Here are some common questions I get about my works and graphic notation in general:

• What is graphic notation?
  • Graphic notation is a visual representation of sound, differing from conventional notation systems in myriad potential ways. You may encounter different uses of lines, shapes, color, texture, pictures, text, density or any other means of conveying an intent to direct or inspire sound, rather than the usual staves, clefs and notes. Graphic scores will often have different methods for rendering their visual elements into sound.

• So, it’s like sheet music?
  • Yes, exactly.

• But, it’s also visual art?
  • Also yes. Though some scores are more visually interesting than others. Some serve purely as alternate forms of notation while others wander more into the realms of visual enjoyment.

• Is all graphic notation “open instrumentation”, meaning it can be played on any instrument(s)?
  • Not at all. It certainly seems to be the case with most of my works, though there are some exceptions. There are many examples of graphic notation being used to compose for specific instruments.

• How do I read graphic notation?
  • That will depend on instructions (if any) given by the composer. There may be a system of interpretation in place for you to follow, and it could be quite precisely detailed. Conversely, it could be largely up to the performer how to translate a specific visual element into sound. You can spend a lot of time studying the score. Does anything inspire a certain timbre, rhythm or dynamic? Or you can let your musical instincts take over and see what happens!

• How do I play that blue swirly thing on the score?
  • Is there a notation key included? If so, there should be instruction on what that specific symbol or visual element means and how it should sound. If there is no such indication the choice is ultimately up to the performer. I do my best not to influence any interpretations, so you’ll get nothing out of me. Nothing you hear!

• So, I’m just improvising when performing a graphic score?
  • It’s surely a possibility, if that’s what the composer intended. Some of my scores call for just that (“Abraham Remixed”), while others can require a more planned approach. While there are indeed many choices left up to the performer, there should always be a deliberate and sincere attempt at connecting the sound to the image that inspires it.

• Isn’t that just lazy composing when you leave it so open for interpretation?
  • A fair question. In the case of many of my own graphic scores, I have removed myself from directly specifying anything about the music an audience might hear. It could be assumed that I have skirted creative liability when it comes to the musical end result. If a performance is not well received by a listener, I could assign blame to a poor interpretation. Yet this compositional style also strips from me the ability to judge a performance as “incorrect”. Assuming performers follow any instructions that were given and gave it a sincere effort, I stand by and support any and all realizations of my work. It’s with this in mind that I think of these endeavors as collaborative partnerships rather than imposing my will upon a performer. The final performance is as much, if not more, the performer’s work as it is mine. To hold up my end of the partnership I need to provide a fruitful visual inspiration for music. Assuming that I’m composing a given score without any pre-conceived notions of what it might sound like, I can still recognize whether or not I’ve left enough clues and/or footholds for creation in the visual elements. I am certainly capable of failing my end of the creative bargain. Lazy? I don’t believe so. Risky and rewarding? Definitely!