See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330913639

Thoughts on notational practices in Electroacoustic Music performance

Article · February 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 1,261

2 authors:

Felipe de Almeida Ribeiro José Luis Manrique Yáñez

Universidade Estadual do Paraná Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
18 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fragility, Intuition, and Error in Compositional Practice View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Felipe de Almeida Ribeiro on 06 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Abstract
The goal of this article is to raise significant questions
on aspects of electroacoustic music notation and per-
formance, whether by a traditional instrumentalist or a
sound technician. In this sense, electroacoustic music
performance is directly related to the problem of notation,
assuming that composer and performer are different per-
sons. Therefore, this research deals with questions and
critiques on important aspects of the performance and
diffusion of electroacoustic music. Works by Stockhausen,
Nono, Berio, and Ligeti were investigated to better illus-
trate the research topic. This research was made possible
through the Núcleo Música Nova research group and with
the kind support of CNPq1.
1. Introduction
Over the centuries, different practices and investigations
have led to our current musical notation system. Within
this whole tradition of building a standard music notational
structure, twentieth-century composers have set an im-
portant question: to which degree traditional music nota-
tion can – or should – be used for electroacoustic music?
This article aims to give an overview of the development
of electroacoustic music notation and to raise questions
and arguments on possible applications for performance,
since it has originally established itself as a form of expres-
sion withdrawn from any sort of notation. Consequently,
1 Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – http://www.cnpq.br [Accessed on: 10/07/2016]
2 Authors’ translation. Original text: […] le processus de la notation suppose un certain degré d’abstraction et participe de la conception progressive d’une
partition ; or, dans la musique électro-acoustique, exploration à même la matière sonore, noter devient un acte dont la raison d’être est le plus souvent
problématique, intervenant généralement après la réalisation proprement dite de l’œuvre (Bosseur, 2005, p.112).
through the study of electroacoustic music notation prac-
tice, this paper aspires to promote the process of the
genre’s acculturation.
For this research, we have chosen a selection of
historical electroacoustic music works with existing
scores for analysis, either to be used through the lis-
tening of tape diffusion – with the sound technician
as performer –, or during the performance of live-
electronics – with the traditional instrumentalist and
sound technician:
s A Pierre. Dell’Azzurro Silenzio, Inquietum (1985), for
contrabass flute, contrabass clarinet and live-electron-
ics by Luigi Nono (1924-1990)
s Artikulation (1958), for tape by György Ligeti
(1923-2006)
s Kontakte (1958-60), for electronic sounds, piano,
and percussion by Karlheinz Stockhausen (1928-2007)
s Post-Praeludium per Donau (1987), for tuba and live-
electronics by Luigi Nono
s Sofferte onde serene… (1976), for piano and tape
by Luigi Nono
s Studie II (1954), for tape by Karlheinz Stockhausen
s Visage (1961), for tape by Luciano Berio (1925-2003)
2. Electroacoustic Music Notation
Music notation is an aspect of our culture that ex-
ists since the fifth century B.C. (Christensen, 2002).
It has passed through multiple changes in response
to the needs of each epoch. In the case of electro-
acoustic music, we are now experiencing one of
these changes, but the question of its function is not
yet clearly delimited and fully assimilated by the mu-
sic community.
[…] the notational process assumes a certain
degree of abstraction and takes part in the pro-
gressive conception of the score; however, in
electroacoustic music, which directly explores the
sound material, writing becomes an act in which
the reason of existence is most often problematic,
generally occurring after the realization of the work
itself (Bosseur, 2005, p.112).2
Whether notation in electroacoustic music is a problem-
atic issue or not, it does exist quite frequently in works by
different composers such as Berio, Stockhausen, Nono,
Ligeti, to name a few. Through the process of investigat-
ing notational procedures in electroacoustic music, we
have observed different tendencies and employments of
notation in this specific repertoire. For this article, we have
chosen two historical applications of electroacoustic mu-
sic notation by different composers. Ligeti’s Artikulation
(Figure 1) is related to fixed-media compositions: the com-
poser creates a visual interface (most of the time after the
completion of the composition itself) in order to analyze or
perform the piece. The second and third examples (Figure
2 and 3) are concerned with mixed-media and/or live-
electronics compositions, i.e. real-time signal processing:
to give a written part to the sound technician to perform
the piece, as Nono did in Post-Praeludium per Donau
(Nono, 1987), or to give graphic information of the elec-
troacoustic (tape) part to live performers, as Stockhausen
did in Kontakte (Stockhausen, 1958).

Fig. 1. Score sample of Artikulation (1958) by György Ligeti

Fig. 2. Score sample of Post-Praeludium per Donau (1987) by Luigi Nono

Fig. 3: Score sample of Kontakte (1958-60) by Karlheinz Stockhausen

The first and second examples share one identical func-
tion: to allow the sound technician to predict some kind
of gesture for the electronic part. However, examples
two and three also share a function: to allow the per-
formers to expect or to create some kind of interaction
with the “machine”.
The next 4 sections investigate different aspects of
music notation in electroacoustic music through these
two types of electroacoustic music use of notation.
The first section presents the problem of electroacous-
tic music
notation for
analysis and
per formance
purposes,
i.e. the score
as a strategy
for informa-
tion diffusion,
whether for
per form-
ers or music
theorists. The
second one
deals with the
question of
the new role of the sound technician as a performer.
The third one covers the composers’ new attitudes
towards the new musical and technical scene. The
fourth one brings parallels between nowadays situa-
tions and specific moments in the past regarding the
development of music notation systems.
2.1. The Score as Barrier
Electroacoustic music is part of an enormous legacy of
instrumental acoustic music procedures. That cannot be
denied, since it may as well (and should) be regarded as
continuity, e.g. the emergence of the computer as part of
a wide palette of musical instruments. During several cen-
turies, music notation for acoustic instruments reached a
suitable level as a communicative tool and brought ways
to organize music for performance practices as well as for
analyses. Applying this way of thinking to electroacoustic
music, one can picture several communicative problems
since it lacks an efficient written musical system, as in-
strumental music has. In preparation of a performance
of Nono’s …sofferte onde serene…, for instance, Darren
Miller (sound technician) faced this problem and devel-
oped a strategy to overcome the insufficiency of music
notation within a mixed-media work for piano and tape:
“Because of the inherent limitations of traditional notation
and analytic models, the following investigation will be rely
heavily on both first hand experience gained through the
performance of the work, and several tools that may initially
appear to be more technological than musicological in na-
ture” (Miller, 2014, p.38).
As a performer of electronic sounds, Miller developed a
straightforward way to solve this question by creating a
score with snapshots collages of the tape’s waveform,
showing to either pianist or sound technician the overall
envelope of the tapes content (Figure 4).
Fig. 4. Score sample of …sofferte onde serene… (1976) by Nono
Miller also states that a “[…] first step in analysis of any
type might be the identification and categorization of the
constituent elements and processes at play in a work”
(Miller, 2014, p.44). In other words, the first stage is
the perception of the musical material, the perception
of what is important within the work’s own vocabulary
and terminology. “Unfortunately, perception, as it pass-
es through the sieve of our auditive system, is an ex-
tremely variable personal phenomenon. For the same
sound stimulus, everyone has a different perception and
reaction. It seems difficult, therefore, to establish com-
mon, objective elements on such changeable bases”
(Stroppa, 1984, p.179).
On the other hand, according to Marco Stroppa, even
admitting that perception is our first contact in the analy-
sis process we cannot build an analysis just from there.
A form of materialized music is needed in order to set a
common starting point. The problem is that until now we
do not have a standard system for that, “[…] the analyst
is immediately confronted with two singularly awkward
problems: 1) the impossibility to have on his desk a con-
crete object as a starting point […] and 2) the impossibil-
ity (and this is even more singular) to collect a consensus
in a cultural community about what is and what is not
suitable” (Delalande, 1986, p.11).3
Stroppa also compares the efficiency of traditional music
notation to electroacoustic music: “[…] although the com-
posers attempt to be as precise as possible, their notation
is always rather crude and approximate, particularly in com-
parison with the complexity and perfection of traditional
music” (Stroppa, 1984, p.177). Fact is, traditional music no-
tation as we conceive it today has more than fifteenth cen-
turies of practice and improvements. So, it shows clearly
the existence of a drawback if we make this comparison.
However, “[…] though a trained theorist may be capable
of analyzing traditional music on paper alone […] the act
of listening is inseparable from the act of sonic analysis”
(Miller, 2014, p.45). That being said, electroacoustic music
analysis already sets itself as dependable of loudspeak-
ers, and not necessarily of paper. The comparison with
traditional notated music only sets electroacoustic music
in disadvantage if we use the wrong analysis tools, akin to
a Procrustean bed.
On the other hand, we can acknowledge the potentially
meaningful features included in its notation just by using
traditional terms and techniques: “As we can see, there
is a clear contrapuntal use of the sonic material in this
first part of the piece, with two voices clearly contrasted
among themselves for the density of the mixtures and their
durations”4 (Sans, 2015, p.16). This is already clear on the
graphical score with no need of listening, as the explana-
tion of the graphic is given with the score. Additionally, we
have Stroppa’s argument rejecting this kind of attempts:
“Traditionally, two types of what may loosely be called a
‘score’ have existed: a list of operational data, or a gen-
eral sketch of the music effects obtained” (Stroppa, 1984,
p.177). In the same way, Miller points out the absence of
pitch as a problematic issue for the notational process in
electroacoustic works: “How does one go about creating
an analytical method rooted in sound rather than pitch? If
the parameter of interest (pure sound) is beyond the scope
of present notational practice, and half of the piece itself
(the tape part) is not even included in the score, where
does one begin?” (Miller, 2014, p.42).

Stockhausen himself mentions in the introduction of the
score of Studie II (Figure 5) about the scope of the graphi-
cal representation of the piece: “It provides the technician
with all the information necessary for the realization of the
work, and it may be used by musicians and lovers of music
as a study score – preferably in connection with the music
itself” (Stockhausen, 1954, p.III).
If precise sound notation is unachievable, some sort of
symbolic approximation is justifiable. One can see in
Luciano Berio’s Visage an interesting strategy to register
all activities within a tape piece, not using waveforms but
quasi-geometrical forms.

Fig. 5. Score sample of Studie II (1954) by Karlheinz Stockhausen

3 Authors’ translation. Original text: […] o analista encontra-se imediatamente confrontado com dois problemas singularmente espinhosos: 1) a impossibili-
dade de exibir sobre sua mesa um objeto material dado de início […] e 2) a impossibilidade (e esta é ainda mais singular) de recolher em uma comunidade
cultural um consenso sobre o que é e o que não é pertinente.
4 Authors’ translation. Original text: Como podemos observar, hay un claro tratamiento contrapuntístico del material sonoro en este primer inciso de la obra,
con dos voces claramente contrastadas entre sí por la densidad de sus mixturas y la duración de las mismas.
 Fig. 6. Berio’s Visage – aural score/transcription made by composer Flo
Menezes (1962)
In an aural transcription made by composer Flo Menezes
(1962), the score presents a multitude of information, rang-
ing from traditional staff notation – when applicable – to
geometric forms and text itself as code, since the work is
essentially based on voice’s samples. In an opposite and
interesting way, Berio points out that the experience of
[electronically] manipulating sound can contribute to the
development of the written practice of musical notation:
“This is why the experience of electronic music is so impor-
tant: it enables the composer to assimilate into the musical
process a vast area of sound phenomena that do not fit
pre-established musical codes”5 (Berio, 1961).
2.2. Tape Performance: Beyond Reproducing
a Recording
In performance circumstances, there are basically two ap-
proaches for electroacoustic music practice: fixed (acous-
matic) or mixed compositions. For the first one, we have
Karlheinz Stockhausen’s Studie II (tape) as an example.
This piece is a milestone in electroacoustic music and is
the first one to be notated and published as a score, ac-
cording to Stockhausen himself: “This score of Study II is
the first Electronic Music to be published. It provides the
technician with all the information necessary for the real-
ization of the work […]” (Stockhausen, 1954, p.III). Even
though it is a composition for tape alone, we can have dif-
ferent interpretations of the material. For example, in the
score there are instructions for the performer (sound tech-
nician) on how to set the volume: “The loudness of the
0 dB depends on the room size but should not be less
than 80 phons” (Stockhausen, 1954, p.VI). This instruc-
tion means that the performer (sound-technician) needs to
analyze and evaluate the acoustic conditions of the room,
and not just the position of a fader. On that path, one could
5 Berio’s note on Visage: http://www.lucianoberio.org/node/1505?2019623839=1 [Accessed on: 10/07/2016]
say that the sound-technician interprets the work akin to
a pianist, for example. In this case, the sound-technician
is the performer. Moreover, the sound-technician is able
to contribute with a re-interpretation of the piece as we
have now more advanced technologies, compared to
the old tape recording. This type of performance is often
called sound-realization, a practice quite common within
the activities of the EXPERIMENTALSTUDIO des SWR, in
Freiburg, Germany.
The second case we mentioned is mixed media electro-
acoustic works, i.e. including live musicians playing along
a tape part, for instance, or a sound technician manipulat-
ing the instrument’s sound in real-time. In …sofferte onde
serene…, for piano and electronic sounds, the tape part is
a recording of Maurizio Pollini’s performance at the piano
(composition recorded in a collaborative work between
Nono and Pollini). The whole performance consists of the
tape part played simultaneously with a live pianist. “The
person operating the tape player, preferably a musician,
continually adjusts the volume levels of the machine and the
distribution of the sound among the speakers in ensemble
with the performance of the pianist” (Nono, 1976, quoted in
Miller, 2014, p.43). This means that the operator-musician
and the pianist will interact. Likewise, it is up to the opera-
tor-musician to decide how much of Pollini’s interpretation
will be respected in terms of dynamics and timbre, defining
the characteristics of the temporal bridge created between
Pollini and the live pianist playing together.
As an interpreter, the operator-musician needs proper in-
formation to react (in real-time) according to the record-
ing. “In order to maintain a desirable balance between live
and recorded materials, a sound engineer is either required
to memorize the tape part or to devise some sort of no-
tational solution” (Miller, 2014, p.43). Of course the best
solution would be to have enough detailed notation as a
starting point, capable to give the sound technician wide
knowledge on the material, because “[…] the addition of score arise from the working procedure which was chosen
qualitative information can be extremely useful to an engi- for this composition” (Stockhausen, 1954, p.III). It is nec-
neer” (Miller, 2014, p.44). essary to mention that Studie II is a landmark in electro-
acoustic music history for pointing out new perspectives for
But what is the correct amount of details one needs to reg- the development of music notation. Therefore, the work’s
ister in electroacoustic music scores? Even traditional nota- notation succeeds on giving minimal instructions for its rec-
tion preserves an important gap for the performers creative reation in new systems – as done by Georg Hajdu in the
interpretation input, since “The most important thing is Max platform (2005) (Figure 7). One might consider that
the distinction between what should be notated and what this piece “[…] has been one of the biggest individual ef-
should be interpreted” (Stroppa, 1984, p.178). It is also im- forts (and why not to say, more efficient) of a new notational
portant to mention that nowadays, with high technology in systematization in recent music history” (Sans, 2015, p.4).7
our hands – quality recordings, digital domain, automation,
etc –, there is no purpose
on repeating a perfor-
mance exactly the same
as it already happened, in
fixed media or mixed elec-
troacoustic music. Plus, the
acoustical characteristics
of each concert hall are
unique, requiring a techni-
cal evaluation that will af-
fect the performance of any
piece. Then, just like tradi-
tional instrumental music
performance practice, the
notation will always have
limitations since “No nota-
tion can pretend to ensure
absolute control of a piece,
to indicate which latitude
the interpreter must define
in relation of what is written,
which is the rate of the ap-
propriate personal initiative”
(Bosseur, 2005, p.8).6 Fig. 7. Recreation of Studie II in the Max platform by Georg Hajdu (1960)

2.3. New Attitude: The Friction Between Sonic

Phenomenon and Notation
One important contribution in twentieth century music
history was that “[…] composers began to develop en-
tirely sound-based practices” (Miller, 2014, p.38). Karlheinz
Stockhausen was one of the first composers to under-
stand, visualize, and contribute effectively with the idea that
electroacoustic music needs a different treatment from the
traditional one. This is evident in the introduction of Studie
II: “For this new sort of composition adequate forms of no-
tation were developed. The following explanations to the
In a similar way, Luigi Nono relied on music notation in or-
der to register all electronic parameters. However, his strat-
egy also leads to the necessity of developing the traditional
score. Since instrumental music notation just provides ac-
tion, i.e. pitch, dynamic, and duration, Nono did the same
in his electronic works. There is no clue on what it is go-
ing to sound like; rather, the Tönmeister is given a list of
equipment and parameters to trigger in real-time, just like
a traditional piece of piano music. The difference is that we
expect what a piano sounds like. With electroacoustic mu-
sic, the craftsmanship of the instrument’s timbre is always

6 Authors’ translation. Original text: Nulle notation ne peut prétendre assurer un contrôle absolu sur une œuvre, nous indiquer quelle latitude l’interprète doit
prendre vis-à-vis de ce qui est écrit, quel taux d’initiative personnelle lui revient.
7 Authors’ translation. Original text: ha sido uno de los esfuerzos individuales más grandes (y por que no decirlo, más eficaces) de sistematización de una
nueva notación en la historia de la música reciente.
reinventing itself. So timbral prognosis is not a major con- live-electronics, for instance. Figure 9 presents Nono’s so-
cern for Nono, but the performer’s action. In that matter, lution to represent in paper his meta-instrument made of
Rossi and Choate state that: contrabass flute, contrabass clarinet and electronics:

The multiple forms of electronic elements remark-

ably exceed the different possibilities of graphic
notation. It is necessary to register details – un-
known in the traditional notation – that correspond
to the acoustic phenomena. This cannot hap-
pen with the enlargement of the traditional nota-
tion; it is better to graphically present the sonic
procedures of electronic music, in the form of an
“acoustic” diagram. These “scores” of electronic
compositions resemble precise acoustic diagrams
with coordinates, frequencies (cycles per second),
intensity level (measure in decibels) and tempo
(cm. p.s). The composer requires having acous-
tic knowledge (Rossi & Choate, 1969, quoted in
Sans, 2015, p.3).8

What we can see in electroacoustic scores like Studie II by

Stockhausen (Figure 5) and Post-Praeludium per Donau
by Luigi Nono (Figure 2) is that composers were dealing
with the music score’s innovation but never fully abandon-
ing the traditional music theory heritage. There is no elec- Fig. 9. Electronics scheme and score excerpt of A Pierre. Dell’Azzurro
Silenzio, Inquietum (1985) by Nono
troacoustic music detached from the tradition of acoustic
instrumental music. A provoking example of this unasso-
ciated existence is Helmut Lachenmann’s (1935) concept In this piece, one can clearly see the maintenance of tradition
of musique concrète instrumentale (Deliège, 2003), illus- within the flute and clarinet notation. However, even when we
trated in Pression (1972), a work for solo cello that mimics examine traditional acoustic instruments, such as the flute,
the aesthetic and gestures of electronic music within an we realize that their constructions and performance research
acoustic sphere (Figure 8). have not yet achieved a complete comprehension (Artaud,
1980; Bartolozzi, 1982; Dick, 1989; Dehnhard, 2013; Levine,
2002). It is kind of presump-
tuous to think that electro-
acoustic instruments are
close to its maximum stage
of development. That is why
Stroppa is so emphatic on
criticizing the complex di-
lemma of electroacoustic
music notation.
Fig. 8. Excerpt of Pression (1972) by Helmut Lachenmann

The relationship between the complexity of the ef-

It is also essential to keep in mind that we are dealing with fect and the simplicity of the result is also a function
new [electroacoustic] instruments that are not necessar- of context: the behavior of the same parameters in
ily in the final stage of development, either computers, another situation would be quite different, even if
synthesizers or meta-instruments like Nono’s tuba plus the idea reminded the same. Neither operational

8 Authors’ translation. Original text: La multiplicidad de formas de los elementos electrónicos excede notablemente las posibilidades de la notación gráfica.
Es necesario anotar detalles -desconocidos en la notación tradicional- que corresponden a los fenómenos acústicos. Esto no puede llevarse a cabo con
la ampliación de la notación tradicional; es mejor presentar los procedimientos sonoros de la música electrónica gráficamente, en la forma de un diagrama
“acústico”. Estas “partituras” de composiciones electrónicas semejan diagramas acústicos precisos con sus coordenadas, frecuencias (ciclos por se-
gundo), nivel de intensidad (medido en decibeles) y tiempo (cm. p.s). El compositor requiere tener conocimientos acústicos. (Rossi & Choate, 1969 quoted
in Sans, 2015, p.3).
 data, with their cold, technical disposition, nor the
composer’s graphic representations may be con-
sidered as “scores”. So we have eliminated every-
thing that exists to date (Stroppa, 1984, p.179).
2.4. The Déjà Vu: Examining Correspondences
Between Past and Present Achievements
In a similar way to electroacoustic music, medieval music
took place in a time of imminent notational imprecision,
[…] it is curious to observe that it is in the begin-
ning of two epochs which are the primitive mid-
dle age and our primitive epoch (because we are
in a primitive state of today’s music) that we are
confronted to an identity problem: that of finding
graphic symbols to translate the composer’s ideas
to sounds. More than a millennium ago, we lived in
an analog situation; for our still primitive electronic
instruments, it is necessary to abandon the musi-
cal sheet notation to use a mode of seismographic
writing that is more similar to the ideographic writ-
ing used originally very early by the voice before the
sheet writing development (Varèse, 1933, quoted
in Bosseur, 2005, p.94).9
and Gregorian notation: “[…] the sonic material treatment
of this composition works sometimes similar to the neu-
mas from the gregorian square notation”11 (Sans, 2015,
p.17). Sans also makes reference to some melodic lines
treatment in Studie II that matches the square notation
nomenclature: torculus, pes subbipunctis, etc. This is an
example of music thinking that took place between 1175
and 1225 that resonated in 1954 with Stockhausen’s elec-
tronic music.
As previously mentioned, one should not assume that
new instruments could reach an ideal manufacturing
version. Clearly, there could be a better way to con-
struct one specific model of an instrument, but there is
absolutely not one better way for the general concept
of an instrument. If that would be true, orchestral vio-
las would be acoustic aberrations, since their bodies
have been historically manufactured out of proportions
if one considers its spectral possibilities of tuning and
range. This fact makes difficult to develop a standard
notation of something that is too complex (thus why
the notation is imprecise). That being so, one can as-
sume that our notation is somewhat vague, since mu-
sic and the general concept of culture are constantly
changing themselves.

Music history shows us that some present issues regard-

ing music notation have already occurred in the past. In
that sense, one might understand an important tendency
in the development of music: one can find several simi-
larities between electroacoustic music notation and instru-
mental music notation from other times in history.
Very curiously, many contemporary notational
forms reveal similarities with those from the Middle
Ages and the beginning of the Renascence, akin
to a mirror effect. In the same way it is the case of
our epoch, these periods abounded with theoreti-
cal experimentations resulting in systems of signs
often extremely different from each other, and
which seemed to compete of refinement (Bosseur,
200510, p.108).
In his class notes as a music teacher, Juan Francisco Sans
mentions the relation between Stockhausen’s Studie II
3. Conclusion
Nowadays we have many ongoing researches on electro-
acoustic music notation. So far we have analyzed these
contributions through different musical work examples
from leading composers of the electroacoustic music
scene. However, we still lack one common system if we
aim for a broader process of cultural diffusion – one that
goes beyond composer and audience. Not that a work
of music itself requires one to exist. The history of elec-
troacoustic music has proven that this is not necessary.
But if more dissemination is intended, one common sys-
tem needs to emerge. Nonetheless, as Marco Stroppa
has mentioned in 1984, “the absence of a notation is due
neither to laziness nor to indifference, but rather to the
musical impossibility of really knowing and understanding
the material and its laws, in a way necessary to offer a
description” (Stroppa, 1984, p.180).

9 Authors’ translation. Original text: […] il est curieux de remarquer que c’est au début des deux époques que sont le Moyen Âge primitif et notre époque
primitive (car nous en sommes au stade primitif en musique aujourd’hui) que nous sommes confrontés à un problème d’identité : celui de trouver des
symboles graphiques pour transposer les idées du compositeur en sons. À plus d’un millénaire de distance, nous vivons une situation analogue ; pour nos
instruments électriques encore primitifs, il est nécessaire d’abandonner la notation sur portée pour utiliser une manière d’écriture sismographique qui res-
semble davantage à l’écriture idéographique utilisée originellement très tôt pour la voix avant le développement de l’écriture sur portée (Bosseur, 2005, p.94).
10 Authors’ translation. Original text: Très curieusement, plusieurs formes de notation contemporaine révèlent des affinités avec celles des musiques du
Moyen Âge et du début de la Renaissance, comme par un effet de miroir. Tout comme c’est le cas à notre propre époque, ces périodes ont foisonné
d’expérimentations théoriques suscitant des systèmes de signes souvent fort différents les uns des autres, et qui semblaient rivaliser de raffinement
(Bosseur, 2005, p.108).
11 Authors’ translation. Original text: […] el tratamiento del material sonoro de esta obra funciona a veces a la manera de los neumas de la notación
cuadrada gregoriana.
More than thirty years later from Stroppa’s article, we can
now present some achievements generated by the friction
between notation and other fields such as electroacoustic
music itself and sonology, acoustics, computer science,
etc – other than the already mentioned substantial con-
tributions from the composers themselves. Furthermore,
the current globalization process contributed to the de-
velopment of international standards in many areas.
“That is why L. Berio, and K. Stockhausen referred, in
many scores, to the international phonetic alphabet”12
(Bosseur, 2005, p.105). According to this, one might af-
firm that electroacoustic music notation can get benefits
from the engineering field, such as standards of graphic
symbols published by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers).
In that sense, as Miller points out, “not surprisingly, the so-
lution to these problems have originated not from music
theorist, who’s domain is written music, but from sound
engineers, who’s domain is sound itself” (Miller, 2014,
p.43). That is the case of institutions such as IRCAM
(France) with its vast software collection with apps such
as Gesture & Sound, Audiosculpt, and OpenMusic, or as
the EXPERIMENTALSTUDIO des SWR (Germany) with the
software conTimbre created by Thomas Hümmel that brings
together spectral analysis and traditional music notation.
Also in Europe, the Institute of Sonology (Netherlands), the
GRAME Centre National de Création Musicale (France) and
its INScore software, and of course the contribution of inde-
pendent [academic] researchers such as Erhard Karkoschka
(Germany), Pierre Couprie (France), Keith Hamel (Canada),
Gardner Read (UK), and many others whose works are
contributing to the creation of a standard notation for elec-
troacoustic music. These contributions lead towards an
eventual more precise and plausible understanding of the
electroacoustic music phenomenon as a whole.
Bibliography
Artaud, P.-Y. (1980). Flûtes au présent. Paris: Editions
Jobert et Editions Musicales Transatlantiques-Paris.
Bartolozzi B. (1982). New Sounds for Woodwind. 2nd
edition. Oxford University Press.
Berio L. (1961). Visage (author’s note). Centro Studi
Luciano Berio, [Online]. Available on: http://www.lu-
cianoberio.org/node/1505?2019623839=1 [Accessed
on: 26/09/2015).
12 Authors’ translation. Original text: C’est pourquoi L. Berio, K. Stockhausen se sont référés, dans plusieurs partitions, à l’alphabet phonétique international.
Bosseur J.-Y. (2005). Du Son au Signe. Paris: Éditions
Alternatives.
Christensen Th. (ed.) (2002). The Cambridge History
of Western Music Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dehnhard T. (2013). The New Flute. Wien: Universal
Edition.
Delalande F. (1986). Na ausência da partitura. Translated
by Henrique Rocha de Souza Lima, 2014. Ouro Preto:
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto.
Deliège C. (2003). Cinquante ans de modernité musi-
cale: de Darmstadt à l’IRCAM. Contribution historio-
graphique à une musicologie critique. Paris: Mardaga.
Dick R. (1989). The Other Flute: A Performance Manual
of Contemporary Techniques. Lauren Keiser Music
Publishing.
Levine C., Mitropoulos-Bott Ch. (2002). The Techniques
of Flute Playing. Kassel: Bärenreiter.
__________________________ (2004). The Techniques
of Flute Playing II. Kassel: Bärenreiter.
Menezes Filho, F. (1993). Un essai sur la composi-
tion verbale électronique “Visage” de Luciano Berio.
Modena: Mucchi editore.
Miller D. (2014). The Collaborative Role of the Technician
in …sofferte onde serene… Revista Vórtex, Vol.2, no.
1, 2014, p. 37-47.
Nono L. (1976) …sofferte onde serene… Milan: Ricordi.
_______ (1985). A Pierre. Dell’Azzurro Silenzio,
Inquietum. Milan: G. Ricordi.
_______ (1987). Post-Praeludium per Donau. Milan: G.
Ricordi.
Sans J. F. (2015). La partitura inútil. [E-book] Caracas:
Universidad Central de Venezuela. Available at:
Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu [Accessed
on: 02/02/2015]
Stockhausen K. (1954). Studie II. London: Universal
Edition.
 _____________ (1958). Kontakte. Vienna: Universal
Edition.

Stroppa M. (1984). The analysis of electronic music.

Contemporary Music Review, Vol. 1, pp. 175-180.

Wehinger, Rainer. Ligeti Artikulation Electronische

Musik: eine Hörpartitur. Mainz: Edition Schott

View publication stats