Back To Deductive & Inductive Symposium Page

Reviewer 1’s Comments

The composition immediately transports the listener to the iconography of the automaton… In the second part of the piece, the speech part with the explanation also follows a mechanical placement of syllables, robotic, almost soulless. The explanation is interesting, yet it cannot detract [from] the fact that the piece continues to sound like an automaton. In the third part of the piece I was somewhat surprised it did not sound as random as the harmonic progressions of the first part. At times, note choice was interesting and did not feel composed, rather improvised in some parts. In this case, hearing the description during part two of the piece helped [me] to understand the method of composing. Nevertheless, the application of the system delivered a result which transcends the composer’s intent. Although the method is intentional, the aesthetic result is accidental. The pleasing parts are there at random, with no clear intention of using tension or release, consonance or dissonance. It is up to the listener to extract meaning out of it.

There are two meanings which can be extracted. The first is the proof of concept of turning text to music. Perhaps big data mining would be the next step on composing a big word base symphony. Secondly, that the listener will try to extract aesthetic musical meaning, even from apparently random choices of sonic content. Nevertheless, not completely random: Only 26 chords were used; only notes from the chord scale where used.  Furthermore, with no information being used for diverse note duration, dynamics and embellishments, it does not sound very expressive. Perhaps that is why it sounds like a 19th Century automaton.

Reviewer 2’s Comments

This piece quite literally embodies the theme of the symposium with its structure. There’s something self-effacing / self-conscious, endearing and quite humorous about the work.

SZT’s Question

This may seem like a facetious question, but how important is the sound in the process? But being someone who often works from a highly conceptual starting point for a piece myself, there often seems to be a tension between the question of whether it is more important to follow the ‘rules’ (however you have established them) as opposed to purely aesthetic considerations? For me, this seems deeply connected to the deductive / inductive, in that my expectations and therefore, to some extent my aesthetic, have been shaped bottom up by my experience, while a top down conceptual approach can provide a logical but not always aesthetically pleasing framework of rules.

Alex Nikiporenko’s Response

The sound is very important for me, just as important as adhering to the rules of the process I’ve set up. The sound, or the musical outcome, informs the decisions I make whilst setting up the systems that will generate the musical material. 

I use processes for several reasons – as a means of introducing a conceptual element to my work, tying my music to some extramusical factors that can launch the audience’s understanding of my work; as a means of creating unexpected or unusual musical textures, that I would not be able to come up with intuitively; and also as a way of distancing myself from my music. In a way, the use of processes can be compared to outsourcing some of the composer responsibilities to an automaton. Although a decision to impose a certain rule still lies with the composer, it does allow me to distance myself from the composition – instead of thinking about the individual notes or gestures, I asses blocks of process-generated musical material. This distance improves my ability to gauge the overall effect of the piece, and consider more practical and aesthetic factors. In a sense, finding this balance between the elegance and curiosity of the process, and the effectiveness of the musical outcome is the overarching theme of my composition practice.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Reviewer 3
Reviewer 3
4 months ago

Sublimely meta with Philip Glass stylings. The presentation in 3 parts also builds a kind of inversion between parts of the sound object, spoken word, and instrument. The self-awareness masked by the detached way the text was composed to tones. Feels like a full circle depiction of humanity’s music practice – found object, voice, and instrumentation. Is it already the 21st Century?

Alex Nikiporenko
4 months ago

Thank you all for your comments! I really appreciate it. When writing this piece, I intended for each section to play with the audience’s expectations, altering its perception of the work. The piece starts with an expressionless, robotic opening. The sound of a cheap (£35!) midi keyboard further contributes to the “bad music” effect. The commentary that follows “justifies” that opening, altering the audience’s initial perception. The final section adds the somewhat folksy melody that sounds intuitive, almost improvised (as noted by the Reviewer 1), playing to the expectations of what “real music” is meant to sound like. Regarding the… Read more »