1. INTRODUCTION
Horacio Vaggione’s understanding of temporality profoundly connects with his compositional and structural approach. Hence, his temporal perspective also tends to reflect on the relationship dynamics between sound components – from the tiniest element to a cloud of particles. In such a framework, temporality lays a broad, fragmented and multilayered horizon in front of the composer, while allowing openness to the possibility of working with a plethora of diverse compositional elements. Interacting with these elements expresses the composer’s interaction with temporality through a multiplicity of time scales. Therefore, in order to understand Vaggione’s outlook on temporality, the researcher needs to explore his standpoint on the compositional process as well.
Initially, I will summarise and explain some of the key concepts introduced in Vaggione’s compositional and temporal approach. After addressing determinism, autonomy, and diversity as some of the significant problematics of temporality in electronic music in section 2, I will discuss the theoretical implications of the Vaggionian concepts and explore their contributions to a philosophical discussion of temporality in electronic music composition in section 3. My investigation will conclude with a brief layout of the micromontage technique and will explore the reflections of Vaggione’s theoretical perspective on his compositional practice.
2. TEMPORAL EXPRESSIONS AND KEY CONCEPTS
2.1. Object-oriented composition and musical networks
As an essential aspect of Vaggione’s compositional strategy, the object-oriented approach comprises a methodology that allows the composer to treat the sonic elements as a set of objects that could be controlled and manipulated (Bultheel Reference Bultheel2009).
For Vaggione, the object is not only a complex unity of discrete representations that may simultaneously function as a unified entity, but also a collection of samples that cover many scales or operating levels (Budón and Vaggione Reference Budón and Vaggione2000: 13). Rather than understanding the object as an unbreakable unit such as an atom, Vaggione regards it as a structure, or ‘something composed’. The object can apply to all temporal orders of the musical structure and encapsulates the structures below the note category. Hence, the ability to control and manipulate the sonorous entities occur not only in the global framework of the composition but also in the level of the object’s internal structure.
The term ‘object’ here does not imply a perspective similar to the Schaefferian sound object. Vaggione’s object is not an outcome of reduced listening, where the sound object is reduced from any external and narrative association to its unique existence. The Schaefferian sound object is grasped when the listener is free from all previous conditionings and determinations. It is a raw musical element, taken into account with its intrinsic attributes (Schaeffer Reference Schaeffer2017: 453). Vaggione’s object, on the other hand, is a ‘designation of a building block, a multiscale ensemble that includes events of a different order of magnitude’ (Budón and Vaggione Reference Budón and Vaggione2000: 14). Solomos explicates such difference by claiming that Schaefferian objects are usually located in the domain of macro-time, and they are ‘opaque’ due to being produced on a magnetic-analogue tape (Solomos Reference Solomos2005: 323). He further states that the Vaggionian object, in contrast, can be digital and composable, and one may find it at any time scale. Such transparency enables the direct intervention of the composer for ‘writing’ the material itself (Vaggione Reference Vaggione1991: 213).
Regarding the interaction among objects, the object-oriented way of thinking helps the musical structure become independent of tonal and formal hierarchies among components. Prioritising interaction over hierarchies allows the composer to attain various behavioural patterns to objects, which embraces an environment of diversity. Hence, the composition is now a source of musical networks,Footnote 1 creating modalities of representation and structures, with each time scale providing another version of the object classes involved (Budón and Vaggione Reference Budón and Vaggione2000: 14–16). Such an environment aids the object to preserve or transform its inner structure while interacting with other objects. Eventually, the flexibility within interaction and diversity underlines coexistence, and one object does not dominate the existence of another.
2.2. Morphology and morphological singularities
The transformational part of object-oriented composition requires the exploration of temporality and change. Such discussion leads the researcher to Vaggione’s understanding of morphology.
As a term adapted for defining the material-form connection, morphology takes place in cases where the space between similar events is so narrow that they are perceived as a meaningful or an articulate mass (Bultheel Reference Bultheel2009). Regarding the establishment of the material-form connection and the intrinsic construction of the object, morphology indicates the notion of change over time. Henceforth, the object’s existential preservation in a specific period endures during the transformation of the musical shape, texture and layering.
The origins of morphology in electronic music can be traced back to the early years of the twentieth century. Edgar Varèse has stated that the morphological conceptualisation of musical works is possible under the roof of electronic music (Varèse Reference Varèse1983). For Varèse, terms such as ‘process’, ‘internal structure’ or ‘metamorphosis’ are related to the form that extends the simple organisation of events in time. So, his morphological approach was in connection with both the physicality of sound and the structural interactions (Justel Reference Justel1992: 90).
Pierre Schaeffer’s conceptualisation is another example from the early years of electronic music. Different from that of Varèse, Schaeffer employs morphology as a means of describing sound objects (Schaeffer Reference Schaeffer2017). Depending on their contextures or composite qualities, morphologies might have extrinsic or intrinsic attributes that classify the sustainment of sound objects over time. He considers the notion of evolving sound under such classification, as it is ‘one of the most complex, presenting in its texture a summation of articulations and stresses varying both in matter and in form’ (Schaeffer Reference Schaeffer2017: 657). Hence the Schaefferian perspective understands morphology as a descriptive method that includes the evolving sound as a notion, while Vaggione centralises such notion as a core element of his approach.
Considering morphological aspects together with classification and identification might be observed in the works of Trevor Wishart and Dennis Smalley. For instance, even though the idea of classification reminds us of Schaefer’s, Wishart focuses on classifying the notions of change, and not on the reductive aspects of the sound object. In fact he emphasises articulating the continuum and morphologies in the structural context, while investigating the behavioural attributes of sound events in the totality of the compositional architecture (Wishart Reference Wishart and Emmerson1996).
The spectromorphological approach, on the other hand, emphasises a descriptive analysis of the sonic aspects and musical attributes based on the morphological process along the spectrum (Smalley Reference Smalley and Emmerson1986, Reference Smalley1997). In this regard, Smalley recognises a lack of vocabulary and a need for a semiotic background. Such necessities based on communication and sharing lead to a language-oriented, spectromorphological strategy to overcome the alleged representation/definition problem in electronic music.
Vaggione neither adopts such a categorisation, nor introduces an extensive vocabulary of classifications or a semiotic system of representations. His morphological framework elaborates the overall proportion between sound events and their internal relations. Therefore, his approach does not require extensive, intermediary descriptions or signifiers for characterising notions of change over time. Vaggione’s strategy of regarding morphological aspects as active compositional participants helps him to deal with temporality immediately, and enables a profound understanding of transformation though the interaction among objects, layers and networks.
Vaggione’s aforementioned strategy can be observed in morphological singularities. During the transformation of the object, various outstanding characteristics might begin to appear and singularities come into presence. However, instead of treating these as errors to be corrected, Vaggione regards them as a creative way of maintaining musical coherence. This way, morphological characteristics are assumed to circulate among structural levels (Budón and Vaggione Reference Budón and Vaggione2000). Such movement might lead to mismatches between time scales, and one representation may sacrifice its original character while transforming into another one. Here, embracing singularities discloses the passages between various dimensions, and this flexibility helps objects and layers operate interactively, free to transform and evolve.
The idea of flexibility relates to a unique movement within the morphological process. Flexibility indicates fluidity and the object flows through its transformation over time. Circulation among layers happens almost effortlessly as if the object was already meant to be ‘there’ or move ‘that way’. In other words, the object’s morphological aspects prevent rigidity and provide space for evolution. Hence, the object attains flexibility and bends through time, and the ability of bending increases the possibility for adapting into new forms and networks.
Fluidity and bending help the object engage with the new structural context brought by both intrinsic (within the object) and extrinsic (within the global structure) changes throughout the composition. Such abilities manifest great impact on morphological singularities, since letting singularities contribute to the overall structure discloses many dimensions of the piece. Embracing singularities helps the composer refrain from blocking fluidity, allows the objects to have their transformative journey, and opens up to creating and employing singularities as methods of articulation and creative expression. These possibilities ensure the object’s evolution and enable its adaptation to forthcoming interactive circumstances.
Embracing morphological singularities indicates Vaggione’s aim to overcome the dualities created by the hierarchical boundaries of structural matters, too. As stressed by Risset, Vaggione is welcoming multiple compositional levels, while searching for coherence among singularities held in composition (Risset Reference Risset and Solomos2007: 13–15). Thus, interruptions, conflicts or anything that creates a singularity is not rejected or forced to be shaped through a higher compositional ideal. They remain within the compositional flux and serve the overall temporal and structural diversity. This way, singularities evolve into fragments that pave the way to a multiscale temporal approach.
2.3. The multiscale process
A note as an object is not only a C-sharp for example, but a pitch/time cluster showing its spectral substratum as well as its multiple dynamic shapes and processes present at different time scales, all of them contributing to the emerging sonic morphology. So what is to be composed is not only an array of atomic surface entities, but also the multilayered context in which the notes are placed. (Budón and Vaggione Reference Budón and Vaggione2000: 12)
Vaggione fosters a multiscale approach that establishes various connections between multiple time scales and morphological singularities. Embracing temporal diversity encourages interaction among objects, and time becomes more than a sole indicator of duration. Now, time actively participates within structural flexibility and transformation.
Defining electroacoustic music as a paradigm shift that introduces ‘the sound object and the idea of morphological multiplicity’ Vaggione states that composers do not have to linger in between the note/sound dichotomy anymore (ibid.). This liberation helps the composer to contribute to the interaction among objects and networks. Now, one may overcome the distinctions between musical symbols, grandiose textures and complex layers. Moreover, the note is no more to be understood as a small component of music; it is an element that broadens the compositional horizon.
The freedom to employ or create singularities introduces the composer to extensive articulation, which reveals unusual and unique timescales that become the temporal actors of the musical network. Therefore, the multiscale perspective does not separate between musical structure and sound material. Roads observes the coexistence of these two notions in parallel with technological improvements while emphasising interactive sound tools that help the composer apply any transformation, on any time scale (Roads Reference Roads2005). Hereafter, the composer can accomplish much more than matching sounds that appear in time by experimenting with various time domains.
Vaggione’s combination of the multiscale approach and singularities leads to a new and sophisticated understanding of temporality in electronic music composition. With the interaction between time scales and singularities, the circulation of morphological aspects is now manifest in multiple layers. In addition, the composer can investigate how to incorporate singularities with an intertwined network of multiplicities. Hence the network becomes a living organism with multiple interactive parts and layers on various time scales.
Exploring interaction among different time scales impacts the composer’s outlook on individual compositional units. Approaching the object as the smallest composable building block of music is no longer controversial when compared to the note. Each unit is treated as an individual with unique characteristics that can transform into various tones, shapes, timbres and temporalities. Therefore, transformation takes over the structural principles of a predetermined understanding of composition, and temporality becomes intertwined with morphology.
One might question if such deconstruction of the compositional paradigm gives birth to further dichotomies. Justel investigates this possibility and claims that removing previous dichotomies does not lead to the abolishment of all dichotomies or hierarchical relationships (Justel Reference Justel1992: 86–90). For Justel, they are the outcomes of morphologies within the compositional flux. Since musical structure no longer follows a straightforward path, the contradiction between micro temporal events is inevitable.
Justel’s view might seem relevant when micro/macro-time scales are conceived as binary oppositions. However, creating such oppositions might be based on a general tendency of comparing and contrasting. In other words, as long as there is a difference between two objects, we will eventually tend to differentiate. Nevertheless, is it enough to claim that such difference triggers a power dynamic? Does the multiscale approach trigger another hierarchical relationship?
The notion of dependency among objects draws attention to this matter. In many conflicts based on hierarchy, the power appointed to one event makes it so strong that the existence of another would depend on this more significant event. In a compositional environment, this would lead to the underestimation or suppression of singularities. Thus, the conflict would result in the sculpting of the material based on ranking. On the other hand, embracing or creating singularities would mean the enhancement of diversity, which allows autonomous relationships based on individual differences. Hence we can claim that Vaggione does not seem to envision any hierarchical replacement for previous dichotomies. Instead, his contrasts are as noticeable and they blend into the network.
During transformation, the composer lets the temporal attributes of each sound event reveal their morphological characteristics. Ergo, emphasising interaction and metamorphosis may not necessarily lead to the formation of another hierarchy. Furthermore, contradictions between sound events do not necessarily imply a submissive connection. Instead, it enables the transformative process, and the network allows space for exchange and interchange. The enhancement of temporal diversity improves the notion of interaction between the components of the network.
3. AUTONOMY, DIVERSITY AND DETERMINISM
Vaggione is genuinely interested in the creation of ‘compositional systems in which the software is based on collections of autonomous musical objects’ (Roads et al. Reference Roads, Battier, Barlow, Bischoff, Brün and Chadabe1986: 58). His statement envisions a musical path where objects are almost living, breathing and communicating with each other independently. The emphasis on autonomy constitutes a sound world that prioritises the unique existence of objects, and emphasises their modes of behaviour. Henceforth, any network of autonomous objects will address the resulting parametric changes of an interactive relationship such as texture, timbre and the speed of transformations.
Autonomy contributes to the discussion of determinism in electronic music to a great extent. Regarding investigations by the likes of Xenakis, Cage or Ichiyanagi, it seems as though Vaggione’s approach to temporality and composition adds up to new ways of thinking for change and continuity.
For instance, Cage emphasised time brackets as a source of guidance on notation, a compositional technique and a structural component (Weisser Reference Weisser2003: 177). Inspired by Tudor’s early experimentations, this strategy assisted Cage in minimising the differences between compositional methodology and notation. Despite their tendency to indicate whole notes, time brackets did not necessarily involve durational information internally. Nevertheless, they provided a variety of ranges to play within. The performer would be free to make decisions on the note length or pitch within an initial time and range provided by the composer. Such a flexibility in decision-making leads to temporal flexibility, as well. This way, the brackets that were not used were left silent and silence opened up to new temporal and compositional experiences. Henceforth, experimenting with silence and event duration through time brackets provided Cage with independence from a linear understanding of continuity.
To some extent, Cage’s overall indeterministic approach might remind us of the Xenakian way in terms of ‘making the connection between cause and effect inoperative’ (Iddon Reference Iddon2013: 8). Xenakis emphasises indeterminacy as a factor that prevents the repetitive nature of the causal chain. Therefore he regards it as a method of utilising change and motion (Varga Reference Varga2014). In addition, by bringing in change and disorder, both composers were aiming to weaken the causal link between events while moving away from a temporal obligation towards linearity.
In contrast to Cage, Xenakis’s methodology applies probabilistic calculations and stochastic laws for defining the boundaries of such freedom, whereas Cage employs the dice and hexagram numbers of the I-Ching. For Xenakis, weakening the composer’s role leads to the empowering of stochasticism, and Cage has a similar motivation in terms of the composer’s involvement. However, Cage’s path leads to a fuller realisation of indeterminacy and underlines spirituality by ‘silencing the mind and taming the ego’ (Cage Reference Cage1988: 7). Moreover, the composition is framed with the limitations of the I-Ching, and Cage’s indeterminacy tends to extend towards non-intervention and non-attachment. However, Xenakis attempts to break the causal chain while limiting the freedom generated by probability equations that he calls ‘wild horses’ (Robindoré and Xenakis Reference Robindoré and Xenakis1996: 14). Nevertheless, both composers’ temporal perspectives hold significance in developing compositional strategies to avoid the possible limitations of causality.
It is worth noting that the most significant benefit of determinism lies in the idea of controlling change and managing future expectations. Thus, controlling causal relationships might help when, for instance, following harmonic progression in sonata form, or testing hypotheses for errors. The sense of a robust linear continuum aids one to manage all stages of progress within the duration. The preserved strength of linearity provides safety against the surprises of the unexpected, and guards one’s system against accidents. However, as Bergson once claimed, ‘the more we strengthen the principle of causality, the more we emphasise the difference between a physical series and a psychical one’ (Bergson Reference Bergson2001: 208). These conditions not only emphasise the difference Bergson mentioned but also imply a gap between the continuity of objective events and our subjective states.
If we base composition on causality, we might end up with a piece centred around dominating sound(s). Then other sounds would be dependent upon the gravitational pull created by order of significance. Such an order would impact the temporal attributes of other sounds and their definitive properties such as timbre or texture. From a global perspective, the gravitation towards a type of supreme sound would also affect the composer’s approach to the overall structure. Here, one might begin investigating Vaggione’s perspective on these matters.
4. TRANS-FORMATION AND BECOMING MUSIC
4.1. To change, to move, to become
For Vaggione, loosening the causal links leads us to understand temporality through multiple layers of networks and objects in continuous change. Likewise, increased dimensions of the temporal approach open up the way of contemplating change and continuity.
One might ask whether change enables continuity or continuity triggers change. Rather than turning this question into an egg versus chicken paradox, we may first remember that both continuity and change are the two significant notions that support the unfolding of temporal experience. Moreover, both concepts cater to the sense of movement, which in return blends with continuity and change. Nonetheless, how does such interplay take place in electronic music composition?
‘There are no things that move and change and become; everything is movement, is change, is becoming’, says Wildon Carr, in a contemplation of change in Bergsonian thought (Carr Reference Carr1912: 28–9). His statement is quite appealing if becoming is considered as a continuous process of coming into existence, an ever-occurring of presence, or something that gains its form through transformation. Still, if the process indicates a series of events in teleological progression, then we might end up with causality and linearity once again. Musically speaking, we might end up questioning once again whether time is defined by successive and determinant moments, or not.
Such a dilemma grants the opportunity to widen the scope of Vaggione’s morphology. As mentioned previously, morphology not only emphasises change over time but also demonstrates existential preservation of the object. An in-depth interpretation of this idea implies maintaining the potential for musical transformation. This way, morphology extends beyond the notion of change over time and the ability of existential preservation. In other words, retaining the possibility of transformation is what gives the object its morphological quality.
Further elaboration of this process might conclude that morphological quality helps the object move, change and become. Still, we can not consider this quality as a cause, an originator, or an initiator to trigger change and becoming. Remembering Carr’s statement, the main issue is not about things that move or change or become. Instead, it is more about how everything is becoming, movement and change.Footnote 2 This statement might grant us the inspiration for exploring morphology further. We can state that the morphological quality coexists with the object’s existential preservation: the object is becoming because it is change. The object can change because it is becoming. The transformation of the object is what makes it musical as well, as it is not only becoming, but also becoming music. Therefore, the object moves while becoming music; it changes its form, interacts with other objects or layers, dissolves into networks, or networks join its very own existence.
Becoming music Footnote 3 might be suggested as a strategy for developing a profound understanding of change and movement. With the morphological quality always holding the possibility towards change, movement becomes possible, and through this movement, the object transforms. By such a transformation, we are not only addressing change and movement but also implying trans-formation, a transition by passing through various forms and adapting to new modes of existence. Since transition itself is movement, change takes place by passing through new modes of existence. For these reasons, the transformative process holds both transition and formation. Such a process provides the existential preservation of the object and thus contributes to continuity. However, since the musical-ontological relationship we are observing is not based on causality, the continuity of the musical object might be considered as a notion coexistent with becoming music:
We can thus conceive of succession without distinction, and think of it as a mutual penetration, an interconnexion and organization of elements, each one represents the whole, and cannot be distinguished or isolated from it except by abstract thought. (Bergson Reference Bergson, Pearson and Maoilearca2016: 73)
Unlike Bergson, our current approach is not specifying any sort of a successive quality. Still, we may draw inspiration from his earlier statement. The idea of mutual penetration, interconnexion and organisation of elements might expand the understanding of a temporal flux, which reminds us of the Vaggionian musical network and multiscale process. Nevertheless, to explain how temporality fits into this compositional framework, we will need to address rupture and repetition further, while briefly examining the issue of the present tense.
4.2. The present tense
Recognising that some philosophers consider music as an art of evaporation, or disappearance into thin air (Hegel Reference Hegel1975: 913–20; Husserl Reference Husserl and Heidegger1964), the issue of continuity delivers broader questions: Is there any chance we could talk about the endurance of something that immediately fades into the past?
As a stream of the past, present and future, thinkers such as Hegel and Husserl point out the volatile nature of music. Defining music as a temporal object and stressing how a melody appears and then fades away, Husserl emphasises that the point of now (or let us say our immediate musical experience) is already gone even when it is fixed. ‘Perhaps one could retreat to what is truly given, the absolute now and the ever new nows’, says Husserl while emphasising the Heraclitan flux of time and consciousness, which sinks into the abyss of the past (Husserl Reference Husserl and Heidegger1964: xxii–xxv, 53).
This matter of the absolute now appears, especially in one of Cage’s primary inspirations, the thirteenth-century Zen master Dōgen. The master claims that rather than all things existing in time, all things are time (Schillbrack 200: 37). In other words, being is time, as well as time is being. So, the whole world is nothing but a sum of composed units of being-time. A single moment of existence comes into being, passes instantaneously, but the present tense remains intact. Each entity occupies spatiotemporality in its thusness, existing ‘as such’. Since the entity is neither separated from its perceiver nor divided into small analytical pieces, each moment appears in its thusness, without being objectified or possessed.
Here, ima (the eternal now) refers to the collapse of space and time (ma) on the immediate now (Eacott Reference Eacott2013: 14). This existential moment is irreversible, and it prevents the chasing of the past and the waiting of the future. In other words, ima holds no searching for the cause or effect. Also, in Dōgen’s perspective, it goes beyond teleological progress as it allows the moment of suchness (Raud 2004: 43, Reference Raud2012: 53). Collapsing onto the interval between space and time, the now becomes eternal. Hence, ‘the eternal now’ transcends the logical limitations of spatiotemporality: it is the void. Moreover, it is silence.
How can time be continuous in music if it is exposed to multiple layers, ruptures and the abrupt interventions of objects and networks? Is there any way to incorporate the immediate present with electronic music composition? This discussion will take us back to understanding the significance of the ‘now’ in Vaggione’s approach.
4.3. The ‘now’, repetition and rupture
Unlike Cage, who drew inspiration from Zen Buddhism for temporality, spirituality and music, Vaggione’s temporal approach emphasises morphology, multiscale process and musical networks. Therefore, composing with (or within) time in the Vaggionian idea leads us to a technical methodology for manipulating objects and layers. Nevertheless, Vaggione’s theoretical background allows room for discussing temporality in electronic music from an ontological perspective – despite his lack of applying the metaphysics of presence and time.
Regarding the problematic of the present tense and duration, what draws attention in the Vaggionian thought is the flexibility provided by his multiscale approach. Aside from covering multiple time scales, this approach allows the composer to bring back past gestures or layers and to manipulate their morphological qualities. Hence the present tense keeps bringing the ‘now’ while introducing new interpretations of the past. In other words, the present tense allows repetition, but the repetition itself is now different.Footnote 4 Such movement implies a morphological process within repetition. Furthermore, it demonstrates the transformative power of the object’s morphological aspects while enhancing its existential preservation. Henceforth, the repetition of a past moment instantly emphasises transformation, and the morphological process makes it become different. Such a temporal cycle seems to be capable of blurring the old/new distinction.
Differenciation,Footnote 5 if we are allowed to define it as a process of becoming different, may function as a medium for unifying temporal dimensions without the separation of the past, present or the future. It also makes the listening experience take the form of becoming (Deleuze Reference Deleuze1994), where new understandings of form and texture flow through the constitution of new present moments. As Massumi suggests by referring to Deleuze-Guattarian thinking, such a flow might be related with fluidity, in terms of a lingering presence that ‘combines with a differentiating, emerging condition with an enveloping limit’ (Kielian-Gilbert Reference Kielian-Gilbert, Hulse and Nesbitt2010: 212). So, the revelation of brand new experiences in each present moment is no longer an outcome of a completed, final process. On the contrary, we are exposed to an infinity of milieus, an opening up and a re-occurrence of possibilities that become different at every repetition. Therefore, differenciation keeps resonating in multiple dimensions through each repetition.
We might remember that for Vaggione, interacting with a piece can ‘reveal its many simultaneous levels of articulation’ (Vaggione Reference Vaggione2001: 61), where the composer meditates and projects upon various time domains. So, any past object might be re-sculpted and introduced in a present moment and, thus, many levels of articulation are achieved. The movement brought by repeating an object through trans-formation introduces ruptures within the temporal flux of the composition. Differenciation, in this regard, can also break the continuum of any linear time pattern in the network. This way, becoming music engages with the object’s movement through differenciation and its circulation through multiple time scales.
At this point, the concept of rupture might be conceived as a sudden, and unexpected error that is now embraced as an opportunity to explore music further. Indeed, such an interpretation reminds us of Vaggione’s morphological singularities. The rupture, in this regard, not only contributes to the temporal diversity of the present moment, but also enhances the structural organisation and the overall form of the composition. On the other hand, contemplating rupture through a repetition-based perspective recalls Deleuze and Guattari’s emphasis on the breaking of the temporal continuum (Deleuze and Guattari Reference Deleuze and Guattari1987: 30; Deleuze Reference Deleuze1994: 90–120).
From a morphological perspective, we might assume that ruptures tend to occur by the repetition of a past object, the introduction of a new object, or with the occurrence of singularities. Due to the object’s morphological aspects and potential for trans-formation, we might state that a past object’s recurrence or a new object’s arrival retains the potential for creating singularities.
The rupture immerses into the present tense and it contributes to the composition’s overall temporal aspects and our immediate musical experience. The immediacy mentioned here helps us interpret Vaggione’s approach from another dimension regarding temporality. We are now introduced to another opportunity for developing the awareness of the ‘now’. This opportunity might be assumed as an alternative to the Cagean/Zen thinking that emphasises silence and nothingness. If one may remember, Cage was employing silence and indeterminacy as compositional strategies to not only to loosen the causal chain, but also to emphasise the ‘now’. On the other hand, employing ruptures, embracing singularities and even deliberately creating singularities might be regarded as another temporal strategy to bring forward the focus on the ‘now’. The exposition of these possibilities emphasises the present tense as an everlasting moment of changes. Such a revelation through morphological aspects enhances an understanding of the ‘now’ not only as a recent part of successive moments, but also as a multilayered and multiscaled part of a movement within differentiation and becoming.
5. MICROMONTAGE
If this machine must have an assemblage, it is the synthesizer. By assembling modules, source elements, and elements for treating sound (oscillators, generators, and transformers), by arranging microintervals, the synthesizer makes audible the sound process itself, the production of that process, and puts us in contact with still other elements beyond sound matter. (Deleuze and Guattari Reference Deleuze and Guattari1987: 342–3)
Antonioli and Heuzé have introduced this statement from Deleuze and Guattari to emphasise the technological improvements that establish contact with other elements beyond sound matter (Antonioli and Heuzé Reference Antonioli and Heuzé2012: 93). Nevertheless, we might state that one cannot merely assume that technological improvements establish contact with ‘other’ elements ‘beyond’ the sound matter anymore. We are now able to compose the sound object from the beginning and we can manipulate its various qualities with modifying its temporal aspects. Therefore, no other element is beyond the sound matter any longer. Moreover, aspects such as timbre, duration or internal structure are no more to be considered as ‘other’ elements. They were already there, waiting to be accessed. With the unique perspectives of electronic music composition, and technological developments, we have gained wider access to the world of sounds.
Celebrating the arrival of computers to music composition, Vaggione underlines the significance of digital tools for articulating sound objects at various time levels without trying to make them uniform (Vaggione Reference Vaggione1996: 33). The composer can now create transformations with different time levels maintaining their characters within the musical totality. Additionally, the object has become transparent and available for composing at the smallest units. This transparency, in return, increases the composer’s control over morphological distinctiveness and the overall transformative process.
Vaggione’s first efforts at applying musical networks on the microtime domain bring forward one of his primary composition techniques, namely, micromontage: the art and technique of composing particles from sound files and rearranging them in time and space (Roads Reference Roads2005: 299). Roads explicates the technique by referring to the word ‘micro’ as an ability to position each particle precisely on a given time and space, whereas ‘montage’ comes from cinema, as a reference to the cutting and splicing process of editing. Micromontage positions even the smallest unit of sound while controlling its movements in temporal scales, and manipulating the transformational process.
Micromontage fits in with Vaggione’s idea of écriture, too. Here, écriture Footnote 6 not only implies manually writing music but also indicates making precise decisions on what objects to use in a given context. With écriture, Vaggione also emphasises manual labour, with building the musical network grain by grain, note by note, or partial by partial (ibid., 3–4). In this regard, the involvement of the hand magnifies the employment of singularities, discontinuities, and transformations (Carpman Reference Carpman2014). Such an emphasis on manual writing does not reject operations relying on algorithmic calculations at all. Instead, he employs a variety of methods while retaining the option of manual, direct intervention. Blending the composer and the computer into each other suggests a hybrid methodology that allows space for both algorithmic and manual labour. This methodology improves temporal diversity, while integrating the écriture with the algorithmic process. In return, the algorithmic process also becomes ‘locally’ transformed into an action of écriture (Solomos Reference Solomos2005: 324).
Vaggione’s piece 24 Variations (2001) illustrates the intensity of his micromontage techniques. By operating a compositional tool called IRIN, which also works as a Max/MSP standalone, the composer created a dense texture of microsonic elements that engage in multiple time scales. As Roads paraphrases, a thorough listening of the piece reveals the organisation of the micro rhythmic figures too; as they reappear, move forward or backward, and link with other figures. This assemblage reflects Vaggione’s deep interest in the contrast between ‘metrical elements and free rhythm on multiple timescales’ (Roads Reference Roads2015: 158).
The piece begins with a short yet impactful entrance of a low-mid frequency gesture and immediately opens up with the influx of microparticles. Reverberant, longer scale expressions consistently accompany the inter-action among these particles. We might initially conceive a clear distinction between the foreground of microparticles and the background of the extended expressions. However, as the piece continues, we may notice how these expressions evolve into smaller components and even evolve into dense micro components that suddenly appear in the foreground with momentary gestures (Sound example 1).Footnote 7
The sudden arrival of these instances in a lower frequency range, slowly fading and becoming a reverberant background, provides a sense of rhythm in the global scale of the piece. Even though this rhythmic behaviour is not executed symmetrically, its reiteration in various forms provides a sense of rhythm. Moreover, the re-occurrence of minor incidents, such as the mid-range ‘pop’ at 1:04 or the interaction of transposed particles at 2:04–2:07 (Sound example 2), sustains the sense of a non-symmetrical rhythm for the micro temporal levels of the piece.
Vaggione provides more examples of his multiscale approach towards temporality in 24 Variations. He retains the micro and meso time scales to interact along with a dense and moving texture while proposing gestures that open up more temporal dimensions. For instance, the new layer with a dense, filtered white-noise kind of texture follows the mid-range ‘pop’ at 1:04. This event takes place just between the repetitive micro-events and the tail of the reverberant background. Such an immediate combination of layers seems to give us a feeling of disclosing another temporal dimension within the piece. This compositional strategy demonstrates that Vaggione is not only emphasising an operative network of morphologies and interaction, but also exploring the possibilities of working with many temporal scales that create rupture, continuum and complexity within the piece.
Despite his desire and tendency to compose with microtime and micromontage even before the 1980s,Footnote 8 the results of Vaggione’s efforts came to appear by the time he was able to apply his microsonic techniques with employing the computer. Pieces such as Octuor (1982), Fractal A (1982), Fractal C (1984) and Thema (1985), all realised in Paris/IRCAM, can be noted as the first examples of Vaggione’s enterprise in using computer programming for sound synthesis and transformation (Roads Reference Roads2015: 296–7).
Thema (1985) is another earlier example of blending the écriture and the computer on a microscale context. With Vaggione’s usage of the CARL environment with Cmusic instruments on a VAX 11/780 system, the piece builds a granular infrastructure that articulates the different degrees and complexity of micro-phenomena. Using the sounds from Daniel Kientzy’s bass saxophone as his initial material for the piece, Vaggione employs methods that include transposition and resynthesis of the various techniques of playing/sound-making such as breathing into the instrument, slapping, frullato and tongue-stopping (Budón and Vaggione Reference Budón and Vaggione2000: 13; Justel Reference Justel1992: 27).
Within Thema, the almost ‘rhythmical’ elements or minor pulses may give the hints of these woodwind instrument techniques mentioned earlier. The introduction presents an iteration of micro-objects travelling through the compositional space in the foreground while a reverberant, noisy drone keeps looping in the background. Until 00:46 (Sound example 3), one can hear the small frequency difference among the microparticles in the foreground, while a similar difference can also be noticed in the background. By 00:47 (Sound example 4), the morphological transformation of the foreground microelements begins: they start to blend into the background, maintain their timbral characters while adapting the process and changing extending their temporal patterns with additional delays. Especially between 1:10 and 2:09 (Sound example 5), the listener witnesses the interaction among micro-objects and their transposed versions. As an early example of Vaggione’s emphasis on microtime, we may observe that he keeps coming back to the microsonic objects and investigates how they interact with extended textures and forms. In addition, his emphasis on morphology keeps revealing itself in transformational sections of the piece (Sound example 6).Footnote 9
Realised at Berlin Technical University’s ‘Electronic Music Studio’, Tar (1998) stands by Vaggione’s intention to extend his morphological approach beyond what he has previously done with Thema. With a purpose to enrich his vision on the microtime domain, the composer describes his efforts as ‘first attempts to build large networks of objects’ (Vaggione Reference Vaggione1996: 35), which seem to reflect upon the piece as well. Especially the repetitive section between 1:00 and 2:45 (Sound example 7) might be viewed as an extensive network of objects, made up of an almost-melodic woodwind-like gesture accompanied by its transposed, speed-shifted and low-frequency version. As this section moves forward, the listener might also grasp some smaller objects between 1:33 and 1:45, almost being ‘torn’ from a grandiose texture, while creating their unique expressions and individual temporalities.
6. CONCLUSION
Vaggione’s emphasis on object-oriented composition and morphological singularities presents a contrary standpoint to determinism. The object is not only a compositional entity or a building block, but also a structure that is composed. Such a quality allows the object to have its internal components with different textural, timbral and temporal characteristics. Prioritising the idiosyncrasy of the object and its features, Vaggione eliminates the possibility of further musical definitions based on causal principles. His strategy also supports the object to exist in its ‘suchness’ without sacrificing its defining qualities and, especially, its temporal characteristics.
Morphology, in this context, not only makes the object preserve its idiosyncrasy but also ensures that the object always holds the potential to evolve. So, any interaction with other objects leads to individual transformation and circulation through various compositional layers. What draws attention here is the notion of change. In contrast to causal principles, change is not triggered by any dominant factor that controls the evolution of the object. In fact, change is motivated by the notion of interaction among other objects or layers. In addition, since the object holds in itself the potential to evolve, change might also be initiated by the internal components of the object. Hence both intrinsic and extrinsic options here lead to change without gravitating towards any dominant cause.
Embracing morphological singularities, or even employing singularities might be indicated as a strategy that liberates the compositional process from deterministic tendencies, and loosens the bond between cause and effect. Therefore, unexpected circumstances are no longer treated as errors. Moreover, the compositional structure provides space for such outcomes to reveal themselves with their own temporal and behavioural aspects. This way, the notion of change over time creates its own space for transformation. In other words, singularities and the evolution of sounds turn into significant actors of change.
Regarding the discussion made above, it is possible to claim that the Vaggionian approach provides access to a multilayered structure composed of multiple time scales, where the notion of change derives from the evolution of sound over time. Such evolution, however, is not to be solely defined on the transformation of a single, dominant sound. Interruptions, ruptures, accidents and singularities are all embraced as a part of the musical environment in which layers and objects interact with each other freely. Hence temporality not only holds the very potentiality to breathe life and change into composition, but also maintains the ability to trigger morphological singularities, empower musical networks and introduce musical diversity.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771820000072
