Introduction
The German avant-garde composer Karlheinz Stockhausen (1928-2007) used the term Mikrophonie to name two of his seminal works, Mikrophonie I (1964) and Mikrophonie II (1965). Where Mikroskopie (the use of microscopes) reveals new phenomena to the naked eye, Mikrophonie (the use of microphones) can create new sonic experiences. According to Stockhausen at the time of publishing Mikrophonie I, “The microphone has, up to now, been treated as a lifeless, passive recording instrument for the purpose of obtaining a sound playback that is as faithful as possible.”1 Stockhausen later elaborated that the “microphonic process” transformed sounds through the microphone, electronic manipulation, and amplification.2 Expanding the scope and significance of the term, I consider the microphonic process as encapsulating how microphones, loudspeakers, and related media are used to support, extend, and innovate musical practice. Taking this perspective, despite Stockhausen’s claims of innovation in Mikrophonie I, the microphonic process has in fact been used independently by artists long before, and after, his work.
Beginning in the early 20th century, the microphonic process continues to be an innovating force in contemporary music – one example being my research-creation in “feedback saxophone.” My feedback saxophone system combines the unique characteristics of the tenor saxophone with the idiosyncrasies of various microphones and loudspeakers to produce and manipulate acoustic feedback. This saxophone-controlled feedback can be used to form standard musical gestures, such as scales and triads, as well as a variety of contemporary sounds, such as multiphonics and quarter tones; all of which can be employed by themselves or in tandem with conventional saxophone playing. While there are examples of similar systems, there is no standardization and little documentation exists outside of audio recordings. Furthermore, employing feedback in a predictable and systematized fashion challenges its conventional, indeterminate use in performance and composition.
As a novel approach to the microphonic process, feedback saxophone makes for an exciting creative practice but the legitimacy of creative work acting as research within the university is contested. In invoking ongoing debates surrounding the nature and purpose of research-creation, I begin in Chapter 1 by discussing the literature on artistic research and describing relevant methodologies, with particular focus on Sandeep Bhagwati’s AGNI method3 and Lyle Skains’ practice-based-research method.4 From this discussion, I develop the “problem-practice-exegesis” framework for carrying out thesis-integrated research-creation that adheres to rigorous academic standards while also systematically producing creative results. The remainder of the thesis fulfills this methodology through providing background research on the microphonic process, examining its contemporary use in saxophone performance, and finally critically analyzing the processes and products of my feedback saxophone practice.
The findings of my background research allow me to define the microphonic process in Chapter 2. Using Cathy van Eck’s four categories of how microphones and loudspeakers are used as musical instruments,x I describe the phenomenon of the microphonic process and give contemporary examples to facilitate a general understanding. From this broad perspective, I use questions raised by van Eck herself – as well as assumptions made by Stockhausen – to examine early microphone singing. To accomplish this, I first describe the principles behind the most important pre-electrical music technology, the phonograph, as well as the dominant style of singing that accompanied it. Then, I discuss the invention and adoption of the microphone, amplifier, and loudspeaker, and explain how these devices were used by the true pioneers of the microphonic process, early microphone singers. Early microphone singing was exemplified by the seminal “crooner” Bing Crosby (1903-1977), whose soft, conversational technique popularized the microphone and forever changed vocal performance. I describe how Crosby’s success ultimately led his revolutionary singing style to be assimilated into popular vocal performance, following which I argue that the microphone’s newfound ubiquity should not discourage its analysis as a musical instrument within the microphonic process – setting the stage for further critical discussion.
In Chapter 3, I continue with the results of my background research by discussing a range of microphonic instrumentaria, practices, and pieces using three examples. The first example is Mikrophonie I by Stockhausen, the theory behind which greatly influenced this research. Close examination of the various techniques and interactions within the piece reveals that Stockhausen’s contribution to the microphonic process is obfuscated by an overt focus on the microphone, as well as a disregard for innovations made by popular artists. The next two examples divergently employ the phenomenon of acoustic feedback, an important function of the microphonic process and the catalyst of my feedback saxophone work. Quintet (1968), by British composer and instrument designer Hugh Davies (1943-2005), is a seminal “process” composition and one of the first works to employ indeterminate acoustic feedback. In contrast, by codifying the new technique of determinate “harmonic” guitar feedback, Jimi Hendrix (1942-1970) transformed popular electric guitar performance practice.
Having determined the background history of the microphonic process, I then establish the contemporary context in which my own research-creation occurs. In Chapter 4, I examine two present-day “microphonic” saxophonists and continue cross-genre analyses. The avant-pop of saxophonist Colin Stetson (b. 1975) and the freely improvised feedback saxophone of John Butcher (b. 1954) demonstrate how the microphonic process continues today. Despite being developed largely in the 21st century, their practices bear more resemblance to Davies and Hendrix than prevailing digital approaches. To explain this, I draw on Paul Théberge’s theory that with the adoption of digital media, musical-technological practice shifted from a technique-centred “style” paradigm to a consumer-based “sound” paradigm.5 Two responses to classical music’s own sound paradigm were “interactive” electroacoustic music and digitally augmented instruments. Augmented instruments emerging from this response, however, failed to meaningfully impact instrumental technique due to their complex, maximal enhancements. To reconcile the shortcomings of such instruments with the success of Stetson and Butcher, I propose the concept of the minimally augmented instrument. Minimally augmented instruments adhere to values of the style paradigm, but also post-digitalism – an approach which harnesses the idiosyncrasies and noise of physical, analogue, and digital media.
Chapter 5 concerns my post-digital research-creation in the microphonic process. Using the AGNI method, I describe the creation three works for my feedback saxophone system, Stride, Doina, and Yen. In critical reflection and analysis, I examine issues concerning the works’ equipment, notation, and musical language. Most importantly, I explain how the works’ simple construction facilitates their function as reflexive tools, research documents, and creative artefacts. As reflexive tools, they establish the grammar of my feedback saxophone practice, which, as a completely novel approach, necessarily employs basic material. In this sense, they resemble etudes and other systematic classical works. Through clearly documenting this research, the scores may also act as accessible resources for interested artists and scholars. Before concluding, I briefly discuss the possibilities for expanding this research with scientific collaboration, differing instrumentation, and new equipment. Through comparing my work with Butcher, Stetson, and other artists, I show how my findings contribute to electroacoustic and saxophone performance practice, post-digitalism and the style paradigm, and how these feedback saxophone works serve as a useful model for research-creation.