Practice-based research, when applied to the realm of music composition, might be understood as collecting and interpreting information from the analysis of a folio of compositions. As well, it may also consist of assimilating certain principles and drawing conclusions from the experience acquired through composing. However, in the present submission, the audio-score axiom (or postulate) highly conditions the pieces it produces, and influences my own perception of these works. I am most interested in analysing and discussing these pieces through the angle of this specific protocol. Numerous sections of
this practice-based research commentary focus on the way the music is transmitted rather than the music itself, thus emphasising its research/scientific component. The intention is to present a model in which the research postulates
precede the artistic outcome: they are a set of initial conditions out of which the
artistic works have emerged.
This emphasis on research most significantly highlights the originality of the present thesis, and reveals the risks taken in orienting my compositional practice in this manner. The long and unpredictable nature of the research process meant I could not predict where audio-scores would lead me when I began this investigation eight years ago. I was unaware at that time how significantly this specific working method would transform my approach to composition, notation, and determine the performers I would work with. After promising experiments with audio-scores in 2006/7, I was advised during my studies at the Paris Conservatoire to discard them, in order to write for larger ensembles, with traditional means of notation. Two pieces, Chroma (2008, Figure 88) and
Trauma (2009, figure 89), displayed below, were written at that time. In spite of
important efforts made during the compositional process, and generous rehearsal time with skilled performers, I was not entirely satisfied with the result of these works. I thought I could obtain more interesting and unique results with audio-scores. Consequently, after this experience, I concluded that audio-scores and computer-aided performance deserved further investigation, hence the specialisation of my compositional research in this area.
10.2 Notation
Whilst the present research on audio-scores proposes a priori a kind of alternative to written notation, I never thought the latter could be replaced completely. Instead, I am aiming for integration of the two media. I will now discuss a few domains where notation and music reading present undeniable advantages over the aural approach.
10.2.1 Notation is more creative than representational
In my view, written language and the score share many similarities; therefore, I propose that music behaves like language when it is notated, in the sense that ‘Language constructs reality rather than merely reflecting it’ (Cook, 2000). It might then be an error to consider the score just as an attempt to reflect an initial musical idea. In the process of notation or transcription, what is put to paper is not merely reflecting the initial object transcribed, but it embodies the notational symbols so as to create a new object, composed. Doing so, it moves away from what it was initially representing, to reach what this association of symbols means to the performer. No matter how precise a score can be, it will always be somehow unforeseeable, and therefore will always stimulate the creativity of the performer.
10.2.2 The act of reading and the performer
It would be perilous not to take advantage of the expertise acquired in music reading by classically trained performers. In my compositional practice, I realised that one of the main differences between audio cues and notated scores is that the aural input delivers information in the time of the performance, while the score (the separate part) allows the performer to obtain a preview.
The earpiece puts the singer in the position of a listener, and in a state of perpetual expectation. Without the visual input, the performer feels as though he/she is required to react in real-time to what is heard, whereas the presence of a written score offers knowledge of what comes next. Also, as seen in previous examples, such as in Chapter 6.1.4, the score allows the performer to distinguish when he should come in and when he is just given a cue. Similarly, the visual storage allowed by music reading would be absolutely irreplaceable by audio cues only in instrumental practice, when for example a pianist plays complex chords, or when a clarinettist has to play fast atonal figurations. In rehearsals, the annotations made by the performers in their parts allow assimilation,
appropriation and interpretation. Finally, the score helps the performer considerably in the construction of a mental representation of the sequence of events (of the form), as opposed to an audio-score, which can only unfold in time.
For a performer, what is most irreplaceable with music reading relates to his/her background and experience as a classically trained musician. This observation leads to the following conclusion: generally speaking, the visual input (the score) engages with prior knowledge of the performer, and allows him/her to understand and reconstruct what is written on the page. The auditory stimulus, on the other hand, is looking for a mimetic or spontaneous response.