that the structure of the
piece would be completely and utterly obscured.
Thus, the notation for my compositions is: the
original MIDI files.
This is a radical stance.
It makes possible many compositional processes
impossibly difficult in traditional performance
situations--multiple simultaneous tempo streams
which change from one tempo to another...multiple
time signatures with enormous simultaneous
accelerando or decelerando...a precise control over
xenharmonic pitch unavilable with traditional human
performers.
This control comes at a price. The resulting score
exists only as digital information on a computer
disk: in almost all cases, the score cannot be
usefully transcribed into standard notation.
This is viewed as a severe disadvantage by a
number of people who don't seem to realize that
notation imposes hidden constraints on the composer.
When you agree to work in standard notation, you
automatically agree to a huge number of contraints
on your composition--you agree that there are a
lot of things you simply won't do.
Having no interest in making any such agreement,
it seems obvious to me that multiple simultaneous
time signatures, tempo streams, accelerandi/
decelerandi, multiple simultaneous tunings and
hocketing impossible in a real-world performance
are the absolute minimum any imaginative
composer would settle for.
Thus, my radical stance remains unchanged--the
score is the MIDI file. There is no "real" score
other than the MIDI file. The digital information
itself *IS* the score for the xenharmonic composition.
With the advent of computers, traditional music
notation is obsolete. That's life.
Get over it.
--mclaren


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 18:53 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA19497; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 18:54:33 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA19505
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id JAA04788; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:54:31 -0700
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:54:31 -0700
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu