Tiempos magnéticos("magnetic times", for flute, piano and computer generated sounds) was commissioned by the Fundación Música y Tecnología and composed in my personal studio at Buenos Aires during 1996. This composition was premiered the same year by Patricia Da Dalt (Flute) and Manuel Massone (Piano) at El Aleph Auditorium of Centro Cultural Recoleta (Buenos Aires, Argentina). During 1998 I made a new version, which is the definitive one (...?), slightly enlarging the original by means of the addition of one more electronic section.

The electronic part was generated using mainly the Csound program (Barry Vercoe, MIT) and some other DSP programs I wrote by myself.

After a brief period of success -due to the precision and strong determinations that allowed- the "fix" (1) electronic music was seriously criticized because of the invariability of its contents. At present many composers are trying to overcome this -supposed- limitation through the using of either real time controlled diffusion systems (2), and/or through the using of interactive devices and/or software (3).

Despite of the effectiveness of the latter strategies, I was always deeply interested on the exploration of the contrast between performance times of the acoustic instruments and fixed electronic media.

The "implacable" temporal flow of a tape (or a CD) seems to constitute a serious inconvenient for many performers who complaints feeling constrained and/or limited on their expressive capacities by this media. The question is: "Can we construct upon this limitation...?"

We certainly do, and I am neither the first, nor I will be the last in doing so.

The conception of tiempos magneticos takes its depart point on the shaping of the different performance times emerging from the media. To accomplish it, more than a mere stating and realizing of the problem is needed. By the other hand, the problem is widely known by most musicians. Anybody could argue: "look, what you stated is true, but banal, since any work that combines acoustic instruments live performed with fixed electronic sequences, makes this question evident". True, but still my problem was: How do I put the performers on the situation of working on the question and I get this emerging out from my composition...?

The solution appeared -as usually happens with the most reliable ones- linked with some other more questions to be solved.

To the time of composition of this work I was also concerned on getting a certain balance between the complexity that -in my opinion- the contemporary music production must assume, and the possibility of it reception and comprehension by non specialized listeners. I will avoid the discussion of this problem on the context of the social insertion of contemporary art, since it could lead us beyond the limits of this paper. The solution I have choose is the work in different structural levels. This is not new, moreover, I think that is a prominent -though sometimes disregarded- feature of any good music. If, for instance, we base the formal organization of a composition on a very complex and non-tonal pitch structure, we can not expect that it will be tracked and understood by a listener not owning -at least- strong pitch listening training. But this problem is not necessarily to be solved by simplification: other approach could be to keep the complexity and to combine it with other -more simpler- ways of organizations which may be more easily perceived by the non-trained listener. In other words: to set up several entry points to the composition for different kind of listeners. Also, of course, a very obvious and simple matter...

But in tiempos magnéticos, the latter approach offered me also the advantage of matching my initial statement about the media performance times. So, I used -as the main basis for the macro formal organization- a very traditional factor: the different juxtaposition and combination of the media. In the latter sense, the work is organized on seven sections which are to be performed without gaps between them:

Sección I (solo Flute): CA. 60 secs.

Section II (solo Electronic): CA. 37 secs.

Section III (solo Piano): CA. 42 secs.

Section IV (Piano, Flute, Electronic): CA. 85 secs.

Section V (Piano and Electronic): CA. 103 secs.

Section VI (solo Electronic): CA. 85 secs.

Section VII (Flute and Electronic): CA. 110 secs.

At a first glance the latter scheme reveals something obvious (the organized using of -almost- all the possible combinations between Flute, Piano, and Electronic Media), and a certain deviation (one of them is absent: the combination of Piano and Flute without Electronic; and one of them is repeated: Sections II and VI are both Electronic only). Effectively, the Section VI was absent in the first version of the work. The combination of Flute and Piano was avoided to break, precisely, the fulfilling of the expectation created. I found latter another solution that I felt to be better. It consisted on including the Section VI, entirely Electronic, but constructed using sampled recordings of Piano and Flute (I will further deal in detail with this). The combination of Flute and Piano is, at last, present in the composition, but its performance time is "caught" into the performance time of the fixed electronic media...

It is also evident the "mirrored" structure at both sides of the central Section (IV) at which all media participates:

-Flute-Electronic-Piano

-All (Section IV)

-Piano and Electronic - Electronic - Flute and Electronic.

The selection of all these combinations makes the exploration of the contrast of performance times just possible. However, it is not enough (any work could use this elemental resource): other determinations were needed.

The two Instrumental sections (Sec. I, Flute solo, and Sec. III, piano solo) are both written on traditional rhythmic notation, but with the recommendation that the performance must, to say it this way, "follow the natural tendency of the chronometrical density" on the tempi. In other words: to play slightly slower the slow passages, and slightly faster the fast ones.

The only real point at which all the three media meet is Section IV, which is to be played very precisely, almost mechanically. This is the only moment of the work at which the performers must surrend to the implacable time of the Electronic and do not have almost any deviation chance. The other coincidence point is virtual (Piano and Flute "in the Electronic", Section VI), and it lasts the same as its real counterpart (Sec. IV).

Sections V (Piano and Electronic) and VII (Flute and Electronic) state two different modes of handling of synchronization with the Electronic. On the first case (Section V, Piano and Electronic) it is a dialog between the two media at which no one is superimposed with the other (there are just some small overlapping sections...). This juxtaposition allows the piano performer to modify slightly the tempi of his sections, as far as he arrives "in time" to synchronize with the next electronic part. On the second case (Section VII, Flute and Electronic), almost all the piece is written on a "double echo" fashion in which flute and Electronic use long sounds with both slow attack and releases. The temporal synchronization, in this case, is translated to the handling of the intensity envelopes of the flute, which can be performed with more flexibility. The flutist is obligated to listen the tape and to accomplish a synchronization work which is more based on "timbre" than on time. In this case, to perform all the notes exactly in time while disregarding the envelopes would produce a disastrous result, while to perform more freely the starting time and onset of each note but handling more precisely the time and intensity of the envelopes would yield the proper result.

The two kind of relations I have mentioned are, in addition, coincident with the nature of the used instruments. By one hand, the Piano, in which the relevant information is concentrated in the onset, and what follows is just "release" that the performer may only shorten, or to modify subtly (4). By the other hand, the Flute, which has effective control over all the segments of its intensity envelope.

I will deal next with the duration organization, the dialog based structure and the general formal scheme of the work. The duration of it sections reveals a -general, but not linear- tendency to the gradual enlarging of these (the first three are shorter, the last three ones are longer).

Another goal I had seek for was exploring -as I already did on other works I composed- the boundaries between the perception of just one work with several sections, and the perception of the combination of several connected pieces. This is strongly linked with the dialog based structure of the work.

The three first sections:

Section I (Flute solo): CA. 60 sec.

Section II (Electronic solo): CA. 37 sec.

Section III (Piano solo): CA. 42 sec.

Are combined in such a way that gives the impression of a single piece articulated in three parts. This is due to, by one hand, the nature of each section and, by the other hand, to their articulation mode. From the viewpoint of the performance times, these three sections states an exploration through juxtaposition. The performers are not strictly subject to the electronic, but what they are performing is, precisely, in contrast with the Electronic, which is placed (Sec. II) "in between" them.

The first section (Flute solo) is almost the "obligated beginning". A melodic instrument playing alone creates the expectation -if it is known that there are other media in the work- of the participation of other resources, and this is also reinforced by the medium-high register of the flute (obviously, we know also that it is the first piece...). Besides this, the structure of the first piece itself creates the expectation of continuity and/or participation of other media. It consists -roughly- on a chronometrical density (speed) crescendo, plus a progressive movement from the central pitch register of the flute both to the low and the high zones, followed of a static section. Binary phrasing -in which the flute itself fulfils the expectation of either Piano or Electronic "answering"- is used almost all time. The Flute ask and answer itself. See the following excerpt of the very beginning of the work:

Example I

The first part of the Electronic section that follows is a big answer to all the precedent flute section. The rapid dropping in register with which it begins takes as depart point the "B" that follows in register to the "C Sharp" that was the highest pitch on the flute section. It must be triggered after a very short silence following the end of the flute part (almost without interruption). This Electronic section is constructed, except for just a few exceptions, using excerpts of the Electronic parts of the following sections (the same way that the Electronic part of Sec. VI is constructed using processed digital recordings of the instrumental part of sections I and III). The initial dropping in register I have mentioned is used at Sec. V (Piano and Electronic), Bar. 22, Ex. II)

Ex. II:

The long sound mix forming the basic continuum that follows is constructed using a different setting of the long echo sounds used on Sec. VII (Flute and Electronic). The final crescendo of Sec. II, which leads to the Piano entry (Sec. III) is used on Sec. V (Piano and Electronic, Bar 5). The beginning of Sec. III (Piano solo) is slightly overlapped with the end of the precedent section (only the resonance). This Section constitutes the "second answer" to the flute Section (I). It is, generally speaking, more static than the precedent sections, and the rapid drop in register is placed approximately at its middle point(Bar 7, Ex. III)

Ex. III:

This Section is based on a very simple basic thematic cell (I kindly call it "the un-pah homage") constructed using just one bass note followed by a chord, on a similar fashion of most common binary accompaniment schemes.

Sections I, II and III, are more strongly linked between them that the following section, whilst are also listened as a dialog between the three media. This allows to listen the following section (IV, Flute, Piano, Electronic) as a sudden acceleration of this dialog. As a matter of fact, the two first bars of this section shows the rapid entry of the three media on the same succession than the precedent sections (Flute, Electronic, Piano), and the piano first two actions constitutes, precisely, a clear presentation of the thematic cell used on Sec. III. Example IV illustrates this:

Example IV:

In this section the elaboration of several aspects of repetition is most relevant: pitches, intervals, iteration and recursion, and transformation of several event repetition on a single -granulated- event (through resources as tremolo and other modulations). This kind of work establish also a strong thematic link with section VI (See below).

From here:

Section IV (Piano, Flute, Electronic): CA. 85 secs.

Section V (Piano and Electronic): CA. 103 secs.

Section VI (Electronic solo): CA. 85 secs.

Section VII (Flute and Electronic): CA. 110 secs.

The following sections are presented as if they were independent pieces at which their "individuality tendency" fight against the strong thematic, formal, and material links established on the precedent sections.

Section V, is stated in itself as a dialog between Piano and Electronic, "slowing-down" the precedent section but, at the same time, focusing more strongly on this feature. At this section I have worked with the juxtaposition of Piano and Electronic sections of different duration and internal movement. Also, the Electronic part dialog with itself splitting constantly on sounds clearly electronic (artificially synthesized) by one hand, and processed acoustic sound (pseudo instrumental) by the other.

Section VI is clearly divided in two parts. The first one works with strongly processed piano and flute sounds (yet, it is still possible to recognize their origin) and performs a crescendo on chronometrical density which is "solved" on a granulated and continuous sound (here it is the thematic relation with Section IV I have already mentioned). The second part is structured on: 1)The retrograde of the Flute Section I, with two special features: a)It is not a mere tape reversing, but the Section I is sectioned on several sequences and these are mounted in reverse temporal order instead (thus, NO reverse flute sounds are used at all...), and b)Several sounds and/or sequences are mixed and spacialised on such a way that seems to be played by more than one flute. 2)Superposed with the flute sequence there is a kind of ostinatto variato constructed by mixing and editing small excerpts of Sec. III (Piano solo).

The last Section (Section VII, Flute and Electronic) states an echo game between flute and Electronic. At the beginning, the Electronic echoes the Flute but -from Bar 27- this is inverted and thus, the Electronic anticipates the Flute. This game is interrupted at Bar 40, and a dialog based structure is initiated (similar at the Piano and Electronic Piece, Sec. V) on which the Electronic disappears gradually and constitutes the final of the composition.

Each one of the sections have also a particular pitch structure. Though I will not deal in detail with this, generally speaking I can mention:

I have listen, to present, four live performed versions of tiempos magnéticos, three of them by different performers. In all of them -despite the simplicity of it general scheme- a special dramatic enhancement has arisen, undoubtely produced by the structured friction between fixed electronic and acoustic instrumental media. I believe that this can only be accomplished if we assume completely the nature of this media, and that this assumption constitutes an intriguing challenge on which performers and composers have yet much more to do.

Oscar Pablo Di Liscia

(Reviewed, march 2001)

(1)Fixed on a magnetic support like, for example, magnetic tape. The latter is the origin of its first denomination: tape music.

(2)Some of them are: the Acousmonium(GRM, Paris, France), the Gmebaphone(GMEB, Bourges, France), and the B.E.A.S.T. (Birmingham Electro-Acoustic Sound Theatre, UK).

(3)As an instance, the program MAX-MSP(Miller Puckette and David Zicarelli, from Cycling´74).

(4) The Klavierstucke VII (1954, Karlheinz Stockhausen) is, in my opinion, a beautiful example on the influence of the different kind of resonances of the piano on the temporal structure.

(5)Allen Forte: The Structure of Atonal music, London, Yale University Press, 1973.