Paradigms and Computer Music

Author(s): Andrew Gerzso

Source: Leonardo Music Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1992), pp. 73-79
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1513212
Accessed: 04-09-2016 14:27 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Leonardo Music
Journal

This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 TH EORETICAL PERS PE CTIVE

Paradigms and Computer Music

Andrew Gerzso

omputer music is about 25 years old. A lations that we want to make on

great number of ideas have come out of the music-research those objects. What do I mean
community, some of which have found their way into the by objects and manipulations?
practical applications of commercial products as well. I For example, with a word
would like to examine some of the ideas underlying the processor, the objects are char-
machines and software (mostly the latter) used in music, by acters and words and the ma-
tracing where these ideas came from, pointing out some nipulations are copying, delet-
of the conceptual problems that experience has revealed ing, correcting the spelling,
A B S T R A C T
and, finally, making some suggestions for the future. In changing the font, etc. In mu-
particular I will discuss a family of systems that have been sic, the objects can be notes or
Any system used for making
used in the research community at large (the Music N chords that can be transposed, music embodies a particular way
languages [1]), two software systems that were developed edited, played, etc. The objects of looking at music. These ways
at the Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique can also be sound tracks thatwe are called paradigms. The author
defines the general notions of
/Musique (IRCAM) (Max and Patchwork) [2] and the can manipulate, by changing
paradigm and representation and
sequencer, which is one of the main software tools used in the order, for example. They
explains how these concepts apply
the commercial music business [3]. can also be sound files that can to the design of computer-music
The systems I discuss below were all produced by people be manipulated by mixing, fil- systems. Several real systems are
of exceptional talent and imagination. Their accomplish- tering and so on. examined from the paradigmatic
point of view.
ments are milestones in the field of computer music. How- All the objects that we are
ever, pointing out problems (which is always easy to do with manipulating are represented
hindsight) is one of the ways to develop better systems for in some form or another by the
music in the future. software we are using. The question of representation, then,
is central to the design of any software system. What is it that
we want to represent? How do we want to manipulate what
is represented? These are the basic questions involved in the
PARADIGMS OF REPRESENTATION design of any software system.

Any time we use a system for making music, be it software,
hardware or a combination of the two, we are dealing with
an object that implicitly or explicitly embodies a paradigm
for making music. What do I mean by a paradigm?
In its most intuitive meaning, a paradigm is a guiding
conceptual model for how something is thought to exist or
behave. Therefore, the paradigm underlying a musical sys-
tem is a model of what music is thought to be, the way it
behaves and how it is created. The paradigm can be quite
(even excessively) loose or quite constraining. According to
Computer music is not computer science, but many of
the concepts and tools that are currently used in computer
music depend on the ideas that have been developed in
computer science. This is especially true of the concept of
representation. If we are going to represent something in a
computer, the way we do this depends on our concept of
representation. So, in fact, we are talking about the para-
digms of representation. It would seem appropriate, there-
fore, to quickly summarize how the paradigm of repre-
sentation has evolved over time.

Webster's Dictionary, a paradigm is "an outstandingly clear
or typical example or archetype" [4] . But it is Thomas Kuhn
who has given a definition that is closer to our concerns
here. He defines paradigms as "universally recognized sci-
entific achievements that for a time provide model problems
and solutions to a community of practitioners" [5]. What is
interesting here is the notion of 'model . . . solutions' that
are 'valid for a time'. Some of the systems described below,
in particular Music V, have been model solutions for many
years.
A mature musical system reflects what it is we want to
accomplish, so in a very direct way the software we use
reflects what it is we want to do. How does this reflection
take place? The software presents in some form or another
the objects we want to manipulate and the kinds of manipu-
Recent years have seen the rise of a new discipline called
cognitive science [6]. In fact, it is more a collection of
disciplines with common goals than a discipline in itself.
According to an interesting recent account by Varela,
Thompson and Rosch [7], thought about cognitivism has
already gone through two stages and we are now on the
threshold of the third. What is not clear in this account is
whether each stage replaces or builds upon the previous
one. In any case, central to this evolution is the debate
concerning the paradigm for representation itself.
Andrew Gerzso (computer music researcher), IRCAM, 31, rue Saint-Merri, F-75004
Paris, France.
Manuscript solicited by Marc Battier.
Received 28July 1992.

K) 1992 ISAST
Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain.
0961-1 215/92 $5.00+0.00 LEONARDO MUSICJOURNAL, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 7>79, 1992 73

This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

P6 P7 / the cognitive system" [15] (emphasis
1 0/l 20
SC I
B2
F2
OSC + The techniques used for representa-
OUT )
1 INSO 1;
2 OSC P5 P6 B2 F1 F1 P30;
3 OSC B2 P7 B2 F2 P29;
4 OUTB2B1;
5 END;
6 GEN O 1 1 0 0 .99 20 .99 491 0 511
7 GEN O 1 2 0 0.99 50.99 205 -.99 ' 506 -.99 461 0 51 1;
8 NOT O 1 2 1000 .0128 6.70;
9 NOT 2 1 1 1000 .0256 8.44;
10TER 3;
In the first stage of cognitivism, the
key concept is the symbol. "The central
intuition behind cognitivism is that in-
telligence . . . so resembles computa-
tion in its essential characteristics that
cognition can actually be defined as
computations of symbolic representa-
tions" [8]. Cognition, therefore, is "in-
formation processing as symbolic com-
putation, [or] rule-based manipulation
of symbols" [9]. This stage is exempli-
fied in many of the systems developed
,^ .
tor computer muslc.
In the second stage of cognitivism,
the key concept is emergence. Here,
"the dominant theme shifts [away from
the symbol] to the notion of emergent
properties" [ 10] . This approach to rep-
resentation has given rise to the con-
nectionist strategies that are currently
being explored, of which the most spec-
tacular example is the neural network
[11]. "The emergence of global states
in a network of simple components"
becomes the primary behavioral char-
acteristic of this approach [ 12] . Instead
of having objects that are explicitly rep-
resented by symbols that then are used
in calculation, the emergent global states
74 Ge7zso, Paradigms and Computer Music
This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Fig. 1. (bottom) A
small Music V
\ program, with
\ (upper left) a mine). This third stage is still in a very
\ * graphicpatchrep-
491 51 1 resentation, which
will produce a two-
note musical
phrase at tempo
1 60 to the quarter
J= 60 note. F1 isafunc-
Q Z tionthatdescribes
T jr .t the evolution of
the amplitude, or
loudness, of the
sound over time.
F2 is the function
that specifies the
timbre of the
51 1 sound.
l
of highly interconnected simple com-
ponents are the objects themselves.
The objects that are represented come
into being by themselves (or emerge)
through interaction with the environ-
ment of the perceiver, rather than be-
ing objects 'out there' that are then
represented (or simply transcribed) 'in
here'. The simple input/output scheme
of cybernetics is abandoned. In com-
puter music this tendency is reflected,
for example, in real-time performance
systems, which are highly interactive.
In the third stage, the key concept is
that of enaction. "Brains make memo-
ries, which change the ways we'll sub-
sequently think. The principal activities
of brains are making changes in them-
selves" [ 13] . This stage is characterized
by the notion of processes that change
themselves. Fundamental to this ap-
proach is the attitude "that we move
away from the idea of a world as inde-
pendent and extrinsic to the idea of a
world as inseparable from the structure
of these processes of self-modification"
[ 14] . Thus, this approach inherits from
the concept of emergence. "Instead of
representing an independent world,
[the processes] enact a world as a
. , . . . . . .
domam ot ( .lstlnctlons that 1S lnSepara-
ble from the structure embodied by
speculative state.
I have strayed a little here, but my
purpose was to clarify the relationship
between paradigms for music and para-
digms for representation. In computer
music we attempt to create paradigms
that will guide the design of systems in
which we try to represent the objects
that we are interested in manipulating.
tion are grounded in ideas about repre-
sentation itself. At the same time, in the
background so to speak, the paradigm
for representation is evolving through
the efforts of computer science and the
cognitive sciences. Representation in
the cognitive sciences has, then, gone
through the three phases discussed
above: the symbolic, the emergent and
the enactive.
WHAT PARADIGMS
DO WE USE?
The Music N Family
The field of computer music was first
concerned with making sound. Max
Mathews's Music V (circa 1960) was the
first language for programming sounds.
Later,John Chowning invented the fre-
quency modulation (FM) synthesis tech-
nique (circa 1970) for the efficient cal-
culation of rich musical timbres. In
order to meet the demands that music
makes on processing, Peter Samson of
Systems Concepts created the Samson
Box for the Center for Computer Re-
search in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA)
at Stanford University, California, and
IRCAM, in Paris, developed several gene-
rations of real-time machines [ 16] . But
without a doubt it was Mathews's work
that has shaped at least three decades
of work in computer music.
Central to Mathews's approach was
the paradigm of music as mathematical
function. Generally speaking, the sim-
plest function one can imagine is y = ( x),
where the value of y is the result of the
action done by the function on the
parameter x. In Mathews's text on Mu-
sic V we find: "Since the essence of
sound depends on the nature of the
variations in pressure [in the air], we
will describe a sound wave by a pressure
function p(t)" [17]. The unit gener-
ators of Music V can be viewed, then,
as parameterized functions that, when
linked together, make a sound (see

Fig. 1). The linkage itself is based on
the paradigm of the telephone switch-
boardS which uses patch cords to link
together people who want to talk. The
patch paradigm has been applied in
innumerable hardware and software pr(}
jects [18], and Music V led to the family
of Music N languages created during
the 1970s and 1980s. All these systems
were extensively used at IRCAM,
CCRMA, Center for Music Experiments,
University of California, San Diego,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) and hundreds of other places, in
a multitude of artistic projects.
Intuitively, Mathews's functional para-
digm views music as a constant flow of
data (due to the emphasis put on sig-
nal-processing aspects), instead of as a
series of events in time. The unit gener-
ators create this flow as a function of the
parameters given to them. Note that
events are created by starting and stop-
ping the flow. In Music 10, for example,
we find two kinds of variables: I_TIME
and R_TIME. The first corresponds to
variables to which we assign values only
when a note begins. All the variables of
this kind are grouped together in a block
of code called 'I_C)NLY code' [19].
The second corresponds to variables
that are modified when each sample of
sound is calculated. The purpose of
I_TIME and R_TIME variables is to
make the distinction between context
and flow, respectively. The need for the
I_C)NLY code was one of the first signs
of the shortcomings of the pure flow
approach.
I have already pointed out that the
paradigm of music as mathematical
function excludes from the beginning
the concept of musical event. The evalu-
ation of a mathematical function itself
does not even imply time. The function
is evaluated that is all. But discrete
events are important in music and,
more generally, in any context where
the question of creating a language of
expression is a concern. In Charles
Hockett's interesting analysis of the
prerequisites for having a language of
any kind, discreteness (in the mathe-
matical sense of a clearly delimited
thing) is extremely important [20]. This
discreteness allows for the creation of a
differentiated vocabulary and for the
possibility of a grammar through the
combination of discrete objects.
Another problem is that this ap-
proach explicitly makes a distinction
between the generation of a sound (via
the mathematical function) and its con-
trol (via the parameters). This distinc-
tion has its roots in the nature of the
This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
MusFiforg..ithec2.from.Schema
.tractk_ic| a-yL
perform-
mathematical function itself but also in
the way a traditional musical score is
understood. For example, consider a
quarter note played at a tempo of 60 to
the quarter note. According to current
professional standards we need 44,100
numbers (called samples) per channel
to represent this second of sound. The
pitch of this note can be represented
with one number, say 440, for example.
So, the generator takes one parameter,
the pitch number, and turns the result
into 1 sec of sound that is 44)100 num-
bers long. But does this produce a sat-
isfying result? We now know that a
sound that is musically rich is made up
of many frequencies involving tiny vari-
ations over time. These variations must
be specified in some way. Therefore,
the number of parameters needed to
represent the sound then starts to ap-
proach the number of samples in the
signal, and the dividing line between
generation and control becomes more
and more fuzzy.
Still another problem is that all the
parameters are implicitly put on an
diagram of setup t7 <-r
ance Dialogue de | \ /
I 'Ombre Dauble by I | #
Pierre Boulez. |
1 of the tapeis | * track 1 > 2
sent to the VCA
control unit na * track 2 SMP1
tne aucuo con-
sole. The music is
then spatialised
among six speak-
ers using both the
timing informa- | ,,
tion coming from
track 2 of the
tape recorder and -T
the spatial con- | audio l l
| input
figuratlons memo- UCR CONTBOL U
audlo
control unit. 1 output
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
equal footing from a musical point of
view. There is a parameter for pitch and
another for timbre. Moreover, both
categories (pitch and timbre) are im-
plicitly assumed to correspond to a
'scale' or continuum of some sort. This
is true for pitch, of course, but not for
timbre. In fact, a paradigm for timbre
that would allow us to establish some
sort of classification method for musi-
cal purposes still does not exist. Increas-
ingly, timbre is being described intui-
tively by musicians in terms of types of
processes or types of behavior [21 ] . For
example, we can analyse sounds and
look for periodic (as opposed to cha-
otic) behavior [22]. When a more spe-
cific and complete description of these
types emerges we will be closer to a
better way to represent timbre.
What paradigm of representation does
Music V correspond to, assumingVarelaSs
analysis is correct? Without a doubt, the
one corresponding to the first phase,
since Music V processes a continuous
flow of symbols the samples of sounds
themselves.
2 ' 2 2 S Del
E code
-
1-
|;
l l
Gerzso, Paradigms and Computer Music 75
 lWRoman
-I 1 : =0-.>= X:0X-: = -->-DOD :_3 ___
U2 -a?. : s=.sxb,m;
_ _!=|."=W_1_,I,/_X.P.J.
tently travel along the patch lines.
Instead of having a constant flow of

bang reset
CUT MiDi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ON OFF information through the network of
D1 - EDIED113:>11321C3ED31:3
patch lines, as1:1
in theEDl
Music N family,
patcher } patcher patcher Vv | - /
patcher LOCAL sourse
_
information flows only when a message
1:2 C1
..

patcher MiDi source RQ

;
is sent [25]. Another major difference
>0
_W*=.
is that in Max a large variety of messages
Fer J 1 4-5 ++
Egtcher ,Jsigle initlal
(numbers, lists, 'bangs' [trigger mes-
t1 /74 0
sages], etc. ) travel between operators,
-

r space-ss t /89 21
=
whereas in the Music Nfamily it is num-
Btther | T 1- *+
mcher | T 5-6 + + bers representing signals (air-pressure
t /73 :

on off
t3 /57 Cj
variations) that travel between the
operators.
T2=3 Xie Finai
Wtcher | Sl9
One way to describe Max is to say that
L L] 23/68 [: it is a patch language with delays. If
Fatcher envelope tontrol
q
p3 Space-cs !
patcher | space

t REF
Dialosue de liombre double (roman)
4 .X*89
Ltcher 71 l 3-4
iZ5o b
1 ** set reArence vatues
2 ** choose section
C 1
Fig. 3. The Max program for D?alogue de l 'Ombre Double by Pierre Boulez. Each one of the
little boxes labeled 'patcher' contains subprograms that control the sound spatialisation.
The square items with the circles inside are called 'bangs', which are trigger buttons for
setting off a subprogram. The long vertical rectangles are potentiometers, which are used
interactively to set loudness or speed.
Max
The Max programming language,
named in honor of Max Mathews, was
initially conceived as a programming
environment for creating real-time mu-
sical applications. The most common
applications output MIDI data for con-
trolling synthesizers. In its most recent
version, which runs on the IRCAM Mu-
sical Workstation [23], it operates not
only at the control level but at the sam-
ple level as well. All programming
=-- - : 1 - ro
tont I
there were no delays, then everything
IX
Eginpace-tabl j would be executed as quickly as possi-
>>>>>>>>> a <<<(<<<<e ble. The delays are either explicitly pro-
patcher | grammed or induced by the system when
_ - _
it is waiting for an external signal to
T 1-2 T 4=S T 5-6
, w proceed. The temporal structure of the
1Qm
musical emerges as a result of these
delays.
I have had two occasions for using
Max in the context of a musical produc-
tion [26]. The first was in the realiza-
tion of Dialogue de L Vmbre Double
(1985) by the French composer Pierre
in Max is done graphically. Max has
Boulez, in which a live clarinet dia-
been extremely successful in both the
logues with a clarinet on tape that is
research and commercial music com-
spatialised using an audio matrix [27]
munities [24].
controlled by a Max program (Figs 2
Max is based on the idea of objects
that send each other messages. Max and 3). The tape has two tracks. The
interacts with the outside world by first contains the recorded music that is
accepting and sending MIDI informa- to be spatialised, and the second con-
tion. The objects, which are themselves tains SMPTE code that is sent to the
operators or functions made up of Max program.
Max operators, are interconnected in a The second composition, also by
patch-like fashion. Messages intermit- Boulez, was Explosante-Fixe (1991) for
chamber ensemble, solo MIDI flute [28],
digital signal processor [29], audio ma-
trix and samplers [30] (Fig. 4). Here
the solo flute sends MIDI information
Fig. 4. Schematic
diagram of equip- to a Max program containing a score
ment setup tor a follower (Fig. 5). The score follower
Sampler A a
_ / performance of determines where the flutist is in the
S a m p 1 e r B # r,xXblosante-rtxe Dy score and triggers events (sound trans-
_ # Pierre Boulez. The
formations, spatialisations or sampling)
# # notes from the solo
/ # flutist are sent to a
associated with particular notes in the

# # Maxprogram con- score. The main advantage of score-

# # taining the score fol- following resides in the accurate musi-
> t lower. Depending cal synchrony that is made possible. An
Arrssosz>sovfossif>> on the actions to be
example of the burden put on this sys-
taken at each cue in
tem by Explosante-Fixe is that, in the
the score, the score
space of 6 min, the flutist triggers some
follower then issues
' commands for the 250 cues.
# control of the sam- Two related problems were encoun-
# plers, spatialisation tered during these two production pro-
0 (Matrix32) or
jects, particularly during Explosante-Fixe.
# sound transforma-
The first concerns what I call the
- tion (second Max
program control- 'state problem'. At any given point in
# ling the 4X real- time, one cannot determine what state
Control # time digital signal a particular Max program is in. Since
processor). the overall paradigm stresses message
sound: >>zAw

flow and continuity (as opposed to

76 Gerzso, Paradigms and Computer Music

This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 states), it is not surprising that we should
Time
encounter this problem. No provision
. , . . . Fig. 5. Schematic
exlsts tor
diagram of the
ticular
score follower. st
notes
troublesome whenever the initial state Notes coming in
played by the in- from f 1 ute
of a program is important. Practically
strumentalist are
speaking, I solved the problem by writ-
. . . . . . . . compared by the
ng extenslve lnltla lzatlon code. In
score follower
the commercial version of Max, an ad program with the
hoc solution was found in the form of score stored in
'presets' [31]. the computer

!
Related to the state problem is the memory. The sys-
tem must 'look'
problem regarding context. If one sim-
to the left and t; + fl , t t t t
ply plays a composition from start to
right in the score
finish, there is no problem. But making to catch mistakes
music involves rehearsals that, in turn, on the part of the notes stored
require starting at different places in instrumentalist. ln memory
the score of a piece. Most music is made
up of a number of processes that over-
lap in time, so starting at a particular
piler outside of Max. One has to be a a LISP function always returns one
point in a piece requires knowing what
programming expert to handle these value). The outputs offunctions can be
state one is in at that point, as well as
code objects easily. connected to the inputs of other func-
what context one is starting in. We need
One could argue that Max embodies tions via patch lines, hence the name
to have a simple mechanism for deter-
the symbolic paradigm of representa- Patchwork. We can already see that there
mining what processes were already ac-
tion. Like Music V and its children, Max is also a strong conceptual tie between
tive and what processes should be in-
processes a flow of symbols, although Patchwork and LISP.
itialized and started.
the vocabulary of symbols has become Patchwork, especially the Esquisse
The context problem is found again much larger since it can include both Musical Toolbox, is useful as long as
in the 'follow' module that is responsi- samples at the level of sound produc- one uses a functional approach to the
ble for score-following in Max. As I have tion and more complex messages at the generation of music. A simple example
pointed out, this module was absolutely control level. But in Max one can also of the functional approach is chord
crucial to the overall strategy of having very easily create musical automatons, transposition. The three parameters
the flutist be master of all the different for example, whose interesting behav-
given to the function are the initial
types of events triggered in real timeS ior is a priori quite unpredictable. In chord, the interval and direction of
and it worked extremelywell. However, this respect Max embodies, in a weak transposition (up or down). The result
the score follower looks for notes in a sense, the emergent paradigm as well. is the transposed chord. A more sophis-
list without taking into consideration
ticated example is chord interpolation.
tempo or metric context [32]. The main
Patchwork The parameters here are the two chords
advantage of having such a context sen-
Patchwork is a programming environ- between which one will interpolate and
sitivity would be that prediction would
ment that resides in a Common LISP the number of steps in the interpola-
become possible. A system's knowledge
interpreter. It was designed as a toolbox tion. At each step the function calcu-
of the tempo and the current rhythmic
for computer-aided musical composi- lates a chord whose notes are obtained
value would be sufficient for predicting
tion. Patchwork can be viewed at several by interpolating between correspond-
when the next event is most likely to
levels. At the most elementary level ing notes in the two initial chords. But
happen. Preparation (for sending large
Patchwork can be used as an environ- what happens when the problem to be
amounts of data or for calculating re-
ment for programming graphically in solved cannot be handled by the func-
sults just before they are needed) is
Common LISP. (As opposed to the situ- tional paradigm? A typical request on
then possible, instead of the mad dash
ation in Max, going back and forth be- the part of composers involves the use
that results from the trigger strategy.
tween LISP and Patchwork is very easy.) of constraints. For example, perhaps
Max also maintains the sound
At a higher level, which makes use of the one would like to obtain a family or
production/sound control dichotomy
Esquisse Musical Toolbox [33], the user a collection of chords that obey con-
found in the Music N languages This
can create compositional algorithms straints such as interval content, regis-
is true in whatever version of Max one
that produce musical material destined ter or density. Programming experts
uses, be it the Macintosh version or the
for score sketches or that can be used will point out that constraint program-
IRCAM/NeXT version.
for creating data files that will be input ming (which is derived from the para-
One final point has to do with the
into a sound synthesis program, for ex- digm of logic programming [34] ) can
unavailability of an ordinary program-
ample (see Fig. 6). From these algo-
be done in LISP very easily. This is true,
ming language (such as C, Basic, LISP, rithms one can easily create entire per-of course (the experts are always right),
etc.) easily accessible from Max. The sonalized libraries of musical functions.
but it avoids the real issue. The impor-
present strategy (in the version for theThe functions are represented on the tant point is that when programming
Macintosh) forces the user to create screen as little boxes that contain a is needed, the environment should
'code resources' (a concept special to number of inputs (corresponding to provide a toolbox of directly accessible
Apple Computer), which are chunks of the parameters of the function) and programming paradigms (functional
executable code generated by a com- one output (a result of the fact that paradigms, constraint paradigms, etc.) .

Gerzso, Paradigms and Computer Music 77

This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MN6 o ER o standard music
Because of the strong tie between
cies cropping up it is probably because

of a shift of interest towards other areas,

value to

tereste
the composer who is more in-

Patchwork and I,ISP, Patchwork corre- extrapo

such as the act of musical composition
sponds to the first of Varela's three proach
itself.
P zases. This is not surprising, since LISP
it is to
Despite the fact that composition is
is a language that stresses symbolic cal- assume
a highly personal affair, composers are
culation. LISP, by the way, stands discove
realizing that common concerns do ex-
for LISt Processing and, by implication, scientis
ist. The challenge is to formalize this
the processing of symbols in a list. tromag
common ground. Early efforts at
My survey of systems thus far reveals once an
formalizing musical composition have
a heavy dependence on the patch, or time. T
taken traditional music or, rather, mu-
functional, paradigm. What is remark- not get
sical history, as a sort of progress to be
able is that this paradigm has been use- useful
formalized. The basic idea is that one
ful for so long in so many different incorp
first formalizes early counterpoint,
contexts. But this dependence under- musica
then harmony, then fugues, etc., until
lines again the fact that the first few musica
the present day is reached. While at a
decades of computer music were char- graphi
certain level this can be an interesting
acterized by the search for systems for ments
exercise for musicologists, it is of little
making sound. If we now feel inadequa- possibi
turing
:

and, fi
Fig. 6. (left) An the com
example of a
sound-
Patchwork pro-
gram of an inter-
polation betwe n
the chord on the The S
I l (upper) left and Sequen
00 the one note cal pro
chord on the
(upper) right. The The pa
interpolation is on the
calculated by the prising
. module labeled cordin
'interchord'. (bot- music
c h o r d " tom) The result in approa
notation is shown.
that c
which
with i
drives
sizers
etc.), t
corded
tape re
The s
ventio
orche
score a
The om
sical f
are sy
real-t
sent. A
chordllde
X I s |
I
sical f
lFurs llvels I one pa

r Z-
ones i
From
it wou
local m

k "t 111t' 1S+' ti° i S; b; 1

78 Gso Paradigms

This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
by calling on a personalized toolbox of
r * , ^ . . . , , .
IUnCtlOnS. . llS lmp les detlnlng a strat-
egy for importing functions from out-
side of the sequencer. A good model to
follow is HyperCard. If the user finds
intuitive programming with Hypertalk
inadequate, then he or she can create
functions using languages such as C or
PASCAL and import them as external
commands (XCMDs). There is a stand-
ard interface designed so that the
XCMDs can communicate easily with
the HyperCard internal data structures,
which are invisible to the user.
Now, of courseS tape recorders are
disappearing and once they are re-
placed by hard-disk systems or some-
thing else it will be interesting to see
how the sequencer paradigm changes.
No doubt the track concept will disap-
pear and be replaced by something less
rigid and more fragment-like in nature.
Interaction (on the control or signal
level) between tracks might be interest-
ing. A toolkit for building sequencers,
which would include tools for writing
and generating music (using a local
programming language), might be
more useful. Dynamic 'orchestras' are
another possibility.
SOME MUSTS
FOR THE FUTURE
Computer music needs new paradigms.
Time, context, state, musical writing
(as opposed to sound generation), dy-
namic musical languages, toolboxes of
computational paradigms, and the con-
struction and reconstruction of repre-
sentations are but a few of the impor-
tant concerns for the future.
Important to these concerns are what
Marvin Minsky calls "Level-Bands",
which involve making "strong connec-
tions at a certain level of detail . . . [and
making] weaker connections at higher
and lower levels" [36] (emphases mine).
Too often in computer music, systems
are provided from which-in princi-
ple-more complex systems can be cre-
ated. In realityS the complex level is sim-
ply never achieved7 because the level of
detail one starts with is simply too low.
This content downloaded from 5.51.164.112 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:27:52 UTC
Lastly, general systems that try to do
eveIything should be forgotten and
replaced by communities of programs
that can live independently and at the
same time cooperate and interact with
each other. Aboare all, computer music
should quit living on borrowed para-
digms.
References and Notes
1. Music V was invented circa 1960 by Max
Mathews. The generations of languages that fol-
lowed include Music 4BF by Hubert S. Howe, Jr.,
Music 10 by Tovar, Csound by BarryVercoe, 4CED
by Curtis Abbott, CPAT by Andrew Gerzso, and
others.
2. IRCAM is part of the Centre Georges Pompidou
art center in Paris, France. Max was invented
by Miller Puckette at IRCAM. Sold since 1991 as
a commercial product by Opcode Systems (Palo
Alto, California), Max runs on Apple computers.
Another version of Max runs on the IRCAM Music
Workstation, which uses the NeXT computer.
Patchwork is the result of an international project
principally involving Mikael Laurson (the inven-
tor) of Finland and Jacques Duthen and Camilo
Rueda at IRCAM. I managed this project in its last
phase of development, which led to an exportable
version of Patchwork in Common LISP.
3. The most widely used sequencers are Studio
Vision by Opcode Systems; Digital Performer by
Mark of the Unicorn; and Cubase by Steinberg. All
three run on the Macintosh family of computers
from Apple Computer.
4. Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionaty
(Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1984).
5. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific RerJF
lutions (Chicago IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962)
p. Vii.
6. According to Webster's International Diction-
ary, 'cognition' is "the act or process of knowing
includiIlg both awareness and judgment".
7. Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson and Eleanor
Rosch, The Embodied Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1991 ) .
8. Varela, Thompson and Rosch [7] p. 40.
9. Varela, Thompson and Rosch [7] p. 42.
10. Varela, Thompson and Rosch [7] p. 87.
11. Neural networks are being applied to many
areas such as character recognition, bird-song
. . . .
earnlng, pltC z detectlon, etc.
12. Varela, Thompson and Rosch [7] p. 99.
13. Marvin Minsky, Society of Mind (London: Heine-
mann, 1985) p. 288.
14. Varela, Thompson and Rosch [7] p. 139.
15. Varela, Thompson and Rosch [7] p. 140.
16. The 4A (1976), 4B, 4C and 4X (1980) real-
time digital signal processors were designed by
Giuseppe DiGiugno at IRCAM. The IRCAM Musi-
cal Workstation ( 1991 ) was created by a team headed
by Eric Lindemann.
17. Max V. Mathews, The Technology of Computer
Music (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969) p. 2.
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
18. In Donald Buchla's analog systems, modules
are patched together. The patch languages 4CED
and CPAT were designed for IRCAM's 4C and 4X
processors by Curtis Abbott and myself, respec-
tively. It is interesting to note that Miller Puckette's
Max was initially called Patcher.
19. Marc Battier, "Le langage de synthese MUSIC
10", IRCAM internal document, 1980, pp. 2-6. See
also Tovar, "The Music Manual", CCRMA internal
document.
20. Charles Hockett, "The Problem of Universals
in l anguage" inJoseph Greenberg, ed., Universals
of Language (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1963) pp.
1-29.
21. The notion of process is quite present in the
minds of French composers. In a recent lecture at
the College de France, Pierre Boulez suggested that
composition should be viewed as the organization
of musical processes. The notion of process on the
level of sound production is a major preoccupation
of composers such as Tristan Murail and Marc-An-
dre Dalbavie (both of France).
22. This approach to sound analysis and re-synthe-
sis was developed by Xavier Serra at CCRMA.
23. The IRCDAM Musical Workstation is built on the
NeXT computer, which can contain up to three
IRCAM digital signal-processing cards, each of
which makes use of two Intel i860 chips.
24. Since it appeared on the market in the early
part of 1991, dozens of musical applications have
been written.
25. This is true only of the version of Max that does
not generate sound signals (which are continu-
ous) .
26. I used the pre-commercial version of Max
called Patcher.
27. The IRCAIW MATRIX32 was designed by Michel
Starkier and Didier Roncin.
28. The MIDI flute is an IRCAM invention by
Michel Starkier. Information from the key posi-
tions and a microphone placed near the em-
bouchere is turned into MIDI note-on/note-off
messages.
29. The IRCAM 4X processor.
30. The AKAI S1000.
31. This and many other imaginative and practical
features were invented by David Zicarelli.
32. This was achieved in earlier work done at IR-
CAM on score-following, principally by the flutist
Lawrence Beauregard of the Ensemble InterCon-
temporain (with the help of Xavier Chabot) and
Barry Vercoe (inventor of Csound) of MIT.
33. This is the result of the collaboration of a
number of people, principally Pierre-Francois Bais-
nee, Jean-Baptiste Barriere, and the composers
Marc-Andre Dalbavie, Magnus Lindberg and Kaija
Saariaho.
34. PROLOG is an example of a language using
this paradigm.
35. The basic ideas of this approach are found in
Umberto Eco's L'Oeavre Ouverte.
36. Marvin Minsky, Society of Mind (London: Heine-
mann, 1985) p. 86.
Cerzso, Paradigms and Computer Music 79