Text, including the two scores - Columbia University Department of ...

Design and Composition for Two Intermedia Concert Works Computational Iglesia Daniel
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Columbia University 2010
Submitted

Daniel Iglesia All Rights Reserved
©2010

Computational Design and Composition for Two Intermedia Concert Works Daniel Iglesia ABSTRACT
document details the technical research, compositional process, and critical reflection involved in the creation of two new concert works: Cardinality Aleph Two and American Engineer, both for acoustic instruments, electronic sound via percussion, and live video. In it, the author This
three families of software tools (for generative composition, FFT outlines
and resynthesis, and live anaglyph video), performance and compositional considerations in their incorporation into concert works, and ends with a post-composition discussion on both the artistic workflows, and the audience reception, of computationally-mediated art.
analysis

Introduction 1. Software Research and Development 1.1 Algorithmic Composition Contents:
DSP with FFTToolkit 1.2.1 Reconstitute 1.2.2 Splice 1.3 Anaglyph Video 1.2
Background and Definitions 1.3.2 Vector Graphics 1.3.1
Raster Graphics 2 Incorporation into Concert Works 2.1 Background and Intentions 2.2 Compositional Logistics 1.3.3
Cardinality Aleph Two 2.3.1 Design & Preparation 2.3
2.3.2 Form 2.4 American Engineer 2.4.1 Design & Preparation 2.4.2 Form 3. Commentary
i Appendix A: score to Cardinality Aleph Two Appendix B: score to American Engineer References
1 2 6 1
12 13 15 8
19 16
24 29 34 24
40 43 34
57 49
71 114
69

of Figures 1. User interfaces for three specific FFT manipulation tasks 2. Raster-based anaglyph system, optimized across List
Java, and GLSL 3. 3D projections of frequency rations, as done in performance software Oscilloscope 3D 4. Software interface for cue and pad definition in Max,
Aleph Two 5. Software interface for cue and pad definition in Cardinality
American Engineer
ii
22 9
44 36
56

This text complements two new concert works: Cardinality Aleph Two (for two pianos, two electronic percussion, and live video), and American Engineer (for flute, clarinet, violin, viola, cello, electronic percussion, and live Introduction
It contains a technical view of involved software development, a compositional view of these tools' incorporation into the concert works, and a brief critical discussion of digital media creation, control, and reception. There will be some thematic overlap among the three, with each section reflecting a video).
angle into a body of personal interests. These interests include: the nature of technological workflows to impart a type of result, the notion of a different
aesthetic functioning outside of pre-existing human aesthetics, and, most personally, the combination of disparate media as simultaneous views into the same artistic endeavor. Even the form of the text, in which technical development leads to composition which leads to theory, reflects my computational
attitudes on musical creation and understanding. 1. Software Research and Development In this section, I discuss the design of three distinct families of software own
each one of which has been incorporated into one or both of the concert works. These tools are a few among the many software systems and processes tools,
I have developed over the last few years; they are, however, a good representation of the breadth of my interests and pursuits. The first is a software system for generating control data (i.e. MIDI notes), the second is a signal processing platform and application for generating audio material, and
that
1

video1 is a pair of methods for generating anaglyph 3D in real time. Although they are here described as standalone tools that contributed to the two concert works, their creation and development are inexorably entwined with continual usage in previous projects. the last
Composition I like musical invention: phrases of notes that, while they may or may not observe hierarchies of tonality or orchestration, are not obviously attributable to a preexisting genre/style/school/composer/etc. In an effort to 1.1 Algorithmic
own compositional ruts, both stylistically and technologically (for my avoid
the ease of copying and pasting in a notation program), I often create processes to manipulate or distort control data (i.e. MIDI notes) algorithmically. These processes, however, had usually operated upon preexisting musical material. Instead, I wanted to create a program to generate example,
material from scratch, free of my ingrained stylistic pathways, from which I could therefore sample at will. My starting aim echoes a quotation from my old high school band teacher, that music was always either coming from somewhere or going musical
(our repertoire of wind-band staples didn't have a lot of minimalism in it). While minimalism was my first entry into contemporary somewhere
1
Anaglyph 3D, which will be further explained in section 1.3, is the classic stereoscopic technique of have to program my wanted I influence, formative a remains and music
presenting different images to each eye to create the illusion of depth.
2

ecurrence while avoiding static conditions and literal repetition. Therefore I hoped to create stochastic methods that would generate a discernable, and hopefully subtle, progression between states. This way, I could launch multiple musical processes simultaneously, and subject them all recognizable
changing stochastic parameters to create large-scale coherence out of what, at its genesis, was randomized material. Therefore, the low-level result (i.e. the individual notes) can retain its own idiosyncrasies while functioning within a high-level directionality, sometimes subtly, and occasionally drastically. to
project began as a foundation for a real-time generative installation. I had been invited to make a piece for a gallery show [12] This
artistic usage of obsolete or unfashionable technology; I needed something to generate musical control information (MIDI data) to feed one of my own favorite pieces of unfashionable music technology, the Yamaha DX-7. My final installation piece, titled DX-Heaven, actually used one DX-7, and one celebrating
a rack unit containing eight DX-7 synth modules; in effect, I had the equivalent of nine DX-7 timbres available, each with 16 voice polyphony. From that project came the desire to adapt the program into something that would generate, given the parameters of intended instruments (i.e. pitch range, etc), TX816,
swaths of musical material from which I could extract the (rare) moments of interesting musical invention and development. large
software was originally created for a show at VertixList Gallery, and so ended up named as the Vertex process. The software is a group of Java classes based upon the external library JMSL (Java Music Specification Language) [2], developed by Nick Didkovsky as a continuation of HMSL
This
3

Music Specification Language). JMSL itself is a family of classes that work together to create a structure for timing, scheduling, and launching musical processes. Its base class is MusicJob, which a user extends to contain any programming task while keeping its core properties (the ability to be (Hierarchical
to function within a collection of other Music Jobs, to be launched by itself or simultaneously with other MusicJobs, etc) intact. Another primary JMSL class is MusicShape, which functions as a flexible table for defining discrete musical data parameters and timing. repeated,
defined several low-level MusicJobs that generate trivial musical processes (rising figures, falling figures, drunk walk figures, sustaining figures, I
fill MusicShapes with these figures, and decide to repeat themselves a certain number of times. Outside of these classes, and constantly functioning in the background, is one or more of my class MelodyConstraints, which clamps the generated note data to several constraints: allowable pitch range, etc),
range, minimum and maximum pitch leaps, dynamic range, and adherence or non-adherence to a variable tonal center. The intended large-scale directionality of the musical result is due to the fact that these constraints are gradually changing over time. In fact, at any duration
the constraints are actually gradually interpolating from one (randomized) series of constraints to another. This way, the underlying figures moment,
be repeated many times, but because of the gradual change of the constraints, the post-constraint result will usually be slightly (and, in some cases, drastically) different for each repetition of the underlying figure. At the top level of the program is a ‘voice’, which sequentially launches a
may
4

of parallel jobs. Each collection contains one to four concurrent instances of the same type of musical phrase-generating process, each functioning on a different MIDI channel and generating disparate (preconstraint) material, but all of them then informed by the same shifting series collection
constraints. Depending on the momentary state of the constraints, the separate channels of musical data may be narrowly constrained (creating a very similar result across channels), or widely constrained (allowing each channel to keep more of their original individuality). Since each phrase within of
collection may repeat a different number of times, some voices may die out before others. Once all the jobs are complete, a new parallel collection of jobs is a
generating new figures (which remain, of course, within the current shifting constraints). Depending upon the instrumentation of the piece I am working on, and on whether the instruments are monophonic or polyphonic, I usually set up launched,
process to have one ‘voice’ running per instrument. I then decide if all the voices operate under the same MelodyConstraints process, or if I should divide the voices so that some are running under one instance of MelodyConstraints, and others under another; multiple concurrent MelodyConstraints create the the
always perceptible) effect of two clouds of directionality instead of one. I then let it run, recording the output to a MIDI file, and open the result in a (not
program. The original version of this software also had functions to change tempo and instrument (i.e. send program change messages to the DX- 7's), but I omit that functionality for the sake of simpler transcription when generating scored material.
notation
5

this point, the program is finished, and I have raw material from which to extract musical building blocks of the score. I listen to the result, mark moments of interest, and then copy a selection (or family of selections) into a new sequence. I do a lot of decision-making and rewriting on a measure- After
level: collapsing a polyphonic phrase into a monophonic phrase for an instrument, or distributing a polyphonic phrase across several instruments, or throwing away information if the phrase is too dense with notes, or adding material if it is too thin. From this point forward, however, my by-measure
collapses into that of traditional composition. process
DSP with FFTToolkit As far back as 2003, I was experimenting with Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) coding to do signal analysis and resynthesis, building upon Perry Cook's library of FFT functions in the C programming language [1]. My initial 1.2
aimed to design a morphing function to interpolate between the FFT frames of a sound. Those early seeds ultimately led, years later, to my own library of FFT code, which were designed as the basis to realize several specific compositional tasks that I devised. This library and set of specific applications experiments
packaged and released under the generic name ‘FFTToolkit’. My primary goal for these compositional tasks, in addition to solving were
specific programming and algorithmic challenges, was to generate a large amount of aurally interesting material out of a limited body of samples. All three processes make a new sound out of multiple sample sources, and a resultant sound is necessarily defined as associations (whether near, far,
the
6

transparent or not) among its own building blocks. Instead of the original discrete sound(s), we get a sound that exists between sounds, or as a cloud of sounds, or as a stitching together of sounds. This way, the formal progression of a piece could be defined by the changing relationships within aurally
sounds (instead of some larger-scale inter-sound relationship). For example, in one of my previous compositions, (Hard Square, for percussion quartet) I wanted an aural progression between digital music means (i.e. hardware, represented aurally at the start of the piece as a bank of the clicks individual
glitches of failing hard drives) and results (i.e. simple synthesis, represented aurally at the climax of the piece as a bank of GameBoy synth and
Each section of the piece therefore became a step from the former to the latter, by using the FFT tasks to create banks of sounds that exist between the origin and the destination. samples).
new library was written in Java; while serious signal processing coders would not use Java for such a task, as it is slower and more computationally expensive than lower-level languages, it suited my own objectives for several reasons. First, the code was more broadly distributable This
reusable between users and hardware platforms; second, it was easier to build a graphical user interface (GUI) with pre-existing Java libraries; finally, and
facilitated simple transfer towards real-time usage (specifically within Max's [mxj~] Java wrapper). It contains the core classes: -PolarPhasor: holds the magnitude and phase of a single phasor.
it
7

holds single frame of analysis data, consisting of an array of PolarPhasor(s). -FFTFile: holds the analysis data for a whole sound file, consisting of an array of FFTFrame(s). -FFTFrame:
few utility classes for reading audio files and storing FFT settings. The signal analysis/resynthesis tasks I designed based on these classes are: -Morph: chart a line that represents morphing between two sound files -A
time. -Splice: take several sound files and cut between them at moments of over
similarity. -Reconstitute: take an audio file, and resynthesize it completely out of spectrally similar fragments of other audio files. spectral
still use these three features in most of my work. Within Cardinality Aleph Two and American Engineer, however, I only use them in the latter, and then only the Splice and Reconstitute tasks. Therefore I omit the technical background of Morph in this text. See Figure 1 for images of the user interfaces I
these tasks. for
Reconstitute The reconstitution algorithm takes one file (labeled the ‘trigger’ sound), and a list of one or more files (the ‘bank’). The process takes each small segment of the trigger sound, compares it against all segments from the bank
1.2.1
8

Reconstitute
User defines bank of files
out of which to
resynthesize a source file,
and defines grain size
and rate.
Splice
User defines list of files,
between which to find
the best possible
sequence of N splices.
Each splice must occur
within a duration range,
and at a volume above
a specific threshold.
Figure 1- User interfaces for three specific FFT manipulation tasks
9
Morph
(Not detailed in the text, but
part of the original release)
User specifies two sound files
to morph between, and
draws a breakpoint
functioning specifying the
momentary percentage
morph between the two.
The threshold parameter
defines a non-trivial
frequency component
worth interpolating.

10 and finds the most spectrally similar segment. It then synthesizes a new file(s),
file from these matches; the result is therefore based upon the characteristics of the trigger sound, but made up completely of grains of the bank sounds. For American Engineer, the edit points of this process were applied to video samples as well, yielding a fused A/V sample that quickly cuts sound
sources. As an extension of granular synthesis, this specific idea is not new. It has a history of research and application, both compositionally and industrially (particularly towards speech synthesis). Specific instances include Dimeo between
‘Caterpiller’ and ‘cataRT’ [13] (the latter functioning in real time), and Columbia University’s Music Engineering Arts Projects’ ‘MEAPsoft’ [3]. Schwarz’s
Σ frameSize-1
comparison (which two frames gives scalar for similarity) through each bin of the two frames and keeps a running sum of the absolute difference between the two bins. The formula compares FFT and a value relative steps
this formula were created to account for the frequency and volume perception of humans; most significantly, by privileging different frequency ranges to roughly correspond i = 0 abs( frameA[i] - frameB[i] )
to human equal loudness curves. This means, for example, that differences in on variations Several similarity. more indicates value low A
content in our most sensitive frequency ranges (around 1K to 5K Hz), would have more effect on the ultimate evaluation value than differences in frequency content within the high or low ranges that are less perceptible to frequency

human ear. This was done crudely, dividing up the hearing range into only five bands, but has an improved effect on the results. Reconstituting a sound one FFT frame at a time, while occasionally an interesting experience, usually yields a glitchy and headache-inducing result, the
the small duration of one single frame. Instead, the size of a grain is a user-defined variable (defined both in FFT frames and in milliseconds). Also, (and taking an additional cue from granular synthesis) allowing these slices to overlap may yield a more continuous result, so a second user parameter given
the duration between slice onsets (i.e. an overlapping moving window). There is a small amount of windowing hard-wired into the algorithm determines
guard against clicks. This grain size and moving window reduces the number of resynthesis slices in the trigger sound. Yet, in order to find the global best solution, each trigger slice must still be compared against every possible N-frame slice of the to
files. For X FFT frames in the trigger, and Y FFT frames among all the bank files, this takes (X/N*Y) comparisons. A key optimization is to first create a new aggregate analysis file which, for each frame y of the bank files, holds the averaged analysis of the frames y to y+N, a strategy that significantly cuts bank
on redundant calculations. In practice, the general pattern of the result is that the rhythms and down
pitch/formant characteristics of the trigger sound remain intelligible, but with the timbre and small-scale pitch content determined by the bank sounds. Obviously, the degree of content difference between the trigger and the bank sounds (in both timbre and pitch content), wildly affects
large-scale
11

esult. I dealt with this empirically, creating large tables of results and judging the subjective musicality of the outcome by listening. 1.2.2 Splice the
‘Splice’ application finds moments of maximum spectral similarity to create the most seamless possible splice(s) between different sound files. It scans through all the files and creates lists of splice points, ranked by degree of similarity; it then recursively seeks an optimal path through them to create the The
audio file. Normally, it takes several input parameters: a list of sound files to resulting
a minimum and maximum allowed duration for each slice of sound between splices, an optional ‘self-avoidance’ duration (used to avoid cyclical paths), the number of splices that the resulting audio file should contain, and, most importantly, a volume threshold level for splice points. analyze,
volume threshold parameter specifies that a splice may only happen at or above a minimum volume level; this is crucial because (given my comparison rubric) quieter moments are more spectrally similar to each other than louder moments. Without this parameter (i.e. if the threshold were set to This
the ‘best’ splice points would always be found at moments of silence. The setting of this parameter depends on the intended effect of the splice. When set zero),
a low value, the splice points are found ‘between the notes’; when set at a higher value, only splices at loud moments (i.e. ‘within the note’) are allowed (yielding a much more drastic and noticeable effect). The comparison rubric used to judge the relative similarity between two
at
12

frames was described in the preceding section. With both this judgment rubric and the intended parameters in place, the process begins at the start of the first sound file. It looks within the allowable duration for all potential splices to other files, creates a list of the ten best splices (sorted by degree of FFT
and follows the first. This process is then repeated in a recursive tree, where each branch is a decision representing which splice to follow. Thus a complete path of N splices will be from the head of the tree, through N branches. If the ‘best’ path hits a dead end (no available branches to follow), similarity),
recursion algorithm steps back and follows the next best splice at the previous branching point. For American Engineer, as in the Reconstitute task, the
edit points of this process were additionally applied to associated video samples. 1.3 Anaglyph Video the
have been creating solo audio/video performance systems since about 2005; my interests, further described in section 2, were to generate and control sound and video simultaneously by myself (rather than have one performer responsible for sound, and another for video, as is frequently the case with I
performance). In the autumn of 2007, I was building a new system, in which I had hoped to match every element of my synths and samplers to visual media
on screen. I realized that since vector graphics take care of perspective (near shapes appear larger, far shapes smaller, etc), that therefore two objects a fixed distance apart from one another (within the virtual 3D space) would appear farther apart (in actual on-screen pixels) when close, and
elements
13

to each other when far. This exactly mirrors the method of stereoscopic imaging, in that close objects have more lateral separation than those farther away. I immediately headed to a party supply store to purchase a pair of 3D glasses, and then constructed a very simple Max patch that rendered two nearer
of a sphere next to one another, one tinted red and the other blue. It worked, and so began a long journey of development to add the third dimension to my video performance practice. I developed my first anaglyph patch quickly, and was soon invited to perform it at a festival (La Superette copies
an occasion which led to many other performance opportunities. Some of my preexisting video performance patches were aesthetically or 2007),
adaptable to 3D, while others were not (because they did not utilize virtual depth). I originally developed my idea in vector-based programming (specifically openGL, controlled from within Max); some of the limitations of vector-based video synthesis led to my exploration of raster- computationally
3D. These two methods have very different structures of definition and control; as I would eventually learn, they also have very noticeable properties and challenges inherent to each. A decision between the two is necessarily the starting point for devising any media performance system in 3D, and will based
the types of input parameters available with which to perform or compose. determine
I describe the workings of the two anaglyph graphic methods; before being incorporated into the two concert works (vector graphics in Cardinality Aleph Two, raster graphics in American Engineer), they both were used in solo performance patches to which I will refer (and include on the
Here,
14

for reference and to illustrate my own history of assigning aural/visual relationships. 1.3.1 Background and Definitions DVD)
here mention a few terms and concepts, before progressing into the software development, to help define the mechanics involved in 3D video. 'Anaglyph' refers to the method of creating virtual 3D images by superimposing two views of a scene onto the same viewing surface; these two I
are then separated so that each eye sees a slightly different image, creating the illusion of depth in our brains. I currently use the classic red-blue views
to achieve this: one view is projected blue, the other red, and the lenses each filter out one of the colors. This limits the usage of color, since all colors must have at least some red and blue content in order to be detected in both eyes. With higher budgets (and a more stable performance venue) comes the glasses
to use polarized projection, the method of choice for movie theaters. In polarized projection, one view is projected with light polarized in one direction, and the other with light polarized in the opposite direction; the two lenses of the glasses are polarized, filtering the light so that one view is seen in each eye. ability
allows full color fidelity, and makes possible the creation and projection of much more dramatic 3D effects. This
refers to the amount of (horizontal) distance between two views of an object. Positive separation (in which the red image is to the right of the blue image) makes an object appear ‘in front’ of the screen, and negative separation (in which the blue image is to the right of the red) makes an object
'Separation'
15

‘behind’ the screen. The more separated an object, the farther forward or backwards it appears (i.e. the more it 'pops' or recedes, and the greater the perceived Z coordinate). At some point in increasing positive separation (i.e. 'coming forward'), however, the separation is too great, and our brain rejects appear
it as a 3D image. An image with zero separation is perceived as being at the distance of the projection screen itself. Too much negative separation demands that the viewers aim their eyeballs outwards, which their eyes and brain will reject, eventually causing a headache. perceiving
Violations’ occur when one view (i.e. either the red view or the blue view) of an object goes off the edge of the screen, but the other view ‘Border
is still fully on screen) remains fully in the field of view. This ruins the 3D illusion because one eye sees an incomplete shape while the other eye sees a complete shape. (which
Vector Graphics Vector graphics (here implemented with openGL from within Max, but essentially equivalent across many software and hardware platforms) are created by defining the characteristics of shapes (position, scale, shape, color, 1.3.2
within a virtual 3D space; these definitions constitute a command to the graphics card to render the shape onto a drawing context (i.e. your screen) at etc)
greatest possible resolution. The specialized hardware of graphics cards is highly optimized for such tasks, making this method both fast (a high frame rate) and detailed (high resolution). These properties are put to most noticeable effect in video games, which have been a primary motivating force
the
16

improvements in graphics hardware. Most beneficially for anaglyph use, vector graphics compute and render with perspective: lines converge towards a horizon, and an object up close far away appears larger than when farther away. for
very first foray into anaglyph graphics was based on that last realization: I could make two instances of a shape, place them next to one another (i.e. at a constant virtual x-coordinate separation), and tint the right one red and the left one blue (and make sure they sum to white when they My
As their z-coordinate in the virtual space increases (i.e. they get ‘closer’) the shapes get larger and the distance between them increases (i.e. overlap).
positive separation). When openGL renders two objects next to one another, however, the usual behavior is to paint one, then paint the other, and whichever is closer to us will be painted ‘in front’. For anaglyph use, however, several parameters greater
the rendering behavior must be changed. First is the ‘blend mode’, which determines what color appears when a shape is painted in front of another; instead of overwriting, I switch the blend mode to sum the shape with those shapes it paints itself upon. This way a red shape and a blue shape determining
to white when they overlap. An very significant drawback, however, is that an shape sums against all the objects behind it, not merely its red-blue sum
That means bright textures become opaque, while darker textures become translucent, and black textures are transparent. I’ve yet to resolve this issue, and it continues to be one of my current research topics. The other requirement is to disable the openGL property ‘depth enable’, which computes
counterpart.
17

portions of a shape are hidden behind other shapes, and doesn’t render them; since we need to see all of both objects piled on top of one another, this must not happen, or else one of the shapes will be incomplete. The preceding description (of rendering two instances of each desired what
was my method for a long time, but at that phase of development it had two major drawbacks. One was the impossibility of negative separation. Given the constant x-coordinate separation, the two shapes will always be positively separated, and only as they approach an infinite distance would they be shapes
as a unison shape at zero separation. I tried several techniques to introduce the possibility of negative separation: one included doing a vertex- perceived
distance computation, another involved skewing shapes to more accurately represent the different viewpoints of two eyes. Both of these were too computationally intensive to be useful, but the latter strategy led to the eventual solution. The second drawback was the problem of border violations; by-vertex
keep the content matched between red and blue versions, clipping planes would have to be used (to truncate the vertices that fall beyond the edge of that plane). With different clipping planes for red and blue, this meant that clipping planes would have had to be repeatedly enabled and disabled within each to
which is both algorithmically cumbersome and computationally inefficient. A solution was needed that would somehow remove the necessity of frame,
sets of clipping planes for red and blue content. The solution to both the above problems turned out to be vastly more elegant and simpler to implement and compute; it also yields a more realistic and believable 3D result. Instead of creating two copies of a shape side by side,
separate
18

create one shape, render in one color, then move the camera over slightly, and render again in the other color. This of course is exactly how our eyes work in reality, with one eye seeing an object from a slightly different angle than the other. The amount of eyeball separation, and the depth at which their gazes I
now both become user-definable parameters. This allows negative space; the z coordinate where the gazes cross becomes the unison point of zero space; objects rendered in front of it will have positive separation, while objects behind it will have negative separation. Not only is this easier to implement, cross,
the control parameters are far more intelligible as real-world measurements. This also solves the problem with using clipping planes to but
border violations, as the clipping planes are defined in relation to the camera position, and therefore move automatically between red and blue renderings. prevent
Raster Graphics The development of the raster-based 3D system was even more challenging and time-consuming. Unlike the vector system, in which shapes are determined with simple commands (and rendered very quickly in 1.3.3
a raster system must define the current state of every single pixel, which is also recomputed for each frame. So as resolution grows, so does the hardware),
computational power (though parts of this task were eventually shunted to the programmable pipeline on the graphics card, yielding significant gains in speed). Also, as a vector system takes care of perspective, it converts virtual 3D coordinates into 2D distances on the screen; no such work,
required
19

20 is done in the raster system. The amount of red-blue separation must however,
be determined pixel-by pixel based on user input. However, there is one major advantage to raster graphics over vector graphics: the ability to layer shapes opaquely. Another advantage is the ability to manipulate video elements through matrix transforms unavailable to vector-defined shapes. instead
basic input and output has stayed nearly the same through the whole development process. The user defines a ‘screen’ (or defines some generative processes to create moving screens) as a 1-plane matrix, where the brightness of each matrix cell represents the number of pixels by which that The
coordinate should be displaced in order to create the illusion of depth. The actual brightness of that displaced pixel is determined by another resultant
which contains the intended input texture (an image/movie/etc). My early attempts, incorporating simple repositioning, quickly ran into major (literal) headaches, because it yielded juxtaposition and mapping errors that caused unnatural results that did not make real-world sense to the brain. matrix
were also relatively computationally slow, yielding unacceptably low frame rates. After a long process of optimization, in which I made compromises between power and speed, I eventually honed in on a specified behavior while They
of unrelated functionality, detailed below (and shown graphically in Figure 2). In this approach, the user sets global back and front displacement disposing
which define the minimum and maximum allowable red-blue displacement (in pixels); for example, the default bounds are -5 to 15 pixels, so that something all the way ‘back’ would have a red-blue displacement of -5
bounds,

(and appear to sit behind the screen), and an object all the way forward would have a red-blue displacement of 15 pixels (and pop forward). These bounds are empirically tailored to each venue (based on screen size, audience distance from screen, etc) to provide maximum depth contrast without eye pixels
or breaking the illusion. In performance, the user defines four 1-plane 320 x 240 matrices, each with an associated texture (i.e. image or movie), with each pixel value representing intended Z-axis depth at that spot. This value is 0-255, with zero strain
no result, and 1-255 then mapped linearly to the global displacement bounds. These four planes are sent into a Java program, whose ultimate output meaning
a four-plane matrix specifying, respectively, the displaced red channel (with pixel values specifying texture displacement), the displaced blue channel (again with pixels values specifying texture displacement), the texture to sample for the red channel (with pixel values 0-4 specifying which, or no, is
and the texture to sample for the blue channel (again with pixel values 0-4 specifying which, or no, texture). Generating this result is complex and computationally costly. The basic algorithm is: for each of the four input planes, create a displaced red plane; once all four displaced layers are made, texture),
through them to derive, for each pixel, which element is ‘in front’, and which texture is associated with that pixel. Repeat this for the blue plane. scan
result is then sent to the jit.gl.slab object, which holds a custom program written in GLSL (GL Specification Language), to allow image processing to take place on the graphics processor (instead of the regular CPU), which greatly speeds up certain types of image manipulation. GLSL is a
This
21

new technological development (and does not have a complete or stable implementation between hardware manufacturers2). The GLSL program takes three inputs: (i) a four-plane matrix that contains the four (one-plane) textures, (ii) the previously described displacement & texture map, and (iii) an relatively
texture as an optional background. It then computes the actual result by using the second input as the displacement table to the first and third inputs. The final result is then defined as a GL texture, textured onto a GL plane gridshape, and rendered on to the canvas. additional
2 example, primitive types or functionality can be handled differently (or not at all) between two systems. The GLSL implementation on Apple graphics hardware, astoundingly, cannot handle branching statements. One of my biggest programming challenges was rewriting my PC-developed code into a Mac version containing no ‘if’ statements.
For
22

(In Max)
User-generated four textures (packed into one four-plane matrix)
User-generated four ‘screens’ (luminance = amount of 3D separation)
(In Java) Receives four screens and creates one four-plane matrix
1 2
3 4
Figure 2 – Raster-based anaglyph system,
optimized across Max, Java, and GLSL
1 2
3 4
1: Red-view-shifted screen elements, luminance = horizontal texture displacement lookup
2: Red-view-shifted screen elements, luminance = texture index
3: Blue-view-shifted screen elements, luminance = horizontal texture displacement lookup
4: Blue-view-shifted screen elements, luminance = texture index
(user-defined background texture)
(In GLSL) Receives textures, processed screens, and background texture to
generate result
23

Incorporation into Concert Works 2.1 Background and Intentions The forms of my projects over the last several years have been diverse: concert works for instruments and live electronics, live media performance 2
solo and with others), collaborations with theater and dance, generative media installations, programming applications (for both personal and public use), and others. A common thread through nearly all of them, is a relationship to simultaneously presented media, whether those media be a dancer, a hacked (both
printer, sampled sounds, instrumental notes, etc. Many of those forms require collaboration with another creator, and venture into fields about which plotter
have less knowledge, experience, or control. Working with video, however, remains the most potentially private (i.e. completely self-defined) and controllable medium within which to reflect my compositional ideas. When defining a style of audio-video interaction, there I
two poles which I will crudely denote as synchronized or nonsynchronized, as in whether events/gesture/content between the two media occur in a discernable simultaneous relationship or not. Non-synchorinzation often has an implication of non-intentionality; the default example is Merce are
and John Cage's collaborations, in which music and dance were created separately and put together at last moment, in order to deliberately Cunningham
intentional interaction (and allow the listener to create his/her own connections). On the other side of the spectrum, an obvious example of synchronization is cartoons, in which the physical actions of a character are typically mirrored and punctuated by instrumental effects for exaggerated
avoid
24

I specifically think of the golden age of Hollywood animation, i.e. shorts by Disney, Warner Bros., MGM, etc. This, understandably, led to the pejorative term ‘Mickey Mousing’ for obvious and persistently insensitive synced behavior. impact;
addition to being perceived as shallow or crude, other potential arguments against synchronization seem to fall into two classes. First, that if synchronized, one medium will dominate and the other medium will become subservient to it; given that we are more visually attuned (whether that In
be neurological or cultural), visuals usually win. This is exacerbated by the relative scarcity of an artist who creates both media on attunement
footing. Second, synchronization suffers from the contemporary critical disavowals of intentionality, in which an artist's total control over multiple media could be framed as foolish at best, or dictatorial at worst. The oftquoted death of the author demands passing the task of meaning-generation equal
the author to the receiver, rendering an author's attempts at cross-media connections lost or ignored or misunderstood. My own personal reasons and arguments for synchronization are partially a response to the above: that I feel that non-synchronicity is lazy, and from
denies or avoids of the responsibility of intentionality. Creating the connections between media is far more interesting, challenging, and a
aesthetically rewarding than ignoring such connections or leaving them to chance. And a ‘principled’ stand of eschewing intentionality is a paradoxical failure, since avoiding intentionality is itself an intention, and one equally prone to dogmatic tendencies as traditional intentionality. I admit that,
potentially
25

foolishly, an intermedia work can devolve into a cheesy screen saver or a flashy musical theater number or to any other form of crass spectacle. I also affirm that total control is an illusion and that much of any work's intention and nuance will be lost in communication, and that therefore much of the done
will indeed fall upon the listener regardless. Yet I would argue that our continual immersion in the technological media landscape has changed our expectation and sensitivity towards intermedia synchronization. Everything beeps at us or flashes lights or pixels interpretation
inform us of a completed action or warn us of an impending one. An ‘earcon’ (a short, recognizable aural punctuation) has become as essential to to
branding as a logo. The history and perceptual saturation of sound/music clichés in films and music videos make contemporary viewers more literate towards ironic or subversive usage. We may be desensitized towards literal relationships across electronic media; yet, corporate/commercial
also perpetually expect these literal relations, making us increasingly sensitive to their disruption or manipulation. My major reason for intermedia synchronization (and here I refer not just to sound & video, but to any configuration, such as acoustic sound with we
audio processing, or human movement with video, etc) is the mental challenge that is a natural extension of traditional musical composition. A live
may argue the inherent dissimilarity between music and other arts: they require different techniques, and lead to different results (often of very dissimilar levels of tangibility or perception). I agree with both those criticisms (which apply, respectively, to the pre-compositional preparation,
traditionalist
26

post-compositional result), but I find very little difference between the process itself of musical and video composition. My works specifically treat them as a continuous (non-narrative) space. For both I create of a series of directions that are passed on to an instrument (in the most general definition and
instrument as a tool of creation) for interpretation and translation into a sensory experience. Through this lens, composition (for any intended medium or genre), reduces to programming: a process that manipulates abstracted directions and data and translates it into a perceivable result. Perhaps this of
why I was so quickly drawn to programming as the core of my artistic method. explains
creates.3 has become increasingly recognized as a creative field: it has its own aesthetic codes of elegance and efficiency and clarity and beauty, often irrespective of the machine on which it runs or of the ultimate artistic medium that the program My own grounding in computer Programming itself
me to these tropes from within a specifically scientific standpoint that nevertheless overlapped philosophically with my developing compositional interests. science exposed
reasons of novelty, audience questions gravitate towards 'why 3D'? My experience with 3D has had significant pros and cons. On the obvious For
positive side, it is an alluring aesthetic experience that is both visceral and
3 Major milestones include two Whitney Museum Artport Commissions, ‘CODeDOC’ and ‘Software
Structures’ (http://artport.whitney.org/commissions ) and the elevation of languages such as Processing
(http://www.processing.org) to art practice curricula.
27

28 (though the recent flood of 3D Hollywood has certainly dulled that unexpected
of surprise). It adds the literal third dimension of spatialization, with its increased ability to convey complex shapes and data. From a more sociological perspective (narrowed by presenting it predominantly at performance spaces in Manhattan and Brooklyn), it has had the marked effect element
dissipating social reservation (i.e. the level of posturing and pretense) in the crowd of art consumers. I've yet to investigate this by systematic questioning of individuals, but I plan to in the future. Is it a nostalgic regression to childhood? A license to engage an artwork non-intellectually? Mere novelty? Or, perhaps of
potentially damaging, is it merely that 3D glasses signify that you are about to experience entertainment instead of art? This audience effect thus can most
two ways simultaneously: it makes people more excited and receptive, but perhaps less open to artistic engagement. The recent explosion of 3D Hollywood has of course worsened this separation between 3D and art; an anti-3D screed in the current issue of the New Yorker, while noticeably biased work
overly focused on 3D kitsch at the expense of the artistic potential of 3D, nonetheless directly addresses the issue of illusion and interpretation from within our normal ‘artistic’ two dimensions: ‘Is that not, after all, how we have learned to read a painting since the time of Giotto? We know that perspective is a trick, and that a flat surface and
for a denser and more far-reaching world, but it is an illusion of which art—in drawing and painting, in still photography, and in two-dimensional films—has availed itself with unstinting intelligence, relying on our instinct to decipher the code. What 3-D movies say to us is: You have been fooled. You were duped, all this time, into thinking that a window was a world. Only now will you get the real thing.’ [9] stands
addition to the aesthetic concerns, there are other drawbacks: viewers, especially after watching commercial 3D films, have heightened
In

for objects that will hover ever closer to their noses, something my current red-blue method is unable to deliver (though I look forward to using bigger-budget polarized setups that will). Technical challenges and venue unpredictability of course add to my headaches. The biggest hurdle, expectations
is that the aforementioned mental relaxation by viewers can occasionally turn into an antagonistic artistic response, in which audience members or art consumers will dismiss artistic creations as mere technical novelties. In my own experience, this tends to correlate to a larger conservative however,
towards art and technology, fueled by historical ignorance of the continual interdependence between art and technology. Even within new attitude
and digital art circles, there roams a suspicion of computational aesthetics and complexity, and a preference for works that only treat machines as mere tools for human communication, as if willfully denying that machines can engender an art aesthetic outside of a human-based social considerations. media
Compositional Logistics For both concert works described here, the software and correlating scheme of audio-video interaction had a previous manifestation as a live solo performance system (recordings of which are included on the DVD: 2.2
3D’ and ‘Industry’). In performance, I continuously vary a range ‘Oscilloscope
parameters improvisationally; in a concert work, however, I refrained from being a live performer, for several reasons. First, I seek some degree of precomposed intention and reproducibility in the visuals (without, of course, merely using a pre-recorded video track). Similarly, I wanted a cueing system
of
29

y retrieving detailed lists of directions, could execute more complex and well-timed behaviors than a human with a mere two hands. Perhaps most importantly, I wished to step back and experience the work (without the absorbing tasks of making my computer part not crash). These reasons for that,
a computer performer are very similar to my those that have led me to avoid live audio processing (i.e. having a microphone or pickup on instruments, and having their signal manipulated via computer in real time). My previous works had made me concerned and frustrated with the technical removing
of live sound input, especially for multiple instruments within the same space. I still compose for solo instrument and live electronics; but unpredictability
of using live processing for ensembles, I now tend to ‘cheat’ by quickly triggering many short pre-manipulated audio samples. This has the dual benefit of removing the need for a computer performer/operator, and of the computer itself, which can be replaced by a simpler (and more reliable) instead
sampler. My hopes were that the vagaries and richness of a real acoustic ensemble sound could supply enough aural variability to partially camouflage the static quality of digitally reproduced samples. In order to completely transfer the audio electronics to an on-stage hardware
I needed a controller for a generally-trained musician to trigger sound samples quickly and in rhythm with the ensemble. While more control performer,
are available on a keyboard-based controller (often with additional knobs/faders), I preferred the simplicity and visceral obviousness of percussion sample pad. A criticism of electronic music is that the physical performance motions (or relative lack thereof) do not imply the aural result in
options
30

same way as traditional instruments, severing in the audiences mind a visceral link between action and result. Yet a sample pad retains some of that expectation: hit something with a stick, and sound is made. In my experience, using it has been an effective compromise between the variability of live sound the
the complete (boring) predictability of a fixed tape track. For both these two concert pieces, I use the Roland SPD-S sample pad; Cardinality Aleph Two uses two (each paired with a piano), while American Engineer uses one (as the center of an ensemble of traditional and
The pad has nine triggers, each playing a sound (and/or affecting the video) on impact. The performer scrolls through different instruments).
of sounds throughout the piece, but only nine sounds are available at a given moment (rapid change of banks is possible, but at the expense of performance mistakes, and is therefore avoided). This limitation of nine sounds at a time poses a strict challenge to the potential for musical gradation collections
flow: the wide range of acoustic instrumental sound is paired against a static menu of nine distinct events. This drastically defines the form of the works as a sequence of states. This limitation, however, did not bother me; instead, it merely imposed upon and
a condition at which I usually arrive naturally. Yet with some care, I could still have a musical progression, if not necessarily a smooth transition, between me
Regardless of potential interpretation as large-scale insensitivity, I have always been more interested in small-scale invention, expectation, and processes rather than a crystalline large-scale structure. My software work in algorithmic composition and FFT resynthesis reflect that specific interest; in
states.
31

32 cases, relations between phrases of notes or slices of a sound are precisely both
determined at a small scale, while creating a potentially unruly and unpredictable large-scale result. In terms of maintaining a relation between electronic sound and instrumental notes, I value the Spectral use of analysis, resynthesis, and rationally
of a sound signal into discrete note data. For my own works, however, I found it less interesting to orchestrate harmonic sounds (or statically inharmonic sounds, such as bells/gongs). I have instead been drawn to sounds that are noisy, chaotic, and otherwise difficult to orchestrate. In orchestration
Aleph Two, these types of sounds include industrial ambiences, metallic clanks, and rickety motors; in American Engineer (for quintet of Cardinality
instruments), the sound source is, ironically, the recording of a full orchestra itself, though a recording of reduced fidelity, which gets further reduced to orchestration of its prominent fundamentals and overtones. Given that the orchestrated result of my chosen sound often bears only acoustic
faint resemblance to the original itself, I present the original sound and orchestrated notes simultaneously in performance. I do this not just for the ‘aha’ factor of recognizing the causal correlation that the latter is derived from the former, but also to highlight the disparity created between the two sounds. a
obvious data loss from sound to note data emphasizes the inherent inability to compress a chaotic signal into a smaller amount of information. In The
to notated pitches reflecting the resonances of sampled sounds, I also push that relation to its inversion (in Cardinality Aleph Two), where simple, synthetic tones function as the further reduction of current instrumental note
addition

That way, we have both the decomposition of complex sounds into instrumental notes, and also the decomposition of instrumental notes into simple component frequencies. A persistent personal dilemma is one common to anyone wishing to data.
new modes of interaction: to what degree should I attempt to educate the listener by introducing the basic building blocks of a work, necessarily moving from simple to complex at the start of the piece? Must the beginning of a piece necessarily be a gradual education in the processes that inform the define
Or shall the viewer be thrown instead into the middle of the action? I usually choose the former; it may be a simplistic way to start a piece, but I find piece?
worthwhile to establish the simplest overall audio/video relationship first (especially since what I think simple may not be to others, and therefore bears an extra fixation). I also want pieces understandable upon a single viewing, without the need for repeated analysis. it
dilemma of audience education becomes less of an issue for my two concert works, in each case for different reasons. For Cardinality Aleph Two, the audio-video relation is intuitable no matter what type of source material is thrown into it, so an education into relational abstractions is less essential for This
audience. For American Engineer, each section of the work differs in its set of correlations, so there is no master relationship that requires illumination; the
sections, however, may call for their own smaller-scale introduction. From those formal distinctions, the creation of the two pieces diverged into two very different audio-video compositional experiences and results; the first is more scientifically literal (while yielding many pleasant surprises), while the
individual
33

exploits subjective conceptual mapping and decision-making. 2.3 Cardinality Aleph Two 2.3.1 Design and Preparation second
audio-video system has its roots in a performance system (named, uncreatively, Oscilloscope 3D) that was itself inspired by separate oscilloscopeoriented work by Zach Layton and Ray Sweeten [10] [14]. The primary inspiration was a performance of Sweeten’s in which he fed two channels of This
tones into an XY plotting oscilloscope (in which one channel defines the X coordinate and one the Y coordinate). Trained on the display of synthesized
oscilloscope was a video camera sending a live video feed to digital projectors. By subtle changes in frequency and waveform, he generated fantastic shapes, many of a chaotic topographical nature that visually suggested a third dimension. the
visual depth his system implied through its craft, my own software made explicit, by merely adding a third channel to plot to the third dimension. Digitally, this meant the last N audio samples of each channel became the last N coordinates in a given dimension, and in doing so generates What
complex shape. This process was a perfect outlet for my then-nearlyperfected vector anaglyph system: a series of numbers to graph coordinates, a
the high frame rate necessary to show instant-by-instant change. The naturally occurring audio-visual parallels are wonderfully simple and elegant. The amplitudes of the audio channels are the scale of the shape in that dimension. Bright waveforms, such as sawtooth waves, are reflected as
with
34

35 jagged selves, while the sedate sine wave is a smooth curve. Most notably, their
shape is determined not by the absolute frequencies of the three channels, but by the ratios between them. Consonant harmonies yield a stable shape; the simpler the pitch ratio, the simpler the shape (admittedly, phase relations between channels matter visually more than aurally). Dissonant harmonies the
chaotic, unstable shapes. Slightly detuned frequencies beat against each other both aurally and visually (though we often detect the visual beating slightly before the aural). As the channels glissando past each other in different directions, they slip in and out of stability at moments of harmony. All these yield
are a strong illustration of just intonation versus equal temperament, with justly tuned triads perfectly still, but with tempered triads properties
visually grind against themselves. See figure 3 for examples of ratios projected into shape. This system represents the closest possible translation between sight and sound, but I value it also for the simpler reason that it takes absolutely no that
knowledge or training in order to appreciate it. It quickly displays musical pitch relationships not as a human-defined hierarchal construction, but as physical and mathematical facts that are sensorily intuited. One audience member similarly commented that while the audio alone would not musical
his interest for long, the visuals that reinforced the subtle gradations in audio did do so. The most common response by instrumentalists, of course, hold
an immediate desire to pipe their instrument into the system and see their own sound turned into shape.
was

Ratio 3:4:5
rotation: 0 π/4 π/2 3π/4 π
z-projection: ratio 3:4 x-projection: ratio 4:5 y-projection: ratio 3:5
Ratio 20:21:22
rotation: 0 π/4 π/2 3π/4 π
z-projection: ratio 20:21 x-projection: ratio 21:22 y-projection: ratio 20:22
Ratio 11:13:17
rotation: 0 π/4 π/2 3π/4 π
z-projection: ratio 11:13 x-projection: ratio 13:17 y-projection: ratio 11:17
Figure 3 – 3D projections of frequency ratios, as done in
performance software Oscilloscope 3D (here using sine waves)
36

solo performance system tended to be one 3D shape (or ‘orb’), fed by three (monophonic) oscillators at continuous full volume. In creating a concert work, I wanted to make two significant creative and technical leaps; the first regarding sound sources, and the second regarding performer control. My
had always enjoyed the clinical sterility of simple oscillators in solo performance, but I knew that when paired with acoustic instruments, that electronic sound would always be perceived as a simpler subordinate. The first leap was to incorporate audio samples into the system, so that the electronic I
could have a more variable relation (in terms of timbral complexity) with the piano. Of course, piping the chaotic reality of real world sounds into sound
orb yields predictably jagged chaos. This was mitigated by analyzing each sample and plotting it against its two strongest frequency components, making the shape as stable as possible. The end effect was to make whatever stable and periodic elements present in the sound as visually noticeable as possible. the
second leap was to assign a more flexible control over the audio content across three channels. Each of the nine pad elements triggers sound; usually a strike triggers all three channels corresponding to all three dimensions. It is possible, however, to trigger only one or two individual The
(e.g., one strike triggers X and Y channels to create a flat plane, and a subsequent strike triggers momentary Z channel data to make such a plane channels
with depth). Since I wanted the pad to be polyphonic, so that sounds could overlap, instead of always turning off the previous sound when a new one was triggered. Therefore, I had to envision polyphonic channels plotting the orb. This led to more complex shapes as differing waveforms summed
spike
37

and to more complex shifting between shapes as voices fade in and out. With the electronic sound and visuals fully synced, I essentially treated each piano-pad pair as one unit and had it waver between two extremities in its together,
to the piano material. One is a highlighting or reduction of the denser piano material (usually by mirroring a particular subset of pitches from the piano). With this strategy, the electronics emphasize certain tones externally; the piano figures may sound uncentered or unhierarchical (even relationship
their underlying progressions generated via the Vertex process), and so by highlighting certain pitches I attempt to bring out a hierarchy that grounds the with
material to these electronically articulated tonal pillars. Conversely, the other relational extreme takes the electronic sound (typically samples of inharmonic sounds), and has the piano material reinforce the prominent frequency components. To define these poles crudely, the first relationship has piano
as a reinforcing data reduction of the piano lines, while the second reverses this flow by having the piano as a reinforcing data reduction of the electronics. These are obviously porous definitions, and the piece both wavers between these relationships, and occasionally operates with elements of both electronics
the same time. at
primary pre-compositional task, in addition to generating raw note material through the Vertex process (described in section 1.1), was to build the software synth modules that would create the electronic sound and the visual 3D shape. These were made from a list of simple sound sources and properties:
The
38

39 sawtooth, square, filtered noise, sound files, combined with the capability sine,
cross fade between these sources, apply amplitude envelopes, and interpolate between just intonation and equal temperament. I gathered sound files whose visual projection I found pleasing or surprising; the sampled sources include: the GameBoy synth chip (which itself contains several basic to
but whose lo-fi nature adds a bright and jagged edge to both sound and visual form), stretched piano and toy piano samples (to create a momentary bridge between acoustic pianos and the audio-video element), and mechanical ambiences and impacts (usually noisy but with some prominent waveforms,
overtones that help stabilize the orb when the sound is plotted against its internal frequency components). inharmonic
I and pad I are synced, as are piano II and pad II, so the work is more akin to a duet of hybrid instruments than a true quartet; in the next section, I refer to these hybrid pairs as duo I and duo II. There is a navigation between the two relational poles that I described two paragraphs ago, as well Piano
change between the triggered sound material (synths, synths+harmonic samples, synths+inharmonic samples, brief hits combined with longer sustains, etc). The piece is an exploration of potential combinations of these states; I explored individual combinations (within a state of nine electronic as
individually, and then arranged an order between them. The title of the piece is a mathematical term describing differing increasing magnitudes sounds)
of infinity [4]. The first (0, ‘aleph zero’) is the number of all integers and decimal numbers, and the second (1) is the number of points on
(cardinalities)

line of any length. The last one (2) represents the number of all possible geometric curves and shapes. As a lyrical description of all the potential shapes within this piece, this position at the top of hierarchy of infinities has a certain grandiose appeal. a
Form Here I include a description of this piece, listed by rehearsal number. These rehearsal numbers represent commands to the percussionists to scroll to a new bank of nine sounds. The change of a bank is not necessarily intended as 2.3.2
formal delineation. While that may often turn out to be the case, there may a
be multiple formal subdivisions within one bank or multiple bank changes across one section. As implied in section 2.3.1, the overall form of the piece is a movement through different piano-electronics relations; piano notes reinforcing complex also
spectra one on end, and at the other, simple oscillators reinforcing prominent tones of dense piano figures, or in some cases a divergence in which the two operate separately of one another momentarily. All the ‘dense’ instrumental portions (i.e. rehearsal number 2, and 5-8) were generated via electronic
Vertex process and arranged with only minimal editing. The electronic specification for each pad, for within each section, was made within Max via the
instantiations of the same patch and user interface for my own compositional ease. See figure 4 for an image. 1. As previously mentioned, I wished to expose simple relations at the start to
polyphonic
40

the audio-video relations of the piece quickly intuitable; this first large section has the most obvious synchronization between piano and electronic elements. Piano triads in duo II are reflected by sine waves at the same pitches; as each piano chord dies away, the sine frequencies remain as its decomposed make
In the synth, however, there is an alternation between interpreting the triad pitches as justly intoned (reflected in the video as unmoving shapes) versus equally tempered (beating shapes). I find this duality a nice reflection of the larger-scale alternation between the two types of piano-electronics remnant.
behaviors. The entrance of duo I mimics the behavior of duo II, but introduces brighter waveforms, and foreshadows future inharmonic sound by relational
filtered noise. Both electronic voices also then introduce signals with low-frequency oscillation, whose internal rhythm outside the piano notes pushes the electronics towards a more independent relationship in the next section. introducing
I switch to an immediate contrast containing little obvious synchronization between electronics and piano. The electronic sound source changes from pure synthesis to sustained quasi-harmonic ambiences (usually noisy industrial/mechanical ambiences with somewhat prominent frequency peaks), 2.
function independently of the piano figures. The strong synchronization from the previous section, however, is meant to persist in the imagination of that
listener to create subjective connections even in the in the absence of objective connections. The series of ambiences repeats, and in m. 47 pianosynced electronic ‘hits’ appear, each giving a momentary highlight to certain tones in the increasingly busy piano part. Eventually, square wave hits over a
the
41

wave drone create a visual figure that is smooth in two dimensions and jagged in the third, over a repeating and shrinking piano phrase, accelerating to the arrival at section 3. 3. In this sparser section, stretched piano samples (triggered simultaneously sine
their acoustic equivalents) are graphed over their fundamental frequencies to create shimmering rings. This is a moment of unity, in which the electronic sound and acoustic sound are nearly the same thing, instead of merely reinforcing one another. These long tones are interrupted by occasional with
piano and electronics hits that foreshadow the next section. 4. The composition shifts to a spectral relation, with the piano playing staccato
frequencies of the sample-based electronics. In this most rhythmically straightforward and stable section, duo I has a tightly synced and ever-shifting sequence, created by simple large-scale polyrhythms (i.e. sample 1 plays every X beats, sample 2 every Y beats, and so on) with the pad prominent
a mix of metallic clanks and GameBoy synthesis . Duo II has longer synth sounds coupled with piano triads; the synth tones overlap polyphonically, yielding pleasingly unruly transitions between stable shapes. 5-7 is a larger section with less obvious internal divisions; section numbers triggering
reflect the point at which I needed to scroll to a new sound bank. Generative piano figures are supported by synth triad hits that accentuate the merely
internal repetition. These synth triads get simpler and sparser with the entry of a bass figure in m. 199. Eventually, one electronic voice begins pulsing on its own, signaling a momentary divergence from its supporting role, but returns to synchronization with sustained piano chords.
phrases’
42

In this section, the electronic synthesis hits hammer in rhythm with locally prominent piano pitches; logistically, it is limited to five available hits for each pad. At m. 300, there is a quick iteration through all five. Then it shifts to a sustained coda section: repeated low piano notes, with simple-ratio sawtooth 8.
slightly phase-detuned to create a slow internal motion. An additional synth voice adds upon these shapes to expand them in size and complexity, with yet a third voice of filtered noise fading in and out. shapes
American Engineer 2.4.1 Design and Preparation 2.4
Cardinality Aleph Two, American Engineer had its technical roots in a previous live performance system, named Industry, which was the rasterbased counterpart to Oscilloscope 3D. The name Industry came from the source materials originally used for its textures: photos from the Vitkovice Like
Heritage Site, a sprawling post-industrial site in Ostrava, Czech Republic, rife with photogenic machinery in various states of decay. I chose audio sources that reflected this aesthetic. The performance system was itself a continuation of previous experiments with (non-3D) matrix graphics, Industrial
simple shape displacements, rotations, kaleidoscope effects, and so forth, on shapes (herein denoted as the ‘screens’). The textures (i.e. the source with
applied to those shapes could also be manipulated via any effect I chose. Since the source footage does not reflect any objective quality of the source sounds (or vice versa), this system aimed to take these typically
images)
43

Parameters affecting all
three oscillators.
-Volume envelope
-Just Intonation vs Equal
Temperament
Three copes of the same
module, each defining
the output of an
oscillator
Available waveform
sources:
-Sine
-Phasor
-Square wave
(previous two have
definable duty cycle
and duty cycle LFO)
-Noise
(with bandpass filter)
-Sound file
Figure 4 – Software interface for cue and pad definition in
Cardinality Aleph Two
44

materials, and to create connections between aural and visual processes. Each image can be dynamically paired with any sound; their intended coherence is created not by the qualities in the source material, but by each medium going through processes that (hopefully) have some disparate
relation. More simply expressed, when an image and a sound (existing among other images and sounds) are distorted simultaneously, they gain a perceptual bonding they did not have before. Digital sound and video both reduce to a stream of ones and zeroes, and perceptual
order to create my intended simultaneous distortions, could both easily be treated exactly the same arithmetically (I refer to this as the ‘brute arithmetic’). in
human perception of different media require a necessary range of (human) decision-making in order to create relations that may make any sort of (subjective) sense. Immediately upon creating such a program, low-level decisions must be made about how to digitally treat a media stream in a way Yet
to human experience. For example, a sound stream unpacks into a one dimensional stream of information, while a video stream unpacks into discrete series of two-dimensional tables (i.e. individual frames). These obvious formal differences typically make the results of some (though not all) appropriate
brute arithmetic processes at best dissimilar to our perception, and at worst transform one or both media into noise. So while I would usually begin such
the ‘brute’ computational/arithmetical process, I would often reconsider and move towards a more perceptible, if less objective, correspondence. The most stable correlations (at least, within a particular section of the piece) are between the processes on the sound samples and on the source video
with
45

These are listed in order of the most objective to the least, using my own judgement. -Amplitudebrightness. The most basic and common example is simply that a video sample appears at the start of a sound and disappears at textures.
end of it. Yet this relationship is broken in some cases and videos remain visible after a sound ends, usually to associate itself with the instrumental line that remains after the sampled sound. -Time-fragmented audio sample playbacktime-fragmented video the
playback. Again, this an obvious-sounding correlation, that skipping around in time within one medium can be reflected in the other. This is done sample
within one sample (for example, the fragmented timpani sample near the end of section 6) or across multiple samples made via ‘Reconstitution’ or ‘Splicing’. These latter constructions are made from fragments from multiple audio files, reflected in its corresponding video sample made from multiple both
video files (prominent in sections 4, 9, 10, among others). -Echobrightness sliding. As an echo blurs the time-specificity of a sound by imparting copies of it over a specified amount of time, so does brightness sliding (i.e. the jit.slide Max object) cause a pixel value to ramp to correlating
next frame’s value over a specified number of frames. I admit to intervening in this process, however, for aesthetic purposes: pure sliding (i.e. sliding both its
and down) creates a ghostly mush, whereas merely sliding down allows brighter shapes and motion to remain more visually intelligible. -Audio distortion image quantization. In both cases, the medium is degraded by reducing the allowable range of measurement (of amplitude in the
up
46

and pixel brightness in the video). This leads to quantization distortion in the sound, and reduction to fewer available brightness values in the video (which causes sharp, high-contrast shape outlines). I admit again to slight interventions to improve perceptual clarity: the proper aural corollary for this sound,
would be not the clipping distortion I use here, but bit-depth reduction distortion. -Sample rate reduction (i.e. ‘degradation’) pixilation. These are arithmetically exactly the same; for audio, however, the sampling rate is a one- action
parameter, and for video it is a two-dimensional parameter (pixilation in the X direction and in Y direction). But since I am using stereo dimensional
files, I make a perceptual leap and have the X pixilation correspond to sample rate reduction in the left channel, and Y pixilation do likewise to the right channel. -Instrumental relation to electronics ‘carve’ effect (in which pixel sound
below a threshold is omitted and treated as transparent). Aurally, this provides a bridge between instruments and electronics, while visually providing a bridge between the movie texture and rectangular screens that they are textured onto, by imparting the shape of the texture onto the screens. brightness
this usually reflects as a thinning of the pitch content in chords, (e.g. at the end of section 6) or of spectral content (high string chords in Instrumentally
5). -Instrumental relation to electronics wrapped brightness addition (i.e. a Max object specified as [jit.op @op +m]). This effect causes brightness shifting in the video, and usually (but not always) corresponds by changing the
section
47

of the strings (from normal, to sul tasto or sul ponticello), which similarly changes the relative magnitudes of the instrument’s frequency spectrum (e.g. the end of section 6). Note that these rules are not rigid, and that divergences (especially bowing
the instruments) and exceptions abound occur. Correlations involving the position of the ‘screen’ shapes, and the acoustic instruments, are even more subjective than the above list, and variable throughout the piece. As in Cardinality Aleph Two, the specifications for each pad, within each cue, involving
into polyphonic instantiations of modular interface. See figure 5. solidified
Industry paired unrelated audio and image, American Engineer contains an explicit connection between the audio and video source materials. All the audio and video samples (and the title for my piece) come from American Engineer, a corporate-sponsored ephemeral film from 1956, Whereas
extolls the glory of American industrial ingenuity and resolve. I regret that its glorious Technicolor hues and its fantastically bombastic narration are omitted from the concert piece. Visually, it is an absolute feast of industrial and mechanical footage: construction sites, quarries, every major mode of which
assembly lines, factories, bridges, cities, and pristine highways, upon which the viewer would rush to drive a new Chevrolet, lovingly unveiled transportation,
the finale. The music is likewise a pure archetype of commercialized optimism, redefining grand orchestral gestures into signifiers of industrial might: blasting brass fanfares, mechanical percussion, sweeping strings, all culminating into heavenly choirs that announce America's ascension into
in
48

economic dominance. I use the unmodified A/V samples from the start and end of the film as the bookends for my piece, specifically to show that the concert work functions within the bounds of the original material contained therein. global
do not use this footage for any simple political point. I realize the loaded material will cause viewers to automatically impart their own feelings onto an interpretation of the piece, as either promotional aestheticization or denigrating defacement. Many contemporary concert-goers might be amused I
the sheer innocence of the film, and perhaps simultaneously be unsettled by its duplicity as propaganda. Yet I can't help be enthralled by it as an aesthetic by
from a specific context that, whether it ever really existed or not, I will never experience, nor shall anyone experience ever again. 2.4.2 Form artifact
as in describing Cardinality Aleph Two, the piece is described here using the percussion cue numbers as the formal delineation. For clarification: ‘instrumental’ refers to the acoustic instruments (but not percussion pad) and ‘sample’ refers to the pre-made audio or video samples, which are drawn from Just
source film but possibly manipulated/distorted/fragmented. The largestscale form is essentially the classic fast-slow-fast trilogy, elements of which are the
discernable in the electronic audio. There, it is reflected as a move from the discrete percussive hits of the first 5 sections, to the more sustained ambiences of sections 6-8, with section 9 transitioning back into predominately momentary hits for the rest of the piece.
most
49

50 in Cardinality Aleph Two (C.A.T.) nearly all the ‘dense’ instrumental As
were generated via the Vertex process. In this piece, however, the raw note output was compositionally altered to a greater degree than in C.A.T., often with added small-scale looping, reduction to only one musical dimension (for example only using the generated rhythm information while discarding sections
pitch), or some additional generative manipulation (as noted below). And unlike with C.A.T., where the video was essentially a result of the audio signal (and therefore needed no additional ‘composing’), the raster-based video system in this piece requires far more compositional intention. This makes the the
through schemes of ‘screen’ composition an additional (and often primary) aspect of the form. With instrumental notes, electronic sound, and journey
composition now far more distinct than in C.A.T., the arrangement of (essentially discrete) sections is therefore guided by balancing continuity with contrast for each of the three elements separately. video
This intro section serves only to play the title frame and music from the original source film. It has only one pad to trigger, but had to be its own section since I used all the pads within section two. When composing a section, I tend to use all nine pads within my ideas for what a section ‘does’. This, 1.
means that there are often no pads left over for transitional effects between sections. however,
As in Cardinality Aleph Two, I intend the piece to begin with the simplest and most intelligible relations among the acoustic sound, the electronic sound, and the visuals. Here, a fanfare from the original score is divided into nine hits,
2.

distinct in either pitch or dynamic, with instruments mimicking pitch material, and the depth/position/size of each video screen correlated to each hit. There are three fanfare chords, and three timbral/rhythmic/dynamic each
of each, yielding the nine samples assigned to the nine pads; the chord maps to the X position of the triggered video screen, and the selected variation maps to the size, depth, and texture of the video screen. 3. This brief transitional section contains harsh chords that are a spectral variations
of a score sample, which quickly plays (both aurally and visually) underneath each chord hit. This is a premonition of section 8, in amalgamation
the same samples (and orchestrated spectra) are stretched out and held in time. But for this section, the spatial positioning of the previous section is retained, but with a different relation to the sound: each of the three hits corresponds to the lateral screen placement and movie texture selection (with which
playback speed reflected in the speed of the movie texture playback), but each of the three hits cycles the shape through three possible depth placements. The resulting effect is that of the three hits overlapping and jumping on top of one another. sample
This part is instrumentally simple and repetitive, but is performed in tandem with A/V samples that are internally fragmented. Both audio and 4.
samples were created using the ‘Reconstitution’ method of section 1, with the ‘trigger’ sound being the instrumental pitch that to which it correlates here; this way, an instrument and associated audio sample will be as close, in terms of pitch and timbre, as the chaotic audio source material allows. The aural
video
51

across various source samples is also reflected in the video. For each of the nine pad hits, that screen and texture are x/y displaced by some constant, so that the shapes drift across the screen and interact chaotically. While visually and aurally (though not instrumentally/rhythmically) dense, I fragmentation
this as a grounding contrast to other sections which tend to be more instrumentally complex. 5. The start of section 5 contains one of the few moments of overlap between consecutive sections; two instruments (and their accompanying A/V see
continue from section 4 for another ten measures. The other instruments start a new, more spastic and staccato, set of generative patterns correlations)
rhythms, but not pitches were created via the Vertex process), which correlate to a new set of interlocking screen positionings to create a spiraling pattern. Pads 7 to 9 continue the sounds and visual behavior of the preceding section; pads 1-4 trigger sounds and cycle through a series of screens creating (whose
corkscrew effect, while pads 5 and 6 trigger distorted+degraded sounds with their associated quantized+downsampled images. 6. The genesis of section 6 is one source sample, stretched out with a phase vocoder, along with its accompanying held instrumental spectrum (in the the
and three movie textures. These three texture elements alternate between unmodified, distorted (which alters the movie texture, electronic strings),
and instrumental spectrum), and degraded (which alters the three yet again). Over this foundation of gradually increasing alternation, the flute and clarinet are associated with other shapes and movie textures, and also attempt to instrumentally reflect distortion and degradation in their pitch material and
sound,
52

technique. Their notes and associated electronic material are eventually fragmented in unison with one another. A small divergence starts near the end of the section, in which string spectra shorten and leave gaps where only the stretched electronic source plays. blowing
The preceding rhythmic quickening explodes at the start of the this section; while the electronic sound and visuals remain somewhat ambient, instruments have busier note material. This note material was generated by taking a small generated musical figure (generated via the Vertex process and presented in its 7.
form near the end of the piece) and drunk-walk-scrubbing (i.e. randomly scrolling within) each instrumental line. Each instrument (except original
is associated with a sustained electronic spectrum; each instrumentelectronic pair enters and exits simultaneously throughout the section. Occasional hits cause distortion and degradation to fade in and out of the electronic sound and image (causing a divergence, as the instrumental flute)
remains intact during these parameter swells). 8. The busy instrumental motion of the previous section here comes to a halt, with instruments reflecting multiple spectra for each of three phase-vocoderstretched samples (with the movie textures slowed down to enhance the behavior
sense of stillness). Glissandi between these spectra are first reflected by engaging low-frequency oscillation to slowly move the screens, and momentary
by the kaleidoscope effect (zooming out of a matrix to have four copies mirroring each other). This happens as the changes between the spectra quicken into a rhythmic figure of alternating instrumental bursts; these accelerate to a halt, leaving the electronic media alone for a moment.
then
53

eenter more placidly, with the entrance of the carve effect now correlating to a reduction in instrumental pitches, while the swelling of the wrapped brightness addition in the video mirrored by bowing shifts to sul tasto and back. Instruments
Here, audio and video samples are examples of the ‘Splice’ process, which makes quick cuts between disparate samples at moments of greatest spectral similarity. The durations of the splice samples shorten over the section, which functions as a transition from the electronic aural ambience of the previous 9.
into the more percussive nature of the rest of the piece. This process is combined with a duo instrumental riff culled from the Vertex process and then sections
with its downward cycles slightly rhythmically offset from one another. A string chord swell punctuates the introduction of the ‘carve’ effect and a zoom into the video material. 10. This section is a brief revisitation of material from section 4, with the looped,
of a couple of distorted and degraded hits (along with distorted instrumental attacks). The kaleidoscope entrance here is mirrored temporally as a doubling, and then a quadrupling, of note attacks. 11. The sixteenth note figures of the end of the previous section are a transition substitution
the figuration here, which is a repetition of the end of section 7. The source score (from which an algorithmic process generated section 7) is then to
instrumentally in its original form, without electronics. Immediately upon its conclusion another algorithmic process acts upon that source score material, a process that gradually interpolates pitch and rhythm data between the original and its fragmented reconstruction. This serves as a momentary
presented
54

of the piece, before the energy is reconstrained in the next section. The pad hits trigger a mix of screen displacements and quick entrances and exits of processes. 12. This is a continuation of material from section 5, which serves as the coda climax
the piece, relaxing from climax to rest; electronic media gets magnified and distorted yet again, with the instruments then dropping out for a slow electronics cadenza. This cadenza leaves an abstract field of distorted audio and twitching disembodied pixels through a combination of texture effects. for
From within that preceding entropy appears the orchestral finale from the source film, along with its visual announcement of the end of both the source 13.
film and of the concert work.
55

Dots on the matrix control signify that parameter is enabled, and the
command is sent, for this scheme
The upper-right panel contains the separate sound-generating
components, used during the compositional process to audition sounds,
but disabled in performance once audio samples are loaded into the
sample pad
Figure 5 – Software interface for cue and pad definition in
American Engineer
56

Commentary What follows are ruminations; some have bubbled in my mind for some time, while many have surfaced in the writing of these two concert works (though not all are directly relatable to them). I pose more questions than I 3.
answers, along with implicit suggestions for my own future investigations. In previous writings [5], I have discussed computer compositional aims as creating one’s own path between computational layers of abstraction. In the give
sense, this journey takes us from hardware bits to assembly code to programming languages to applications, user interfaces, and operating grandest
These layers are the geologic record of computer development, with a history of tools and methods for traversing them. Any large program contains its own unique hierarchy of structures, ranging from low-level (working with primitive-type variables, directly accessing relevant memory and hardware, systems.
to high-level (creating large-scale modular abstractions with userdefinable properties and behavior). The parallels to composition (or, at least, to modes of composition with hierarchical or layered structures), seem evident. A traditional composer may etc),
subvert, or recreate the boundaries and paths between musical abstractions (i.e. pitches abstracting to tonality, or momentary properties to use,
form, etc) to play with an audience’s sense of cause and effect; so too may a programmer define his or her own correlations and causations. In the discrete formulations of computer language, the conceptual abstractions in the mind of the composer must be transcribed into an objectively
large-scale
57

statement, thus intertwining the notion of abstraction between the mental formulation and the mechanical instantiation. In the concert works, I see the relationships between the three media as an extension of this navigation among computational layers; the geological unambiguous
of the piece’s development begins at low levels of software construction, upon which associations and forms are made, until we build up to the top level of the piece. My lower-level development described in section 1 was intended to generate material at the local level of a composition (discrete sound record
phrases of notes, instantaneous 3D video shapes); these materials are then treated like any other raw material for (human) composition. I am samples,
subconsciously guided by a vague notion of computational aesthetics (and a general desire to show off the range of capabilities of a tool or process), but the qualities or features of the software-created material do not necessarily determine the concepts of their higher-level combinations, nor the large-scale certainly
In section 2, I debated whether the local-level constructions and correlations of a synchronized intermedia work should be explained at the start of a piece through a step-by-step progression from simpler to more form.
relations. Yet that question itself builds upon a much larger question: is it easier for an audience to grasp a newly composed system of correlations complex
between synchronized disparate media, or between performer gesture and result) at lower layers of abstraction? We recognize, without training or explanation, obvious low-level correlations: push a button and a sound is made, or start a sound and a visual element appears. But at the (individually
(either
58

point where our mental correlation breaks down (or perhaps more accurately, when the mental correlation diverges from the intentions of composer to the subjective constructions of the viewer), what can, or should, be done to improve the audience understanding of the aims of a piece? subjective)
one of us brings our own biases in answering that question. My own short attention span and interest in chaotic forms may be antithetical to such a question’s implicit desire for rationalized complexity; my personal compositional emphasis tends to be based therefore on immediately tangible Each
correlations. This is why I enjoy generating musical material on the Nintendo GameBoy: if I may momentarily define the term ‘musical’ as low-level
an instrument or process having enough parameters to create an interesting and non-static sound, then using the GameBoy (and native sequencing software on it) is the closest musical relationship that I have experienced between hardware, software, and the resulting sound. Yet even describing
low-level software relationship, with its fairly direct access to the soundgenerating hardware, has certain pre-envisioned musical concepts and workflows built into it. Such is the case for any layer-traversal device/software built by someone other than the composer; through abstraction, certain this
fall by the wayside in the name of specifying a more limited and usable set of behaviors. These technological paths of least resistance become the most powers
at highest-level functionality, especially within user interfaces: users will gravitate towards the easier tasks and away from the harder. I have settled into my own working position between high and low with Max; a flexible programming language that can, in theory, implement any task that a regular
noticeable
59

language can (i.e. is equally powerful), through 'objects' that provide a pre-made set of functionality and saves much of the busy work of implementing direct hardware access. Yet there are certainly noticeable paths of least resistance that surely affect me unintentionally; I admit my own desire programming
higher-level convenience and respect those who choose to work on a lower level. Some take this desire for low-level functioning to a far more serious degree than I, for reasons of not only aesthetics but of assumed power for
Media theorist Friedrich Kittler specifically claims within the very title of his essay ‘There is no Software’ [7], that the notion of software as structures.
entity divorced from specific hardware is a political/industrial 'postmodern strategy of appearance'. He describes layers of abstraction eloquently, with the explicit point that both the delineation of hardware and software, and also the layers of computational abstraction that such divisions abstract
are politically-determined acts of obfuscation, stratification, and governance: 'Programming languages have eroded the monopoly of ordinary language and grown into a new hierarchy of their own. This postmodern tower of Babel reaches from simple operation codes whose linguistic extension is still a hardware encourage,
passing through an assembler whose extension is that very assembler...What remains a problem is only the realization of these layers which, just as modern media technologies in general, have been explicitly contrived in order configuration
evade all perception. We simply do not know what our writing does.' In an accompanying essay [8], Kittler specifically refers to the thennovel ‘protected-mode’ functionality on an Intel 80306 computer chip, which
to
60

the end user from complete access to the contents and powers of the chip, limiting his or her access to the hardware as decreed by the manufacturers. His descriptions seem only that much more prescient today, as commercial computer hardware has become more and more inaccessible to a blocked
user, and the dominant operating systems have ballooned from simple and intelligible frameworks into giant labyrinths deliberately designed to obscure their inner workings. And their inner workings are so convoluted and camouflaged as to yield robust programming nearly impossible. Decades ago, regular
developer may have been able to fully understand the workings of a major operating system such as Microsoft Windows. Today, Microsoft Windows one
of a purported 50 million lines of code, knotted amongst a staggering 50 dependence layers [11]; no one person can truly grasp it. It is, as Kittler’s definition of technology perfectly encapsulates, an entity grown beyond any human control and logic. The irony is that the more complex and obfuscating a consists
operating system is, the more its protectionist creators tout it as 'userfriendly'. While those examples indeed provide evidence of industrial obfuscation and self-protection, I do not see all increases in computational abstraction new
those designed by an individual for his or her own usage) to be inherently malicious. Technological advances depend on this very type of (especially
complexity; science is based upon the furtherance of the discoveries and designs of others, not on perpetual creation from scratch. Practically speaking, I would get nothing done if I barred myself from any programming language beyond Assembly. And I do believe in the conceptual existence and
increasing
61

62 of software separate from its enabling hardware, just as I believe in functioning
work of art existing beyond its physical instantiation (for example, I value less the physicality of the paper, binding, and font of a book than the content inscribed into it, and likewise value less the instruments that happen to be playing notes, than the musical score that directed them). My own training in a
for example, presupposes a method for solving a task (and also an idea of efficiency or elegance) that works regardless of the programming language or computer hardware it runs upon. I wonder how Kittler responds to the development of ‘virtual machines’, i.e. hardware emulation in software that algorithms,
a piece of code to work on any type of hardware. What troubles me in an artistic sense, however, is how both malicious allows
and innocent abstraction affect the critical and popular perception of digital art and music. The farther a machine or process operates away from concepts commonly grasped, the more this knowledge gap gets filled by mysticism. A computer becomes not a deterministic sequencer of arithmetic obfuscation
(which alone should be enough to excite an artist) but something 'magical' and unpredictable, with insight and understanding granted only to a privileged and cloistered few. This mysticism also certainly helps elevate a mere calculator into a desirable consumer fetish object. As I write this, the processes
page of apple.com trumpets its newest piece of hardware as a 'magical and revolutionary product'. front
a computer falsely endowed with mystical and unpredictable properties, critical understanding confuses the potential of the tool with the intention (artistic or otherwise) of its user: one jumps to the conclusion that
With

aesthetic properties of a work must have been determined by the particulars of a machine, not by the intellectual or creative effort of the composer or artist. The frustrating problem, of course, is that this view is not necessarily inaccurate. The aforementioned technological paths of least the
do lead a novice, uninspired, or lazy artist to exactly that state of not manipulating, but of being manipulated. Of course every composer will be guided by the means in front of him or her; my hope is merely that, by creating my own tools, I will have more say in the result than another human designer. resistance
this commercially-encouraged mystical construct leads to a deliberate misuse of the term ‘power’. ‘Power’ has a specific meaning as Similarly,
to computers, describing the range of tasks that a computer can, for lack of a better term, ‘do’. Since the formulation of the Turing Machine in 1937 as a descriptor of logical processes, there has been no increase in computer power. Speed, on the other hand, has increased exponentially, and brought applied
the time required to complete a computational task. Yet new devices or computer chips are popularly portrayed as increasing in power, directly emphasizing that the newer and faster your machine, the more mystical power it contains. This helps to negate digital work (artistic and otherwise) that is not down
on the newest and most expensive technology, as (falsely) more ‘supernaturally’ impotent than its more powerful descendants. Fortunately, the made
artistic and techno-political involvement of the DIY/hacker scene, combined with its increasing incorporation into mainstream art narratives, has helped challenge this assumption in elegant and beautiful ways that not only revalue previous (and more open) technologies, but also restore authorship to
growing
63

individual instead of the machine. Whatever social or political ramifications digital design may imply, Kittler still seems to support, as I do, the appreciation of a computational process as an aesthetic event: ‘Whoever manages to hear the circuit diagram the
in the synthesizer sounds of the compact disc, or to see the circuit diagram in the laser storm of the discotheque, finds happiness itself’ [6]. It is precisely this type of sublime awareness that I strive to create by compacting distinct media into a unified work. The ambiguity in such a quotation is itself
the circuit is to be appreciated as a reflection of the composer’s mind, or as the site of the art-making itself. I consider my synchronized audio and whether
works as a simultaneous dual view into that circuit, i.e. two windows onto the ‘composed’ computational process that is the heart of the work. I take particular delight when this dual view, as in ‘Oscilloscope 3D’, is naturally intelligible or intuitable to non-musicians. Likewise, my simultaneous video
of sampled sounds and spectrally-informed instrumental notes are this same dual view extrapolated outside the computer; the chaotic and infinitely complex circuit of nature and natural sound is juxtaposed with its computational reduction into discrete pitches and durations. presentation
ordeal of computational composition has another inherent ambiguity within computational aesthetics which continues to perplex me. The The
of reducing an audio sample into an orchestrated series of notes inherently causes the loss of a great deal of data. This seems to posit that reality cannot be reducible into a discrete description (i.e. music), a fact that seems to diminish computer artistic power (in the lyrical, not technical, usage
process
64

the term) while also asserting that art != life. Yet paradoxically, given that computer speeds greatly exceed those of a human scale, a computer is far more equipped to make an artistic statement with natural chaotic complexity than, for example, a lone human flailing on a physical instrument. of
aforementioned hacker/DIY aesthetic also subverts the traditional view of what it means to look or sound ‘dated’. My frequent incorporation of outdated’ technologies (simple synthesis, GameBoy synthesis, anaglyph 3D, old Technicolor footage) within a very contemporary software system The
that term even further. If we are to momentarily define ‘good’ as confuses
risen into a canon’, must a good piece necessarily sound or look less dated than a bad one? Such a question can be separately applied between compositional forms and styles, and the instrumental sound result itself; one half can be more or less dated-seeming than the other. I am ‘retrospectively
predominately referring to the latter, specifically towards electronic sound. I seem to find an ambiguous usage of the concept of ‘datedness’, as between merely a description that incorporates passed time, versus an insult to claims on the timelessness of art. It seems an affront to enlightenment or henceforth
views that time and technology may indeed pass, and that the development of either time or technology may affect or splinter a dominant modernist
instead of leaving that canon to function within a supposed logical urmovement that, in its unidirectional march towards perfection, could never age. In considering electronic sound sources, a sound may be a definite
canon,
65

of an outmoded technology, but to those familiar with the technology itself, it is also a reminder specific and idiosyncratic constraints of that technology (and of the skill necessary to make music within those constraints). Is a new version of an electronic piece, realized on faster and indication
complex machines, either less enjoyable or appreciable than the original made on a more constrained (and perhaps by now archaic) technology? I tend to conclude that while the newer version may or may not be more aurally pleasing, it is usually less conceptually appreciable. A pop example: Kraftwerk more
their late 70’s hits (on analog synths) and remade them on mid-90’s digital technology. I prefer the originals. Not only for appreciating the superior took
needed to realize them, but also for the appreciation that they originally built their own equipment from scratch, rather than using commercial hardware or computers. The newer versions are fun to listen to, but feel like the aural equivalent of a splashy Hollywood remake of a cherished original, skill
in which the emphasis on flash comes at the expense of thoughtful storytelling. Similarly, so many canonical experimental electronic works, which originally had a specific physicality combined with some technical challenge or limitation, are now easily virtually realized in a Max patch one
that come to mind include Reich’s tape phasing pieces, Lucier’s ‘I am Sitting in a Room’, or Young’s ‘Dream House’). But who would be (examples
in listening to that? The speed of technical innovation has left a history of pieces that are largely definable as a demonstration and/or artistic appropriation of a new technology. I wonder whether or not, and at what point in time, an
interested
66

piece will not merely be a demonstration of its technology, but be judged on a blank canvas of aesthetic possibility outside of its technology. Must all electronic pieces inherently be ‘about’ their technical systems and boundaries? This seems unfair, given that instrumental music electronic/electroacoustic
generally considered that way. At some point in a traditional instrument’s development, it ceased to be an object of novelty defined by its limitations and gained some sort of common practice and style on its own, after which it gained something like a Platonic status (even though those limitations remain, isn’t
just fade from consciousness). Yet is that arrival to an ideal freed from particulars only possible after an instrumental technology has stopped they
and calcified into a fixed form? One could argue that this change has begun to happen with electronic music, with digital software a common platform on which to model the historical hodgepodge of analog and digital hardware, and with computer developing
and operating systems coalescing into a handful of dominant platforms. Yet of course there is always disorder and incompatibility, especially on brand new developments, before eventually becoming subsumed into the dominant high-powered workflows. If calcification is required for that Platonic softwares
it seems that electronic music is such a completely different creature from traditional instruments in that not only will it continue to change form, status,
its power and ability to change and customize itself will never yield it stable enough to be widely considered as a Platonic instrument. Yet perhaps the degree to which this is true is less about dominant usage, and more about an individual development and narrative. I still feel it true for my own work, but I
but
67

new systems/methods for nearly every project, and so result always feels like exemplar of that system which I have just created. Once I make many pieces on a system, perhaps I will feel otherwise, that within a body of work, the embodiments and limitations, while still present and affecting the develop
have begun to fade from self-critical view.
outcome,
68

[1] Cook, Perry R. Real Sound Synthesis for Interactive Applications. A.K. Peters, Ltd, 2002 [2] Didkovsky, Nick. JMSL (programming language) References
[3] Ellis, Dan et al. MEAP (group) http://works.music.columbia.edu/MEAP/MusicEngineeringArtProject [4] Gamow, George. One Two Three…Infinity. Viking Press, New York, 1961 http://www.algomusic.com/jmsl/
Iglesia, Daniel. ‘This is not a C#: What My Computer Means’. Organized Sound 13.3 December 2008 [5]
Arts International. 1985 Film, Typewriter’ (preface) In J. Johnson (ed.) Literature, Media, Information Systems: Essays. Amsterdam: GB [7] Kittler, Friedrich. ‘There is no Software’. In J. Johnson (ed.) Literature, ‘Gramophone, Friedrich. Kittler, [6]
Information Systems: Essays. Amsterdam: GB Arts International. 1985 [8] Kittler, Friedrich. ‘Protected Mode’. In J. Johnson (ed.) Literature, Media, Information Systems: Essays. Amsterdam: GB Arts International. 1985 Media,
Lane, Anthony. ‘Third Way’. The New Yorker 8 March 2010 [10] Layton, Zach. http://www.zachlaytonindustries.com [11] Maraia, Vincent. The Build Master: Microsoft’s Software Configuration Management Best Practices Addison-Wesley Professional, 2005 [9]
Ramocki, Marcin (curator). BITMAP: As Good as New , VertixList Gallery http://www.vertexlist.net/BITMAP_catalogue.html
[12]
69

Schwarz, Diemo. ‘Corpus-Based Concatenative Musical Sound Synthesis’ http://concatenative.net/ [14] Sweeten, Ray. http://www.raysweeten.com
[13]
70

Cardinality
Aleph
Two
by Daniel Iglesia
for two piano and two electronic
percussion, with live video
daniel.iglesia@gmail.com - 917 557 0321
71

Percussion notes
The electronic percussion is a Roland SPD-S sample pad (mapping changable upon request), outputing to stereo speakers.
cue markings correspond to sound banks to step through
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
œœœœœ ÷c5œœœœ
All
ã
samples are "one-hit". Dashed lines are for reference, and show the approx.
duration of longer samples
All dynamic markings mirror the dynamics of the accompanying piano line.
You should attempt to blend as equally as possible with the piano∑
œœœŒ ã˙
About
This work is built upon an evolving audio & video system based on oscilloscopes.
Here, each "orb" is created by three oscillators or samplers. The audio output of
each becomes drawn coordinates in space; the first maps to the X dimension,
second to Y, and third to Z. This is the most literal and low-level possible mapping
of sound and visuals. Inspired by work by Ray Sweeten and Zach Layton.
Tech notes
Tech setup is relatively simple. The sample pads contain all the audio and go
straight to the speakers. Their MIDI output goes to a computer running a Max
patch, which uses the MIDI to trigger internal audio that generates the video
in real time. The video can be projected single channel or dual channel.
72

&?ã&?ã
c
Perc. I
Perc. II
Piano I
Piano II
q»¢º
1
Marcato, Leisurely
FF
∑
w
w∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
w∑
œŒÓ
∑
w∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
b∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
b∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
w∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
w∑
œŒÓ
∑
w∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
b∑
œŒÓ
&?ã&?ã F
10Œ.
˙
˙
10Œ.
˙
10ŒœÓ
10w
b
10∑
10œŒÓ
œ
œ.
˙
b
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
w
w∑
œŒÓ
œ.
˙
˙
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
w
w∑
œŒÓ
œ
œ.
˙
b
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
w∑
œŒÓ
œ.
˙
˙
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
w
b∑
œŒÓ
œ
œ.
˙
b
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
w
b∑
œŒÓ
œ.
˙
˙
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
˙
˙˙
˙
∑
œŒœŒ
œ
œ.
˙
b
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
˙
˙˙
˙
∑
œŒœŒ
73
Cardinality Aleph Two Iglesia

&?ã&?ã
18œ.
˙
18œ.
˙
18ŒœÓ
18˙˙
18∑
18œŒœŒ
œ.
˙
˙
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
˙
b˙
∑
œŒœŒ
œ
œ.
˙
N
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
˙
˙ ˙
˙
∑
œŒœŒ
œ˙œ
œ
œ˙œ
ŒœŒœ
˙
˙˙
˙∑
œŒœŒ
œ
œ˙œ
b
œ˙œ
ŒœŒœ
˙˙
∑
œŒœŒ
œ˙œ
œ
œ˙œ
ŒœŒœ
˙
b˙
∑
œŒœŒ
œ
œ˙œ
b
œ˙œ
ŒœŒœ
.
œ
œjœ
œ.
œ
œjœ
œ
∑
œ‰j
œœ‰Jœ
&?ã&?ã
25œ˙ œ
œ
25œ˙œ
25ŒœŒœ
25.
œj
œ
b.
œj
œ
25 ∑
25œ‰Jœœ‰Jœ
œ
œ˙œ
b
œ˙œ
ŒœŒœ
.
œ
œj
œ.
œ
œj
œ
∑
œ‰j
œœ‰Jœ
œ˙ œ
œ
œ˙œ
ŒœŒœ
.
œ
bjœ
œ.
œjœ
œ
∑
œ‰j
œœ‰Jœ
œ
œ˙ Œ
œ˙ Œ
ŒœÓ
Ӝ
œœ
œŒ
∑
ÓœœŒ
∑
Œœ
œœ
œÓ
∑
ŒœœÓ
∑
Œœ
œœ
œÓ
∑
ŒœœÓ
74

&?ã&?ã
q»§º
2
Slightly faster and lighter
31˙˙
#
31˙˙
#
31w
31∑
31∑
31∑
.
œ
œ
#œ
œ
#.
œ
n
∑
Ó‰.
œ
Ó‰.
œ
Ó‰.
œ
˙˙
#
˙˙
#∑
Jœ.
œ.
œ
œJœ
Jœ.
œ.
œ
œJœ
∑
.
œ
œ
#œ
œ
#.
œ
n
∑
œ˙œ
œ˙œ
∑
∑
˙˙
wJœ.
œ
œ.
œj
œ
Jœ.
œ
œ.
œ‰
ӌ.j
œ
.
œ
œ
bœ
œ.
œ
∑
.
œj
œœœ
œ
ÓŒœ
œ
∑
∑
˙˙
∑
jœ
œ.
œ˙
Jœ
œ.
œÓ
∑
&?ã&?ã
38.
œ
œ
b œ
œ.
œ
38 ∑
38 ∑
38.
œjœ
œœ
œœ
38Œ‰Jœ
œœ
œœ
38 ∑
∑
˙ ˙
#
wœœœj
œ.
œ
Jœ‰ŒÓ
‰.
œÓ
.
œœ
œ.
œ
∑
.
œ
œj
œœœ
.
œ
œj
œœŒ
∑
∑
˙˙
#∑
œœj
œ.
œ
œ
Ó‰.
œ
œ
∑
.
œœ
œ.
œ
∑
.
œj
œ.
œj
œ
.
œ‰Ó
Œ.j
œÓ
75

43 ∑ &?ã&?ã
˙ #
43˙
œ. œ
43Œœœ.
œ
43œœ
œjœ
43w
43
48œ3
5 œjœ ˙
48
5
.
œ ∑
48Ó Œœ œj &?ã&?ã
Œ.
f
œœ .
œ ∑ œ.
jœ œ œ
œ ∑ ÓŒ‰jœ
j œ ˙
œœ. œ œ
3 Ó œ
48œ bœ. bœœœ
48Ó
3 Ó œ
48Ó
b œœœ
˙˙ # ∑
œ œœÓ ∑
œœÓ ∑ œ
œœ œ. œ .
∑
b œœœ œœœ‰j œ. œœ Ó Œ ‰.Rœ œœœœœ
œ. œœ. œ j œ œ bœœ b œ nœœ nœœœ ‰j œ œœ ‰Jœ‰.Rœ.
5
5
small accel....
5 ‰˙ b
3
5 œ œ b˙œœ ‰. ‰˙ ∑ f˙
œœœœ‰. œ w b. œ
...to here
f f
5 œ œ. œ œ f
Ó ˙ . œœœœœœ
œœ5 œ. œ . œ œ‰j œ b. œœ b ‰j œ.
œœ‰.Rœ5 œ œ.
76

q»•º Œ . Œ . œ . œ≈. œ
51
‰. œ œ b œ˙ œœœ œ j œœœ ≈œœœ œ
b œ œ #œ œ. œ n ≈œ bœ n . œ œ ‰œ ‰.RœŒ Œ Ó
Œ JœŒ œ œj ‰œ œœj œœ œ. œ . ˙Œ œœœœœœœ b œ . ŒJœŒ œ œ b
j œ≈.
j œ ‰˙ b>œœœ œ b. œ œ œ
51
5
7
3
3
3
3
3
&?ã&?ã
3 œJœ3
3
5
51
5
51
51Œ
3∑
3
53 5
51Œ
53 œœœœ ∑ &?ã&?ã
œœ.
#. #œ
53œ ‰Jœ Œ œ
j
53≈.
œ œ b b
53œ
53œ œ
œ≈.
j
‰j œ œœœ œ n Œ
œ œ n b
3
œ j œ œ œ œ œ œ. œŒ Ó ‰œ
œ ≈. j œ . œœ œ œ # j œœ œ nœœœœœ Œ œ œ. œ ‰.Rœ œ
77

55
3 Œ˙ b≈. j œ. œœ
55≈. jœ œœ. œ‰œj œ Œ˙Œ‰.Rœ &?ã&?ã œj œ bœ≈. j œ bœœœ œ˙œœ
55
55
55
55
3
3
5
3 œ˙œœ
59
59. ∑
œœ5 œœj œ .
œ3 œj
5
3 b œœ .
3
3 ‰jœœ.
Œ˙ b Ó jœ ≈. Ó Œ˙ œ. œ œœ b œœœ Ó œ. œ. œœ. œ‰œœœœ ∑ j œ. œœœ œœœœ. œ b j œ . œœœœœœ œj
Ó œ. b œ˙
3
3 Ó n
œ3 œj
6
78
5 œœ3
6 œ. œ˙ Œ˙ .
3
œ3 j œ
j œœ. œÓ w≈. . œj œ ≈. Jœ≈. JœÓ œœœœ
≈. jœ œ. œœ œœ bœ. œœœœ œœ. œ Œ˙œœŒœ. œ ≈œœ.
Jœ œœœ
59≈. œ. b ‰. œ &?ã&?ã
œj œœœ
5 œœ5
≈œ œ j œ œ # œœ
59œœj
œJœ3
Œ˙
∑ œ œœ. œ bœœœ #œ œ. œœœœ.
≈. j Ó ≈. Jœ≈œœ ∑
JœÓ œ. œ bJœœ. œœœœÓ
œœœ b
∑ œœ bœ‰œJœ Ó œŒ œœ . b. œÓ œœ. Jœ≈. ≈. ≈œœ Œ˙ œ 59. b œœ œj œ 59œœœ. œ˙

&?ã&?ã
63œ≈.
j
œ
b
N 3
Œ˙
b
b
63œ
œ
bœ
œ.
œ≈.
Jœœ.
œ
63Ó ≈.
Jœ≈.
Jœ
63‰Jœ
bœœœ
bœ
bœœ
bœœ
63
6
œ
b.
œJœœœœœ
bœ
63 ∑
F
≈.
j
œ.
œœ
bœœœ
b‰
Ó œœœ
b
∑
œœœ
b.
œœ3
œœ
bœ3
œJœ
œ
bœ
bœ.
œœ.
œ Jœ
b
‰.Rœ‰.RœÓ
F
‰.r
œœ≈.
j
œœ
œ
b
b .
œœ
œœœ
œ
b
‰.Rœ
bœ≈.
Jœ.
œœ
∑
œœœœœœœœ
≈.
Jœ.
œœ5
œ .
œ
∑
&?ã&?ã
878787878787
66œœ
œœœ
œ.
œ
b 3
Œj
œœ
66œœ
bœœœœ
b3
œj
œœ.
œ
œ
n
66w
66œœœœœœœ
66≈.
Jœ.
œœœ
bœ.
œ
66w
ƒ F
F
ƒ F
ƒ
ƒ
≈.
j
œ
b>ŒŒ≈.
j
œ
≈.
j
œ
b>œ.
œ
b
b≈.
Jœœ.
œ
≈.
JœŒÓ
œ> 5
r
œœ3
‰œ3
œj
œ
œ
œ
b> 5
Rœ
œœ‰œJœ
œŒÓ
ƒ F
F
ƒ F
≈.
j
œ
b>ŒŒ≈.
j
œ
≈.
j
œ
b>œ.
œ
b
b≈.
Jœœ.
œ
≈.
JœŒÓ
œ> 5
r
œœ3
‰œ3
œj
œ
œ
œ
b> 5
Rœ
œœ‰œJœ
œŒÓ
79

69
69
69 848484848484
F &?ã&?ã
≈. œ ≈r
69 5 œ œ b≈.
œœ3
b>Ó
69
858585858585
œ F ≈. ƒ j F œ b>Ó
5
j ≈.
5
j ≈. j œ b>œ. œ b>œ. b b≈.
œœ3 b Jœ Jœœœ
5
≈.
œœ3 JœÓ 868686868686
878787878787 ‰œ ƒ F ≈. j œ b>Œ ‰
5 ≈. j œ ≈. JœŒŒ. ƒ
Rœ ‰œ r b>œ. œ b b≈Rœ
œœ3
5 ‰œj ≈. JœŒ ‰
œœ3 ƒ F œ> r‰r
œ
72
œ œ b> Rœ ‰Rœ r
Œ ‰ F œ> œƒ
72
Ó œ b> Rœ œ œœ‰œ ƒœœ> ‰ œ ÓF
5
œ œ b>
72
≈. 838383838383
≈. ƒ F ƒ ≈. j F œ b>‰ &?ã&?ã
5 ≈. 848484848484
j j œ b>œœ b b>Œ b
5
œ Jœ‰
5
œ b>œ. œ ƒ JœŒb
b ≈.
œ. œ r
‰ ƒ c ƒ F œ Œ œ œœ b> Rœ œœ ƒœ F œ> œ. œ œ œ b> œ
≈. j œ b>Œ≈. ≈. œ j b>Œ≈. œ ≈. b>Œ" ≈. j œ b>Œ≈. j œ b>Œ" j j b>Œ j œ b>Œ≈. j œ b>Œ JœŒ≈. JœŒ" JœŒ≈. œ ≈. ≈. JœŒ
œŒœŒ" b>Œ" œ b>Œœ œœœ>Œœ>Œ"
œŒœŒ b>Œ œ b>Œœ œœ>Œœ>Œ
œ
69 œ
72
72 œ> ≈.
72 œ
80

&?ã&?ã
3
sempre
f
F(let ring)
F
76≈.
Jœ
bœœ
œ
b
b .
œ
œ
bflÓ
76≈.
Jœ
bœ
b.
œflÓ
76≈.
j
œœ.
œÓ
76w °
76 ∑
76w
F
F(let ring)
Ó˙
b °∑
ÓœŒ
∑
w
bw
F∑
ÓŒœ
b
ÓŒœ
∑
w
∑
∑
w∑
w
Œ.
˙
b∑
ŒœÓ
∑
w
bw
∑
Ó˙
b
ÓœŒ
∑
w
∑
&?ã&?ã
84∑
84∑
84∑
84w
84∑
84w
w
b∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
bw
∑
Œ.
˙
b
ŒœÓ
∑
w
Ó˙
∑
ÓœŒ
∑
∑
f F
‰œœ
œ
b
bœ
œ
b≈œ
bœ≈.
j
œœ
œflœ
b °
‰œ
b
*œ≈œ
bœ≈.
j
œflŒ
‰œœ≈œœ≈.
j
œœ
w ∑
w
∑
w
bw
81

&?ã&?ã F
91 ∑
91w
b
91œŒÓ
91 ∑
91w
91w
Œ.
˙∑
ŒœÓ
∑
∑
f
≈œ
bœ≈.
j
œœ
œ
b
bflÓ
≈œ
b
*œ≈.
j
œ
bflÓ
≈œœ≈.
j
œÓ
w∑
w
Fw
b °∑
œŒÓ
∑
w
bw
F ∑
Œ.
˙
b
ŒœÓ
∑
w
Ó˙∑
ÓœŒ
∑
&?ã&?ã
98∑
98∑
98∑
98∑
98∑
98∑
∑
w∑
w
Œ.
˙
b∑
ŒœÓ
∑
w
bw
∑
Ó˙
b
ÓœŒ
∑
w
ÓŒœ
∑
ÓŒœ
∑
∑
∑
∑*
∑
82

&?ã&?ã
q»¡ºº
4
(still sempre )
F
f
Solid
106‰.
œ
bŒœœ
œ
b
bœ
œ
b
106‰.
œ
bŒœ
bœ
106‰.
œŒœœ
106w
w
# °
106 ∑
106w
‰Jœ
bœ‰j
œœ
œ
b
bŒ
‰Jœ
bœ‰j
œ
bŒ
‰Jœœ‰.
œ
w
w
# ∑
œ
œœ
b‰Jœ
bœœ
œ
b
b‰j
œ
œ
b‰Jœœ
b‰j
œ
œ
œ‰Jœœ‰Jœ
w
w
# ∑
‰œ
œœ
b j
œœ
œ
b
bœ
bœ
‰œj
œ
bœ
bœ
‰œJœœœ
w
w
# ∑
&?ã&?ã
√
110Œœ
œœ
b‰Jœ
bŒ
110Œœ
œ
b‰jœ
œ
bŒ
110Œœ‰Jœ
œŒ
110w
w
#
110 ∑
110 ∑
‰œœ
œ
b
bJœ
œœ
bœœ
b
‰œ
bj
œœ
bœ
b
‰œJœœœ
w
w
# ∑
j
œœ
œ
b
bœJœ
œœ
bŒœ
bœœ
œ
.
œ
b j
œ
bŒœ
bœ
JœœJœ
œŒœœ
w
œ
œ
b
bœœœ
œœ
bŒœ
b
Œœ
bœŒœ
b
‰œœœŒœ
w∑
83

&?ã&?ã
√ √
114‰œJœ
œœ
b‰j
œœ
œ
b
bœ
b
114‰œ
bj
œ‰j
œ
bœ
114‰œJœ‰Jœœ
114w
114w
114 ∑
j
œ
bœJœ
œœ
bœœ
œ
bœ
bœ
œ
b‰j
œœ
bœ
bœ
JœœJœœœœ
w ∑
Œ‰Jœ
œœ
bŒœ
b
Œ‰jœ
œ
bŒœ
b
Œ‰JœŒœ
œ
w ∑
‰œœœ
œœ
b‰j
œœ
b
Œ‰j
œ‰Jœ
bœ
‰œœœ‰Jœœ
w ∑
&?ã&?ã◊
118œ‰Jœ
œœ
bœœ
bœ
118Œ‰j
œœ
bj
œ‰
118œ‰Jœœœœ
118w
#
118w
118w
Œ‰Jœ
œœ
bŒœ
Œ‰j
œ
bŒœ
b
Œ‰Jœ
œŒœ
w
# w∑
Œœœ
œœ
b‰Jœœ
b
œœ
bœŒœ
Œœœ‰j
œœ
w
# w ∑
‰œJœ
œœ
bœœ
b
‰œ
bj
œŒœ
‰œJœœœ
w
# w∑
84

&?ã&?ã(◊)
122.
œJœ
œœ
b‰j
œœ
b
122.
œ
b j
œ‰Jœœ
122.
œJœ‰Jœœ
122w
#
122w
122 ∑
œœœ
œœ
b‰œœ
bœ
œœ
bœŒœœ
œœœ‰œœœ
w
# w ∑
Œœœ
œœ
bœœ
bœ
Œ‰j
œœ
bœ
Œœœœœœ
w
‰œj
œœœ
b
‰œ
bJœŒœ
œ
‰œJœœœ
œ
w ∑
&?ã&?ã
126‰œj
œŒœ
œœ
b
126Œ‰Jœ
bŒœ
&?
126‰œJœŒœ
126w
126w
126 ∑
.
œJœ‰j
œœ
b
.
œ
bJœ‰.
œ
.
œj
œ‰Jœœ
w∑
œœœ‰œœ
bœ
Œœ
bœŒ‰Jœ
œœœ‰œœœ
w∑
Œœœœœ
bœ
Œ‰Jœ
bœŒ
Œœœœœœ
w∑
‰œj
œœœ
b
‰œ
bJœŒœ
‰œJœœœ
w
w∑
w
85

131‰œj œœ b
131Œ‰Jœ bŒŒ
131‰œJœŒœ
&?ã&?ã131
œŒœ
∑ w 131w
131#Jœ ∑
135‰œ œbœœ
œ
135Œ‰Jœ bŒœ b
135‰œJœœœ &?ã&?ã
135 ∑
135w ∑
œJœ‰j œœœ œ b b . œ bJœ‰Jœœ b . œj œ‰Jœœ .
ww ∑
œ #Œœ Œ‰Jœ bŒœ b ‰œJœ
w w‰œJœŒœ
∑ #
w
œ b bœ Œœ bœŒ œœœ‰œœ bœ œœœ‰œœœ w w œ
∑
œ œ # Jœ‰Jœ .
œ b b œœœ
bŒœ b . œJœ‰j œœ Œ‰Jœ
w # ∑ w
86
bœ bœ œ bœ Œ‰j œœ bœ b Œœœ
w wŒœœœœœ ∑
œ #œ b‰œœ œ b bœ œ Œ‰Jœ bŒœ
œœ
œœœ‰œœœ w w # b
∑

&?ã&?ã
139œ
œ
#œœ
bœ
œœ
œ
b
bœ
139Œ‰j
œŒœ
b
139Œœœœœœ
139w
w
#
139 ∑
139 ∑
‰œ
œ
#Jœ
bœœ
œ
Œ‰Jœ
bŒœ
b
‰œJœœœ
w
w
# ∑
‰œJœ
œ
#Œœ
œœ
b
Œ‰Jœ
bŒœ
œ
b
‰œJœŒœ
ww
.
œ
œ
# Jœ
œœ
b
b‰Jœ
œœœ
œ
b
b
Œ‰Jœ
bŒœ
b
.
œ Jœ‰j
œœ
w ∑
&?ã&?ã ◊
143œ
œœ
bœ
œ
#œ
b‰œ
œœœ
œ
b
bœ
œ
143.
œ Jœ
b‰j
œœ
b
143œœœ‰œœœ
143w
143w
143 ∑
Œœ
œœ
bœ
œœœ
œ
#œœ
œ
b
bœ
œ
ŒœœŒœ
bœ
Œœœœœœ
w ∑
‰œJœ
œœ
bœ
œœœœ
œ
b
b
Œ‰j
œœœ
b
‰œJœœœ
w∑
‰œ
œœ
bJœ
œœŒœ
œœ
‰œj
œŒœ
œ
b
‰œJœŒœ
w
# w
87

147Œœ
œœ bœ œœJœ. œœ œ b b
147Œœœ‰. œ b
147Œœœj &?ã&?ã(◊)
œ œ.
147 ∑
147w
# 147w
151Jœ. œ œœ b œœ œœœ œœœ œœ bœœ &?ã&?ã
œœœœœ œ.
151j
151‰.
151w
151w
œœ bœ œœJœj œœ œ b b . œ œœ j œ. œ j œ b. œ Jœ
œJœ. œ w # Jœœj
∑ w
œœ bœ œœœ ‰œ bj œœœ ‰œJœ
‰œJœœœ
∑ w
œœ bœœ œ b bŒ‰Jœ œœ œœœ bŒ‰j œ œ
w # œœœŒ‰Jœ
∑ w
œ œœ b Jœ .
œ œœ‰.
œj œ b‰. œ . œJœ œ‰. œ .
w∑
œœ bœ œœ ŒŒœœ ‰.
œœœ w # ‰.
w∑
88
œœ bJœœJœ œœ œ bœ‰œj œ œœj œœJœ œœ
∑ w

&?ã&?ã
155‰œ
œœ
bœœ.
œ
œœj
œ
155‰j
œœ
b .
œJœ
155‰œœœ.
œJœ
155w
155w
155 ∑
œ
œœ
bœ
œœœœœ
œœœ
œœ
j
œ.
œœ
bœœ
œœœœœœ
w
w ∑
w
‰œJœ
bŒœ
œœ
b
‰œ
bJœŒœ
‰œJœŒœ
œ
w
w∑
.
œj
œ
b‰œ
œœ
b
b Jœ
.
œj
œ
b‰œ‰
.
œJœ‰œj
œ
w
w ∑
&?ã&?ã
159œœ
bœ
œœ
bœœœ
159œ
bœj
œœJœ
159œœœœœœ
159w
w
159 ∑
159 ∑
Œœœ
œœ
bJœ
bœj
œ
Œœ
bœ.
œJœ
ŒœœJœœJœ
w
w ∑
‰Jœ
bœ
œœ
bœœ
‰Jœ
bœœœ
‰Jœœœœ
w
w
# ∑
w
‰œ
œœ
bJœŒœ
‰œ
bJœ
bŒœ
‰œ
œJœŒœ
w
w
# ∑
89

163œ œœ b b. œœœ‰œJœ œœ b. œ‰Jœ b‰œj œ
163œœœ‰œJœ &?ã&?ã
163# 163w
163
...to
w
here ∑
œœ b b‰œœœ œœ b j œŒœœ
167‰œœœ f &?ã&?ã
167‰œœœ‰œœœ
◊
œ bœœ œ b œœ‰Jœœ œœ bœ‰œœ œœœ
œœœœ‰œœœ # w
163œ
167‰œ
167w
167 ∑
...to here
b‰œœ œœ bœ œ bœ‰œœœ œœœ‰œœœ œœœ
w # ∑ w
œœœ bJœ bœ œœ bJœ Œœ bJœœJœ √
œ œœœJœœj
ww
œ œœ bœœ œœœœ ‰. œ‰œœ b‰ j Jœ.
œœœœœ w # œ.
w∑
bœ œ #œ œœ bœ ‰. œ b œœ ‰Jœ
œœ ‰Jœœœ
∑ w
90
œœ bœj œœ œœœœ œœ j œŒJœ bœ‰j œ Jœ
JœœJœœœœ
w

171. œ bj œ‰. œ œj &?ã&?ã
œ œJœ‰.
171wœ‰. 171w∑
œ 171.
177
177
177
177
∑ &?ã&?ã177
177
∑
∑
171w
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
91

q»¡¢º
180≈. œ.
bœ b nœ≈. Jœ b. œ bœ n &?ã&?ã
180
5F 180
j b œœ
180
˙ ‰j b . œœ bœœ n ˙ œ bœœ nœ. œ≈.
j
œŒ.
œœœ bœ œœŒ œŒ œ b. nœœœœœ œ. bœœ œœ . œ bœ bœœ nœ‰.Rœ ≈. j œŒœŒ ∑ Ó Œ≈œœ b ∑ P ∑ & ∑ ∑
180≈. j
180≈œ
183œœ œ n. œœœœ bœ b
183œ b bœ n. œœ bœœœ. œ n
183œœŒœ‰.r œ &?ã&ãP
bœ.
b. œœœœœœœœ
183œ‰.r ∑ P œŒœ bœœ
. œ b . œ nœ Œ‰Jœ≈œ œ bœœœ j
cresc. œŒ ‰.r œ œŒ
Œ ≈. j œ # œ‰j
b. œ. œœœ bœœœœ œœŒ œ ˙œ 183œ
poco a poco
œœœ bœ bÓ ≈. Jœœ≈. Jœ≈.
.... œÓ œœœ bœ#œœœœœœ
Œ‰j
cresc. poco a poco ....
cresc. poco a poco ....
j œ ≈. j ≈.
bœ
n
œ bœ
b &Jœ
œ œŒ‰j œ #œœœœœœœœ
œ≈.
j
92

&ã&ã
bœ b‰Jœ bœ bœœœŒ
186≈œbœœœœ
nœœ œ‰Jœ œœ bœœ bœ nœ bœœ n. Ó . œœœ
bœœ
b œŒ œ‰.Rœ ≈. Jœ. œ #œœœ bœ bœ nœ ‰JœŒ œJœ. œœŒ ‰œ Jœn
bœœ œœœœœœœ #. n bœ bœ Œ≈. JœŒ
F
186≈.
186œ.
186Œ Œ 186œ
œ‰.r œÓ
186‰j
189≈œ bœœ bœœœ. œ n. œœ b‰Jœœœ b. œœ
189‰JœŒ‰JœŒ bœœœœ bœ nœ
&ã&ã
b
189
189 ∑
œ 189œ.
189œœ
3
3
b3
b3 Jœœ‰.Rœ>œ ‰œŒœŒœ
œœœ‰œœ b5. œœ ∑ .
bœœœœœ b œ. œ b ∑ œœ
œŒ œ Œ‰j
nœ3 bœ3 œ b JœœJœ
œ œ. œ bœ. œŒ b. œœ .
93
œœŒ ≈œ bœœœ bœœ. œ. œœ Œ
Jœ bŒ‰Jœ bœœœ bœ Œ Œ≈. j œŒ ≈.
œ. œ œ #> . œœ. œœ œœ œœ bœ bœœ b ≈œœ>‰.Rœœ
‰Jœ. œœœ b . œœ ≈Rœœ‰Ó
Ó Œ ‰.r œ ∑

192‰.Rœœ
œ bœ.
œ œ>œ ≈Rœ. &ã&ã
3 œJœ5 œœœ
192‰Jœ
œ
. œœŒ bœœœœ b b.
‰.Rœœ 192Ó Œ 192œ
192œœ
≈. JœÓ
192Œ
195. Jœ‰.Rœ œ. œ œœ œ bœœ.
5 œ œ #≈. Jœœ œ
b. œœœ
&ã&ã Rœœ
195≈œœœ b
195œ Œ‰.Rœ‰.Rœ
195œ
195œŒœŒ ∑
j
195≈.
b>3 œJœ bœ. œ œŒ . œœ b. œ bœ b≈. Jœ œ
œ ∑nœ.
5
œ
œœ b. œœœœ bœœœ œ bRœœ‰Jœ. œœ œ
3
b.
œ œœ. œ b œ b œJœ ‰.Rœ œŒœ
‰Jœœœ bœ b≈œ bœ n. œœ n ‰JœŒœŒ ƒ
œ b b ≈. Jœ bŒ ‰j œ bœœ bœœœœœœ nœ b? ‰.
‰JœŒÓ
. œœ #œœœ≈. Jœœ bœ bœ ‰œ>œ>œ≈Rœœ>œœ
Jœœ œœ≈. Jœ bœœ bœ ˙‰JœŒ≈. Ó∑
5
# œ. œ b≈. Jœœ. œ n œ. œ bœ. œ bÓ
6œ
≈. j œŒ ≈. Jœ bœœœÓ Ó
œ bœ. œ bœ. œ Œ‰j
œÓ Œ‰j
94

&ã&?ã...to
198
198œœ
198
herebœ
bœ bœœœœ ∑
‰.Rœ bœœ b‰œJœ nœœœ
bœ . œ Jœ
3 œœÓ‰j
∑ bœœœœ n ∑ Œœ bJœ bœœœ bœ
3 œJœ3
Ó œŒ
œ‰. œ
198‰.Rœ b
5
5
Jœ bœ
n Ó œŒ ŒœÓ Ó b œ bœœ œJœ bœœœ
198‰.r œ. œœ.
b. &ã&?ã
f œœœ 5 bœ. œ ≈. j œ . œœ
œœ˙ œŒ Œ ‰.j œ br œœ Œ
5 Œ ‰.j œÓ
œ5
? Œj
œ b œœ œ rr
œœ bœ œ. ∑ œŒbœ
j bœ.
201Ó œ ‰j
201Ó ≈.
heref ...to
198‰. œ ˙ œŒ Ó
201œ
3 œ bJœ f
201 ∑
5 r œœ œ bœœ
3
201œœ
201Ó
95

203œ
3
3 b‰œ b Œ
203‰.r œ bœ. œœJœŒ 203‰.r &?ã&?ã
œ. œ
Jœ b œŒ Ó ≈. bœ œ
Œ 203Ó Œ 203Ó
Œ œ &?ã&?ã
205≈œ bœ‰Jœœœœ bœ bœ
203Ó
œœ
205œœœ.
œ‰Jœ. œ œ b
205œ
œ b j œ b‰.r œŒ Ó . œ b j œ Ó. Œ ≈œ bœœœœ. œœŒ œ
œ b œœ œ œ. œ ∑ .
√ j
205
205
√ bœ b œœ Ó ‰. œ b ˙ œ ≈. Jœ œ .
. œœ˙ bœ≈. b 205ŒœœÓ
. œœ #. œ
nœœœŒ
Ó ‰j œŒ . œj œ. œœœœ Ó œŒ ∑ ˙ Ó∑
œ
Ó œŒ ‰j bœœ ‰Jœ ∑
96

(√) œœ
œ
208 j b &?ã&?ã
‰. œ b
208˙
3 Œ≈. ≈. j œœœ b. œ nœœœ ˙ bbœ. 208Jœ.
œJœ bœœ n bœ. œ b
3
œ bœœœœœ
b˙
Œ‰j œ œ
bœ3
≈. Jœ bœŒœ
∑ Ó œ ‰. œŒœŒ œ ˙ ≈. j
j œ. œ œœ. œ‰. œ œ Œœœ œ ‰œœ œ
∑ œ. Jœ bœ. œ‰Jœ. œœ œŒÓ œŒœ Œj b Œœ ˙
∑ ∑ JœœÓ Œ≈. 212≈œœœœœœœ
j
208≈.
208Ój œŒÓ &?ã&?ã
208≈.
bœ bŒ
212‰œ
212œ5 b. r
212 ∑
212œŒœŒ
212 ∑
b Jœ.
œ
œ œœ‰j
b œœ
3
F œœ #. œœœ #œœœ n œŒœŒ Œœœ bœ n bœ bœ œj œœÓ Œ‰œ‰Œ F
#œœœœ #œ‰Jœ b. œœ œŒ œŒ œœ
œœ. œ b≈. Jœœ. œ ∑
≈. j œŒ œŒ
5#œŒ
œRœœ
97
∑ œŒœŒ
œ≈. Jœœ. œ œŒÓ œœ.

&?ã&?ã
216 ∑
216œ
#œ.
œ
b3
‰œ
b3
œJœ
216œŒœŒ
216Œœœ
bœœœ
216‰Jœ3
œJœ
b3
ŒJœ3
œJœ
216‰œ‰œ6
.
œœœ3
œj
œ
∑
‰Jœ.
œœ
b3
œj
œ3
œJœ
œŒœŒ
∑
œœœœœœœœœ
‰j
œŒÓ
Fœ≈.
j
œ
b‰j
œ.
œœ
b
œœœ≈.
j
œ
œŒœŒ
∑
.
œœœ
bœ.
œŒ
‰.r
œŒ≈.
j
œŒ
œœ
nÓ
≈.
j
œ3
œj
œÓ
œŒÓ
∑
≈.
Jœœœœ.
œ
≈.
j
œœÓ
&?ã&?ã
220 ∑
220.
œ
bœœœ5
‰.
j
œœ.
œ
220œŒÓ
220 ∑
220 ∑
220 ∑ F
∑
‰œJœ
b5
‰.
j
œŒ
∑
Œœ
bœœœœœœœ
#
ŒœÓ
ff ≈.
j
œœ.
œ
b≈œ
bœœ.
œ
b
≈.
Jœ
bœ.
œœ 3
œJœ
Ó ≈.
JœŒ
∑
œœ
#œœ
#œœœœ
bœœœ
Ó Œœ
‰.
œ
bŒ5
≈œ
b
œœ
n3
œ
bj
œŒ
∑
œ.
œœ
#‰œ
bœœœœ
Ó ‰JœŒ
98

224‰œ bœœœ
224Jœ bœ. œœ œ.. œ
224‰JœŒÓ &?ã&?ã
bœœ
œœœœ bœœœœœ #œ ∑
224≈.
224Ó ≈. JœŒ
224œ
&?ã&?ã FF
5 œ bœœ b r œœ œœ b j œ bœ bœœœ œ #
227œ b
bœœœœ bœœœ
227Œ œœŒ
227≈r
œ
227. œ 227‰j
j œ
227‰œJœÓ #
b bœœœœœ œ bœ
3b3
œ b œ bœ ‰œœJœ
n‰Jœ bœ. œ Ó
Œœ ∑ Ó
œ #œœ bœœœœœ Ó œŒ œ.
bœ5 n≈. j œ . œr
≈. j œœ ‰œœ b. œœ œ #œ œœœ b. œœ b Ó œ Œ . œœœ
b . œœ œ #œ n Ó
bœ #œœœœœ ‰.RœŒŒ œ œœ
œ b œ b Ó Œ≈. jœ œ #≈r œœœ bœ n ∑ F
œ #. œœ bœœœœ œœœœœœœ Œœ Ó œ
b3 œ
99
? ≈. Jœ bœœœnj
œœ b ∑
JœŒ Œ œ . œœœœœ bœ bœ bœj œ n ≈.
bœ bœœœœ œ n # Œ≈. JœÓ Œœ

230
3
3
230
5
230Œ
F3
bœ bœœœ
230Œ
5 œœ j b‰Œ ?ã&?ã #œœ3
5
bœœœ œ bœœœ‰.Rœ # œ bœ. œ
5 jb‰œ
‰‰JœÓ œ œ œ # œœ
œœŒ b. œ bœœœ b. œ≈œ œ #œœ b. œ b œŒÓ
≈œ bœœŒœœœŒ ≈œ
b. j bœ bœ≈œœ œ nœ œœ b
n r œœ b≈.
JœœÓ . j ‰.JœÓ œ œœ
Jœ . œœ b bœ œ œr
œ œœœ ‰œœ bœ œœœœœœ. bœ Ó œ b œ Ó Œœ
230≈œ œœ bœœœœ œœœ
b œœœ
230≈. ‰JœœœœŒ
bœ b . œœ
233≈œ bœ œ bœ ?ã&?ã
œ bœœ. bœœœ œœ
233‰.
œb
œœœ
RœŒ . œ œ œœ œœ bœœœ bœœœ
^(if possible!) Ó ≈. Jœ œ #œ n#œ b. œœ Œ
Jœ b œœ‰j œ. ≈. bœœ Ó bbœœ œœ
233œœœ
233œ œ. œ
233≈œœ.
n nœ
233Ó ‰JœŒ
nœ
b
œ œœœœœ
Œ ‰JœÓ
œ b.
œ œœ b nœ.
100

235œœ
Œ 235œ
235œ
235Œ œ 235j
bœ
(omit lowest in R.H. if unplayable)
bœœœœ bœ
3 bœ œœ. n ‰œ œ b œ bœ nœ.
235œœ bœœ. ?ã&?ã
œ ‰.Rœ œ œ œ # . œœ nœ œ. œ n bœœ
œ bœ nœ bœ œœ
œ b. œœœ‰Œ Œjœ œ b œ Œ œ Œ œ b bœ bœ nœœ bn nœ œ nœ œœœ bœœœ œ n # œ œ ≈œ bœ bœœ bœ b
Œ ‰Jœ b b nœœœœœ Ó nœœ œ # œ Ó œ.
b nœ
œ. b.
237
3
237≈œ
3 b œbœœj
bœ.
7‰.Rœ œ œœ ?ã&?ã
bœœŒ œœœ≈. œœœ
‰œJœ bœ œ n bœ. œ˙ œÓ . jb.
wœœ
≈. j Ó œœ‰j œ b. œœ
#œœ. œ œ n. œœœ. œ b œj œ bŒÓ b nœ. ∑ œ.œ.œ.œ.≈œ.œ.œ.≈œ.œ.œ.. œ. œœœ. œœ
b œœœ. œ œœœœ≈œœœ≈œœœ. œ œj
b ‰œ b œ œ. b . œœ œœ œœ nœœœ
˙ Jœ #œœ
Œ 237œœ
237œ
237 ∑
237≈.
3
101

?ã&?ã
240œ
b œœ
bœ5
‰.
Jœœ.
œ
n&
240œœ.
œ‰j
œ.
œœ
240 ∑
240œ.œ.œ.œ.≈œ.œ.œ
b.‰œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.
240 ∑
240œœœœ≈œœœ‰œœœœœ
Œ≈œœœœ
œ3
œœœœœ
bœœœ
∑
.
œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.‰œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.
∑
.
œœœœœ‰œœœœœ
œœ.
œœ‰.r
œœœœ
œœœœœ
bœ.
œœœ
∑
≈.
j
œ
b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ
n.≈œ.œ.
∑
≈.
j
œœœœœœœ≈œœ
&?ã&?ã
243œœœœ
œ
bœœœœœœ
243œ.
œœœ
bœ
b3
œj
œœ
243 ∑
243œ..
œ.≈œ.œ
b.œ.œ. œ..
œ
b.
243 ∑
243œ.
œ≈œœœœ œ.
œ
f≈œœœœœœœœ.œ.
œœ
bœ
bœœ.
œ
Ó Œœœœ
‰œ.œ
b..
œ
n.œ.≈œ
b.œ.œ.œ
n.œ.
∑
‰œœ.
œœ≈œœœœœ
œ.œ.œ.≈œ.œ.‰j
œ.œ.œ.œ.
‰œœ.
œœ
b3
Jœœ
bœœœ
œœœ≈œœ‰j
œœœœ
.
œ.œ
b..
œ
n.œ.3
‰œ
b.≈.
j
œ.
∑
.
œœ.
œœ3
‰œ≈.
j
œ
102

246 3
246
246 3
3 ‰œ ŒœœŒ∑ 246‰œ.œ.≈. œ.œ.œ.œ.≈œ b.œ.
246. œœ bœœ bœ nœœœ
246‰œœ≈.
j &?ã&?ã
3 Œœ b œ nŒ ‰œ b j œœœœ≈œœ
249œ
3 œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. b. œœ bœjœ œ #
249œœœ.
&?ã&?ã
b.œ.œ..
249j œ b. œœœœœ. œ œœœœœœ
249≈. ∑
249œœ
œ.
j
249≈.
j œ œœœœ≈.
œ3
b.œ.˙Œj
œ b bŒ œ
3 ‰j œœ. bœœ œj œ œœœŒ œ
‰j ∑
5 j œ.≈œ.œ.œ. ≈. j œ. j œœ b œœ bœ œ j b.œ.≈.
œœ b ≈. j œœ œ≈œœœ œœ≈.
3œ
b.œ.œ.3
5 œœ ∑
j œ.œ.. œ.≈. j œ. œŒœ œjŒœ≈.
j
œœœ. œ bŒ . œ j b.œ.≈.
œ≈. jŒ
œŒj
œœœ3œ.œ.œ.
œ . œ. œ bœ bŒÓ Œ Œj œœœ œœ. œœ≈. œ.
. œœ œ bœœœœœœœœœ ∑ .
œœœœœ‰j œ≈œœ .
bœœœœœœœœœ. œ ∑ œ
œ œœœœœœ≈œœœ.
103

œ 252.
252 ∑
252˙
bœ. œœœœœ. œœ
252Ó ˙ b
252‰.r &?ã&?ã
œ≈œœ. œœ b ‰≈r œœœ œ‰.r
œ‰j œ
252œŒ‰.r
255œœ
3 b Œ‰œ 255‰œ‰œ‰j &?ã&?ã255
bœœœ≈œœœœœœ
œœœœœ. œ œ≈œœ bœœ. ∑
œ
255‰.
255œ
3 3 œj œœ. œœœœ b
3
œ œj
œ3
3 œœ œ≈. œ≈œœ
œœ b. j b œ.
j
œ œ . œœ bœ‰. œ b j
Œœ. œ. œ j œ œ b. œ. œœœœœœœœ Œj b . œœœœœœœœ œ j ≈. ∑ œœ‰œœ≈œœ œ. œ. œœ‰œœ≈œœ œ. ∑ j ≈.
œ b . œ Œj .
œ bœ. œ.
œ≈œœ nœ. œ b œœ. œ‰.r ≈. œœ≈. œ≈.
≈. œœ≈. j œ j œ b
jœŒ
.
b. œœœœ j œœ
Œ≈. j ‰.
œ j œ œ ‰Jœ bŒ Ó ≈. j œ. œœ ≈œ bœœœœœœœœœ ∑ ≈œœœœœ‰œœ‰j œ œ œœ‰j j∑
œ. Œ≈. œj
œ≈. œœ‰j
255œœœ.
104

258 &?ã&?ã
5 bœœ.
258
258 5 ∑ œœœœœ
œ
258
œ.
bœœœœœœœœœ œ. œœœœœ
œ ∑
258≈œœœœœ‰œœ‰j &?ã&?ã
∑
œŒÓ ∑
œ≈.
j
‰.
j
258≈œ
264∑
264∑
264∑
264∑
œŒÓ
∑
3 bœ3 œj œ≈. Jœ. œœ ∑ ‰œ
3 ‰œ3 bœœ3 Œj œÓ
∑
œœœ3 j ≈.
j œ ≈.
∑
œ œj
œ œj
b. œœœ ∑ œœœœ
œÓ œœ bœ. œ. œœœœ Œ‰.r
‰j∑
œ≈.
j
∑
œ.
œ œœ‰j
∑
w
w∑ ∑
slight deaccel...
∑
w
w∑ ∑
∑
w
w∑ ∑
œŒÓ ∑
∑
105

273∑ &?ã&?ã273œŒÓ
273∑
273∑
8
Full Bore
280 &?ã&ã
q»¡º ∑∑
∑
bœœœ>œœœ≈œœœœ. œ
280œœœœœœœœ≈œœœœ. œ
280œ>œ
#œ≈œœ‰.Rœ br œ. œœ # #œŒr œœ # œ œ #
280œ f
ff
280œœ≈œœ. œœ. œœ f
280œ
∑ ∑&
3 ∑ ∑ ∑
3
∑
Jœ>œ œœœœœœœ≈œœ j œœ œ œ>œ bœœœ>œœ≈œœ
œ nœœœœœœœ bœœ bœ n #≈œ œœœ œ
œ #Œ Œ ‰.r œrœ œ # ‰j œ≈œœœœ œœœ ‰j
106

282 ∑
282≈œ>œœ≈œ nœœœ &?ã&ã
bœ≈œœœ f Œ
œœœœ
b
282≈œœœ≈œœ≈œœœ‰œœ œœœœœ b bœœ. œ
≈. j œ n # œ œœ Œ œœ # ≈. Jœ . ≈.
œ Jœ #>≈œœœœ . œ>œ> ≈. j œ≈œœœœœœœœœ ≈. Jœ≈. j œ . œ # œœœ ‰rK œj œ #Œ Ó ? œœ
j œ . œ œ‰j œ ≈œœ≈. œ‰œœ œ. œ œ j œ≈.
282œ
282œœ
284≈œ bœœ b≈œ nœœœ nœ
282‰j
œ #> Ó
284Œ
284
&?ã&?ã œœœœ ∑.
b
œ
284≈œœœœœœ≈œœœœœ bœ≈œ
#œ. œ
284≈œœ
œ . œœ‰j œ
284≈œœœ.
#œœœ bœ bœœœ nœœœ bœœ ∑ ≈œœ
bœ5
œ
j œ b ≈. j œ œ œ #œ . œœ ≈œœœ≈œœœ‰œœ≈œœœ
œœœ bœ b≈. j œ ≈. Ó
≈.
j
œ ≈.
j
œœœœ≈. j œ œ
107

286 ∑
286œ
bœœœœœœœœœ
286œœœ
œœ nœœœ
286œœœœ≈œœœ≈œœœœœœœ bœ5
œœœ œ bœ # bœœœœ #œœ nrK œœœœ bœ nœœœ bœœ≈œ b bœœœ &?ã&?ã nœ bœ b≈. j œ
286‰.
∑
r j j ≈œœœ≈œœœœœœœœœ ‰r œ #≈. j œ œ œœ bœj œj œ œ bœ œŒ œœ nœ bœ b≈œœœ œœ œŒ œœœœ≈œœœ œœ bœœŒ œœ . œœ œœ œ #≈. œ œœœœ≈.
286œœœŒ
288
288
5 ∑
288œ bœœ≈œ œ
288œœœ≈œœœ≈œœœœœœ
&?ã&?ã œ bœ Ó #. œŒ œœœœ≈œœœ
288œœ‰Œ
‰.j
œœœœ≈œœœ
œ 288œ
#≈œœœ≈œœ6œ
≈œrœ
‰œœ≈œœœ≈œœ6 œ ≈œr
œ bœ ∑ œœ
‰.r œœœœ œœœœ≈œœÓ Ó
œœœœ≈œœ‰.Rœ≈œœ
108
œœœœœœœ5 ≈œœœœœœ5b.
œœ ∑œœ
bœ
œœ œœœ.
∑ ≈œœœœœŒ‰œœ ≈œœœœœŒ‰œœ

291œ
291 ∑
291œœœœœœœœ≈œœ
bœœœœœœœ≈œœ &?ã&?ã
291 ∑
291œœœœœœœÓ
294bœ œ bœœ nœ œ #œ œœœ≈œœ
291œœœœœœœÓ
294œœœœœœœœ≈œœ ∑
294
&?ã&?ã ∑œœœœœœœœœ
294œ
‰.r
294Œ
294Œ ‰.Rœœœœœœœœœ
bœœœœœœœœœœ ∑ œ
≈œœœœœœœœ. œŒ œœœœœœœœœœœ
≈œœœœœœœœ. œŒ ∑
bœœ #œ nœ b. œœœœœ b ∑ ≈œj
œ‰j œ‰.r œ≈‰Rœ Ó ‰œœœœœœ ≈.
Ó ‰œœœœœœ ∑
bœœ œ bœ nœ≈œ œ #œ≈. Jœ ∑ ≈œ j œ Œ œœœœœœœœœ ≈œœœœœ≈œœ≈.
Œ œœœœœœœœœ ∑
bœœ #œœ nœ bœœœœ b ∑ œœj
œ‰j œŒ. œœ œœœŒ Œ≈œ bœœ ≈.
œœœŒ Œ≈œœœ ∑
109

&?ã&?ã
297.
œ.
œ
bœ.
œ
#.
œ
nœ
bœ.
œ
#≈œœ
b
297 ∑
297≈.œœ‰.r
œŒ‰.Rœ
297œ
bœœœœ.
œÓ
297 ∑
297œœœœœ.
œÓ
œœ
bœœ
#œœ
nœ
bœœœœ
b
∑
≈.
j
œ‰j
œŒ.
œœ
‰œœœœœœœœœŒ
∑
‰œœœœœœœœœŒ
.
œ.
œ
bœ.
œ
œ
#.
œ
nœ
bœ.
œŒ
∑
≈.œœ‰.r
œÓ
Œ ≈œ
bœœœœœœœ.
œ
∑
Œ ≈œœœœœœœœ.
œ
&?ã&?ã
300∑
300∑
300∑
300∑
300∑
300∑
ƒ ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
‰.Rœ
bRœ
b‰.œœ‰≈œœ
œ
bœ
#œ
b
b≈œ
bœ
n
#œ
b‰œ
bœ
n
#œ
b
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
œ
#œœ≈≈œœœ‰œœj
œ‰
œ
#‰œ
œ
#œœ‰œ
œœœ≈œ
œœ
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
‰.Rœ
bRœ
b‰.œœ‰≈œœ
œ
bœ
#œ
b
b≈œ
bœ
n
#œ
b‰œ
bœ
n
#œ
b
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
œ
#œœ≈≈œœœ‰œœj
œ‰
œ
#‰œ
œ
#œœ‰œ
œœœ≈œ
œœ
œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
110

&?ã&?ã
303‰. Rœ
bRœ
b‰. œœ‰≈œœ
303œ
bœ
#œ
b
b≈œ
bœ
n
#œ
b‰œ
bœ
n
#œ
b
303œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ
303œ
#œœ≈≈œœœ‰œœj
œ‰
303œ
#‰œ
œ
#œœ‰œ
œœœ≈œ
œœ
303œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ F FF F
w∑
w∑
w
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
&?ã&?ã
307w
307∑
307∑
307w
307∑
307∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
111

&?ã&?ã
314w
314∑
314∑
314w
314∑
314∑
F
F
w
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w
w∑
&?ã&?ã
324w
324w
324w
324w
324w
324w
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w∑
w
w∑
w∑
112

334w &?ã&?ã
334∑
334w
334w
&?ã&?ã
342∑
334∑
342∑
342w
342∑
342∑
342w
w∑
w∑
∑
w∑
w∑
∑
w∑ w∑
∑
w∑ w∑
∑
w∑ w∑
∑
∑
w∑ w∑
∑
∑
w∑ w∑
∑
∑
113

American
Engineer
by Daniel Iglesia
for flute, clarinet, violin, viola, cello, and
electronic percussion, with live video
daniel.iglesia@gmail.com - 917 557 0321
114

Percussion notes
The electronic percussion is a Roland SPD-S sample pad (mapping changable upon request), outputing to stereo speakers.
cue markings correspond to sound banks to step through
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
œœœœœ ÷c5œœœœ
Normal
ã
notes are "one-hit". Dashed lines indicate samples that are toggled on and off
All dynamic markings mirror the dynamics of the instruments, and should,
unless otherwise indicated, be blended with the ensemble. Œ œ œœœŒ ã˙
About
American Engineer combines an instrumental ensemble,
electronic sound, and live video for 3D glasses into one fused sensory experience.
All audio and video source samples come from a mid-20th-century industrial film.
These ephemeral scraps are woven into a tangible, though ever-shifting, network
of correlations between the three media. Thus the video (triggered live by the
percussionist) becomes an extension of his musical composition, with the same
musical properties of rhythm, force, spatialization, and counterpoint.
Tech notes
Tech setup is relatively simple. The sample pads contain all the audio and go
straight to the speakers. Their MIDI output goes to a computer running a Max patch,
which uses the MIDI to trigger internal audio that generates the video in real time.
The video can be projected single channel or dual channel.
115

Flute
Clarinet in Bb
Violin
Viola
Cello
Percussion
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
6 6w
&V?ã
6w∑
1 ~20 sec (to sound end) ∑U∑U∑U∑U∑U
&V?ã 6
6
U ∑ cf
f œŒÓ
∑
6w ff f Œ. ˙ #Œ. w˙
˙ w #œœÓ
Œ.
American Engineer
f 2q»•º
˙ Œ.
˙ Œ.
f wœŒÓ ff
˙ wŒ.
˙ #Œ.
f œ. ˙ œ. ˙
wœŒÓ f
˙ Œ.
œ # ˙
˙ #œœÓ wŒ.
ÍÍ ÍÍ f œ Œ˙ # wœr œœr œœr œœr œœœ . œœœœœœf
p f
ff
œ. ˙ œ. ˙
wœŒÓ ff
f ‰Jœ>. ˙ w #Œ. ˙ ‰Jœ>. ˙ w #œœœÓ ff
œÓ.
w∑
Iglesia
∑ œŒÓ
w∑
116

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc. P
12 ∑
12w
12.
n
n
p
˙ ˙
∑ œŒÓ
&V?ã
12ÓŒ‰r œj # œ f œœ p #r œœr œœ>r œœ˙ r f Ó f r œœr œœr œœr œœ Ó ˙ r œœŒÓ
œ . ˙ # #> œœœœœœœœ f ∑ œŒŒœ> œŒŒœ
16Œœœœœœœœœœ œœ #˙>Œ f f 12ÓŒ‰Jœ # œœ ˙ p p
16 ∑#œœœœœœœœœœœœ
&V?ã
PP
16Œ.
#œ
16
#œœ
˙ # ˙
16Œ. œ œ œœ
16Œœœ ∑
œœ #˙>Œ œœ # #>˙Œ . ˙> Œ Œœ>˙> œœœ˙ f f f
œœ #˙> œœ #˙> ffff˙
# #> w>.
œ. Œ ˙
œœœŒ
w-œŒÓ
∑
117

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
(to D)
Ÿ 19Ór #flŒ
19ÓœflŒ Ÿ œœ
19Óœ &V?ã
19ÓœflŒ
œœŒ 19Óœ #˘Œ
Pf #˘Œ Óœ #flŒ r Ór œr œœ œœ œœŒr #flŒ
Óœ˘Œ ÓœflŒÓœ
#flŒ ÓœflŒ Óœ #˘Œ Ór œœŒ Óœ œŒr#˘Œ
œœŒpf
P œœr œœ #˘r œœ≈. Œr œœ #r œœr œœr œœ≈. Jœ #> r
œœr œœr œœr œœŒ f œr f Œr
#˘Œ Ó œ˘Œ œœr œœr œœŒ œœrœ
Ó œr
26˙ ˙ 26˙
26˙
˙ 26˙
q»º(tremelo between two pitches, omit lower if not doable) ˙æ ˙ ˙æ Pf
19Ór pf #æ #æPf
#æ
3ƒ
˙ # ˙
#æ
˙ #æ #æ ˙
#æ &V?ã
#æ
˙ #æ
˙ #ıæ
26˙æ
˙ ˙ #æ ˙ #æ ˙ #æ ˙ # #æ ˙æ $ ˙ #æ ˙ ˙ bæ ˙ ˙ #ıæ $ ˙
26œŒœŒ ˙ œŒœŒ bæ
˙ #æ ˙ ˙ bæ ˙æ ˙ ˙æ $ ˙
˙æ $ ı ˙æ ı ˙ ˙ næ $ ˙æ $ ˙
œŒœŒ
(to G) Jœ>
(to F#)
P r œr
P ∑
#æ ˙æ ˙ ˙ #æ ˙ ˙ #æ ˙ #æ ˙æ ˙æ $ ˙ ˙æ $ ı ˙ bæ ˙ ˙ næ $ ˙
œŒœŒ
œw ∑œŒÓ P
r
œ˙Ó ˙Ó œr
œŒÓ ∑
˙æ ˙æ˙æ ˙æ ˙æ ˙ $æ ˙ ˙ $ıæ˙ ıæ ˙
œŒœŒ ˙æ˙æ
118

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
slight deaccel to 60 BPM (half time feel of ...)
31œ
#æœæœæœ
#æ
31œ
œ
#æœ
œ
#æœæœ
#æ
31œ
#æœæœ
œæœ
#
#æ
31Ͼ
$œ
Ͼ$
ıœ
œ
$ı
æœ
#æ
31œ
œ
bæœ
œ
næ$œæœ
œ
#ı
æ
31œœœœ
œ
œæœæœ
#æœæ
œ
œ
bæœæœ
œ
#æœ
œ
#æ
œ
Ͼ
$œ
$æœ
#æœæ
Ͼ
ıœ
ıæœæ
$œ
Ͼ$
ı
Ͼ
$œæœ
œ
bæœ
Ͼ$
œœœœ
œæœ
#æœ
ϾϾ
œæœ
#æœ
œ
bæœæ
œ
œæœ
#
#æœ
Ͼ
$œ
$æ
œ
œ
$ı
æœ
#æœæ
ıœ
ıæ
œæœ
œ
#ı
æœæ
$Ͼ
œœœœ
4q»¡¡ª
F ∑
.
˙
b- Œ
œŒÓ
F˙Jœ-‰Œ
∑
œŒÓ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
36∑
36∑
36∑
36∑
36.
˙
b-Œ
36œŒÓ
˙Jœ-‰Œ
∑
œŒÓ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒÓ
˙Jœ-‰Œ
∑
œŒÓ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒÓ
˙Jœ-‰Œ
∑
œŒÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó ∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
ŒœÓ
119

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
44ÓŒœ
44∑
44∑
44∑
44.
˙
b-Œ
44œŒŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó ∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
ŒœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó ∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
ŒœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó ∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
ŒœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒŒœ F.
œ-‰Ó
∑
˙
#Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
52ÓŒœ
52∑
52∑
52∑
52.
˙
b-Œ
52œŒŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
˙
#Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
˙
#Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
.
˙
b-Œ
œŒŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
˙
#Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
œ≥˙≥Œ
∑
œœŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
˙
#≥Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
120

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
60ÓŒœ
60∑
60œ≥˙≥-Œ
60∑
60∑
60œœŒœ
simile...
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
˙
#≥Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
œ˙-Œ
∑
œœŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
˙
#Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
ÓŒœ
∑
œ˙-Œ
∑
œœŒœ
.
œ-‰Ó∑
˙
#Jœ-‰Œ
∑
Œ˙Jœ-‰
œœÓ
∑
Œœœœ
∑
Œœœœ
F ∑
Œ˙
b-Œ
˙j
œ-‰Œ
∑
Ó˙
b
ŒœœŒ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
68 ∑
68 ∑
68Œœœœ
68 ∑
68œ-ŒÓ
68Œœœœ
∑
Œ˙
b-Œ
˙j
œ-‰Œ
∑
Ó˙
b
ŒœœŒ
∑
Œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
∑
Œ˙
b-Œ
˙j
œ-‰Œ
∑
Ó˙
b
ŒœœŒ
∑
Œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
∑
Œ˙
b-Œ
˙j
œ-‰Œ
∑
Ó˙
b
ŒœœŒ
∑
Œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
121

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
75 ∑
75Œœ
b˙
b
75˙j
œ-‰Œ
75 ∑
75ÓŒœ
b
75Œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
∑
˙-Ó
Œœœœ
∑
Œœ
b˙
b
˙j
œ-‰Œ
∑
ÓŒœ
b
Œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
∑
˙-Ó
Œœœœ
∑
Œœ
b˙
b
˙j
œ-‰Œ
∑
ÓŒœ
b
Œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
∑
˙-Ó
Œœœœ
∑
Œœ
b˙
b
˙j
œ-‰Œ
∑
ÓŒœ
b
Œœœœ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
82 ∑
82œ-ŒÓ
82Œœœœ
#
82 ∑
82˙-Ó
82Œœœœ
˙Jœ-‰Œ
Œœ
b˙
b
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
ÓŒœ
b
œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
#
∑
˙-Ó
Œœœœ
˙Jœ-‰Œ
Œœ
b˙
b
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
ÓŒœ
b
œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
#
∑
˙-Ó
Œœœœ
˙Jœ-‰Œ
Œœ
b˙
b
.
œ-‰Ó
∑
ÓŒœ
b
œœœœ
∑
œ-ŒÓ
Œœœœ
#
∑
˙-Ó
Œœœœ
122

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
89 ∑
89.
œœ.
89˙Jœ-‰Œ
89Œœ b˙ b œ-‰Ó
89ÓŒœ
&V?ã89œœœœ
b
simile....
94
simile.... ∑
œ-ŒÓ ∑
# ∑ Œœœœ
Œœœœ ˙-Ó
94≈. jœœ‰≈r
œ
94Œ˙ Œ
94‰.Rœ.ŒÓ
94Œ.
&V?ã94≈œœœ.
œœ‰.r œ ˙
Œœ b˙ b ˙Jœ-‰Œ
œ-‰Ó ∑ .
b œœœœ ÓŒœ
œŒ ∑ Œ≈œœœ‰.r
# ˙ Ó Œœ ˙
# ˙ œ≈œœœ. œœœ ˙
3
heavy vibrato
f 5q»¡¢º Œj œ.‰j œ.Ó œ-ŒÓ Œ˙ Œ Œœ.œ.œ.≈. Jœ. œ-. ˙f
ff f(still
3œœœ
Œj
downbows)
j œ œœ‰.r œÓ œœ≈.
Œ˙ Œ ∑
Œ‰.RœŒœœ
˙ œœ. œœ œŒœœ Œ.
œ.‰j œ.‰.r œ.≈. j œ. ∑ œ..
# ˙ ≈. Jœ.œ.œ.œ.‰Jœ.‰≈Rœ. ˙
# ˙ œ. œ œœœ œœœœœ≈œœ ˙
œ≈. j œ≈œœœœ ∑ ‰.r
# ˙ Œ≈. Jœ≈. Jœ‰Jœ ˙
# ˙ . œœ≈. jœ œœœ œœœœœ ˙
123

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
98œ‰j œœœ ∑
98œ.
Œ
98‰Jœ‰.Rœ‰.RœŒ
98Œ˙ &V?ã98œœœœœ.
œœœ
98Œ. ˙
102 (G.P.) ∑
102 ∑
102
102
102 ∑ &V?ã102
∑
œœŒ≈. œ ‰.r jœœœœ‰œœ‰.r
œŒ ∑ ˙ # ∑ ˙
. œœœœ≈. j ∑ Œ ˙ Œ ‰œœ‰.Rœ≈. JœŒ Œ . ˙ œœœ œœ œœœœ œ≈œœŒ ˙œ
# ˙
(still simile)
3
3
(still
r œœ ‰r œj œÓ
simile) œ.Œr œ. œ.r œœ.Œ #.‰r œj œ.‰.r œr œ.œ aœœœ‰ bj
œœr œœ ≈r œ. Jœ bœr
œr
3
œ Œr œ #j œ Œr
œJœœœ œ. ∑
œœ
j œ œ≈.
œ. j œŒ ∑ ‰j
Jœ3
œœ≈. ˙ Œ≈œœ≈. Jœœ ˙ #
˙ # ˙
(end heavy vibrato) œœ
3 œ bj Œr œ. œr œœÓ œœœœœœœ. œ
b. j œ.‰r œj œ.r œ. œ.r œœ.≈r œ. j œ. r œ #œ #. ‰≈œœr œ.Ó œ ≈r
œ b. Jœ‰r œJœ‰r œJœ‰≈r œRœ ∑ ≈r
œœœœ œœœœœœœ œ.
124

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
simile (stacatto)...
simile (stacatto)...
105‰.r
œr
œŒÓ
105 3
‰œŒ.
œœ‰.r
œ
105Œœ
#.
œœŒ
105.
œœœÓ
105 ∑
105œœœ
œœ.
œ
œœ
œ‰.r
œ
∑
œ≈œœœ.
œœœ
Œ≈.
j
œ
#Œœ
∑
œ≈œ
œœœ.
œœœ
œ
∑
œœ‰.r
œœŒ
Ó Œ‰j
œ
#
Œ‰.RœŒœ
∑
œœ‰.r
œœœœ
œ≈.
j
œ‰œœœ
‰.r
œŒ ≈.
j
œŒ
‰œ
#œ‰.r
œr
œœ‰j
œ
œ≈.
Jœ≈.
Jœ‰Jœ
∑
œœœ≈œ
œœœœœœœœ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
109≈.
j
œ‰j
œœœ
109œŒœœ
109‰.
œ
# ≈.
j
œ3
‰œ
109‰Jœ‰.Rœ‰.RœŒ
109 ∑
109œœœœœœœœ3
j
œœ
‰.r
œœ‰œœŒ
ŒŒ≈.
j
œ≈r
œ‰
Œœ
#≈.
j
œ≈œœ
∑
‰.r
œœ
œ≈œ
œœœ≈œ
œœ
œœœ‰œr
œ
bœ‰.r
œ3
‰œ
‰.r
œŒ ‰.r
œŒ
‰œ
#œŒ ≈.
j
œ‰j
œ
Ó Œ ‰.œ
bœRœ
∑
œœœ
œœ
œ‰œœ≈œœ3
‰œœœ
125

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
112‰j œŒ ≈. j œŒ œ‰.r œÓ #≈. j œ≈. j œŒ œœœr œœœœœ bœ &V?ã
112œ
112‰j
112 ∑
112Œr
#œœ
112œ
116 ∑ &V?ã
116 ∑
116Œœ‰JœŒ
116‰œœœœœœŒ
j œ œ≈œœœœ≈.
3
3 ‰.œ
œ3
#œ
œœœœœœœ
j œ.
œ ‰œ‰.r
œ ‰œ‰.r
œœ3 ‰œ‰j œ Œ‰.r œ‰j œŒœ‰j
œœœœœ Œœr œ b. œÓ ‰j
#‰j œœœ
œœœœœ3
œ
œœ #r œ b. œÓ Œr
œ.
œr
œœb.
∑ œ‰.Rœ‰JœŒ œ‰Jœ‰.RœŒ ∑ . œœŒ ≈.
œœœœœœ
Jœ‰Jœ ∑
116
œ œœ œœœœ œœœœ
116‰œœ‰j œœŒ œœœœœ. ∑ œ œœœ œœ œœ≈œœ œ
œŒ ∑ Ó r œ ‰r œœ. ‰œ.‰.r œ.Œ ‰j œ.‰.r œj œ‰Œ
#ŒŒ3 œ #‰j œ‰.r œŒ‰œ.‰.r
œÓ ‰œ ‰œ #œ‰j œ œ œ‰.r Œœ‰j
≈.
∑ œ.
Jœ≈œœ‰.RœŒ
œœœ‰œ œœ‰≈r œ œœ
end simile, notes start getting longer
3 #œ.
end simile, notes start getting longer
3
Œ3
œ3
œ3 œœœœœœ
∑ œœ‰JœŒ
‰œ
3
œœ3 œœ‰.r j œœ ‰œ ∑
3
126

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
ritard...
œ‰Œ3
120ŒŒŒ3 œj
120‰.r
120œj Œr œj œ œ‰j
120
œ‰.rœ‰
∑ &V?ã
# œ Œj
∑
j 120≈.
to
120≈œœ‰j
€√6q»¡º
to
124w>
124œŒÓ FP &ã
to
œ3 œ‰.r
œ Œjœ
∑
w∑
FtoP(with
124w
strings)
œ #. j œœœœœ Œ≈r
œj œ‰rœœœœ.
œœ. œœœœ œ≈œœ≈œœœ j ≈. œ #Œœœ #≈. j œŒ‰j œ ∑ ≈œ œœ≈œ œœ‰œœœ œœ œœœ œœ j œ≈. œœ∑
.
œ b. r
œ ‰.r
124w>
bottom three pads are monophonic group (turn previous
∑
one
∑
off) w∑ w∑
∑
w∑
œœ. œœœœ œ. œœ. œœœœ .
& ∑ & ∑
œj œ‰ ≈œœ≈œœ‰j
∑
w∑
127

&ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
(€)
(√)
130 ∑
130 ∑
130w
130w
130w
130 ∑
∑
w∑
fSoli
f
wâ∑
wœŒÓ
∑
w∑
fwâ∑
wœŒÓ
simile....
f
ÓŒ≈.
Jœ
∑
wÓŒ≈.
j
œ
&ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
(€)
(√)
136œœ
bœ.
œ
bJœ
b
136 ∑
136w
136w
136w
136‰j
œŒ.
œj
œ
r
œ
b.
œœ
Nœ˙
∑
w .
œœŒÓ
.
Jœ≈Œœœ.
œ
b
∑
wÓ œ≈.
j
œ
.
œœ
bœœœ
br
œ
bœœœ
n
∑
w‰.r
œŒ≈œœ‰j
œ
128

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
140 ∑
140.
140w
(€) ˙ Jœ‰
(√)
140œŒÓ &ã
140w
( )
146
146w
146w∑
(€) 146w #
(√)
146œŒÓ &ã
146w
∑
w∑ w
b∑
wœŒÓ
w∑
wœŒÓ
edge of overblowing/multiphonic w
( ) #∑ w
wœŒÓ
œ bæ . ˙ ∑ œ
wœœœœœœœœŒÓ
b∑
wœŒÓ
∑
w∑
w∑
wœŒÓJœ
ÓŒ≈.
∑
Jœ wÓŒ≈.
129

&ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
(€)
(√)
151œœ
bœ.
œ
bJœ
b
151 ∑
151w
151w
151w
151‰j
œŒ.
œj
œ
r
œ
b.
œœ
Nœ˙
∑
w.
œœŒÓ
.
Jœ≈Œœœ.
œ
b
∑
wÓ œ≈.
j
œ
.
œœ
bœœœ
br
œ
bœœœ
n
∑
w
ı w
bı.
œœŒ≈œœ‰Jœ
&ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
155.
˙ Jœ‰
155 ∑
155w
155w
155w
155 ∑
∑
w∑
w∑
wœŒÓ
( )
w
#∑
wœŒÓ
w
b∑
wœŒÓ
∑
wœ
œŒÓ
130

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
161 ∑
161w
161w
161w 161œŒÓ &ã ˙ b
166˙ ˙ b
166˙
161w
(√) 166œ. ˙ (€)
˙
166œ. ˙
166œ.
166ŒœœŒ &ã
( )f w # Ó ˙ . œJœ˙ . œJœ˙ €√ œJœ˙ œ‰j œœŒ .
b˙ b ˙ w
wœŒœŒ
‰. œ ˙ ‰. œ ˙
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙ b Ó œœŒ ˙
œ bæ . ˙ œ œ bæ œ˙ œ
wœœœœœœœœŒœŒ
˙ Ó œŒœœ ∑
ı œŒœœ bı œŒœœ
ŒŒœœ
∑
∑ w
˙Jœ. œ Ó˙
wÓœœŒ
131

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
170
170˙ ˙ ∑
˙
170˙ ˙
170˙
€√
170œ. œ bœœœœœ bœœœœœ. œœ #œœœ bœœ. œ
œ Œ &ã
œ. œ bœœœœœ bœœœœœ. œœ #œœœ bœœ. œ ˙ ˙ ∑
˙ ˙ œ Œ œ Œ
170œ ˙ Œ Œ 172Ó
172œ. œ bœœœœœ bœœœœœ. œœ #œœœ
172˙ ˙ œœœœœ bœœœœ bœœ #œœœ bœœ. œœœœœœ Œ œ œœœœœ bœœœœœ bœ ˙ ˙ √€ (√) (€)
œœœœœ b bœœ. œ
172˙ ˙
172˙ ˙ bœ
œ &ã
172œ Œ
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
œ œ œ œ
132

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
√€ 174œœœœœ bœœ œ œ €√
œ bœœœœ b朜œœœœœœœœ #œœœ bœœœœœœ bœœ œ œ b朜œœœœœœœœ bœœœœœœ #œ ‰. œ ‰œ Jœ ‰. œ ‰œ Jœ ‰. œ ‰œ b Jœ œ œœœ œ ‰œ œœ œ œœ ˙ b &ã
œœœœœ
174˙ ˙
174œ
˙
174˙
174˙
œ 174œ
€ 176œœ bœ Œ
176Jœ œœœœœœœ‰‰Jœ
œ bœœœœ bœœœœœœ #œœœ
176œœ bœœ. b˙ œœœœœœ Œ œ œœœœœ bœœœœœ bœ œ ≈. Jœ ≈. Jœ œ≈œ œ ≈. Jœ ≈. Jœ œ≈œ œœœœœœœ‰‰Jœ
176Jœ √€ √ (√) (€)
bœœ˙ œœœœœ b #œ. œ
176Jœ œ bœœœœœœ‰‰Jœ &ã
176œ œœœœœœœœ‰œœ
≈. j œ b ≈. Jœ œ≈œ Œ œ. œ œ. œ . œ œ œ
133

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
√€
178œœœœœ bœœ œæ bœœœœ œ #œœœ bœœ
≈. JœŒ €√
œ b朜œœœœœœœœ bœœœœœœ
Jœ ≈. œ Jœ œ ≈. b朜œœœœœœœœ JœŒ bœœœœœœ #œ
≈. JœŒ Jœ
œ.
≈. Jœ ≈. Jœ.≈. Jœ. Œ ‰. Rœ. ≈. Jœ.≈. Jœ. Œ ‰. Rœ. ≈. j œ b.≈. Jœ. Œ ‰. Rœ. œ œ. œœ œ. œ Œ . œ œ œ. œJœ ≈. bœ œ j
178≈. &ã
œœœœœ
178≈.
178œ
178≈.
180œœ bœœ˙Œ
178œ.
bœb˙Œ
180‰ Jœ˘ŒÓ
180œœ
Jœ˘ŒÓ
180‰
#œ. œ
180‰ j œ bflŒÓ
180œ œœ‰Ó &ã
œ œœ7q»¡£∞
œ.. œœœ ∑V
∑∑?
f(blended just above electronics) b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. œŒ Ó b.œ.œ.œ
f(unlike before, low 4 sounds are now manually toggled on/off) œ bœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ ∑
(strong, competing with instruments for
∑
attention)
∑b.JœœJœ
134

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
f(blended just above
184w
electronics)
184 ∑
184f(blended just above electronics) ∑
184œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ.œ.œ.œ.œ. &V?ã b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. œœ.œœ Ó b.œ
184œ Œ 184œ
187 ∑
187w
187 3
187 ∑
187œœ.œ.. œœ.œœ.œ.œ.œœ. œj œœœ.œœœ bœ.œœ.œ. &V?ã187œŒÓ
3
œœœœ3
œ
œJœ œ b.œ.œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œœ. œœ b.œœ. œ
ŒJœ˙
∑
3 ∑ bœœœœœœ.œœ.œœ. œœœœœœ.œœ.œ.œ.œ Jœ
∑
˙ ˙
œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œj ∑
œ œ.
œœ.œœœ.œ. ˙
3
∑
Jœœ œœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ
∑
b.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.œœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ. ∑
135

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
190
190 ∑
190œ.œ.œœ.œ.œ.œœœœ.œœ
∑
œœ.œ.œœ.
190œ.œ.œ.œœœœ. &V?ã
190
190 ∑
193Ó Œ ∑
193
3
œŒÓ
œœ b œœ.œ.œ.œ Jœœ.
193œ &V?ã
#..
b.œœœ.œ.œœ b.œ.œ
193œ œ
∑
3
w
∑ œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ.œ. œ.
x = slap tongue
œ œœœœ.œ.œŒ
193 ∑ œœœ.œ.œ.œœ.œ œ
œ Œ Ó
193œ
j ¿ b ≈.
n..
œ
œœ.œœœ.œ3
w ∑
∑Jœœœ.œœ.
œœ.œb.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ
∑ .
3
3
b.œ.œ
œ¿Œ ˙ j œœ b œœ ˙ j
œ. œ
Ó
b.œœœœ.3 . œœ b.œ.œ.œ œœœ œ∑ Œ œ Ó
136

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
195 ∑
195œœ
195
195j
195 ∑
3 b Œ ‰ ¿¿ ‰ ¿ b.œ œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ Jœ œ n
195≈¿¿
&V?ã b j œ b œ œ œ.œ œ œ œ
196 ∑
196œœ
196
196
3 ∑
196‰¿ b.œ b.≈œ #.œ.œ.œœœœ.œ
3
b¿¿Ó
196
&V?ã bJœ bœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. ∑ œ Jœœ
3
b3 ¿‰Jœ œœ.œ b.œœj
œœ.œ #.œ n.œ.Œ Œ b‰.r
∑
¿ Œj
b.œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œ.. œ ∑ œ
b 3
3
3
pizz. bœœ bœœ.œ nœœ.œ b.œ œ bj œœœœœ.œŒ œJœ bœœœ.œœœ.œœœ.œ.œ Jœ
3
Jœ. œ ˙
œœ œ.œ.œ.œ. œŒÓ œœ.œœ.
137

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
199
199. ∑
199
202
202
∑
199˙ . œ¿ b¿
199œœ. œ b. œ bœ.œ.œ.œ.œ œœœœœ.. œœœ. œ
199œ.œ.œœ.œ.œ.. œœ
&V?ã b.œ.œ.œ.
202 &V?ã
202
3œœœœ.œœ.œ.œ.œ
œj
3 bœ. b.œ œœ
202b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. œœ.œœœ. œ
∑
202œ
Œ¿
arco bœ.œ.œ.œ #.œ.œœ
œœœ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.3
b¿Ó
Œ ‰.Rœ œœ Ó
b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœœœ.œ.œ.œ b.œ œ
œ Ó Œ ‰.r œ œj
œœ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. ∑
b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.˙ œ b.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.. œœœœœ œœ
∑
œ3 œj œœœ bŒ ∑
œ3œœœ.œ.3
œjbœœœ.œ.œ.œ.
. Jœœœœ.œœ.œ.œ.œ
3 Rœ.. œ b œ b
œŒŒœ œJœ
œœœ3 œœœœ.œ.œ.œœ3 ∑
œœ b.œ.œ
Jœœœœ.œ.œ.œœ. œœœ
3 j
3
∑ b.œ.œ.œ.œ˙
138

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
205 ∑
205w
205 ∑
205œœ.œœœ.œ.3 œœ.œ œj œœ
205œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ.œ. &V?ã
ŒÓ
205œ
208. ˙ œ¿œ
208.
œœ &V?ã
œœ
208
208œœ.œ.œœ.œœœ.œœ.œœ
208œœ.œœœ.œ.œœœœ..
˙
208
b
∑
3 œœœœœ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.
¿ ˙ Œ œ b.œ.œ #.œ.˙ œ
œœœ.œœœ.œœœ.œ. ∑ Œ œ Ó œj
3 Jœœ œ b . œœ b.œœ.œ.œ.œ #. . ˙
œœ.œ.œœœ˙
œœ œœœœœ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œœ.œ œœ.œ..
œŒÓ b.œœ
¿ . œ j ¿ œœ.œ.œ.œ b . œ j œ œ
œ.œœ.œœ.œ3
b
j œœœœ œœ. œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ.œœœœ..
œ¿¿ ∑
œœœ3 b.œ. œœ b.Ó bŒÓ œ.œ.œ bœœœ.œ œœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ
œœ.œ.. œœ . œœ . œœ.œœ.œ.œ.œœœ
Ó œ Œ
139

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
211
211 ∑
œ bÓ
211œœ. &V?ã
211 ∑
œŒ
211œŒ
214w
214œœ
214≈œpizz.
214 ∑
214Œ œÓ
3 ŒJœ3 œJœ3 #.œ b.œ bœœ n.œ b.œ n.œ.œ.œ.œ nœœ.œ b.œ. Œ ≈¿ ≈œ b¿≈¿¿¿Œ
∑œJœœ
œ. œœ b.‰Ó œ j œ‰j œÓ
211œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ œ
b.œ.œ #.œ.œ.œœ
214œœ.œ.œœœœ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.
œJœÓ
#>œ>ŒÓ
œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ b.œœœ.œ #.œ n.œ.œ n œœœœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. œ #>. œ>Œ
b.œœœ
Œ≈œ>œ> &V?ã
3
3
œ 3
‰¿ b¿Ó œ #.œ b.œ bœ.œ.˙ n Œ
œœ.œ.œœœœ.œœ.œ .
∑
3 œ bj œ ˙ ˙
arco
pizz.
bœœœ #œœ.œœœ.œ.œ. œ.œœœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ. Ó Œ≈œ #>œ n> Ó ‰j œŒ ∑
‰. œ Ó
140

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
217 3
217w 217œ.œ b.œ b.œ nœœ.œ b.œœœœ
217œœ.œ.. œœ.œœ.œ.œ.œœ. œj œœœ.œœœ bœ.œœ.œ.
217≈œ>œ #>œ>œ &V?ã Ó
Œ Ó
217œ
220 ∑
220œœ b.œœœ
œœ.œ.œœ. &V?ã
n
220 220œ.œ.œ.œœœœ.
b.œ.œœœœœ
220
220œ.œ.œœ.œ.œ.œœœœ.œœ
∑
3 œœœœœœ.œœ.œ.œ.œ
b¿ŒŒ‰¿¿ œœ.œ b.œ.œ.. œ b. œœ.œ.œ.œ.œ. ≈¿
bœœœœœœ.œœ.œœ. Jœ
∑
3 œ j ¿¿ œœ.œ.œ b.œ b.. œ œœ bœ Œ¿¿
œ.œœ3
b.
jœj
œœœ.œ œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ.œ. œ.
3
3 n
œœ
∑
b œ¿¿Œ ˙ œœ b.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ ˙
œ b.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.œœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ. Jœœ
∑
3 œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ
œ¿ b¿ œ.œ #.œ.œ b.œ b œœœ.œ ˙
œœ.œœœ.œ3
3 j
# Jœœœ.œœ. n.œ.œ
œœœ.œœ . œœ.œ b.œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ œ Œ Ó œœœ
141

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
223
3
223œ.
223. ˙ œ. œ b œœ b œœ.œ #.œ.œ n.. œ Jœœ. œ œœœ.œ.œ.œœ.œ
223œœœ.œ.œ.œœœ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ &V?ã b.œ.œ
223 ∑ b.œœœ.œ.œœ
b3 œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ b.œ
œ
223œ
225≈r œœ
225œœ
225œ. œœ.. œœ.œ.œ.œœœœ
225˙ . œ œœœœ &V?ã
‰¿œ3 j b
n Jœœ
225 ∑ bœœœ.œœ
¿ ¿.
œœ
225j
j œ b
3
3 ¿¿Œ ˙ j œœ b œœ ˙ j
œ œ.. œœœ.œ.œ œœ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. œœœ . œ œ b.œ.œ.œ œœœ œ. œ
3
(no more slap tongue) b.œœœœ.
b.œ.Œ Ó ∑ œœ
3
b.œ#.œ.œ.œœœœ.œ
œœ.œ.œœœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. œœ
3 bœœ.œœ. œ œ b.œ.œ
œ b Jœ bœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. ∑ Jœœ œ.œœ
142

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
227œ
3
227œœœœœ3 œ b. œ œœœ
227œœ.œ œj œœ.œ #.œ n.œ.Œ œj
b.œ.œ.. œœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ œJœŒ &V?ã
b3 b.œ
227 ∑ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œ.. œ
œ.
b
227œ b.œ.œ
227œœ
. œ œ b œ.œ.œ.œ.œ
229˙
b.œ.. œ
229œ œ. œ
229œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œœ.œ œœœœœ.. œ œœ. œ
229œ.œ.œ œ.œ.œ.. œ &V?ã b.œ.œ.œ. œ
229.
229 ∑
3 b j œœœœœ.œ.œœœ œ
3bœœ
bœœ.œ nœœ.œ b.œ œJœ
3 Jœœ b œœ.œœœ.œœœ.œ.œ œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ.œœœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.
œ œ œ.œ.œ.œ. ∑ œœ.œœ.
œ bœ.Ó œ œ bœ.œ.œ.œ #.œ.œœ œ
œœœ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.3 œj œ œ b.œ œœœ.œœ.œœœœœœœ
∑ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œœœœ.œ.œ.œ
143

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
231
231œ
3 ∑
231œ
3 bŒ
œœœ.œ.3 Jœœœœ.œœ.œ.œ.œ œj œœœ
œJœ b
231Rœ..
&V?ã
3
231b œ bœœœ.œ.œ.œ. j
∑ œœ 231.
œœ b.œ.˙ b.œ bœœ n.œ.œ.œ #.œ.œœ
233œ
233œ
233œœ
233 ∑
233œœ
233œœ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.˙ &V?ã b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.. œœœ b.œ
3
3
œ œ b.œ œœ.œ.œ œ.œ.œ.œ b. œ œ.œ #.œ n.œ b.œ nœœ.œ b.œ .
j œœ œœ.œœ.œ.œ.œ œœ bœ. œ œ.œœœ. œ œ b.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.
œ
∑
b˙
œœœ3 œ.œ.œ b.œ˙ œ œœ.œ œ
Jœœœœ
3 j
3
œ b.œ.œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ˙ ∑ œœœœ.œ.œ.œœ
œ œœ b ˙ œœ #œ nœ b. ˙ .
œœœ œœœœœœ œœœœœœœ.
œ œœœœ ∑ .
144

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
236œœœœ˙
236œœ
236
3
236œœ˙ b˙
œj œœ˙ œœ.œ˙ &V?ã
236 ∑
236.
242w> qȼ
8f
ffff
b>
$> &V?ã
242w>
242w
242w>
242w
œœ b˙ ˙˙
œœ˙
∑ œœ˙
F
(pads 4 to 9 are silent and affect video only) w∑
242œŒÓ F
˙- Œ ˙œ b-Œ .
˙œ-Œ
ÓŒœ ˙œ-Œ
Ó˙
w∑
˙-Ó
˙-Ó
ÓœŒ ˙-Ó
F
w∑
˙-Ó
˙-Ó
Óœ œŒ ˙-Ó
wœŒÓ
n
∑
w∑
n
145

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
248w
&V?ã f
f
248 ∑ w∑
248w $
Ó
253œŒ
N 248w b 248w
ı 248w
253. j œ #j œœJœ œ
ıœœœ $˙ &V?ã253
. ˙∑
$œ N
253œœ
253w
253œ
fstrong attacks all short notes œœ #œ. œœœ#
. .
f .. ˙ N˙ Jœ
$ w˙˙ w∑
∑
wœŒÓ
œ œj
w˙˙ ˙ b œœœ. œ . œœœ #œœœœ bœ w # ˙ $ œ $œ r œ w
. œœœ $œ˙ œœ . w∑
w ∑
œœœœœœ˙ ∑
˙˙ b œŒÓ
b . œœœ #œœ ˙ b ˙ b ˙
$ ˙ # . œ nœ $œœ ˙˙∑
146

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
257œ>.
œœœ.
œ
bœœ
257.
œ
bœ˙ œœ
b
257.
œœ
bœ.
œœ
#œœ
257œ.
œ
ıœœ
$j
œ.
œ
$
257j
œ
#.
œ
$ .
œ
n j
œ
n
257 ∑
œ.
˙
b
œ.
˙
œ.
˙
#
œ.
˙
$
œ.
˙
ŒœÓ
w∑
∑
œŒÓ
w
b w
$ wœ
œœœŒ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
262w
262w
262w
262w
262w
262 ∑
∑
˙Ó
.
˙ œœœ
b
.
˙ œ
b
bœœ
n
.
˙ œ
b
bœ
nœ
#
∑
w
$wœŒÓ
˙œ>œœœ
˙œ
bœœœ.
œ
˙r
œœ
#œœ
bœ
˙œœ
ıœ
$œœœ
$
˙œ
#œœ
$œ
∑
œœ
bœœœœ˙
.
œ œ
bœ˙
.
œœœœœ˙
œ
$œ
$œœ ˙
œ.
œœœœ˙
∑
147

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
267
267
267
267
∑
267
∑ &V?ã267
w˙ ∑ œœœ bœœ bw>ww
˙ ˙ ˙ $ ˙ wÓ
ı ∑ w ∑ ∑
271œœœ bœœœ˙ P œŒ ∑ f
ı 271w
271 ∑
&V?ã
f
271w
271˙ œ #œœœœœ
P
∑
f
f
wœbœ˙
œ œ . ˙ bœœœ œœ ıœ $œ $œ ıœ ˙
wœ Œœ Œ
148

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
&V?ã
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ f ,œœœ
273˙ œ bœ.
b ‰œ #œœœ P
$œ nœ n. œ . œ Jœ b ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ f
‰j œ f P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ œ PP
f #œ ŒŒ f ˙ ˙ P Œœ bœœœ bœ˙ ˙ ı ıœ$œ$œ ‰œœ ˙
w˙
273. ˙ 273w ı 273œ
273w
273œ
˙ 275˙
275œ ı 275œ
275w
275œ Œ
Œ ‰j œ $œŒ
˙ ı ı
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P &V?ã
Pf 275œ bœ˙ ‰œb
‰œœœ P œ œ ‰œœœ bœœ f f b bœœœ ‰œ #œœœœ
b f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P ˙ œ ‰œ bœœœ b
f f P œ œ œ #œœœœ Œ ‰œœ ıœ $œ $œ œ ‰œ #œ$œ nœ n. œ Jœ b ‰j œj œ‰ Ó œ œœ œ n. nœ œŒ #œ $œ f ‰j P~~~~~~~~~~~~~
149

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
277œ œœœ bœœ œ œœœœŒ œ bœœœ #‰ œœœœŒ #œœœœœ œœœœŒ ıœ $œ $œ ı œ œœœœœœœœŒ &V?ã $œ nœ nœ œ b ≈œ #œ $œœœ nœ nŒ f#œ
‰ 277œ ≈œ
277œœ
277‰œ
277œœ Ó
Œ 277œ
280∑
&V?ã
280œŒÓ
ÓŒœ ∑
(G.P.)
∑
‰. œ œ b> Ó
‰œ b> ‰œ˘‰œ #˘‰. œ œ> Ó
œ ı$fl‰œ $>˙ ‰jœ œ>. ˙ ˙ ‰œ œŒ ‰œ‰œ‰j
(erratic occasional trills to B) w w ∑ www
w
(erratic occasional trills to E) w
www w
w∑
n
n
trill to lower less and less often...
trill to lower less and less often...
trill to lower less and less
w
often... wœŒÓ ww
œŒÓ ˙ ˙∑ ˙˙ ˙
˙ ˙˙ ∑ ˙˙
150

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
287
287 ∑
to
287w
sul tasto.... ∑
to sul
287wtasto....
to sul tasto....
&V?ã
293
293 ∑
287œ
287w
293w &V?ã
...here
...here
293w
293w...here
293 ∑
...here
...here
∑
...here w∑
to normal bow...
∑
w∑
to normal bow...
...here wœŒÓ
to normal
∑
bow...
∑
...here
to wœŒÓ
to normal bow...
to normal bow...
to normal
∑
bow... wœŒÓ
∑
w∑
sul tasto.... wœŒÓ
∑
...here
...here
...here
to sul tasto....
to sul tasto....
to sul
∑
tasto.... wœŒÓ
œŒÓ ∑
151

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
tenuto...fl+clar soli whole section b‰.Rœ‰.Rœ3 Fall
tenuto...fl+clar soli whole 298‰.r
section
Fall Jœ ‰Jœ≈.
9q»¡¢º
298‰.r
298
298œRœŒœ b . œœ œRœ
298
ŒJœ
&V?ã
∑
∑
298‰j F
302œœ‰Jœ b≈. Jœ≈. Jœ b œŒÓ
302b≈. Œj œŒ
302
œ. œœ &V?ã302
∑
∑
302r
Jœ3
b ŒœŒ‰Jœ bœœ
∑
Jœ b≈. Jœœ‰.Rœ b ‰.œ b.œÓ ≈.
∑
œœ b . œœŒ≈. Jœ b ≈r œ. Jœ bœ‰Jœ≈. Jœ r
∑
Jœ b≈. Jœ≈. Jœ Œ≈. Jœ≈. Jœœ b ‰Jœ≈.
∑
œœ bœœ ‰œœœ≈. Jœ b≈. Jœ œ.
∑
Jœœœ bœœŒ . œ bœ‰.Rœ‰œr œœŒ ≈.
∑
152

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
306‰œ
306
306bJœ≈. Jœœ. œ bJœ≈.
306
Jœœœ
&V?ã
∑
∑
306‰œ
œŒÓ
310 œ bŒŒ
310Œ≈. j œ b≈. j œŒ œ≈.
310
310
j
∑
310 ∑
306‰j
310≈. j
&V?ã
œ œ.
# bœœœ
œŒœ˘œ
∑
bJœ≈. Jœœœ ‰œ #Jœ≈. Jœœ. œ ‰œ
‰j œŒÓ ∑
œœ. œœ bŒ‰.Rœ Œ‰.Rœ #. œœœœ. .
∑
#3 œœœœ #≈œœŒ œœ œœflŒ œ œ.
Œœ Ó ∑
b‰œŒ‰j œfl Œ‰j œœœœœœ œœ
∑
Óœœœ≈œœ Óœ‰Jœ
ÓœŒ ∑
153

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
314 3œœ>ŸœŸ>.
œœ œ ‰œ‰Jœ
314
314 œœ>ŸœŸ >‰œœ
314 ∑
314Œ≈. &V?ã
j
∑
317‰œœ3
317‰.Rœœr
œ3
317
317
317 ∑
317 ∑
œŒ
314Ó Jœœ≈r œœœ œj œ. œœœœ &V?ã
≈œœ3 r œœ œ. œœ>ŸœŸœœ
Jœœœ>ŸœŸ>œœœ
>3 j
œŸ>œ‰.Rœ œ‰Jœ>Ÿ.
Œj œ‰Jœ>ŸœŸ >œ‰r œj œ
œ>ŸœŸ>3
∑ Œ‰j œÓ ∑
b‰.Rœ‰.Rœ3 Ó ‰.r œRœ ŒJœ œŒ
œRœŒœ b . œœ œœœœ b≈œœŒ œ>ŸœŸ ‰.r œ>ŸœŸ œ>ŸœŸ>œÓ
>œÓ
œŒÓ ∑
‰j œŒÓ ∑
3
œœflŒ >œ
œœ Ó ∑
154

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
321œ
321 œ œ
321
œ
321 ∑ &V?ã
∑
Œ œ ∑
˙
œœœ>ŸœŸ>3
321˙
321œ Œ
œ>ŸœŸ ˙
323œŒœœ
323
323
323
323œŒ˙ &V?ã
∑
323Ó œŒ
b >œœœœœ
œŒœœ ∑
œ ˙ Œ ˙ œ Œ
Œ œ Œ œ ∑
œ ˙ ˙ œ˙
œŒœŒ ∑
œ>ŸœŸ>3 bJœœJœ œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ œœœœ
& ∑ & ∑
œœ œœ
155

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
327œ>ŸœŸ>3
√n
327w
n b
(normal bow)
327w
n
327œœ œœ #
œœœœ bJœœJœ
327œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ
&ã
331œ>ŸœŸ>3
(√) œœœœ bJœœJœ
331œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ
&ã
331w
331œœ œœ
331w
œ>ŸœŸ>3 bJœœJœ œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ œœœœ
œ>ŸœŸ>3 bJœœJœ œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ œœœœ
œœ œ>ŸœŸ>3
œœ wœœ wœœ
œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ œœœœ bJœœJœ
wœœ œœF œ>ŸœŸ>3 œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ bJœœJœ œœœœ
wœœ œœ
œ>ŸœŸ>3 bJœœJœ œ>ŸœŸ >œ œœ œœœœ
œ>ŸœŸ>3
wœœbJœœJœ œœ
>œ œœ œ>ŸœŸœœœœ
wœœ œœ
156

&ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
(√) P
335œŒŒ‰Jœ
b
335œŒÓ
335ÓŒœ
b
335ÓŒœ
335ÓŒœ
#
335ÓŒœ
œ
œœ
b≈.
Jœœœœ.
œ
b
Œœœœ≈œœŒ
w ∑
œ
bœ>ŸœŸ
>œ
# .
œœ
≈.
j
œœ>ŸœŸ
>‰œœœ
wŒœÓ
f .
œœœ>ŸœŸ
>‰.Rœ
#œœ
œ.
œœ>ŸœŸ
>3
j
œœ3
Œj
œ
wŒœÓ
&ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
(√)
339‰Jœ>ŸœŸ>3
œœœ.
œ
#œœ.
339‰œ>ŸœŸ
>œœœœœ.
339..
..
˙ ‰
339..
˙ ‰
339..
˙ ‰
339‰œ‰œÓ
Í
ÓŒœ
ÓŒœ
ÓŒœ
b
ÓŒœ
ÓŒœ
#
ÓŒœ
Í
œŒœœ
œŒ˙
œŒ˙
œŒ˙
œŒ˙
ÓœŒ
ŒŒÓ
∑
Í
Í
œœŒœ
˙Œœ
˙Œœ
˙Œœ
˙Œœ
œÓœ
œŒÓ
œŒÓ
œŒÓ
œŒÓ
œŒÓ
∑
157

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
345œœœ>ŸœŸ>3
(√) œœœœ bœœ
345œœ>ŸœŸ >œ œ
F &ã
retract œ
345œœœ
345w
345w
(all quarter notes downbow again) F
œœœ>ŸœŸ>3 bœœ œœ>ŸœŸ >œ œ œœœœ
œ wœœœ
+ means sul pont with some scraping
349Jœ‰ŒÓ F ˙Ó Œœ b+˙ b œŒÓ ∑ ˙Ó Œœ b+˙ b œŒÓ (√)
10q»¡¡ª
349Jœ‰œœ+œ #
349Jœ‰ŒÓV
349Jœ‰ŒÓ?
349Œœœœ &ãp
F+ Œœœ+œ
ÓŒœ b ˙Ó #
∑ Œœœœ œœœœ FF
ÓŒœ bœ ˙Ó
œ œœœœ
œœœ>ŸœŸ>3 bœœ œœ>ŸœŸ >œ œ œœœœ
# Œœœœ+œ
Œœœœ ∑
œœœ>ŸœŸ>3 bœœ œœ>ŸœŸ >œ œ œœœœ
slight accell...
œ
means pinched, distorted, almost squeaking
wœœœ wœœœ œ
b+˙ b ∑ Œœ ˙Ó ∑
˙Ó œŒÓ
b œœœœ ÓŒœ
#œ Œœœœ+œ+œ
Œœ œœœœœœ ∑
158

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
356Jœ. œÓ b+œ+Jœ b. œ
356œŒÓ
356Jœ. œÓ &V?ã356œœœœœœœœ
bœ
356Œœ
Œœ
356Ó
Œœœœ+œ+œ #œ ∑
Œœœœœœœ ∑
360Ó œ>œœœœœœœ bœœœŒ ‰œ b>+œ+œ>œœœ
360‰œ>œœ>+œ+œ>œœœœœœœ‰ &V?ã ‰œ>œ
360‰œœœœœœœ bœœœœœ‰Œ
360œ œ>œœœœœœœ
360œ
360Ó
œÓ Œœ b+œ+Jœ b. œ œŒÓ Jœ.
œÓ Ó Œœ bœ Jœ.
œœœœœœœœ
...to here Ó œ>œœœœœœœ q»¡£∞
‰œ b>+œ+œ b>œœœ ‰j œ>œ>+œ+œ>œœœœœœœ‰ Ó œ>œœœœœœœ Ó Œ ‰œ b>œ Ó
œœœœœœœ ‰œ
œ #>œœœœœœœ œ bœœœŒ ‰œ b>+œ+œ>œœœ Ó
Ó œ>œœœœœœœ ‰œ>œœ>+œ+œ>œœœœœœœ‰
bœœœœœ‰Œ ‰œ>œ ‰œœœœœœœ œ
159

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
362Ó œ>œœœœœœœ bœœœŒ ‰œ b>+œ+œ>œœœ
362‰œ>œœ>+œ+œ>œœœœœœœ‰ b>œœœœœœœ &V?ã ‰œ>œ
362‰œœœœœœœ bœœœœœ‰Œ
362œ œ
362œ
362Ó
11
364œ œœ b.œ˙
364œ.œ b.œ bœœ n.œ.œ.œ #.œ.œœ
364œ.œ.œ.œœœ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.˙ &V?ã b.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.. œœœ b.œ
364œ
f
364œ Œ 364œ
Ó
œ #>œœœœœœœ œœœœŒ ‰œ b>+œ+œœœœ Ó
Ó œ>œœœœœœœ ‰œœœ+>œ+œœœœœœœœ‰
bœœœœœ‰Œ ‰œ>œ ‰œœœœœœœ œ
œœœ3 œœ œ.œ.œ b.œ˙ œ œœ.œ bœ
Jœœœœ
3 j
3
œ b.œ.œ.œ b.œ.œ.œ.œ˙ ∑ œœœœ.œ.œ.œœ
œœ.œ b ˙ œ.œ b.œ.œ b.. ˙ .
œœ.œ œœ.œ.œœœ œ.œ.œ.œ.œœ.œ.
œœ.œœœ ∑ .
160

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
œ
367œœœœ˙
367œ
367
3
367œ b˙
367
œ˙
œœ˙ œœ.œ˙ &V?ãœj
∑
˙ œœ b˙ ˙
∑ œœ˙
The fleeting moment of unadorned truth
restrained but strong
˙ Œ ˙œ bŒ .
∑ ˙œŒ
Ó ˙- Ó ˙-
Ó ∑ ˙-
˙-Ó
œœ˙ ˙œŒ ˙- Ó ˙-Ó
Ó
367. œœ˙
3
3
˙œŒ
#3
œ3 Ó ÓœŒ
ŒŒj œ≈. bœ≈œœ #‰j œ œœœœ
372. JœœŒ
bœ≈œœ‰Jœ3 œ 372.
372‰Jœ≈. ‰œ. œ bœ b
372œœ≈œœ‰œœœ
372 œJœ
372œœ≈œœ‰JœŒ
&V?ã ∑ P
j œJœ
b b≈.
œ Œj
≈œ bœŒ≈. Jœœœ ≈œœŒ≈œœ‰Jœ
≈œœ‰Jœ ∑ Ó
3 œJœ≈œœ‰Jœœ
3 bJœ≈. Jœœœœ œ
œœŒŒ‰Jœ
œœŒÓ ∑ .
b œJœ
161

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
375
3Jœœœ≈œœ
b œJœ≈.
œ3 bœ‰j
375Ó œ
375‰j
≈œ
375‰œœœœ‰j
bœŒÓ
&V?ã
b œj œ #≈. Œ‰j j œ œœŒ≈. j ≈. j œŒ≈œœ≈. j œ b‰Jœ≈œœ≈œœ œ≈œœŒ‰j
œœ œ
∑ bœ. œ bœœœ
cresc. poco a poco...
cresc. poco a poco...
cresc. poco a
379≈.
poco...
cresc. poco a poco...
cresc. poco a
379≈.
poco...
379≈œœ
379≈œœ‰Jœœ‰j œ Jœ bœœœ‰j œ
379Ó
&V?ã b JœŒ‰œ‰œ Œ‰Jœ
œ3 œJœ ≈œœŒ‰j
œ3 œ bJœ œœœ‰j
bœ bœ. œœ. œœ ≈. JœŒ‰Jœœ œœ
∑
j Œ≈œœ≈.
ӌ3 ӌ3
Ó‰œ b>œ‰
œ
375
≈œ œ bœŒÓœŒ
Ó‰œ b>œœ
œ≈œœ≈œœŒ ‰Jœ bœ bœœ≈œœ≈œœ œœœ œJœ bJœ
P ÓŒ. œœ Ó‰Jœœ
375‰œ
accel poco a poco... ‰Jœ3 ‰Jœ3
cresc. poco a
≈œ
poco... ∑
œ3
œ3
∑ bœ
bŒ ≈. Jœœœ≈œœ bœ Ó ‰œ b>œœÓ
œJœ ≈œœ #‰jœ
bJœ bŒ bJœ
379Ó œ #‰j œJœ
œ ≈. Jœ bœœœ‰j œ ≈œœ‰Jœœ‰j
Œ‰Jœ b ≈. JœŒ‰œ‰œ Ó
162

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
382≈.
Jœœœ≈œœ
bœ
382Ó ‰œ
bœœ
382≈œœŒ‰j
œ3
œJœ
382œœœ‰j
œ3
œ
bJœ
382œœ
bœ
bœ.
œœ.
œœ
382≈.
JœŒ‰Jœœ
Ó ‰Jœ3
œJœ
≈œœ
#‰j
œ3
œ
bJœ
bŒ
≈œœ‰Jœœ‰j
œ
≈.
Jœ
bœœœ‰j
œ
Ó Œ‰Jœ
b
≈.
JœŒ‰œ‰œ
3
œJœœ.
œœ
bœŒ
Ó Œ≈œœ
‰j
œœœ
bœ
bœ≈œ
bœ
‰œœ
bœ
bœ
b ≈.
Jœ
‰œ
bœœ
nœœŒ
œ Œ œ≈.
j
œ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
385Ó ‰Jœ≈.
Jœ
385≈œ
bœœœ3
œ
bJœ
bŒ
385≈œœœœœ≈œœ
385≈.
Jœœ
bœœœœ
385Ó Œœœ
b
385≈.
JœŒ‰Jœœ.
œ
‰œœ
bœœœŒ
3
œ
bJœ
bŒ‰j
œŒ
.
œ j
œŒ‰Jœ
b
.
œ
b j
œœœ
nœ
Œ‰Jœ
bœ
bœŒ
œœ‰œ‰œ‰œ
Ó ‰œœœ
≈œœœœ3
œJœŒ
≈œ
bœœœœ
bŒ
3
‰œ
#œ
#œœœ
Ó Œœ
bœ
b
≈.
JœŒ‰Jœœ
‰Jœœ
b 3
Jœœ
b>‰Jœ
b
3
œ
bJœ
bœœ≈.
j
œ
b>Œ
œ3
Jœœj
œ‰œ
œ
#3
Jœœœ>œœ
b
Œ3
‰œœ
b>œ
bŒ
œœ3
‰œ≈.
Jœœ
163

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
389≈œœ3
œ
3
389≈œ
3 b>3 b3
3 Ó
389 3
3
Œ‰Jœ‰Jœ bœ‰œœœ
œ bJœ ‰œœ bœœ‰œ ‰œ>Œ
3 ‰œ
3 ‰œœ # œb
œ #œœ
389Ó
3
3
Œœ
‰œ3 b>œ3
Ó#> 389≈. œ>j
œœœ
392Œ
3 #œ>3
‰œ‰JœŒœœ b‰Jœ
b>Œ Jœ‰JœŒœ
b>Œ
3
‰œ
œ3
#œ &V?ã
‰œ
392≈.
3 Œ‰Jœ‰Jœ bJœ bœœ‰œ Ó ‰œ>œ
Jœ ‰œ ‰œœ #œ ≈œœ
bœ # ‰œ>Œ ≈œœœ b>Ó ≈. Jœ # œ>. œ>œ #œ Ó . œ>œ œ #œ bœ Jœ ≈. b>j ‰œ‰JœŒœœ
392Ó œœœ œ ‰œœœ 389Œ ‰Jœ‰œœœ bJœnJœ
nŒ bœœœ b Œ ‰œ #œ # œœ &V?ã b bœ
392≈œœœ>Œ œ
392≈œœ
3 #>Jœ3 œ j œ‰j
#>
3 Jœ 392≈.
‰œ3
œ
‰j œ b œ‰Jœœ>Œ
3 j ‰JœŒ
œ œ>j
œ # œ‰j
3 œ bœœ‰j
3
b b≈œœ
œ #‰j
Œ. œ Ó
‰œ3
œ
3 œ bœœ‰j
b b≈œœ
‰j œ #
Œ . œ Ó
JœŒ3
j
b #œ
164

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
395
3
395 3
395 3
395Œ
3 œJœ‰Jœ≈œ bœ ‰œŒœœ b≈œ bœ ‰œ‰j œœ b œœ ‰œ #‰j œœ≈. j œ
395Œ‰Jœ
&V?ã b bŒ≈œœ
395
3
3 #œ>3 ≈œœ ‰œ>Œ ‰œ>œ Ó
œ>. #œ
JœŒ3 Ó . œ>œ bœ b # œ>œ
œœœ j
≈œœœ b>Ó ≈. Jœ
#œ>3
j≈.
Œ≈. Jœ>Œ≈œ ‰œ>œ œ bœ ‰œœŒ≈.
&V?ã
398≈œœœ ‰œ b>Ó b>Œœ bœ b≈œ bœœœ>Ó
3 ‰œ #>≈œœœœœ
398≈œœ #≈.
œ bœœ b>. œÓ ‰œ>Œ
œœJœœ>Œœ.
œ
Œœœ bŒ≈œœ bœ
#Jœœ #>œ #Œ . œœœ>Ó j ‰œ>œœœ #œ #œ>. b bœ œ>œ Jœ œ>œ
3
398Ó
398≈.
JœŒ3
j
.
398≈. œœœ
398Ó
...to
...to here
...to here
...to here
...to here
hereq»¡∞º+
Climax!ƒ
3
3
3
...to here
3 ‰œ≈.
...to here
j œ JœŒ≈.
3
3
3 bœ ‰œŒœœ b≈œ bœ ŒœJœ‰Jœ≈œ b œœ œœ ‰œ‰j
3
ŒœŒœ
3 #‰j ‰œ
3 œ Œ‰Jœ bŒ≈œœ b j œœ≈. ‰œœŒ≈. œ
bœ3 ‰j œ>≈œJœ>œ≈œœ
Œ≈œ bœŒ≈œœ
‰œ>œœœ>œœ
165
œ #>≈. j œœ>≈. j œ Œ≈œ bœ bŒ≈œœ ‰j j œ ‰JœŒŒ≈.

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
402Jœ‰œ>œ>Œ
402œ
bœœ
b>.
œœ
b>Œ
402
3
œJœœ>œ>œ.
œ
402
3
œ
#Jœœ
#>œ
#>Œ
402.
œœœ>œ>Œ
402ŒœœŒ
Œ ≈œ
bœ≈.
Jœ>≈œœ
‰j
œ>≈œ
bœœ
b>≈œœ
‰œ>œœœ>œœ
‰j
œ
#>≈.
j
œœ
#>≈.
j
œ
Œ ≈œ
bœ
bŒ≈œœ
‰JœŒ ≈.
Jœ≈.
j
œ
œœ>œ>Œ
œ
bœœ
b>.
œœ
b>Œ
3
œJœœ>œ>œ.
œ
3
œ
#Jœœ
#>œ
#>Œ
.
œœœ>œ>Œ
ŒœœŒ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
405Œ≈œ
bœ≈.
Jœ>≈œœ
405‰j
œ>≈œ
bœœ
b>≈œœ
405‰œ>œœœ>œœ
405‰j
œ
#>≈.
j
œœ
#>≈.
j
œ
405Œ≈œ
bœ
bŒ≈œœ
405‰JœŒ ≈.
Jœ≈.
j
œ
œœ>œ>Œ
œ
bœœ
b>.
œœ
b>Œ
3
œJœœ>œ>œ.
œ
3
œ
#Jœœ
#>œ
#>Œ
.
œœœ>œ>Œ
ŒœœŒ
Œ≈œ
bœ≈.
Jœ>≈œœ
‰j
œ>≈œ
bœœ
b>≈œœ
‰œ>œœœ>œœ
‰j
œ
#>≈.
j
œœ
#>≈.
j
œ
Œ≈œ
bœ
bŒ≈œœ
‰JœŒ ≈.
Jœ≈.
j
œ
166

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
408œœ>œ>Œ
408œ
bœœ
b>.
œœ
b>Œ
408
3
œJœœ>œ>œ.
œ
408
3
œ
#Jœœ
#>œ
#>Œ
408.
œœœ>œ>Œ
408ŒœœŒ
Œ≈œ
bœ≈.
JœâŒ
‰j
œ≈œ
bœœ
bâŒ
‰œœœœâŒ
‰j
œ
#≈.
j
œœ
#âŒ
Œ≈œ
bœ
bÓ
‰JœŒ ≈.
JœŒ
12 Down a notch toq»¡¢º
F
F
Œœ>Ó
3
Œj
œ‰‰.
œœ>Œ
3
Œj
œ
#‰j
œ‰.r
œ>Œ
œœ>œ≈.
Jœ
∑
3
œjœ
œœœ.
œœ≈.
j
œ
Œ.
œœÓ
≈.
j
œ‰j
œ.
œœœ.
œ
œ
#‰≈r
œÓ
≈.
Jœ‰Jœ‰Jœ‰.Rœ
∑
œ.
œœœœ
œœœœœœœ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
412‰.r
œ>ŒÓ
412
3
‰œŒ.
œ>œ>‰≈r
œ
412Œœ
#.
œ>œ>Œ
412.
œœ>œÓ
412 ∑
412œœœœ.
œœ‰≈r
œ
∑
œ≈œ>œœ.
œœœ>
Œ≈.
j
œ
#>Œœ>
∑
œ≈œœœ.
œœœ
∑
œœ‰≈r
œœŒ
Ó Œ‰j
œ
#
Œ‰.RœŒœ
∑
œœ‰≈r
œœœœ
œ>≈.
j
œ>‰œœœ
‰.r
œ>Œ ≈.
j
œŒ
‰œ
#œ>‰.r
œr
œj
œŒj
œ
œ>≈.
Jœ>≈.
Jœ‰Jœ
∑
œœœ≈œœœœœœœœ
167

&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
416≈.
j
œ‰j
œœ œ
416j
œ‰Œ r
œ≈‰3
j
œŒ
416‰.
œ
# ≈.
j
œ3
‰œ
416‰Jœ‰.Rœ‰.RœŒ
416 ∑
416œœœœœœœœ3
j
œœ
œ>‰j
œœœ>œœ
Œœ>r
œ
b.
œ>Ó
Œr
œœ
#>r
œ
b.
œ>Ó
.
œ>œŒ ≈.
Jœ>‰r
œ
bJœ
∑
.
œœœœœœœœœœ
‰œœ‰j
œœŒ
∑
Œr
œ
bœ‰r
œJœŒ
∑
‰œœœœœœŒ
&V?ã
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
419 ∑
419Œr
œ
bœ>‰j
œ>‰.r
œ
419œ
# r
œ
bœ>‰r
œj
œŒ
419≈r
œ
b.
Jœ≈œœ‰.RœŒ
419 ∑
419œ.
œœ
œœœ‰œ
œœ‰≈r
œ
Ó r
œ
#œ 3
‰r
œœ
Œ3
‰œ‰.r
œ>Œ
r
œ
Nœ
#‰j
œ‰.r
œ>Œ
r
œ
bœœ‰JœŒ
∑
œ3
œœœœœœ3
‰œ
‰j
œ‰.r
œœŒ
3
‰œ>‰≈r
œÓ
3
‰œ
#>ŒŒ3
‰œ
∑
3
‰œœ‰≈r
œœ3
j
œœ
168

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
œ‰j œŒ
422 Œr œj œ> œ‰.r
422 œ #>
422‰≈r &V?ã
Œj ∑
ŒJœ
422≈œœ‰j∑
j
422≈.
ŒŒ 422Œ
425
425
425
425
∑
425
∑ &V?ã425
∑
œ3 œ‰≈r
3
3 œŒŒ
œ #. j œœ>Œ œ>œ> Œ≈r
œjœ‰≈r
œ‰.r œŒœ> œ‰j œ‰r
#>Œ ≈. œ>œ> j œ>≈. j œ>‰j œ>œ ≈. j œ #>≈. j œ>Œ‰j œ> ∑ ≈œœ≈œœ‰œœœ œœœœœ j ∑ œœ≈. .
œ b. r
œ ‰.r
≈. j œ>‰œœœ ‰.r œ>Œ ≈. j œŒ œ> #œ>‰.r œr œœ ‰j œ œ> ≈. Jœ>≈. Jœ‰Jœ ‰œ
œœœ≈œœœœœœœœ ∑
jœœœ>
j œ‰Œœœ> ≈.
œ3 œ‰j
# ≈. j‰œ>
œ ‰.
œœœœœœœœ3 j ‰Jœ‰.Rœ‰.Rœ>Œ ∑œœ
œŒÓ ∑
169

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
429
429
429
429
∑
429
∑ &V?ã
∑
∑ ∑
œœœ> œŒÓ
429œŒÓ œ‰j
j
434≈.
œ
434‰.
œ3
434œŒœœ>
434 ≈. j‰œ>
434‰Jœ‰.Rœ‰.Rœ>Œ &V?ã434œœœœœœœœ3
#
œœ j ∑
œŒÓ ∑
œ. œŒÓ ∑
∑
œ. œŒÓ ∑
j œ>‰œœœ ‰.r œ>Œ ≈. j œŒ œ>≈.
#œ>‰.r œr œœ‰j œ œ>≈. Jœ>≈. Jœ‰Jœ ‰œ
œœœ≈œœœœœœœœ ∑
œ. œŒÓ ∑
œ. œŒÓ ∑
170

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
439
439
439
439
∑
439
∑ &V?ã
∑
∑ œŒÓ ∑
œ # 439œŒÓ œœœœ
443œ.
3 œ œ. œ # œ. œj œœ
443œœœœœœœœ3
443œœ.
b
œœ bœ &V?ã œœ œœ. j
œ
443j
443˙
443 ∑
fw- w #-w-w-w-∑ f
f
∑
#-w-w-w-∑
w-w
#> œ. œ>œœœœ ‰.r œ>œ r œ. j œ b œ œ
#œ>. œœr œ. œ j œ œ> œ. œ>œ. œ b œœ ‰œ
œœœ≈œœœœœœœœ ∑
# ww
w∑
ww∑
171

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
. ˙
448œ
let ring
p &V?ã
448œ # . ˙
448œ . ˙ #
448œ . ˙ Ó f
Œ 448œ Œ 448œ
449w-
449w #- 449w-
449 &V?ã ∑
prc. p
449œŒÓ
Solo to end ∑ œœœœŒÓ P ∑
œœœœŒÓ ∑
œœœœœÓ ∑
œœœœœÓ ∑
172

fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
fl
cl.
vl.
vla.
v.c.
prc.
455∑
&V?ã455œœœœŒÓ
455∑
455∑
460
460 ∑
ritard...
460
460
460 ∑ &V?ã
∑
œŒÓ
460œ ∑
œœœœŒÓ ∑
œ œŒÓ ∑
13
œŒœŒ ∑
~30 sec (to sound end)
œŒœŒ ∑
∑U ∑U ∑U
on sound end (everything off) ÓU œ œ
∑
173