INTERPRETATION AND COMPUTER ASSISTANCE

IN JOHN CAGE’S CONCERT FOR PIANO AND

ORCHESTRA (1957-58)
Benny Sluchin, Mikhail Malt

To cite this version:

Benny Sluchin, Mikhail Malt. INTERPRETATION AND COMPUTER ASSISTANCE IN JOHN
CAGE’S CONCERT FOR PIANO AND ORCHESTRA (1957-58). 7 th Sound and Music Computing
Conferenc SMC 2010, Jul 2010, Barcelona, Spain. �hal-01580136�

HAL Id: hal-01580136

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01580136
Submitted on 1 Sep 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Benny Sluchin, Mikhail Malt, « Interpretation and Computer Assistance in John Cage’s
Concert for Piano and Orchestra (1957-58) », in 7 th Sound and Music Computing Conference,
Barcelone, Espagne, 21 au 24 juillet 2010.
Benny Sluchin, Mikhail Malt, « Interpretation and Computer Assistance in John Cage’s Concert for Piano and
Orchestra (1957-58) », in 7 th Sound and Music Computing Conference, Barcelone, Espagne, 21 au 24 juillet 2010.

INTERPRETATION AND COMPUTER ASSISTANCE

IN JOHN CAGE’S
CONCERT FOR PIANO AND ORCHESTRA (1957-58)

Benny Sluchin Mikhail Malt

Ircam Ircam / MINT – Paris IV - Sorbonne
[email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT analysis and as aid tools to interpretation.

Several practices concerned with the interpretation
Conceptual musical works that lead to a multitude of
field were developed. One can mention:
realizations hold a particular interest. One can’t talk
• The use of audio and MIDI sequencers as “super
about a performance without taking into account the
metronomes”. It is common today that interpreters enter
rules that lead to the existence of that particular
complete scores in sequencers as a way to work out
presentation. After dealing with similar works of open
difficulties in the performance (concerning especially
forms by Iannis Xenakis and Karlheinz Stockhausen,
contemporary pieces). The musician can thus
the interest in John Cage’s music is evident. His works
progressively work the problematic passages by varying
are “so free” that one can play any part of the material;
the speed; he can approach comfortably various tempi
even a void set is welcomed. The freedom is maximal
changes in combination with eventual rallentandi and
and still there are decisions to consider in order to
accelerandi.
perform the piece.
• The use of sequencers or notation programs to
The present article focuses on the Concert for Piano and
practice playing in ensemble. This is a logical extension
Orchestra of 1957–58 [1], and it is part of the Cagener
of the “Minus-one” idea.
project, intended to develop a set of conceptual and
• The use of dedicated tools capable of correcting the
software tools, which generates a representation of the
player’s interpretation.
pieces, intended to assist the performers in their task.
An increasing number of composers prepare
The computer serves as a partner in making choices of
interpreters’ oriented computer programs in order to help
multiple possibilities, mix together sounds of different
them perform with the computer before starting with the
sources and of various kinds and following
actual musical piece.
compositional ideas clearly stated.
There are other examples of computer tools created
by or for interpreters, but our concern here is to show a
1. INTRODUCTION new field developed in the last twenty years.
In our topic here, the interpretation of a category of
The performer approaching John Cage’s music Cage’s work, in which the concepts of liberty and
composed after the middle of the 20th century is often indetermination are predominant, it seems that the paper
surprised to encounter a large amount of freedom mixed aspect of the scores is an obstacle in the realization. The
with a set of precise instructions. As a common result, wish that the player could navigate freely, non-
the musician will determine “a version” in which he will determined and without restraint, through the musical
decide on the free elements included in the score. A material seems not helped by the fact that the music is
fixed score is thus created and used repeatedly. The presented on paper, and thus in a determined order.
performer will play it without any doubts of the Computers may bring a solution to that particular
composer’s intentions. In fact, most of Cage’s scores difficulty for Cage’s and also other composers’ music.
composed after the fifties are not to be pre-generated. The actual playing prevents the musician from doing
Each performance should be unique and undetermined. other tasks to orient his choices in “real-time”. For
Using the computer helps one to perform, ignoring what example Iannis Xenakis in Linaia Agon (trio for horn,
and when he is going to play. trombone and tuba, 1972) asks for a passage where the
different instrumental choices are directed by a “gain
2. COMPUTER-AIDED PERFORMANCE matrix”. The choice is computer-aided in order to enable
a smooth interpretation [2].
The musical world offered itself a multitude of tools
with the evolution of computer technologies. At first, One aspect of the tools proposed here is that they are
dedicated to an employment in musical composition, oriented towards interpretation. In that concern, the
they were oriented and adapted to a use in musical interface should “contain” implicitly or explicitly all the
instructions, constraints and concepts defined by the
Copyright: © 2010 Sluchin et al. This is an open-access article composer, as they will establish an “experimentation
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited.
field”. For the construction of Computer-aided Each instrument page is a collection of punctual musical
performance (CAP) tools, the careful study of the pieces events, (see Figure 2 and Figure 3), displayed on 12 to
of John Cage and its formalization is necessary. The 16 music sheets. Each event is a compound one, having
final interface will be, in a certain way, a computer relative pitch, dynamics, playing modes, and other
model of the particular piece. indications.

3. THE CONCERT FOR PIANO AND

ORCHESTRA.

3.1. Musical Context

The Concert for Piano and Orchestra (1957–58) marks

a decisive step towards the definition of the notion of
« indeterminacy » and appears to be one of the more
important works of John Cage, a milestone in his path.
For the first time, control over decisions regarding all
aspects of music is given to interpreters. Each execution
may well sound differently from one another, and
duration may vary each time. It is no “Concerto” for
piano and orchestra, but a chamber ensemble piece
whose instrumentation is to be defined at each
performance. There are parts for thirteen instruments
(three for violin, two for violas, one for cello, one for
contrabass, one for flute who doubles on a piccolo and
alto flute, one for clarinet, one for bassoon doubling on
the baritone saxophone, one for trumpet, one for
trombone and one for tuba), solo for piano and
conductor. The individual parts are all “Solos” meaning
that there is no relationship or coordination between
them. Any portion of it (also void) may be chosen to be Figure 1: Page 176 of trombone score
played. A version of Concert may thus have any number
of these instruments including none, which will, in that The events are distributed variously on each sheet, from
case, be a silent version as in 4'33". extreme density (music system with around 10 events)
to empty staves (i.e. trombone score [1, p. 178]).
3.2. Score Description

In Concert for Piano and Orchestra there is no full

score. There are 2 conductor’s score pages, 63 pages
for piano, and 184 instrumental pages score (Table 1)
Violin 1: pages 1–16
Violin 2: pages 17–32
Violin 3: pages 33–48
Alto 1: pages 49–64 Figure 2: 5th event 3rd Figure 3: 5th event 1st
Alto 2: pages 65–80 system of page 176, system of page 176,
Trumpet in Bb: pages 81–92 from trombone part. from trombone part.
Violoncello: 93–108
Tuba in F and Bb: pages 109–120
Clarinet in Bb: pages 121–132 3.4. The Piano Score
Flute, Piccolo, Alto flute: pages 133–144
Bassoon, Saxophone: pages 145–156 The piano part consists of 63 pages; “each page is one
Double Bass: pages 157–162
Sliding Trombone: pages 173–184
system for a single pianist”. The elements of a page are
musical structures that were generated using different
Table 1: Instrumental parts composition techniques, some varieties of same species
or altogether different (Figure 4). Sometimes one
3.3. Instrumental Scores structure is too long and continues on several
consecutive pages, as for example, the structure “B” in
Each instrumental part (each Solo) is composed of one page 1 [1, p.4] (Figure 4).
page of detailed instructions to performance and of a
collection of pages containing musical events, called
“notes” by Cage. Figure 1 shows the third page of the
trombone score.
3.5. The Conductor’s Score “Formerly, silence was the time lapse between sounds”
[6, p. 73]
Cage has also planed a conductor’s score, but not in the In the Concert instrumental parts instructions Cage asks:
traditional way. A conductor, providing the function of
clock may participates in the performance of Concert. “All notes are separated from one another in time,
He turns his arms like a clock. The time shown by the preceded and followed by a silence (if only a short
conductor may be compressed, widened or literal one).”
physical time (His arms may not turn with the same Later, Cage adopted a spatial concept of silence, in
velocity of a regular clock). Cage provides a table with which it was composed of all the ambient sounds that
what he calls “clock time” (the time shown) and the together formed a musical structure. Finally his concept
“effective time”, from which the conductor prepares his evolved towards viewing silence as non-intention. Both
conducting score. sound and silence would exist only in the non-intention
manner of nature [7]. As we will show further, this
concept will appear clearly in the instructions given to
the performers. It will be considered as an esthetic
object as well as a concept not be forgotten in the
computer solution presented.

4.1.2. Indeterminacy

The principal of indeterminacy allows the performers to

work independently from each other. In this way, the
musician ignoring the output of his fellow musicians
will concentrate on his own part and the set of
instructions, which imposes concentration even if
degree of the freedom involved is high [8].
Figure 4: Page 1 from the piano part. « Bringing about indeterminacy is bringing about a
situation in which things would happen that are not
3.6. “Concert” model
under my control. » [9, p. 109]
Even if each instrument has his own “instruction page”
some elements are common to all. Each player is free to Another meaning of indeterminacy is the fact that the
play any elements of his choice, wholly or in part and in final result is not controlled by the composer himself
any sequence. In this manner, each presentation is and the result is partially produced by a chain of
unique, and Cage considers the piece as “in progress” performer’s un-intentional choices.
[3].
4.1.3. Chance
4. PERFORMING CONTEXT
For John Cage, “chance” is the set of random or non-
determinate processes used in the composition itself. In
4.1. The main concepts in John Cage’s early pieces this way he applied the concept of non-intention in the
musical material choice in his own composition process.
In the John Cage’s Concert performance four concepts
are highlighted: Silence, Chance, Indeterminacy and “Variation in gongs, tom toms, etc. and particularly
Unintentionality. variation in the effects on pianos of the use of
preparations, prepared me for the renunciation of
4.1.1. Silence intention and the use of chance operations.” [11, p.91]
While chance is related to the compositional process,
In connection with his encounter with Zen Buddhism indeterminacy is related to the composer’s lack of
[4], Cage rethinks his understanding of music. As a control of the performance.
result, he composes 4'33" [5], a work whose
abandonment of intentional sound production drew "James Pritchett provides a succinct distinction between
controversy to his compositions. Cage spoke of silence indeterminacy and chance: while chance “refers to the
in a new and positive way. Not only has it an use of some sort of random procedure in the act of
importance in the creation of structure but one has to composition,” indeterminacy “refers to the ability of a
think of it not as an absence of sound but as a presence piece to be performed in substantially different
to fill an acoustical space. ways.”[16, p. 61]
At first, Cage developed a structural concept of silence, This clearly shows the difference between these two
considering it as an absence of sound helping to concepts.
structure the music by its alternation with sound. The
silence between the notes gave the work its cohesion.
 4.1.4. Unintentionality 5. COMPUTER MODELING, MODELS
We could find the genesis of the unintentionality DESCRIPTION
concept in this Cage’s quote:
5.1. From concepts to reality
“Improvisation . . . that is to say not thinking, not using
chance operations, just letting the sound be, in the How could one help the player, as well as possible, to
space, in order that a space can be differentiated from perform the score in a context of “indetermination” and
the next space which won't have that sound in it. I'm “not-intentionality”? In what manner could one enable
perhaps too young at this work to know how to describe him to represent the Cage’s musical thought?
it.” [10, p. 582] It is the freedom relationship pre-determination that
The unintentionality concept is the idea that a performer gives the player the main problem. Even if we find very
produces sounds, musical events without intention, aim, hard instrumental passages, the main difficulties are:
purpose, reason or given meaning. As Cage tell us, it making the choice of when and what is to be played,
comes from his Zen Buddhism studies: what order to choose for the elements, the amount of
silence to insert between the events, and all this while
“…, it was rather my study of Zen Buddhism. At first, ignoring the output of the other musicians involved. It
my inclination was to make music about the ideas that has to be kept in mind that by the absence of intention,
I had encountered in the Orient. The String Quartet one should also ignore what he himself is about to
[1950] is about the Indian view of the seasons, which perform. This means, that the entire score should be at
is creation, preservation, destruction, and quiescence; the player’s disposal, and that he will make up his mind
also the Indian idea of the nine permanent emotions, intuitively and spontaneously. One possible solution
with tranquility at the center. But then I thought, was to provide an adapted interface. Here the choice is
instead of talking about it, to do it; instead of not only of timing but concerns the material itself.
discussing it, to do it. And that would be done by
making the music nonintentional, and starting from an 5.2. The three interfaces
empty mind. At first I did this by means of the Magic
Square.” [11, p. 94] Three kinds of interface, ways displaying music, were
proposed.
4.1.5. Cage and improvisation
5.2.1. Interface A
« ... I have avoided improvisation through most of my
work. Improvisation seemed to me necessarily to have to Here (Figure 5, Figure 6), the pages are displayed as
do with memory and taste, likes and dislikes. » [10, Cage conceived them originally. The interpreter may
581] turn pages sequentially or skip randomly between them.
The improvisation for Cage seems to be related to the The music to his disposal may contain the entire score
unintentionallity : or a subset of it. The choice of what to play is made
during performance. The interpreter may play or not
“Improvisation . . . that is to say not thinking, not using these musical events, and it is up to him to manage the
chance operations, just letting the sound be, in the time allocated to each page or sequence of elements.
space, in order that a space can be differentiated from
the next space which won't have that sound in it. I'm
perhaps too young at this work to know how to describe
it.” [10, 581]

4.2. Performance Problems

Analyzing the Cage instructions and his musical and

aesthetical points of view, we realize that the traditional
scores make the players performance difficult,
especially regarding the "Unintentional" choices of
different musical objects. The material and sequential
aspect of paper scores is an obstacle to the realization of
the Cage’s main idea, that the player could go thru,
freely, without constraint and without intention through
Figure 5: Interface A (trombone score)
the score.
As it is not always easy to jump quickly between two
musical elements found on separate pages, one will tend The main advantage is the fact that the performer can
to an interpretation privileging the grouping of objects navigate easily through the score. The graphic
belonging to the same page. disposition of the various events in the paper score
space may influence the performer. Does there exist a
cognitive weight related to their position in the original other methods enabling to reorganize and give
page, which would influence the choices? Do there exist “directions” to the musical material.
“hot” and “cold ” zones “in the graphic space of the
partition? Some questions remain.

Figure 8: Interface C (violoncello score)

The setting window (Figure 9) allows changing the
Figure 6: Interface A (piano score) time displayed by page and some parameters for the
score generation like the total length of the piece. Cage
5.2.2. Interface B indicates: “given a total performance time-length, the
player may make any program (including additional
Here (Figure 7), one event at a the time is displayed. silences or not) that will fill it”.
The interface proposes two modes. In the first one, the In addition to the idea of freeing the player from the
event appears “at time” it is to be played. The performer physical constraints of the paper score, and of taking in
is in a position of concentration, waiting for the event account the “Indetermination” and “Unintentionality”,
display, without knowing which one will appear. The this interface also makes it possible for the player to
event remains displayed during a short time (which can prepare himself more efficiently for the various changes
be parameterize). In the second mode, the player is of instrument configuration and the various playing
notified of the next following event. He ignores though modes. Besides this, it enables the interpreter to use his
when this one will appear. In this way it helps him to be own will at the moment of the execution, by choosing to
prepared (instrument change, remove or insert a mute, play or not the proposals presented.
tune or detune the instrument, etc).
This interface leaves little control to the player.
However, it has the advantage to embody the
“Indetermination” and the “Unintentionality” asked by
Cage, and to free the interpreter from the “physical”
limits of paper score.

Figure 9: Setting window for the interface control

5.3. The conductor’s interface

Figure 7: Interface B
The conductor’s interface is perhaps the easiest interface
to build. Actually it consists of a clock interface (Figure
10). The data coming from this interface will be sent to
5.2.3. Interface C the player’s computers to drive their chronometers.
Here (Figure 8), we look for displaying the events in
time. With this interface, it is possible to build scores 5.4. Score Calculus
generated algorithmically, the “elements” of the score
being reorganized according to various calculation To construct a computer version, two main
modes. Calculation procedures are based either on the dimensions were calculated: the punctual events order
“instructions” given by Cage to the performers or on and an events distribution in time.
 between a minimum and a maximum time interval
{Rand_min_time, rand_max_time}.
The second one, inherited from Iannis Xenakis’s
experiments at the end of the 1950s [13, p. 26, 169, 171,
243-246], where a time model based on the exponential
distribution to calculate the probability of a musical
event having a given time length.

%λ e− λx ; x ≥ 0 (1)
f (x) = &
' 0 ; x < 0
Where:
λ : is the average density of events by length unity.
To implement this we did a javascript Max/MSP
Figure 10: Conductor’s interface € using the expression:
object
ln(σ ).−1 (2)
5.4.1. Cournot model of chance € δ (λ ) =
λ
The first mean of calculus was based on a with σ being the result of a uniform random
“unintentional choice” modeling, based on a “Cournot variable between 0 and 1.
concept of chance”1, as an aid to the performer to avoid The third
€ way was using self-made distributions
intentional or conscious choices. From this point of using the <itable> Max/MSP object (Figure 11), where
view a sequence will be a combination, a juxtaposition € different curve shapes are investigated.
(a coincidence) of two independent and deterministic
values sequences. In our specific case, it means that a
computer calculated version would consist of a
sequence of events and a sequence of time positions.
Each one of these sequences will be calculated
independently.
For the events organization we used a “uniform
random choice” with or without event repetition
allowed, and for the time structure three methods:
1) A “uniform random choice” of time intervals
between the events (Times between events distributed
uniformly in the interval {Rand_min_time,
rand_max_time})
2) An “exponential random choice” of time intervals
between the events (Times between events distributed
according to exponential distribution of parameter
" λ ")
Figure 11: interface for building our own probability
3) A “random choice” of time intervals between the
distribution
events (According to a probability distribution function
built by the user with boundaries {Rand_min_time,
rand_max_time}) 5.4.2. Deviations and Variations
€
To determine the temporal positions of each cell we
It was clear to us that modeling the Concert, is a
based our calculations on time “between” the cells
pragmatic way to study and to try to understand the
rather that directly on the positions in time. This
Cage’s musical mind. It is why we propose to analyze
decision enabled us to model more efficiently and to
score calculus ways that are the complete opposite of the
take in account one of the main instructions of Cage
first one. Instead of generating an unpredictable score,
concerning the need for “silences” between the events
we try to determine one, using (if possible) all the
(4.1.1).
implicit information given by Cage. Our main purpose is
to try to answer the question “how far could we get away
5.4.1.1 The “time” models
from Cage’s instructions without breaking the original
As a time model, we explored three ways. The first model”. How “intentionality” could change the score?
one was a single uniform stochastic distribution scaled How it could change the Aesthetic.
1
As for the first way of calculus, two main
« Les évènements amenés par la combinaison ou la rencontre dimensions were calculated: the punctual events order
de phénomènes qui appartiennent à des séries indépendantes,
and an events distribution in time.
dans l’ordre de la causalité, sont ce qu’on nomme des
évènements fortuits ou des résultats du hasard ». [12, p. 73
¶40]
 5.4.2.1 Ordering events according with a description vector ω [t ] = (ω0 [t ], ω1 [t ], ω2 [t ],..., ω10 [t ]) (6)
space
The instrumental parts of Concert give more elements to it is a weight vector. As distance functions we used
model. Looking closely at each event we have attached weighted Euclidian and Chebythchev distances.
it to a set of characteristics. For example in the
10
trombone part (also known as Solo for Sliding € 2
trombone) we identified: disteuclid ( p, q, ω ) = ∑( p − q )
i i * ωi (7)
1. Placement (position in the score staff) i=0
2. Nature of event (played normally, tuning slide
out, mouthpiece in bell, spit valve open, disteuclid ( p, q, ω ) = max( pi − qi * ωi ) (8)
i
without bell, without bell in jar, with slide
disconnected, conch, mouthpiece with mute,€ Obtaining, in this way, a sequence
and conch with mute) V = {V [0],V [1],V [2],...,V [n]} of V [t ] vectors
3. Pitch, represented as a MIDI pitch. (equation 4). From this sequence a symbol sequence
4. Head Size of notes (small, medium, or large)
€
S = {s0 , s1 , s1 ,..., sn } is obtained. Each sk being the
5. Dynamic profile (nothing, crescendo,
diminuendo, both) first dimension of the correspondent V [t ] vector
€
6. Articulation (nothing, breath, soft Tongue, hard (equation 5). €
Tongue)
7. Vibrato (with or without) € €
Chebythchev distance showed results where the vector
8. Formant (coloration of the sound when derived from equation 5 contains almost one parameter
€
sustained: nothing, fluttertongue, double and pi that corresponds to one of the parameters of target
triple tongue, trills etc.) vector (equation 4). This will lead us to sequences that
9. Formant speed (rit., accel., rit.-accel., accel.- map better with the target vectors evolution. With
rit., fast, slow) Euclidian distance, as the minimum distance returned is
10. Mute (without, straight, plunger, cup, buzz, €
hat, a sort of mean distance from the target vector, without
plunger open close) any need to contain explicitly a pi parameter, the
11. Arrows & curves (smaller microtonal slides, no vectors obtained, could be very far (from a musical point
arrow, curve down, curve up, arrow down, of view), from what is asked in the target vectors
arrow up, etc.) evolution.
€
From this information we built a “descriptor vector 5.4.2.2 Time evolution
space” where each component vector had the follow As for the first way of calculus we used basically the
structure: exponential distribution (see equation 1) but with a
lambda parameter as a time function, λ = λ[t] .
VBD _ i = ( si , p BD _ i0 , p BD _ i1 , p BD _ i2 ,..., p BD _ i10 ) (3)
5.4.2.3 Exporting data
where These calculi were made in the OpenMusic
si is a symbol identifying a particular event environment and exported € to be read in our Max
€ p BD _ i j is the value of the “jth” descriptor for the “ith” computer interface.
vector. In that way, one can generate punctual event
At the same time we built (in the OpenMusic organizations according to one or more constraints on
€ composition assisted computer environment) a sequence the different characteristics. One may give it as input
curves or functions that describe temporal evolution
€ of “target vectors” in the form Vc [t ] , with t
characteristics, or as textual constraints represented as
representing time, where each vector has the follow logical expressions. This part of the work represent a lot
structure: of interest, as the player is unable to deal with such
tasks during a performance. The computer output can
€ still be regarded as a proposition of a “version” from
Vc [t ] = ( s[t ], p0 [t ], p1 [€
t ], p2 [t ],..., p10 [t ]) (4)
which the performer still has his choice. This logical
with each parameter descriptor having a dynamic part of the project is actually implemented in
evolution in the time. OpenMusic environment, but it will be ported very soon
in the Max/MSP environment.
For each discrete time value [t ] we calculate the
€
vector
6. PERFORMANCES
V [t ] = min{dist (Vc [t ],VBD _ i , ω [t ])} (5) Two performances where given. “Triton” (Les Lilas,
€ France, May 2th 2009), with Fabian Fiorini (piano),
where Guillaume Orti (alto sax), Benny Sluchin (trombone),

€
Eric-Maria Couturier (violoncello) and Mikhail Malt 8. REFERENCES
(computer and video improvisation).
“Hateiva » (Jaffa, Israël, October 29th 2009) Amit [1] J. Cage, Concert for piano and orchestra, Peters by
Dolberg (piano), Yonatan Hadas (clarinet), Benny Henmar Press, 1960.
Sluchin (trombone) and Eric-Maria Couturier [2] B. Sluchin, “Linaia Agon, towards an interpretation
(violoncello). based on the theory”, Proceedings of Iannis
Xenakis International Symposium, Athens, Greece,
7. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES p. 299-311, 2005.
The construction of computer models of musical pieces [3] P. Y. Bosseur, “John Cage Concert for Piano and
is not a neutral process. It is fundamental to know well Orchestra (1957–1958)”, Musiques
the works under study, understand the constraints left by Contemporaines Persepectives analytiques (1950-
the composer, as well as the historical context of its 1985). Minerva, Paris, 2007.
creation. But these are still insufficient in the modeling
[4] D. Nicholls, John Cage, University of Illinois
process. Every musical work has a part of liberty and
Press, Unbana and Chicago, 2007.
ambiguity. These “holes” must to be filled up to enable
the modeling process. One has to take decisions as a [5] K. Gann, No Such Thing as Silence: John Cage’s
function of a work assumption, founded on musical and 4’33, Yale University Press, 2010.
musicological bases. The necessity to represent the
[6] K. Boehmer, I. Pepper, “Chance as Ideology”,
score or the processes suggested by the composer on
October, vol. 82 IS, pp. 62-76, 1997.
numerical, symbolic or graphic spaces has great
importance. Changing the representation of an object [7] J. G. Chilton, Non-intentional performance
permits one to see, to consider, to observe and finally to practice in John Cage's solo for sliding trombone,
understand it in a different manner. The modeling DMA dissertation, University of British Columbia,
process is transformed in a pragmatic analysis of the 2007.
musical phenomena [14] leads us step by step to a
model of Cage’s thinking [8] J. Pritchett, The Music of John Cage, Cambridge
Concerning the player, in pieces as different as Solos University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
from the Concert for Piano and Orchestra, the player [9] D. Campana, Form and Structure in the Music of
can concentrate on performing when using the CAP John Cage, Ph.D. Northwestern University
interface. After determination of the duration, he does Evanston 1985.
not have to prepare his personal version, and will ignore
completely what music he is going to perform. The [10] R. Reynolds, J. Cage, “John Cage and Roger
player may be involved in determining the setting of the Reynolds: A Conversation”, Musical Quarterly,
performance: relative density of the audio elements Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 573-594, 1979.
(length of silences), orienting the choice of the [11] J. Cage, R. Kostelanetz, “His Own Music”,
elements, using characterization of the material given Perspectives of New Music, vol. 25, 1/2, 1987, pp.
(i.e. pitch, timbre, dynamics etc.) on a local or a global 88-106.
criteria. One might wonder: when all decisions
regarding the order of the events of the scores and the [12] A. A. Cournot, Exposition de la théorie des
timing etc. are made by a computer, what remains to be chances et des probabilités, T. 1, Hachette, Paris,
done by the performer/interpreter? Firstly, these 1843.
calculations need to be defined by several parameters, [13] I. Xenakis, Musiques Formelles, Stock Musique,
which are personal choices. The result of the computing Paris, 1981.
process is highly dependent of the interface choice and
organization, therefore is part of the interpretation. [14] D. Keller, B. Ferneyhough, “Analysis by modeling:
Secondly, the performer can react and decide if and Xenakis's ST/10 080262”, Journal of New Music
when an event is played, regardless of the fact that it is Research, 33(2), 161-171, 2004.
scheduled and displayed by the software. In this way, [15] James Pritchett, The Music of John Cage, New
the computing result is a proposition that could be York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
modified by the performer, which is in conformity with
Cage’s original instructions. [16] David P. Miller, “Indeterminacy and Performance
We are looking forward to provide a "Full" version Practice in Cage's Variations”, American Music,
of “Computer Assisted Concert“, including a Computer vol. 27, n° 1, 2009, pp. 60-86.
“conductor” and 14 computers for players. Performers’
interface with 3 different displaying modes, metadata on
some sequencing events impossibilities, and expanding
score generation models according to time constraints
evolution of various “descriptors”.