Hey thanks a lot for checking all this stuff out. I too am very excited to hear different takes on these and I would love to hear yours. As I say on the site I'll host any recordings that people make so if you (or anyone) make one please submit it.
diederich wrote:The main question I have revolves around the pool sections. I feel like it's a lack of creativity on my part perhaps, but the instructions mostly just leave me confused. If you'd be willing I'd love to hear more thoughts on how you envision people playing through something like no. 35 or no. 32. If you'd be willing to talk through your process recording no. 33 I'd be interested to hear more.
First off thanks to your question I see that in the complete PDF I put 32 before 31. Whoops, thanks for pointing me to that! I'll update the PDF later today. Anyway to answer your specific questions, I doubt there's any issue with your creativity, as I've said elsewhere these patterns are a real challenge to wring music out of. I remember when I first showed
Treatise to some musician friends of mine they immediately were talking about sounds and how they'd transform those images into music. The
Musical Patterns I don't feel are entirely like that (the last section maybe a bit) they are more like a new abstract form of notation. Yet unlike a traditional notation I don't give you much guidance. As you go through the scores they become increasingly abstract. The early algorithmic ones could be directly mapped to conventional notation. While I don't tell you what to play for each symbol you could make a choice and write it out. I would think that this is how say David Tudor would approach it (at least in the early days). As you get to the later scores I remove more and more of these structural elements and yet the same rules apply. In playing the
Pools of Sound with others I found that the common approach was toward a free interpretation so I tried to clarify with the additional instructions. So lets take a look at these additional instructions.
* Pools of sound arise from the space in which they are set.The image that I associate with the pools of sound is of a still surface of water with a stone thrown into it. So like the ripples in the water the pools are a
feature of the element that they are in.
* Each pool should be approached individually with common elements providing the structure. The symbols on these pages are made up of disparate elements, but they share some features: shape, color, size etc. But again thinking of these as ripples in a pool, each of these is its own rock (or two, or three if overlapping) tossed into that pool. The common features should be used to create continuity, but again how this is done is up to the performer. Maybe you assign pitch ranges to size, dynamics to color, a set of techniques to shape. Or perhaps you just associate an instrument to a color and vary it as the shape varies. The way the symbols are assigned is totally open to the performer and I think is the most essential part to finding the music in these scores.
* The path through the pools is up to the performer. One of my primary concerns with these compositions is structure and the linear paths in the earlier scores are a form of structure that I place upon the performer. Time in those provides an element of indeterminacy - the timings between events is up to the performers. In these scores this still applies but the order in which a symbol is played is up to the performer, thus adding an additional layer of indeterminacy.
* Spaces between the pools must be observed and should be also be a structural element. This of course is the primary rule of the patterns in general, but I felt this should be reiterated. You can't just play a continuous drone for the entire duration and say that you have played these scores.
* A pool should be thought of as a system which can have multiple elements: a sound, but also its duration, repetition, dynamic and so on. In general what I'm say here is that each pool shouldn't
necessarily be thought of as a single sound. You could do that, but in general that wouldn't be too interesting. Again think of the analogy to rocks in the water - its a spreading series of ripples that interacts with existing textures from the water and ground below and so on.
* How the characteristics are determined is up to the performer but whatever structure is applied should form the basis for those that share symbolic features.This is basically saying that you should have consistency in your symbolic assignments. Again this is another base rule of all the patterns that I felt needed emphasis. But also it's worth stating that consistency in this case doesn't have mean play A# for symbol
x every time. It could be say;
use a mallet.
* Drops of sound should be related to pools as a drop of water is related to a pool of water.I think my clarifications above should make this fairly clear. I don't want to make any limiting associations, but if you think of a drop of water as a microcosm but also a subset of a greater microcosm it should be easy to make an association between the two.
So I hope that makes it clearer. I'm happy to go over exactly how I interpreted No. 33 but I feel I've gone on a bit long here already

But as I've said, I'm totally happy and willing to go over these at any detail people are interested in. I really, really, really want to hear some other peoples take on these and I'm very interested in how clear my instructions are. They best thing about web publishing is that I can easily update stuff and I will constantly do so.