CMJ Editor's Notes

In the first three editorials in this series (which appeared in "Computer Music Journal" 15:3, 15:4, and 16:1), I posed several questions related to our definitions of what we do and what its social context is. The responses were very interesting and covered a wide range of important topics. In the next three installments, I'd like to investigate the role that computers and digital hardware and software play in our musical activities from the point of view of the composer, the performer, and the listener, respectively.

The "dilemma" in the role of the computer for the composer is less of a question than the recognition of the need to acknowledge the effect of the tool (any tool), on the artifacts it is used to form; there are many areas where the composer who uses modern software and hardware tools will feel the influence of the task or user models implicit in the design of those tools.

There are several models of the compositional process, most of which relate it to design or problem-solving tasks. At the "highest" level, the new mathematical and informational technologies of the last 30 years are widely used by composers for modeling and describing compositional structures and algorithms--witness the literature on artificial intelligence and music, algorithmic composition, and high-level composition languages. The organizational or managerial portions of the composition process are served to a varying degree by a variety of score editors (e.g., Finale) and sequencers (e.g., Vision) that are often used by composers independent of the final score medium (i.e., for purely tape or purely instrumental pieces).

The problem that presents itself is how we, as clients of this technology, are integrating it into the other processes of our creative work. Are we using the new tools to interface into old processes in other areas (e.g., producing paper scores and parts for traditional performance)? Are tools available to composers that support the composition process--as separate from score-writing or performance? Are we able to carry our ideas through multiple steps of creation and realization within computer tools with flexible and musically-relevant representations and interfaces?

These questions are posed in all seriousness, in the hope that they will be used to evaluate the current state of computer support for music composition. It is my belief that even a good collection of current tools will support the composition process no better than a word processor would support writing odes--while a mechanical aid at a very concrete level is useful, the support for abstraction and refinement process is missing. I would invite readers to comment on the effects on the compositional process of using computers, and on the kinds of tools that the process requires, and the extent to which they are currently available. It is my hope that a better understanding of the compositional process will enable us to find better software tools for assisting it.

	Vol. 16 Issue 2 Editor's Notes	CMJ Library >
	The Composer and the Computer
	Stephen Travis Pope Computer Music Journal In the first three editorials in this series (which appeared in "Computer Music Journal" 15:3, 15:4, and 16:1), I posed several questions related to our definitions of what we do and what its social context is. The responses were very interesting and covered a wide range of important topics. In the next three installments, I'd like to investigate the role that computers and digital hardware and software play in our musical activities from the point of view of the composer, the performer, and the listener, respectively. The "dilemma" in the role of the computer for the composer is less of a question than the recognition of the need to acknowledge the effect of the tool (any tool), on the artifacts it is used to form; there are many areas where the composer who uses modern software and hardware tools will feel the influence of the task or user models implicit in the design of those tools. There are several models of the compositional process, most of which relate it to design or problem-solving tasks. At the "highest" level, the new mathematical and informational technologies of the last 30 years are widely used by composers for modeling and describing compositional structures and algorithms--witness the literature on artificial intelligence and music, algorithmic composition, and high-level composition languages. The organizational or managerial portions of the composition process are served to a varying degree by a variety of score editors (e.g., Finale) and sequencers (e.g., Vision) that are often used by composers independent of the final score medium (i.e., for purely tape or purely instrumental pieces). The problem that presents itself is how we, as clients of this technology, are integrating it into the other processes of our creative work. Are we using the new tools to interface into old processes in other areas (e.g., producing paper scores and parts for traditional performance)? Are tools available to composers that support the composition process--as separate from score-writing or performance? Are we able to carry our ideas through multiple steps of creation and realization within computer tools with flexible and musically-relevant representations and interfaces? These questions are posed in all seriousness, in the hope that they will be used to evaluate the current state of computer support for music composition. It is my belief that even a good collection of current tools will support the composition process no better than a word processor would support writing odes--while a mechanical aid at a very concrete level is useful, the support for abstraction and refinement process is missing. I would invite readers to comment on the effects on the compositional process of using computers, and on the kinds of tools that the process requires, and the extent to which they are currently available. It is my hope that a better understanding of the compositional process will enable us to find better software tools for assisting it.