Morphological Notation
Mophological Notation is a system of interactive computer-music descriptive notation that links pictographic representations to the system of spectromorphologies suggested by Dennis Smalley. The Morphological Notation (MN) uses these morphologies and adds a z-plane to the well-established time-vs-pitch schema. Ideally, MN will not only represent the sound data of the moment, but also will be an intuitive picture of the musical possibilities of a composition’s electronic component.
Interactive electroacoustic music that alters or extends instrumental timbre, sam-ples it, or generates sound based upon data generated in real-time by the performer pre-sents a new set of challenges for the performing musician. Unlike tape music, interactive music can continuously vary its response, and, frequently, performers are unable are to predict how the computer will react. Many, if not most, scores include no visual represen-tation of how the computer may affect the sound of the instrument.
Providing performers with a readily accessible visual representation of the sonic possibilities of interactive computer music will provide a conceptual framework within which performers can understand a piece of music. Interpretation of this type of notation by the performer will provide a perspective on how his or her acoustic instrument relates to the digital instrument. This can be especially useful when improvised or aleatoric methods are called for.
There are two kinds of frequency information this system attempts to articulate. One is register or pitch space, the other spectral or timbral space. The Register Space of a sound object is a vertical assessment of its frequency—the perceived relationship to a fundamental pitch, like a note. This is the y-axis, as in conventional music notation. However, we can have the sense not only of a sound object’s height in the register space (pitch continuum), but also of its width. A finely tuned viola note with no vibrato may be repre-sented as a band of very thin width, where as a piano cluster or even an out of tune trom-bone section may be perceived to be wider. Register space is represented on the y-axis as in traditional notation. But rather than representing a discrete set of frequencies (or notes), the y-axis then represents a continuum of pitch. Noise textures can challenge the idea of a pitch continuum. But granular noise like the crinkling of paper, or the grind of a cello bow, also have register, if not pitch. We certainly can perceive sound objects below and above these sounds.
Smalley identifies four families of motion or growth properties that are especially ef-fective for pictographic representation: Linear, Parabolic , Circular, and Multidirectional. Linear sound objects mo linear, and as a single mass. Parabolic sound objects return to below and above a point of origin and generally operates on a single axis, or in one dimen-sion only. Cyclic or circular sound objects move around a point of origin. This implies that there is a perceived coordination between the y-axis and z-axis. A cyclic motion creates activity in both the pitch and spectral space. Multidirectional sound objects evolve into or begin as a multi-agent system. While we still perceive a united object, it may split or merge, dilate or contract, dissipate or agglomerate. (Smalley: 1997)
These motions can be applied to either the registral space (y-axis) or the spectral space (z-axis), to gesture or texture alike. There are also group motions such as flocking, streaming and contortion. These are also important perceptual distinguishers of grouped sound objects. From four general shapes (Linear, Parabolic, Cyclic, and Multidirectional) any of these group motions can be represented. The direction of each growth is deter-mined by the musical outcome desired.
Notation rarely attempts to give us a complete or total representation of musical activity. ‘[There is]… weakness in every single type of notation, because in the end, what is important is neither the symbols nor the auditive and motoric phenomena they signify, but what lies behind them, and what we must create by means of these symbols’ (Karkoschka: 1972).
