ï~~BUSINESS MODEL, A PIECE FOR VIOLIN, CELLO AND LIVE
ELECTRONICS
Gilbert Nouno
Ircam
Paris, France
gilbert.nouno@ircam.fr
ABSTRACT
This paper presents Business Model, a recent piece for violin, cello and live electronics. It focuses on the compositional elements and live electronic techniques employed.
Interpretation and live interaction issues with respect to the
written parts are discussed. The main ideas and underlying
concepts of the piece are also exposed.
1. COMPOSING AND PLAYING MIXED MUSIC
Mixed music is a term often used for music composed for
traditional instruments and electronics with a certain amount
of interactivity. Business Model is a trio for violin, cello
and live electronics. The violin and the cello part are both
scored. Live electronics is pre-composed and performed
by the composer with a tactile screen interface and laptop.
Electronic elements of the music are to be written and specified with indications in the next score update.
1.1. The question of interpretation
Interpretation is a crucial intention in music and electronic
music is no exception. Nonetheless when considered for
mixed pieces, it becomes an important but underestimated
issue. Most composers focus more on the interpretation of
the instrumental parts, and less on the electronics, despite
its concern. Electronic music is often shadowed during performance by the acoustic scene provided by human players.
The situation worsens with the usual absence of electronic
musicians on stage alongside acoustic musicians. To address this absence, I will review a few hypothesis that might
possibly explain this situation:
* The ephemeral aspect of electronic instruments
What is an electronic instrument? Although it is not
easy to answer the question, one can say there is a
need for electronic music to be interpreted via some
actions or means. These means can be called controllers, devices, or more generally electronic instruments. As software and hardware are evolving very
fast and are continuously changing, how is it possible to define a continuity and a standard in this field?
This is one of the main drawbacks of electronic instruments: they are often too experimental and are
likely to be somewhat ephemeral.
* The electronic musician as a performer
It is sometimes useful to consider the music not only
from the listener's point of view but from the musician's, and more specifically from his listening and
performing place. On stage, the electronic musician
should hear himself as clear as the acoustic musicians
does. Sound monitors are essential, but might not
be ideal when sound diffusion in the hall requires a
multi-channel system for sound spatialization. Being
on stage is not always the best place to control the
sound projection. In any case, the musician needs to
conduct and anticipate his own sound emission and
projection as a traditional musician does with the cultural background that guides him to play in any concert hall. The cultural aspect of playing electronics
- at least within the context of mixed music - is not
yet well developed. It is not so easy for the electronic musician to find a natural place in the music,
and for the composer to manage spontaneous performance actions.
* Interpretation vs triggering and automation issue
Most composers reduce interpretation to the triggering of sounds, or to the use of automated parameters controlling sound processes or sound synthesis.
Such choices are often justified as means of absolute
or ideal control over music. Live electronics requires
different levels of interactions in its elaboration: the
more there are, the more it opens music to interpretation.
* parameters' complexity in electronics
Sounds parameters are often too numerous to be handled by one person in live performance. Moreover,
finding the best range for continuous parameters is a
hard task both during composition and performance.
A traditional musician manipulates dozens of micro
and macro parameters when playing his instrument,
30
0
