Graphic Score The use of graphic scores is the most common feature to be found in those analyses which have

been made of electroacoustic music. These range from rough outlines of the overall form of a work4 through to highly detailed illustrations from which much specific information about the piece is made visible5. However the process of making a graphic score itself is seldom discussed in its own right, and its role in the analysis is often not made visible, despite its widespread use. In the approach discussed here, the graphic score is made the chief tool of analytical investigation (supported by the other notational materials), and so the process of making a graphic score will be described and an attempt made to show how this action can be connected to the process of listening, and of getting to know a piece. One positive side-effect of this is that the speed of the process of familiarisation, together with the formulation of our ideas of structure and materials within a musical work can be increased - our listening is given more direction and focus. By making it a record of our listening and cognitive processes, we are making the graphic score much more involved in the analytical process and making the analysis itself more the presentation of an explorative process and what has been discovered through this, than the unveiling of a "logical and coherent synthesis of disparate segments to reconstruct a unified totality" (Stroppo, 1985) that Stroppo envisages as being the result of a successful analytic system. I would argue that electroacoustic music and the changes that it forces us into as listeners also has an effect on what we should hope for as the results of analysis. Stroppo appears to be hoping for the same kinds of results and certainties which result from traditional score analysis to come out of electroacoustic music analysis. Through accepting a different starting point, with listening as the basis of our analytic process, we also have to accept differing outcomes to this process. We should not expect to be able to reveal less about electroacoustic music in analysis than we would acoustic music, but we should expect what we are able to reveal to be different. Instead of the model which Stroppo proposes whereby the work is closed down at the end of the analytical process and 'explained away' through the presentation of "a unified totality", the results of analysis should reflect some of the flexibility, uncertainty and changeability of the listening process. Hence the proposal of a multiscore, multi-perspective approach which avoids claims of systematisation or simplification. The making of graphic scores is placed at the start of the analytical process which aims to establish a foundation of heard knowledge about the piece. This is built upon, through the further perspectives of the work afforded by the orchestral score and sonograms, developing a more detailed picture of the piece. An outline of this first stage follows, whilst examples of the detailed view of the piece, the analysis proper, are given in part two of this paper. When we first

listen to a piece of electroacoustic music, we are confronted "with all problems simultaneously: no score, no system and no 'pre-segmented' discrete units like notes. We are presented with 'music in its most general guise'"(Delande 1998). There is a further problem which specifically presents itself when one addresses mixed electroacoustic music. With this music we are presented with sounds of which we clearly recognise the source. Our ears (or minds) are often highly developed and skilled in recognising orchestral and instrumental sounds and in reducing these sounds to notes, as the basic carriers of information in instrumental music (particularly pitch and rhythm). What is required in making a graphic score is an application of Schaeffer's coute rduite (literally 'reduced listening'). We need to shift our attention (at least at this stage) away from recognition of the source of the instrumental sound and how it was produced in order to consider its shape and structure, its spectromorphology; to view the whole of the sound of the piece electroacoustically. Through our listening, as we begin to become more aware of the detail of the piece and of its shape, we often speak, literally, of building up a mental picture of the work. This may account for the unselfconscious use of graphic scores in many previous analyses - perhaps they are seen as a 'natural' expression of our cognition, an external record of this internal 'picture'. Another reason for the lack of discussion regarding the making of graphic scores may be the factor of 'diffusion scores'. These are frequently made to assist in the performance of acousmatic music6, either by the composer herself or by the 'performer' or diffuser, allowing a record to be made of the details of the spatial projection of a work through a multi-channel loudspeaker system. Thus the graphic score is a familiar, common presence for many of those who work with electroacoustic music. In our first listening encounters with the piece we can begin to decide on the most important properties of the work and to break the work down into identifiable units. Even here the analytical process has begun, in that we are firstly trying to discover what the salient sonic features of a work are, its 'pertinences' (Camilleri and Smalley 1998). These often become apparent during the early stages of listening but may take more time to be formed depending upon the nature of the piece, (for instance, how clearly its structure is articulated) and the experience of the listener / analyst. Secondly, we are attempting some segmentation of the work, to break it down into perceptual blocks. I would argue that both of these processes occur simultaneously in our listening and are interconnected. We do not develop ideas of the structure of a piece before we become aware of the materials that the piece is built out of, or vice versa. As a result, our analytical approach should reflect this. A graphic score made at this stage may not show much consistent detail of the work, but it can already reveal some of its large-scale structure and the beginnings of segmentation and the identification of 'pertinences'. Figure 1 shows such a score, made at an early stage in the process

of listening to Verblendungen. By attempting to make this early stage of familiarisation visible, however sketchy the information it seems to uncover may appear, we can record the start of the process of developing our understanding and familiarisation with a piece. The value of this first outline sketch is twofold: it allows us to preserve our initial views of the work, which may well change as we become more familiar with the piece at a later time, and become overwritten by this later view. As a result we can begin to keep different levels of our experience of the work (through time) open to us for analytical use. It can also give us clues as to the major concerns of a piece, those features of a work which are easily apprehended, and which must possibly have some important structural function. In making this first sketched score, a number of features already become apparent: Attacks and their decays (particularly at the opening), Pitch Ascents (and to a lesser extent descents), Repetition/Pulsation/Iteration, Gesture / Texture, } Noise / Pitch, Each of these will be shown to have structural importance at a later stage. In the more detailed listening score (fig.2) which follows on from this and which was made with more experience of the piece, some of these factors seem to disappear from view or become less obvious as more detail is added to the score. This reflects our listening process, in that we can lose sight of the over-arching structure of a work through concern with detail. The value of the early sketch is that we can now reach back to our earlier listening experience and compare the two views. The reflective nature of this process allows our understanding of the work to develop more quickly. By recording what we hear at various stages through familiarisation with the piece, we not only recognise the open, changing nature of our relationship with a musical work (why else would we continue to listen to pieces repeatedly?) but allow ourselves to draw visual connections between what we have sketched, which can be explored in listening. This diagram also shows the basic segmentation of the work. If we adopt a spectromorphological view of this process, each unit we identify should have three parts or temporal phases: onset, continuant and termination. Our initial basic segmentation seems to divide the work into two, a clear structural role being played by the tape solo which occurs just after the middle of the work. In this piece, with its slowly evolving, non-sectional nature, there appears to be some problem in clearly identifying these three parts. continua morphologies

The central section mentioned can clearly be identified as belonging to the termination phase, clearly echoing the opening of the work in its abrupt attack and density of sound and leading almost uninterruptedly to the final fade out of the piece. However this attack is clearly led up to and prepared for in the crescendo which precedes it, so it is not possible to mark the start of this attack as the exact start of this temporal phase. The division between the onset and continuant is even less clearly defined (at least on initial hearings) occurring somewhere between the fourth and fifth minutes of the work. What appears to be happening is that there are clear areas of the piece which we can identify as the onset (the start, obviously), continuant (by which time the punctuating attacks of the opening have disappeared) and termination (from the tape solo mentioned until the end). What is in doubt is the boundary between these areas and I think this is a real feature of this piece, in that it blurs the cross-overs of these structural areas and overlaps them, particularly in the later parts of the work, There is, between each of these phases a time when we are in two minds, feeling both the pull back of the previous phase and the pull forward of the next. Clarification of this structure will be found through matching this top-down overview with the bottom-up process which spectromorphology allows us, in the grouping of the basic level of named sound objects together in levels of hierarchy, and finally in comparison with the other scores. It is at this stage, having established a clear heard view of the piece, begun to attempt some formal segmentation and identify the basic materials of the piece that we can widen our view of the piece with the help of the other scores. Before moving on to look at the sonogram and its role in the analysis, mention should be made of the reasons for keeping the making of the graphic score and the sonogram separate. As the sonogram provides accurate information regarding the timing of events, for instance, and gives us a ready-made picture of the sound of the piece it might seem sensible to be able to draw over this or develop these images into a graphic score based upon our heard experience of the piece. This is precisely the approach which is taken with the Acousmographe, a computer program which is currently being developed by the G.R.M. (Teruggi, 1999) Whilst this approach is appropriate to the analysis of some acousmatic music, in the particular case of mixed electroacoustic music, the separation of the graphic score and sonogram has more advantages to offer. If the graphic score is made on top of the sonogram then our visual imagination of the piece is conditioned and directed by the sonogram's image. By making the graphic score before viewing the sonogram then we make an image directly from our heard experience (or as near to it as is possible). This is a difficult process and must be worked at, but it is in this working out that we develop our understanding of what we hear, attempting to become consciously aware of our listening process. This separation also allows us to compare the graphic score and the sonogram to see how closely they

correspond - our heard experience does not always tally with what the computer analysis reveals and vice versa (as will be seen later) and the computer's images of the piece may provoke us to see a feature or structure of the piece not brought to our attention through listening. Conflating the two may make the production of a graphic score easier but its analytic importance is reduced and our views of the work under analysis reduced. It is important to be able to make comparison between these separate score objects. One straightforward way of achieving this is to adopt standard time-scales, at least for similar views of the piece, as can be seen in the final detailed graphic and sonogram scores. The graphic score is also annotated with both the bar scheme and rehearsal letters taken from the orchestral score to easily allow comparison between the electroacoustic and notebased views of time (the orchestral score has 'clock' timing in seconds already marked upon it).