Y3 | Timbre and Orchestration Analysis

Timbre and Orchestration Analysis
Y3 | Workgroup Summary

16 July 2021
09:30-11:00 EDT
Via Zoom

Workgroup Leaders:
R. Hasegawa (McGill University)

Aims:

This group focuses on the development and application of music analysis tools that consider timbre and orchestration, including tools developed within ACTOR by the Orchestration Taxonomies Group and new methodologies that relate timbre and orchestration to other analytical categories including pitch, rhythm, and form. As music analysts, we seek to explore the role of timbre in a variety of musical contexts from the Baroque Era to the present day. By creating and sharing analyses that address timbre through conference and journal publication, the group seeks to encourage a wider engagement with timbre and orchestration within the fields of music theory and musicology.

Discussion Points:

1.     Report on activities since last ACTOR workshop.

2.     Ongoing projects.

3.     Future directions.

·      Most analyses happening outside the context of this workgroup. Future of this group – to talk about general issues? reading sessions? smaller project-centred groups to bring work in and share with others in this bigger group.

·      Funding opportunities available within ACTOR.

·      New materials from Paris Conservatoire – possible new project? Scores and recordings of pieces by the student composers and orch. Available materials from previous years as well. Different solutions of orchestrating a short piano piece for a set orchestra. Question about orchestration styles over the years as well. Orchestration pedagogy.

·      Activities for SMT or other conferences – potential interest group? Interdisciplinary projects?

·      TOR publications with option of peer-reviewing (discussed during TOR session).

·      Journal Circuit – themed issue.

·      ACTOR-related joint publications: a writing subgroup

Discussion (general):

·      Timbre semantics ­– many subgroups. Similar thing for this group. Regular meetings so that we know what is going on, and as a central hub will be useful.

·      Would like to be focused on common practice period music corpus of pieces from Orchview, interesting to consider orchestration issues in coming year. Will be good to collaborate with other ACTOR members.

·      Rather than just organizational, discussing a meta-analytical level, what we are analysing, why we are doing that, what does it bring to analysis, teaching of orch. Not to lose the focus of what ACTOR is for.

·      Analysis of a particular piece together – see what different people's analyses can bring to a piece. To cover wider repertoire, select smaller or excerpts of pieces, and coming together regularly.

·      What are the analysts interested in analysing in the music itself? With CORE, we have a set of aligned products to be studied – the analysts can influence the elements to be studied. Boundary conditions create common trends in the compositions. Fascinating idea because that is not usually how analyses have been approached.

·      Getting together to share issues and solve problems can be productive. Presenting works in progress, etc.

Discussion (CORE):

·      Analysts suggest specific problems for the CORE seminar – that requires composers to think explicitly about their intentions and write that in. Clear declaration of intent and then we can track how they go about solving it.

·      Helpful to steer away from the etude model but to think about a specific problem and having them compose a fully fledged piece and with documentation, and also performer input into how they achieve that.

·      UCSD – Everyone had to write a proposal to be presented and revised. If an analyst is interested in a particular problem, it can be circulated within the institutions, and composers can attempt work on this issue.

·      Fear of setting up a "sterile room" if constraints are too rigid, and the work is useful only in this particular context.

·      A list of prompts, frame it not as a limitation.

·      Encourage ongoing collaborations? Composer and analysts to collaborate on particular issues they are interested in.

·      How to approach what already has been written, and what to do for further ones. More dialogic process to orient the composition and analytical work. For the pieces in the 1st round – a short questionnaire to the composers about how they approached timbre and orchestration in their piece, to orient how to classify and approach each of these pieces. Interesting to follow the process but also to get the composers' input first on what they like to do.

·      May be helpful to standardize this a little more throughout the CORE institutions.

·      Create an environment for people to think about certain things, rather than impose something. A collective mind frame, with shared terminology, setting up a ground for thought and see how it influences what they do.

·      Ask composers and performers to get more involved in the analyses of the work and share some approaches/methodologies to analyses. Pair music theory students with composers and establish a dialogue.

·      Whether it will be possible to extend to electronic compositions. Processes between the composers regarding their tools and perception of what they want.

·      Timbre and acousmatic music, electronic music will be interesting.

·      Performers have an immense impact on what the composers did in UCSD. Composers are interested in feedback. Existence of a model of the kind of results from a collaboration are of interest to a student.

·      Incentivise more theorists to become part of the CORE project.

·      Seminar in which musicology and theory students collaborate with composers on analytical issues.

·      Ideas valuable outside of the CORE project as well. Collaboration between composers and analysts at the beginning.

 Action Items:

1.     Regular meetings to talk about general issues. Group meetings might be more organizational, rather than about specific analyses. Every other month interval?

·      Heading towards a presentation/publication, or just a general discussion?

·      Many different projects going on. Think about mutual concerns, comparative analyses.

·      People proposing to lead discussions, suggest pieces.

2.     Setting up writing group.

3.     Smaller group meetings, CORE project leaders to talk about next steps and put ideas in place before the next iteration of CORE starts.

·      possible visits to seminars for analysts

4.     Joint AMS/SMT/SEM panel.

Follow-Up:

1.     Get SLACK channel more active.

2.     AAWM

3.     Seminar in which musicology and theory students collaborate with composers on analytical issues.

4.     Special issue of MTO

5.     CNSMDP project

6.     Journal Circuit