7 Philippe Manoury's Jupiter1

164 • Andrew May
these, but simply verify that they took place. Th e primacy of the sequence is
refl ected in its position at the top of the score. In addition, the proximity of
the chords to their triggering notes shows their dependent role and keeps
them out of the way of the primary line. In fact, the meter changes are much
more visible than the music in this staff ! Relationships between parts are made
evident graphically, through their relative positions in the score.
As Section VIII continues, the notation becomes less rigid. Th e computer’s
pitch contour becomes more vague and generalized, and the regular rhythm
becomes increasingly irregular. Th is is shown through the time-space notation
of the computer part, combined with verbal comments such as “de plus
en plus irrégulier.” Th e fl utist switches from following patterns and meters
to following dynamics, rhythmic densities, and degrees of irregularity. Th e
relationship between fl ute and computer becomes more approximate. Th is
creates a transition into Section IX, where graphic notations reminiscent of
those in Section V are used, and the fl utist has greater freedom to shape time.
Th e notation adapts to refl ect the changing musical situation. Manoury’s
evocative combinations of text, graphics, and traditional notational elements
give the fl utist an intuitive sense of the shift ing sonic and temporal landscape,
and of the relationship between fl ute and computer throughout the work.
7.3.3. Correlating Perspectives: Technology, Performance, and Sound
Th us far, this analysis has focused on elucidation and comparison of the
computer’s score and the fl utist’s at several characteristic points in the piece.
Th e technological perspective on Jupiter is represented in the follow and
qlist scores. Th e performative perspective is represented in the score and
the relationships established by the computer’s sounds and interactions.
Th e resultant sonic experience of the entire piece represents an audience
perspective and, ideally, should bear a strong resemblance to the composer’s
conception (mediated by those of the fl utist and the technologist operating
the computer and mixing the sound in performance). By correlating sound
with scores, this analysis will bring together the perspectives that frame
the experience of Manoury’s composition. Th e qlists clarify the computer’s
sounds and behaviors. Th e notated score indicates the fl ute’s sounds and the
interactions with the computer considered most signifi cant by the composer.
Sound reveals elements omitted from the score, and possibly hidden in the
dense and complex qlists.
Th e excerpts with notations shown in Figures 7.4 and 7.5 diff er greatly,
both in visual appearance and programming style. However, analysis of their
sonic profi les in the following section will reveal important similarities between
the examples, some of which are far from evident in the qlist and the
notation. Crucial elements in these sections can be traced back to the opening
Simoni_RT76294_C007.indd 164 9/22/2005 11:19:22 AM