Return to WOW/EM homepageThe computer seems to have "arrived" as an all pervasive tool in all walks of life. I have been involved in the computer music field for about 22 years, or half of my life, and while I consider myself a "computer musician", I have serious reservations about this label. My reservations and "mistrust" of technology extend not only to the computer, as a musical tool, but to all its ramifications as a human tool. Some of my mistrust of technology is typically "Ludditte": I tend to believe that any technological advances mankind has made throughout history have had both good and bad effects, have been put to both good and bad uses, and in the long run cause as much (or more) suffering than they alleviate.
One last issue concerning the computer which disturbs me: The idea that technology empowers us. That musicians who do electronic music are "cooler", are more "advanced". Some would say that this knowledge is kept secret because it is power. I prefer to think that this knowledge is very ad-hoc, most electronic musicians only understand a portion of this very complicated and multi-disciplinary domain, and many electronic musicians are not excellent pedagogues. And it takes large amount of patience to teach and learn this stuff.
If this introduction has not frightened off all readers, I will try to give an idea of how I use the computer. Actually, the prospect of explaining my use of computers is frightening to me because I use the computer in practically all areas of my work. As a composer of instrumental or instrumental and computer works, I sometimes make use of the computer as a composing tool. This aspect of computer music is exciting: creating or exploring existing algorithms, attempting to map this exploration into the musical world is something that I find very stimulating.
In the area of electronic music, my primary interest is real-time interactive computer music. Real-time interactive computer music poses some interesting technical and musical problems.Composers are tempted by the challenge of using the computer as a real-time tool for music-making. Advantages are clear: real-time interaction gives a musical flexibility impossible in the tape domain. Performers are challenged in new ways by real-time interaction.
Using computer analysis tools, real-time decision-making which a musician does while interpreting a piece of music in a performance situation is quantifiable to a certain degree. How to use this information is a question best left to the individual composer. But recognizing what a musician is doing on as many different levels as possible gives composers correspondingly more ways to answer this question. For example, pitch tracking can be used to distinguish different pitches and determine the stability of pitch on a continuous basis. On a musical level this means we can safely start to distinguish portamento, glissando, trills, tremolo, etc. As for amplitude, envelope following of the continuous dynamic envelope can be the starting point for all sorts of articulation detection: flutter-tongue, staccato, legato, sforzando, crescendo, etc. In the short-term frequency domain, FFTs, pitch tracking, and filtering can be used to track continuous changes in the spectral content of sounds for identifying things like inharmonic/harmonic ratios and timbral brightness, which are useful in recognizing multiphonics, sul ponticello, etc. Thoughtful high-level event detection which combines the analyses of frequency, amplitude, and spectral information can provide rich control signals that reflect subtle changes found in the input signal.
A dynamic relationship between performer, musical material, and the computer can become an important aspect of the man/machine interface for the composer, performer, and listener, in an environment where musical expression is used to control an electronic score. Compositions can be fine-tuned to individual performing characteristics of different musicians, performers and computers can interact more intimately, and performers can readily sense consequences of their performance and their musical interpretation.
Finally, I also use the computer for editing and mastering final versions of my works, since present-day digital editing tools give such incredible control over sound.
Now that I have explained how I use the computer as a composer, I would like to return to my over-indulgent argument for "mistrusting" the computer as a musical tool. I see the computer being used in all areas of music education. It is efficient and powerful. Theory students can do their part-writing homework with a sequencer and print out very readable results with notation software. I wonder about inner ear, keyboard, and music notation skills that inexperienced music students might not polish if they use a computer too early in their education? If immediate playback with a sequencer is easy, then the pre-compositional inner-ear may not be exercised. Likewise, basic keyboard skills can be skipped. Likewise, notating readable music by hand might not be learned. Somehow, I tend to think that musical skills 100 years ago were much more advanced in the typical musician than they are today: There were no recordings, people had to be able to look at a score and get some idea of how a piece sounded, and use piano to play through orchestral scores. Students can turn out impressive looking compositions today without using their inner ear (imagination). I wonder what this will lead to eventually? But maybe none of this is important if we have computers? I just think we should keep in mind the possibility that someday the electricity might be turned off. How many of us will still be able to make music if that happens?
Nevertheless, I continue to make my Max patches, control my signal processing gear and pay my electricity bill. I continue to do this because I am fascinated with the act of producing new sounds.
Back to Viewpoints
Return to WOW/EM homepage
Go to Navigator menu.
Copyright September 1996,
updated February 2004.
Kristine H. Burns,
Florida International University
Questions? Contact me.