Navigating Technological Obsolescence: Analysis and Reconstruction of Stockhausen’s <i>Mikrophonie I</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines analytical methods for preparing and interpreting Karlheinz Stockhausen’s sextet Mikrophonie I (1964) for tam-tam and electronics. Would-be performers of this work face significant accessibility issues: Stockhausen’s recommended equipment—especially the electronic filter used to process the tam-tam’s sound—is extremely rare. These issues often necessitate performers finding alternative solutions for equipment. Mikrophonie I is one of several works for live electronics that have become increasingly difficult to program, due to the obsolescence of the technology required to perform them. Performers often reconstruct the necessary electronics digitally, using software such as Max/MSP. Wetzel [(2006). “A Model for the Conservation of Interactive Electroacoustic Repertoire: Analysis, Reconstruction, and Performance in the Face of Technological Obsolescence.” Organised Sound 11 (3): 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771806001555] describes a three-stage model for this reconstructive process that foregrounds the need for performer-led analysis. Using Mikrophonie I as a case study, I expand on Wetzel’s model to navigate the reconstruction through two main analytical perspectives: the prioritisation of sound or process. These methods are then applied to my realisation process of Mikrophonie I. I describe the process of constructing a digital filter in Max/MSP based on a patch created by Christopher Burns [(2002). “Realizing Lucier and Stockhausen: Case Studies in the Performance Practice of Electroacoustic Music.” Journal of New Music Research 31 (1): 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1076/jnmr.31.1.59.8104] and compare different interface options for using the filter in performance. Referring to previous recordings by the Stockhausen Ensemble (1965) and the percussion ensemble red fish blue fish (2014), I show how creative interpretations can help ensembles overcome the perceived shortcomings of their available tam-tam. Beyond the specifics of reconstructing the technology required for performing Mikrophonie I, this article underlines the indispensability of analysis for performers who specialise in works with obsolescent technology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".