Skip to main content

Assessment Criteria/Titles

Essay titles (these will be published in the first half of the Spring Term)

1. With reference to the work of TWO composers consider the extent to which chance composition removes intentionality from the work.
Brecht, George Chance-Imagery New York: Something Else Press, 1966 <>

Butchers, Christopher. "The Random Arts: Xenakis, Mathematics and Music." Tempo New Series 85 (1968): 2-5. Print. <> - Requires Athens login through University

Clark, Robert. "Total Control and Chance in Musics: A Philosophical Analysis." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 28 3 (1970): 355-60. Print. <> - Requires Athens login through University

Fetterman, William John Cage’s Theatre Pieces: Notations and Performances Netherlands, Harwood Academic Publishers 1996 [[TO BE UPLOADED]]

Hoogerwerf, Frank. "Cage Contra Stravinsky, or Delineating the Aleatory Aesthetic." International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 7 2 (1976): 235-47. Print. <> - Requires Athens login through University

Nyman, Michael Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999 [Library - ML 197.N9 - one copy]

O'Grady, Terence. "Aesthetic Value in Indeterminate Music." The Musical Quarterly 67 3 (1981): 366-81. Print. <>- Requires Athens login through University

Wolff, Christian, and David Patterson. "Cage and Beyond: An Annotated Interview with Christian Wolff." Perspectives of New Music 32 2 (1994): 54-87. Print. <>- Requires Athens login through University

2. “What is minimal about Minimal art […] is the means not the ends”

Discuss this remark in relation to the work of TWO Minimalist composers.

Bernard, Jonathan W. "The Minimalist Aesthetic in the Plastic Arts and in Music" Perspectives of New Music, Volume 31, Number 1 (Winter, 1993): 86-132. Print <>- Requires Athens login through University

Fink, Robert. "Do It ('Til You're Satisfied): Repetitive Musics and Recombinant Desires." Repeating Orselves: American Minimal Music as Cultural Practice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. 25-61. Print. <scanned>

Greenberg, Clement “Modernist Painting” in Battcock, Gregory (ed.) The New Art: A Critical Anthology Dutton, New York 1966 availalble online at <>

Johnson, Tom "The Voice Of New Music New York City 1972 – 1982: A Collection Of Articles Originally Published In The Village Voice" [NEW DIGITAL EDITION BASED 0N THE 1989 EDITION BY HET APOLLOHUIS] - < > (see especially “La Monte Young, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, Philip Glass” September 7, 1972, pp29)

Judd, Donald “Specific Objects” in Donald Judd: Complete Writings 1959–1975 (Halifax: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, in association with New York University Press, 1975), pp. 181–89 available online at

McCroskey, Sandy “Dream Analysis” 1/1: The Journal of the Just Intonation Network, , Volume 6, Number 3 May 1994 available online at <>

Morris, Robert “Notes on Sculpture” Artforum IV no.6 pp42-44 reprinted in Battcock, Gregory (ed.) Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology Dutton, New York 1968 pp222-28 available online at

Perreault, John “Minimal Abstracts” in Battcock, Gregory (ed.) Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology Dutton, New York 1968 pp.256-57 <in Library - N 6494.M5 - one in Learning grid, one out on loan]

Rainer, Yvonne "A Quasi Survey of Some 'Minimalist' Tendencies in the Quantita-tively Minimal Dance Activity midst the Plethora, or An Analysis of Trio A," in Battcock, Gregory (ed.) Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology Dutton, New York 1968

Reich, Steve “Music as a Gradual Process” in Writings About Music, Universal Edition, London, 1974 available online at

Riley, Terry “In C” [score] 1964

Schwarz, K.Robert, "Steve Reich: Music as a Gradual Process: Part I" Perspectives of New Music Volume 19, Number 1/2 (Autumn 1980 - Summer 1981): 373-392. Print < 832600> - Requires Athens login through University

Schwarz, K.Robert, "Steve Reich: Music as a Gradual Process: Part II" Perspectives of New Music Volume 20, Number 1/2 (Autumn 1981 - Summer 1982): 225-286. Print <> - Requires Athens login through University

Young, La Monte and Marian Zazeela. Selected Writings (1959-1969) Munich: Heiner Friedrich, 1969

Additionally, there are materials from the Week 3 session here -

3. Referring to the work of one sound artist or composer discuss how they have responded to the urban environment. - documentation on Audio walks by Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller

Cox, Christoph and Christina Kubisch "Invisible Cities: An Interview with Christina Kubisch" Cabinet Magazine Issue 21: Electricity. (Spring 2006) Web. <>

Fontana, Bill. "The Relocation of Ambient Sound: Urban Sound Sculpture." Leonardo 41.2 (2008): 154-58. Print. <scanned> - Bill Fontana's website - Max Neuhaus website

Neuhaus, Max "Listen" - Scanner (Robin Rimbaud) website

Scanner, "Remembering How to forget: An Artist's Exploration of Sound" Leonardo Music Journal Volume 11 (2001): 65-69. Print <>- Requires Athens login through University

Wyse, Pascal "Bill Fontana: Caught by the river" The Guardian Thursday 15 April 2010. Web <>

4. With reference to TWO or MORE listening circumstances discuss the extent to which they frame the reception of sound

Lucier, Alvin and Arthur Margolin "Conversation with Alvin Lucier" Perspectives of New Music Volume 20, Number 1/2 (Autumn 1981 - Summer 1982) : 50-58. Print <>- Requires Athens login through University

Straebel, Volker. "From Reproduction to Performance: Media-Specific Music for Compact Disc." Leonardo Music Journal 19 (2009): 23-30. Print.

Schafer, Murray R. "Music, the Soundscape and Changing Perceptions." The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. New York: Knopf, 1977. 103-19. Print.

White, Tim "Just Listening at Cafe Oto" Performance Research Volume 15, Number 3 (2010): 15-22 <>- Requires Athens login through University

5. "The integration of the human body into the performance of music in which the sound is generated by machines thus remains quite problematic. This should come as no surprise. It is a fundamentally new problem. Before the advent of machines that could automate sophisticated processes, there was no performance without the body. Since the body could not be removed, no one had to worry about how to put it back in."
With reference to one or more performances of electronic music consider the way(s) in which the performer is’ ‘put back in’.

Cook, Nicholas. "Between Process and Product: Music and/as Performance". 2001. Music Theory Online: The Online Journal of the Society for Music Theory. nd.2 7. <>.

Ferreira, Pedro Peixoto, et al. "When Sound Meets Movement: Performance in Electronic Dance Music." Leonardo Music Journal 18 (2008): 17-20. <>Requires Athens login through University

Ostertag, Bob. "Human Bodies, Computer Music." Leonardo Music Journal 12 (2002): 11-14 <>

Rosenboom, David. "A Program for the Development of Performance-Oriented Electronic Music Instrumentation in the Coming Decades: "What You Conceive Is What You Get"." Perspectives of New Music 25 1/2 (1987): 569-83. <>

Schloss, Andrew W. "Using Contemporary Technology in Live Performance: The Dilemma of the Performer." Journal of New Music Research 32.3 (2003): 239-42. Print. <

Practical Examination (50%). - NOTE REVISED TIMETABLE

The work will be realised on the date shown in the assessment timetable - please refer to this for the definitive date though this is unlikely to change).

The work will be assessed in accordance with the departmental guidelines for the assessment of practice


1. Submission of Proposal - Tuesday Week 10 (11th March)
Proposals may be for solo projects or for groups of up to 3. The proposal (examples are given below) should provide
a) a title
b) names of group members
c) a contact person and email and/or mobile number
d) rationale for the project
e) a list of requirements - technical, props, space etc

2. Feedback on proposal - Thursday Week 10 (13th March) - tutorial slots to be arranged for this week

3. Out of class development of project over Easter Break

4. Practical work on project in Week 2 Summer Term (Wednesday/Thursday)

5. Concert - Thursday Week 2 (1st May)

Please Note: The proposal will form part of the assessment

Last year's pieces (2013)

Excerpts from CLP 2010 Concert

Documentation of CLP 2013 Concert

Sample Proposals

Scores by Millburn (working title)

Description: The audience will enter through the front doors of Millburn House and be challenged by the first of many event scores. As they walk around the building they will notice event scores hung from beams, stuck to walls and doors, and whole rooms dedicated to one single piece of paper with a few simple instructions on. Some will have props beside them, asking the audience member to perform with it, and others will describe actions which they have just performed. For example, there may be a room with an event score and a bell, asking the audience member to ring it, and there may be a score hung on a wall asking the participant to walk, read a card of paper on the wall, and carry on walking. I expect there will be some that are written in more detail and to be more specific than others, and some will be subjective to the viewer interpretation. There will be around 15/20 scores in total, possibly a few more.
Commentary: Based on the workings of George Brecht and his event scores, such as Drip Music, Tea Event and Flute Solo, I intend to devise my own event scores which are specific to Millburn House. The piece is almost fully audience dependent, as until the first member of the audience steps through the doors of Millburn, there is no performance. The beauty of the piece is the way in which throughout Millburn between the hours of opening, there will be instances and moments of performance beginning as soon as someone reads a score. This harks back to Brecht’s joy in his own work, as he sent scores to friends and family and argued that it did not matter when or where the performances were taking place, but that they were happening.
The scores will be realised and performed over and over, as the audience members read and perform again and again. The scores on this day will be interpreted in many different ways which is a testament to the audience themselves. Their creative input becomes absolutely essential and priceless. The way the performance runs on the day, and the occurrences which happen as a result of the cards will be totally unique.

Intended location: ground floor of Millburn House. Will need a couple of studios to be open if available.
Duration: as long as the other performances are going on. Possibly a few hours.
Audience: as many or as few as come. Doesn’t make a difference.
Kit required: One microphone attached to one speaker. One spotlight/light used for filming.


71% men, 15% women and 14% perverts

Chatroulette is a website which pairs random strangers for webcam-based conversations. Visitors to the website randomly begin an online stranger chat (video and text) with another visitor. At any point, either user may leave the current chat and initiate another random connection.

“It becomes like a terrifying live version of hot or not, where you can see people's faces or occasionally genitalia for a brief instant before they, or you, click next, looking for someone hotter, weirder or nakeder”

Connecting you to a random stranger…

The audience enter a dark room, maps projected on two sides of the walls a video of Http:// as we click on strangers and move around different locations, accompanied by an engine sound. Then Dozens of laptop screens flicker, images of strangers appear hoping to engage. They all have their own agendas… like a train journey through the suburbs at night, looking briefly into as many lit windows as possible.

Connections are made in seconds, and lost at the click of a button.

There will be a room filled with 15-20 laptops arranged in a traverse stage formation, the laptops all at different heights. Two of the laptops will display a live feed from, the others are pre recorded and edited. This is accompanied by sounds of computer processes coming from big external speakers eg. Typing, internet dialup, clicking, beeping, thinking noise and mobile phone speaker interference.

The voices from different videos peak at different times, which creates varying focal points.

There is an ongoing, yet abstract conversation occurring between the videos, where particular themes are explored at different times. A man announces he is from Michigan, a woman in Italy asks ‘what are you doing up so late?’. Manic laughter erupts from two girls in Basingstoke. The piece will last 15-20 minutes, reaching a climax where an increasing amount of videos play at once, immersing the audience in a confusing network of disembodied experiences.

We took as a starting point Chris Cutler’s plunderphonia. We wanted to apply this concept to truly modern phenomena: an online social network. We will import and remix, re working it into a sound and video experience for an audience. Through the use of two laptops with real time live feed, we are employing an element of chance and indeterminacy to the piece – any of the c. 20,000 people on chat roulette could become part of the art work.

Themes we want to explore include human value, increased surveillance and the effects of a communication medium which lacks consequence or responsibility. The work will contribute to the current social discourse concerning the potential the internet has to reconfigure and change our perceptions of human interaction.

71% men, 15% women and 14% perverts - Additional requirements

• G52
• 1hour get in, 15 minute piece, 20 minutes get out= 1hour 35 minutes in total.
• All welcome- not durational, so as many can fit in room, maximum 20 audience members.
• Ian to help with lighting
• Ethernet cable, 2 big external speakers, 15-20 laptops, smoke machine, birdies and footlights, if possible wifi, 2 projectors, with DVD players.
• Rostra.


Title: 1 forth of 2

The space is set up so the audience can sit facing the same direction. At the front is a projector screen featuring a random collection of telephone numbers. They are in no immediately discernable order (but will be written in a way that it could potentially be interpreted as a score). The mobile phone numbers of the participants are also available, should they choose to include their own ringtones in the score. Below the screen 10 mobile phones are hanging from the roof, these phones correspond to the numbers on the screen. The piece begins with an announcement asking audience members to turn their phones to the loudest setting. The audience are then invited to compose the piece for themselves, by dialling the numbers. Each phone acts as an instrument with a pre-determined ringtone. The piece then becomes about the audience reacting to the sounds that they are producing through the phones. Some of the ringtones (sounds) will fit well together. The audience will then, through experimentation compose an original piece. The piece lasts as long as the audience continue to dial numbers.

Inspired by works such as Dialtones (A Telesymphony) the piece will be created entirely through the use of mobile phones. The phones become the instruments with the audience composing the piece themselves, the piece ends when the audience are satisfied with their experimentation. The piece subverts the traditional taboo notions of mobile phone usage by audience members within performances and instead constructs a musical work based purely around their use.

Additional Considerations
1. Studio
2. I imagine the piece to last in the region of 10-15 minutes,
3. A predetermined audience so I can have access to their phone numbers ahead of time
4. I don’t imagine any additional personnel will be required
5. I will need 10 mobile phones, and depending on how loud they become microphones and speakers (I imagine them to be unnecessary)
6. No props or costume required
7. Depending upon how we decide to stage all of the pieces I have a small idea that fits into this idea but only really makes sense if we are having multiple audiences. I would place a small recording device available, so that the audiences could record a final piece once they’d experimented with the sounds at their disposal.


Title- Music Box

Proposal- The studio will be set up with a single block on which the performer will stand, and 5 open white focused lights (spotlights) aimed to the floor, designed to create 5 corridors of light. 5 tracks will be selected, with each one correlating to a different beam. These tracks will be played when an audience member walks through one of the beams, with tracks changing as different beams are broken. The performer will be dressed as a music box dancer and will have 5 choreographed dance sequences prepared, however the audience, by selecting the music, will decide what she performs. The piece will be durational, lasting a total of 2 hours, with audience able to enter and exit the space at any period during the 2 hours.

The performance will therefore require 5 spotlights, one laptop which is connected to the studio sound system, one technician to change the music tracks throughout the performance and one block for the performer to dance on.

Commentary- The idea behind ‘Music Box’ is the notion of making the audience feel uncomfortable and strange within the setting, creating a sense of alienation despite the performance being created by their decisions. The piece is entirely dependent on the audience; if no-one interacts and selects music, then the dancer will do nothing. As the dancer, I intend to deliberately keep my facial expressions completely neutral, no matter what dance style I am creating. This will create a sense of unease amongst the audience, who I am intending to feel unnerved by seeing someone perform but with absolutely no expression on their face. I therefore hope that the movements will hopefully create an alienating effect, as they will match the musical style but with no feeling behind them. The audience will feel responsible for the performance, but I am interested to explore to what extent they feel responsible for the performer- if they see no signs of personality from me, will they feel sorry for me dancing solidly for 2 hours and allow me to stop, or will they simply repeat music over and over again?

The performance is designed to push my physical boundaries, as I will have to maintain the same facial expression for 2 hours, which I aware will be extremely difficult. I am interested to explore where this takes me and whether the audience notices any symptoms of exhaustion or fatigue if they cannot see me. This is exploring the work of Pina Bausch, who deliberately pushed dancers to work for hours before performance to examine the effects of extreme fatigue on performers. They will also decide how many times they can repeat the song, which will create an interesting dynamic. The music will change whenever an audience member breaks a different beam of light, meaning that they will need to work together (if more than one person is in the room at one time) in order to create an interesting piece for all members of the audience.

Additional information
Intended location- Theatre Studies studio (could be another room in the department if it has LX/FX capabilities)

Duration- 2 hours of performance time, then get in time- 2 hours max (enough time to rig/focus 5 spots and set up FX) Get out time- minimal due to only one piece of set, 30 mins maximum.

Audience numbers- Maximum of 10, audience free to enter/leave throughout performance.

Personnel- One person required to operate FX throughout performance.

Kit Required- 5 o/w spots, studio FX equipment including speakers.

Props and costumes- Costume- music box dancer outfit (should be easy for me to source) and one solid block, capable of being stood on.

Any other information- N/A