by Lelio Camilleri
INTRODUCTION
The introduction of technology in its various phases of development from the end of the 194O ‘s up to today has brought about not only an enrichment of the sonoral palettte, it has also brought about a great deal of theoretical reflection on how to classify the sounds of the works thus created and how to analyze them. Thus, a problem arose, not merely regarding the study of music using technological instruments, but about all sonoral phenomena which cannot be described by means of the lexicon and methodology of existing theories, however advanced they may be. The question of analyzing electroacoustic music is not a case unto itself. Indeed, even keeping in mind its specific characteristics, it involves other repertoires: for example, popular music, some contemporary instrumental music and other kinds of music which extend the sound landscape in an unconventional way. Since electroacoustic music includes a sound landscape that is extremely vast, I cannot but agree with Smalley’s provocative statement (Smalley, 1991a) that describes instrumental music as a sub-set of electroacoustic music; thus the methodology of analysis of electroacoustical music can make an important contribution to the problematics of the analysis of instrumental music as well.
The purpose of this article is to reflect on some of the theoretical-analytical approaches to the problem of the study of electronic music, emphasizing the most important aspects and their possible development. These approaches may be seen as a segment of music theory, that of the analysis of music without notation, in continuous development. Obviously, when we speak of music without notation, we risk creating a certain confusion with other musical fields – ethnomusicology for example, in which there often can be found problems of unconsolidated or inexistent notation. Moreover, one might object that in this field there already exist a great number of analytical studies and theories. The problem, however, is not the same, also because, although the context is quite different, several basic concepts of existing analytic theories may be useful in analyzing this music in which, among other things, we come face to face with sound phenomena not so very different from those of classical music. For example, the concept of pitch may be widely used, as well as that of the scale, to cite only two definitions.
The creation of analytic strategies for electro-acoustic music must regard three aspects:
1) a reflection on the musical language, its potentialities and its ties with the natural sonoral world;
2) the relationship between .psycho-acoustic properties of sound phenomena and their description;
3) the creation of an analytical lexicon. Naturally, these three aspects are theorized and framed in different ways in the various analytic tendencies.
It is for just this reason that I shall refer to the distinct analytic approaches to the music of the electroacoustic medium, especially concerning the first two problems. Before confronting these aspects in their specificity and in the interpretations furnished by several theories, it is necessary to throw some light on problems that the analysis of electroacoustic music evidences. First of all, there is the problem of the neutral level, (niveau neutre), understood as the level limited to the musical text as it is thus understood by Nattiez. The analytical approach to electroacoustic music cannot be other than aestethic/perceptive/cognitive, since no consolidated correlation exists between graphic representation and sound text (as there does for instrumental music); the only text that we can analyze is the sound text. It is my opinion that this characteristic represents a strength and not a weakness of this musical genre. Concentrating solely on the sound material without any written reference avoids the risk of carrying out analyses based on only one aspect (that of the relationships among pitches, for example) which often don’t consider what we are actually listening to. To use a lapidary and provocative phrase, the neutral level in electroacoustic music finds its confirmation of its inapplicability. In this case it might be objected that since no written text exists, fixed in a score, but only listening to the electroacoustic musical text as the object of analysis, this might orient us toward unique, single and subjective readings. Even if this is partly true, also in traditional music texts, the variations that occur are limited by the srtucture of our perceptual-cognitive faculties as well as by cultural factors (Smalley, 1991b).
An approach of this type is used in analyzing sound objects in electroacoustic musical texts, starting from the very correlation of sample data obtained by presenting the sonoral material in question to different subjects. The use of the term sound object is not accidental; it provides a useful definition denoting a more complex event that any single musical element with its properties of frequency, timbre and duration. Later, we shall examine the typological and morphological problems of this class of sounds. Another aspect of interest is that the analysis of electroacoustic music does not coincide, as often happens also in the analysis of a great deal of instrumental music, with an examination of the compositional process of the work. Even if information on production strategies can sometimes be a useful instrument in corroborating the analytical information gathered from a hearing of the piece, it is not a main part of the analysis itself. How a composer has built sounds and mounted them in a formal articulation is only useful in emphasizing and correlating some physical characteristics of the sound objects which make up the work. Nothing more. This sort of warning, which in itself might seem banal, is due to the fact that, because of problems in defining sound objects and the typology of formal structuralization, many analyses often fall back on a reading of compositional processes, one of the few written sources available about an electroacoustic work. It has been stated that not the score but the scores, in much of synthetic music for example, represent an important source because they contain sonological information on the work itself. This statement seems a bit rash to me because scores contain acoustic data which often do not coincide with the performance of the sound phenomena as our ears perceive it. If we examine one of Shepard’s sounds (1982), a reading of its physical structure tells us nothing about the sound image we perceive (1).
In the second place, the analysis of electronic music must not correspond to the creation of aesthetic criteria in order to justify the existence of the electroacoustic genre. Often, and this is also due to a part of Schaeffer’s heredity, definitions of analytical frameworks also contain considerations of aesthetic character which have nothing to do with analytic methodology and, even more than that, weaken it. Even more so because one cannot consider the analysis of electroacoustic music as the investigative instrument of a single and homogeneous genre. Often, the only characteristic that many types of electroacoustic music have in common is their use of technology; they are quite different in their stylistic aspects. An analytical framework should furnish, in its various stylistic aspects, instruments with which to examine music demonstrating exceedingly complex sound phenomena which are inexplicable by means of theories used for instrumental music. This does not mean that analysis and aesthetics are two fields of study having nothing to do with one another. My present working hypothesis is that – given the embryonic state of the analysis of electroacoustic music- it is more important to focus attention on the aspects inherent to its structural characteristics.
ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC MUSICAL LANGUAGE: NATURAL AND MUSICAL RELATIONSCHIP
One important aspect of electroacoustic music is its acousmatic character. This definition derives from the lack of information which the listerner possesses regarding the source which produces these sounds. This allows us to place the sound material in relation to meaningful elements which may be realized according to the morphological characteristics of the sound objects heard. In addition, electroacoustic music is able to dip into a vast sound landscape, in which we can place at opposite poles natural sounds without tranformation and totally syntetic sounds. But this is only a part of the question.
The most important aspect is that we can abstract several characteristics of the micro-structure of natural sounds and make them belong to sound objects realized in studio, as for example, the utilization of concrete sound sources in order to use them for narrative purposes or to emphasize articulative properties. Thus, the signification process which the listener puts into action at the highest level of analytic practice concerns relationships that are quite different because sound material possesses properties that direct in two opposite directions, quite differently from traditional sound material. This process is called source bonding (Smalley, 1991b) and its use can be noticed in the development of sound material in electroacoustic music using the definitions mimetic or aural (Emmerson, 1987). The accentuation of one or the use of both in different ways characterizes some of the structural properties of the work: not only may they be used as a signification level, but also to model some properties of sound objects and their development. These aspects should not cause to forget another listening situation – defined by Schaeffer – which plays an important role in comprehending an electroacoustic work. This is called reduced listening (ècoute rèduite) and is, in other words, the disposition of the listener, in virtue of which his attention is focused exclusively on the sound object itself with no reference to the source causing its production.
All of these definitions are important since, as has already been mentioned, the starting point of the analysis of electroacoustic music is listening to it; the receptive attitude of the listener influences the work of analysis because these properties are not merely associative but are part of the structural potentiality of the electroacoustic medium. Among other things, one can imagine rather clearly that during listening and analytic pratice, perceptual-cognitive changes may occur. So, in some cases, both a referential reading (referring to several natural properties of the sonoral object) and a musical one (with reference to the intrinsic properties of the sound material) are equally valid and interconnected.
ANALYTIC TENDENCIES FOR A DEFINITION OF SONORAL OBJECTS AND THEIR STUCTURING
The analysis of sound objects and their articulation within an electroacoustic work can be divided into several tendencies which, for simplicity’s sake, I shall group into three main fields. Briefly, I intend to explain these approaches and shed light on their salient points. Contributions on the analysis of electroacoustic music are extremely few (Delalande, 1972, 1986; Stroppa, 1984) and often insufficiently systematic when faced with problems of analyzing the text. In this explanation I shall linger on three analytic methodologies which may be seen as interdependent and which, in my opinion, represent important contributions in this field. As may be noticed, one of the main problems is finding an analytic lexicon suitable for describing sonoral phenomena of the kind used in electroacoustic music (2).
SCHAEFFER AND SOUND OBJECTS
Any reflection on the theoretic and applied contributions in electroacoustic music must begin with the work of Pierre Schaeffer (1952,1966). Apart from temporal reasons – Schaeffer was one of the first to devote himself to music produced by electroacoustic means and one of the first to undertake a theoretical reflection on it – he is of interest because of several of his formulations which are still pertinent today. In his two books, A la Recerche d’une Musique Concrète and Traitè des Objects Musicaux, Schaeffer elaborates a theoretical framework, within which he attempts to confront both terminological and methodological problems.
This undertaking, later continued by other French scholars (Chion, 1983. Delalande, 1987), contains both compositive and aesthetic guidelines but also a series of analytically pertinent criteria which tackle the problem of perception of sound objects from an esthesic point of view. Schaeffer classifies sound objects according to typological and morphological criteria; the former indicate the general types of these objects, while the latter describe their characteristics (3).
Essentially, Schaeffer indicates three types of sound objects: continuous,iterative and impulsive. Another of Schaeffer’s important formulations concerns the three plans of reference (plans de reference) through which the “sound objects” are described and classified according to therir properties.
These three plans are:
1) the melodic or texture plan, the evolution of pitch in time;
2) the dynamic or form plan, the parameters of intensity in time;
3) the harmonic or timbral plan, the relationships between the preceding parameters as represented in their spectral components.
Each reference plan presents several systems of classification according to the type of melodic, dynamic and timbral movement. In addition, four classes of criteria are formulated: criteria of material, maintainment, form and variation; these are correlated in turn to the morphological characteristics of the sound objects. Other formulations concern material classification of the sound objects, their temporal length and center of interest, and musical classification, their nature and complexity. It is interesting to notice how these two types of classification make use of terms like segment, cell and group, terminologies which can be found in the vocabulary of the theory of segmantation of musical texts. This aspect allows us a glimpse of how some formulations belonging to this theoretical framework may be used in the segmentation of an electroacoustic music text. Unfortunately, it is to segmentation (or even better, to macro-segmentation) itself that Schaeffer and his followers do not pay enough attention.
Only one branch of Schaefferian theory, aural analysis (Thoresen, 1983; Delalande, 1989), seeks to define, more or less systematically, the criteria of segmentation in musical texts. Aural analysis (Thoresen, 1983) theorizes two levels of segmentation: time fields, concerning the significant segments into which a text may be hierarchicalliy divided, and layers, which in turn are hierarchic themselves and regard the content of the text’s timbral mass. Each aspect possesses a series of connective modes and parametric values. Another type of aural analysis is that which Delalande (1989) calls “analysis of listening conduits”, a kind of esthesic approach, which seeks to define segmentation in sound objects of a certain temporal length, the grouping of which is due to the presence of several specific traits. It is important to notice that, at least at the present time, both aural analysis and that of listening conduits are mainly employed for the analysis of instrumental music (4).
Even if the theoretical reflection put into practice by Schaeffer – and proliferated in other directions – contains aspects of great importance, it also presents many problems. First of all, this reflection derives principally from a type of musical context: concrete music (musique concréte); its descriptive criteria are too strongly influenced by ties with very precise sound phenomena, and in some cases they are lacking in generalization.
That this lack reveals limits becomes evident when these criteria must be applied in describing different sound phenomena, especially those obtained with technologically advanced instruments. I am referring to the great quantity of music employing hardware and software instruments, which permit the synthesis of sounds and their structuring within the composition. Another problem lies in the purpose of the treatment: too close to the compositive aspect – for example the formulations on manipulation and transformation – and too slanted toward sustaining aesthetic considerations (5).
In any case, Schaeffer’s work offers important aspects to anyone desirous of taking on the task of fixinf or theorizing analytic criteria for electroacoustic music.
THE SPECTRO-MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH
An in-depth examination of Schaeffer’s theoretical affirmations comes from Denis Smalley, the New Zealand composer (1987). Smalley’s examination becomes a systematic re-formulation and enlargement of Schaeffer’s affirmations, preserving some of their original characteristics and conferring generality on many aspects. The bond between the two approaches is evident, especially in the relationship between spectral typologies and morphologies. In Smalley’s definition, however, these terms are more exhaustive; they can be applied to different musical contexts and include other categories such as that of motion.
The theoretical framework of spectro-morphology is articulated mainly in four parts: the typology of the spectra, morphology, motion and structuring processes. Each part contains classifications including a lexicon .flexibly suitable to descriptions of sound phenomena. One vitally important aspect of spectral typologies is their explicit relationship with morphological classifications. Especially relevant is the definition of the noise-note continuum subdivided into three principal elements: the noise, the node (an event having a more complex texture than a single pitch) and the note, which is in turn subdivided into note, harmonic spectrum and inharmonic spectrum. This classification of the minimal elements in the electro-acoustic lexicon represents a good starting point, in spite of some less well-defined points, as for example, the typologies “harmonic spectrum” and “inharmonic spectrum”.
Actually, each of these may include an infinity of sound objects that are each quite different from one another. Concerning this problem, we shall later see that a model is needed which allows us to realize a lexicon of minimal sound elements starting from their acoustic and perceptive properties. An integration of definitions belonging to other approaches will reveal its usefulness in better formulating these typologies. As far as morphological aspects are concerned, Smalley goes far beyond Schaeffer’s definitions, designating four types (attack-impulse, closed attack-decay, open attack-decay and graduated continual) and creating a series of models obtained through transformations like retrogradation. Since the elements present in works of electroacoustic music are quite often dynamic objects, i.e. made up of several morphological models, there enters the concept of morphological string, a string composed of two or more different morphological models. I want to emphasize just how useful these morphological strings are, both for an analysis by reduction and for segmenting a sonoral text into macro-elements. Perhaps the most complex portion of theory concerns the concept of motion (6).
It is classified into six categories (bi-directional, uni-directional, linear, curved-linear, reciprocal and centric/cyclic), correlated among themselves by diverse degrees of affinity and subdivided into subcategories. The definition of categories of motion is of great importance since these categories can be related to single sound objects as well as to sections of a work. Smalley indicates this difference with the terms texture and gesture, to indicate whether these categories refer to the internal structure of a sonoral object or whether the reference is to a movement of greater breadth, a section of a work. This theoretical framework is further integrated by other formulations concerning structural functions, descriptions of formal processes, and other aspects such as functional chains, structural relationships and elements describing the spatialization of the sound material.
I believe that description, brief though it may be, has emphasized the structure of the theory and accented its most important characteristics, at least for purposes of analysis. The creation of lexicon of sound objects and their structuring represents an important and sufficiently eleborated part of this theory, for example the relationships between “structure of objects” and “motion of formal structures”. Besides, the generalization of many definitions leads us to believe that this theory is an excellent and advanced starting point for the construction of an analytical theory of electroacoustic music.
THE PERCPETUAL-COGNITIVE AND ESTHESIC-COGNITIVE APPROACHES
The definitions explaining these approaches point to their principal characteristic: they are based on the comprehension and explication of the mental processes underlyng musical perception and cognition, with an eye toward listening processes. In spite of the growing number of studies on musical psychology, few have been oriented toward the perception and cognition of complex sound structures like those of electroacoustic music, except for studies on timbre and its aspects. Some studies, for example those of McAdams (1983), present interisting elemts and have provided the starting point for the creation of models for the analysis of electroacoustic music like that formulated by Doati (1991). One important concept in McAdams’ theory is represented by auditory images and their properties of “fusion” and “fission”.
Coherent auditory images are classified in four types:
1) harmonic spectra,
2) spectra with shifted harmonics,
3) spectra with stretched harmonics,
4) spectra with compressed harmonics.
The latter three typologies, describable though precise models, furnish a useful instrument for the calssification of spectra in a category that is too general, like that of inharmonic spectra. McAdams’ formulations are not only interesting for their definition of the concepts of “fusion” and “fission”, but also because they are based on an explicit correlation between acoustic and perceptual properties. Naturally missing are indications for research into structures at high level, those, that is, which articulate the formal design. Doati (1991) has proposed a model based on McAdams’ assumptions, which is articulated in five phases: the reading of the acoustic surface, the organization of coherent auditory images, the segmentation and extraction of a lexicon, the construction of structural relationships and the attainment of a musical dialogue.
Even if an approach of this type touches on the main aspects of the analysis of electroacoustic music, it does not well define, for example, the types of structural relationschips, the type of segmentation and its levels. Some of these characteristics derive, in my view, from the fact that this model is mainly oriented toward defining compositional strategies. This approach, here called perceptual-cognitive, offers, as we have seen, many interesting elements for defining minimal elements (for example, the relationship between physical and perceptual properties), but it does not furnish sufficient elements for the construction of analytical strategies on the formal structure. Another approach which refers explicitly to the analysis of esthesic-cognitive strategies is the one developed by Giomi and Ligabue (1991). The principal theoretical assumption of this methodology is that of considering the sound object as a unit of first articulation made up of units of second which act as distinctive traits.
The categories of traits used are a selected and integrated class of those proposed by Schaeffer. A series of multiple listenings to electroacoustic woks is used to verify convergencies and discrepancies in the listening process and also in the process of identification of sound objects in relation to the methodological assumptions illustrated above. Thus, a classification can be compiled of the pertinent traits of the sound objects and their possible variations, putting in order and integrating the classification attained by Schaeffer in his Traitè. CONCLUSIONS An examination of problems facing the analysis of electroacoustic music and a brief treatment of the various analytical tendencies allows us to draw a precise picture of the present state of this field. In conclusion, several considerations come to the fore, none of which is conclusive, given the extreme fluidity of the situation, for the possible orientations which, in my opinion, should be followed in creating a theory and relative analytical model of electroacoustic music. Each of the contributions we have examined contains interesting aspects, even if at various degrees and levels; the concept of sound object and some musical classifications in Schaeffer; Smalley’s structure of theory and typologies; some hypotheses of models of segmentation and fusion of sound objects in the theory based on perceptual processes; and some aspects of semiotic methodology in defining sound objects in reference to the esthesic processes (7).
The problem of creating a lexicon for electroacoustic music, and not only for that, can be found, I believe, in an integration between the definitions of spectro-morphological theory and the models for the fusion of auditory images proposed by McAdams. One practical example could be the integration of the typologies of inharmonic spectra formulated by McAdams with that defining the inharmonic spectrum as indicated by Smalley. In this case, models based on theories which place acoustical elements in relation to perceptual elements are already sufficiently reliable in describing sound elements.
If we go beyond the problems of lexicon and of minimal elements in the sound text, we find ourselves facing problems such as segmentation and srtuctural relationships. I believe, for example, that a theory starting from cognitive basis like that of Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983), can offer interesting suggestions, even if it does not specifically deal with problems related to this type of sound phenomena. Morphological strings and the definition of typologies of motion together with the elements that make it up, can already furnisch a basis for a direct application on electroacoustic texts. A piece of electroacoustic music can be examined using these definitions, for example the typologies of motion, in a way that underlines several characteristics, both of its global form and of the structure of the single sections. Focusing attention on the typology of motion should not be considered uncommon since it represents one of the aspects that characterize a great deal of electroacoustic music (8).
Another hypothesis is that commencing with the rules of segmentation, for example “elision” and “superimposition” of Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s theory, in order to apply them in the analysis of structural groupings of the sections composed of sound objects. In conclusion, I believe that the analysis of electroacoustic music possesses the theoretical bases needed to begin the work of systematization. We can go beyond the phase of pure and simple segmentation and the description of sound objects and their relationships and develop and apply concepts concerning the hierarchy of structural elements, motion and directionality of structures, and the definition of a lexicon for the various levels of analytical description.
The lack of consolidated notation is not a handicap at all, on the contrary, it is a strength . With a rather provocative (but not so very) statement, I would like to say that a theory and an analytical model exclusively focused on the study of the sound text represent a real point of contact between musical theory and the modelling of perceptual and cognitive masical strategies. By possesssing these properties, the analysis of electroacoustic music is a field of study full of fascination, even if it is difficult and complex.
NOTES
(1) A tipical example of one of Shepard’s sounds is the infinite glissando. An effect produced by its spectral content which emphasizes how we differently perceive the pitch and the croma. In any case, a phisical reading of its sound would give us no information concerning the effect it produces.
(2) This represents a similar problem for another musical genre based on technological instruments, pop music. I quote part of an example found in Middleton (1990), regarding an attempt at describing some types of sonority:”…a “dry” acoustic guitar tracks is mixed “un front” while the drummer asks for “wet, muffled” sound and the producer wants the Fender piano to be “heavier” and more “explosive”, not so “rickety tin can””.
(3)An important text for getting one’ bearings in Schaeffer’s Traitè is Michel Chion’s Guide, which contains a rational annotation of key concepts and summarizing tables on the classification with relative exlpanations.
(4) It would be interesting, especially in the analysis of contemporary instrumental music, to analyze the structure of some sonoral situations by rferring to their morphological structure without using traditional musical concepts.
(5) Another of the aspects of the Traitè is the furnishing of a basis for the justification of the existence of electroacoustic music.
(6) In this context these terms are defined as modulations: vibrato, portamento, and random vibrato or shimmer.
(7) Both this approach and Smalley’s already offer a development and integration od Scaffer’s theory, as can be noticed from their description.
(8) Some of the pieces which could be analyzed from this point of wiev are Vortex by Smalley (see Levis, 1983a, 1983b), Kontakte be Stockhausen, Parmegiani’s La Creation du Mond, and Terminus II by Koenig.
REFERENCES
BELKIN, A., 1988. “Orchestration, Perception, and Musical Time”, Computer Music Journals, 12 (2)
CAMILLERI, Lelio, 1991. “Musica senza notazione: riflessioni sull’analisi della musica elettronica”, Analisi Musicale, ed. by M. Baroni and R. Dalmonte (Milan: Unicopli)
CHION, Michel, 1983. Guide des Objects Sonores (Paris: INA/Buchet-Castel)
CHION, Michel, 1988. “Du Son à la Chose: Hypothèses sur l’Object Sonore”, Analyse Musicale, 11.
DELALANDE, Francoise, 1972. “L’Analyse des Musiques Electro-acoustiques”, Musique en jeu, 8.
DELALANDE, Francoise, 1987. “L’Analyse des Conduites Musicale: une Etape du programme Sèmiologique?”, Semeiotica, 66 (1/3).
DOATI, Roberto, 1989. “Analisi dell’opera Glissandi di György Ligeti”, in Analisi Musicale, ed. by M. Baroni and R. Dalmonte (Milan: Unicopli).
EMMERSON, Simon (ed.), 1987. The Language of Electroacoustic Music (London: Macmillian).
EMMERSON, Simon, 1987. “The relation of Language to Materials”, in The Language of Electroacoustic Music, Emmerson, S. “Polarised Listening Strategies for Electroacoustic Music”, paper presented at the II European Convention of Musical Analysis, Trento. (ed.), (London: Macmillian).
GIOMI, Francesco, and LIGABUE, Marco, 1991. “Un approccio estesico-cognitivo alla descrizione dell’Object sonore”, paper presented at the II European Convention of Musical analysis, Trento.
HEIKINHEIMO, Seppo, 1972. The Electronic Music of Karlheinz Stockhausen (Helsinki: Acta Musicologica Fennica).
TEN HOPPEN, Christiane, 1991. JANZEN, Thomas, 1986. “Aestethic Appeal in Computer Music”, Computer Music Journal, 10 (3).
LERDAHL, Fred, JACKENDOFF, Ray, 1983. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press).
LEWIS, Andrew, 1983a. “Motion and the Analysis of Electro-Acoustic Music: Denis Smalley’s Vortex (I)”, Electro-Acoustic Music, 3 (3). LEWIS, Andrew, 1983b. “Motion and the Analysis of Electro-Acoustic Music: Denis Smalley’s Vortex (II)”, Electro-Acoustic Music, 3 (4). MANNING, Peter, 1987. Electronic and Computer Music (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
MIDDLETON, Richard, 1990. .Studying Popular Music (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
McADAMS, Stephen, 1983. “Spectral Fusion and the Creation of Auditory Images”, in Music, Mind, and Brain, Clynes M. (ed.) (New York: Plenum Press).
SCHAFFER, Pierre, 1952. A la Recherche d’une Musique Concrète (Paris: Editios du Seuil).
SCHAFFER, Pierre, 1966. Traité des Objects Musicaux (Paris: Editios du Seuil).
SHEPARD, R., 1982. “Structural Representation of Musical Pitch”, in D. Deutsch (ed.), Psychology of Music (New York: Academic Press). SMALLEY, Denis, 1987. “Spectro-morphology and Structuring Processes”, in The Language of Electroacoutic Music, Emmerson S. (ed.), (London: Macmillian).
SMALLEY, Denis, 1991a. Personal communication.
SMALLEY, Denis, 1991b. “Can Electro-Acoustic Music Be Analyzed?”, paper presented at the II European Convention of Musical Analysis, Trento.
STROPPA, Marco, 1984. “Sull’analisi della musica elettronica”, Bollettino Limb, 4.
THORENSEN, Lasse, 1983. Layers and their Functions, Unpublished manuscript.
Download the article
L. Camilleri
Electro-acoustic music:analysis and listening processes
© 2005 sonus publishing/sonusedizioni
