Showing posts with label industrial psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label industrial psychology. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Orchestrating Virtuosic Saw

 Saw ad, Popular Science magazine, March, 1948
T  he visit I had to Ripon, Wisconsin, over the weekend was notable for many things—among them an excellent amateur duet, by a violin student accompanied by her father on a musical saw. Recently, composer Ken Ueno has been interested in experimenting with bowed metal bars and sheets. This fortuitous (?gratuitous) coincidence led me to get the Stanley cross-cut saw out of my basement and explore what can be done.

A  ny CMT readers who are interested in composing for musical saw should be aware that, as with any instrument, the dimensions of the material determine the pitch range that’s achievable. Almost any saw can produce musically usable sounds, but saws of 26 inches (66 cm) or longer are best. Such a length insures that the ‘sweet spot’—the lengthwise portion of the blade where a bow contacting the flat edge (not the side with the teeth) can set the blade into stable, resonant vibration—is relatively large... several centimeters long. Such a length also insures that flexing the blade in an ‘S’ shape to produce the desired pitches will not place excessive demands on the player’s left-hand strength.

 Mussehl & Westphal Musical Saw
T  he majority of commercial woodworking handsaws are tempered carbon steel with a thickness of about 0.040 inches (1 mm). Saws that are specifically made for musical purposes (see links below) may be considerably thinner than this. The thin material allows the S-shape flexion to be achieved with less muscular effort. The preparation of the saw shape and tension before commencing the bow attack can be done more easily, compared to an ordinary commercial woodworking handsaw. The resulting intonation, vibrato, and overall musicality are undoubtedly better—with less performance risk and stress for the performer. (My own views below are informed by only cursory experience with a Stanley woodworking saw, motivated by curiosity about such an exotic instrument. Please accept these comments with a ‘grain of salt’; your own mileage may vary...)


    [30-sec clip, Jim Parker, ‘Midsomer Murders Theme’, 0.9MB MP3]


    [50-sec clip, Natalia Paruz, Bach/Gounod, ‘Ave Maria’, 1.6MB MP3]

T  he majority of musical saws are capable of delivering pitches roughly in the range of a viola. Some 30-inch and larger saws are available and are labeled ‘bass’ or ‘baritone’, but most musical saws are evidently around 26 inches—‘tenor’ instruments. As such, it seems reasonable to score the saw using the alto clef—same as viola. The range in the illustration below represents safe limits for the Stanley hardware-store saw.

 Tenor saw range
I  f you decide to purchase a special ‘musical saw’, the backside edge will have been polished and prepared by the manufacturer in such a way as to be suitable to receive bow contact. I examined my Stanley crosscut saw with a magnifying glass and noted that there were some burrs along the backside edge—tiny, sharp projections that could easily damage or cut bowhairs. I removed these with a few strokes of emery cloth, followed by fine steelwool.

O  rdinary amounts of rosin on the bow seem to work just fine with the saw. My own brief experiments were with a pernambuco violin bow—too delicate, really, for the 0.040-inch Stanley blade. My suspicion is that a cello bow would offer the stiffness needed to properly articulate the notes on a saw.

H  olding the handle of the saw between the legs and jiggling the left leg to produce vibrato in the S-flexed saw is pretty easy. Flexing the blade with the left hand, however, is tricky and quite tiring unless you affix a handle through the hole near the tip of the blade—a technique referred to by saw players as a ‘cheat’. Acknowledging the deprecation of the ‘cheat’ by serious players and the visual aesthetic detractions of the ‘cheat’ for the audience, it seems to me that practical compositions for saw will limit the duration of saw passages to maybe one minute or less at a stretch. After a rest the saw player will have recovered the muscular control to proceed with a subsequent passage.

S  urely there may be some virtuosic saw players for whom extended multi-minute passages would present few problems, and for whom the arduous gauntlet-running at prodigious tessitura would afford a proof of their freakish virtuosity. But a composer who wants to score for saw because of its wonderful, peculiar, Theremin-ish timbre ought, I think, to assume that such saw virtuosi are scarce as hens’ teeth. The typical saw artist will be a normal string player who is partial to odd and exotic things, and that sort of person will not care to (a) risk over-stress or injury to their left hand and its musculature, by the weird movements required for saw flexion, or (b) engage in extended practice and rehearsal on the metallic interloper, forsaking their belovèd stringèd axe. In other words, you’ll want to write modest stuff that’s playable without too much trouble.

T  he technique of saw is similar to bowing a viola da gamba—underhanded—except for the fact that you are bowing more or less vertically. Like a viola, the saw’s size is somewhat at odds with its pitch range—too large to be comfortably played under the chin, yet smaller than would be ideal for playing between the legs. But, also like the viola, this size-pitch mismatch is probably the reason why we have such a highly distinctive, beautiful tone-color in the saw.

C  hromatic passages are pretty easy to perform. Intervals of a major or minor third or perfect fourth can be navigated with little trouble. Fifths and longer jumps seem (to me) to be exceedingly risky. Safe writing for saw would stick with melodic lines—careful attention to voice-leading and no endangerment of the gristle.

T  he top end of the saw has a quite distinct ‘nasal’ quality, which can be exploited for short, plaintive effects. The lower range has an apocalyptic, austere, dark sound. If you don’t like that, well, tough. (In fact, I feel that the weird, impending catastrophe demeanor of the saw down there is part of its psychological charm. It’s like a wise, dour octogenarian who perennially and insistently warns everyone in the room that there will inevitably be more serious trouble in the Middle East, no matter what the topic of conversation might be. This ‘wild card’ can have a wonderfully unsettling effect on the other party-goers. Just so with the musical saw...)

T  he vibrato technique is basically the same as on the violin, though you may wish to indicate on your score that the performer may vibrate somewhat slower and wider in the lower register. A cautionary notation might be useful, to instruct the performer about the effect that you are aiming for. A musical saw has—What? I am shocked!—a propensity to bring out the ‘ham’; a simple admonishment that ‘less is more’ and that you are looking for ‘subtlety that defies temptation’ should be sufficient.

P  ortamento and glissando can be readily executed on the saw—so okay to write those in your score. Obviously, trills or fingered tremolo effects are out of the question. There are no double-stops or triple-stops—at least not without severed digits or ripped trousers. Remember that the performer’s genitalia are facing the sharp teeth of the cross-cut. They (and their significant other) will long remember you if your writing is excessively ambitious.

D  o not write sixteenth notes or thirty-second notes for the poor, ‘flickted thing. Doing so will win you no friends.

A  rtificial harmonics? Well, my adventures in trying to produce them stopped when my dear spouse told me to “Cut it out!” I can only say that harmonics are in there, and that they will come out to play if you coax them. Touching the blade below the “S”, as the blade heads toward your lap can entice some spooky, scritchy, ethereal stuff out. Hard to control, though, so you may want to choose your practice environment more judiciously than I had done, so as not to tax your loved ones’ ears beyond their endurance...

E  levations of the bow—pretty much the same as the viola da gamba, except that the excursions are more vertical. Considerable bow-speed is necessary. Maybe a right-arm “break-away sleeve” for the concert performer would be a practical solution, albeit one that would promote general “hamminess”. For studio work, the player may prefer to wear a comfortable tee-shirt...

B  owed tremolo—quite effective on the saw. It has a sharp, biting effect in forte and a silken, decrepit effect in pianissimo, due to the tragic tone color of the instrument.

P  izzicati are more resonant on saw than on the violin—a feature that worked wonderfully for the daughter-father duet in the Wisconsin recital last weekend. As with harmonics, the higher pizzicati are usually best left to the violins. Unless, that is, you want the thematically desultory effect of plunked saw rubbing the violin noses in “it”—an entirely valid possibility (You choose!) but more histrionic than would suit most commissions. After all, you do not want your saw opus to end your career.

A  djectives in Italian applied to the saw must agree with it in gender (sola or sole, not solo or soli). Although it is the only instrument of the steel family in the feminine gender, it has probably the most masculine tone—Ueno’s bowed steel bar affixed to a timpani head notwithstanding.

O  ccasional short solo passages for the saw can be of telling effect for orchestral music, although recent works tend to focus on chamber ensembles. I am not sure whether this is due to the saw’s fall from grace since the 1950s—a time when there were many thousands of saw players throughout North America.

T  he solo repertory for saw is scanty—although transcriptions can be effected straightforwardly. Berlioz’s “Harold (‘The Saw’) in Italy”, for example. Or try William Walton or Walter Piston viola concerti.

L  ike the viola, the saw is easily obscured or ‘covered’ by other instruments. And saws easily cover and confuse other saws. With that in mind, you will want in general to write open harmonies. Your orchestration should assiduously avoid unisons or minor seconds in the saw section. Do not, I repeat, do not write ‘tutti’ for saw.

I  n the olden days there may have been up to eight saws in a symphony orchestra. They used to sit at the conductor’s right, upstage of the cellos, who would in this configuration be out of toothy-edged harm’s way should any slips occur amongst the saws. This was acoustically non-optimal insofar as the blades of the saws were in a particularly inefficient position for directing sound out to the audience. A large saw section is, I think it can now be agreed, extremely ill-advised. Probably it was a phenomenon of long-ago budgets and old union rules; maybe it was a consequence of the erratic sound projection next to the cellos; or maybe it was a marketing ploy by orchestras, leveraging the then-common amateur interest in playing saw as a parlour pastime. In any case, the chamber music idiom is far more reasonable for saw, and the saw is anyway properly a narrative/discursive force, not a ‘symphonic’ one. The era of the eight-saw orchestral section is thankfully now lost to living memory...

B  e aware: the striking tone-color of the instrument, while pleasantly novel at first, can soon become cloying. Therefore, a program usually should have only one work for saw, to avoid wearing out one’s ‘welcome’. You are not aiming at a ‘comeback’ for the infamous musical saw of yesteryear! You are only seeking a nice effect with some diverting novelty, which everyone will afterwards say was just fine, yes it was, and amply justified, all things considered.

Y  ou may occasionally be inclined to have saw doubling the violin(s). This will take away some of the violin’s brilliance and add weight—sometimes precisely what you want. Although unison doubling of cello by saw can be excellent, the continual doubling of the bass line an octave higher (because why? because you can’t think of anything better to do?) is a cardinal sin. The interest that can be given to inner parts can be given to the saw if you will only put your shoulder into the work. In fact, the saw player is temperamentally a lot like a good viola player and relishes exciting inner-part work as well as solos.

O  n occasion, the saw may be propelled into a range higher than it is used to—to the thrill and abject bystanderly rubber-necker excitement of all concerned. Get it down from there; talk it down carefully. Tell it how deeply loved it is, and how jumping is not the answer...

R  emember that the noble saw derives dignity from its sheer weirdness. People who choose to play the saw choose it because of its against-all-odds doggèdness and esoteric merits, and not because they are poor string players or too wicked or senile to play the violin.

T  he saw is, quite clearly, amenable to the mounting of microphones or pick-ups for sound-reinforcement—especially for ensemble work in bars or other alternative venues. (My exploring that possibility will have to wait for some future CMT post.) But, as with other chamber music, the nuanced beauty is best appreciated in live, unamplified acoustic performance. Good luck with your bowed-metal instrument project, Ken!

[Be sure and click on the 'Comments' hyperlink in the lower left-hand corner below (if comments frame is not already open), to see Natalia Paruz's remarks!]







Tuesday, May 6, 2008

National Performing Arts Convention: Electronic Voting Systems (EVS) to Set Priorities

 Reply EVS
L  et your voice be heard and your vote count, so that we will speak with one voice and together ensure a vital future for the performing arts.”
  —  NPAC 2008 brochure.
I  usually gag at this sort of trendy management books. (I still bear scars from the ‘Who Moved My Cheese?’ era.) But [Collins’s ‘Good to Great and the Social Sectors’] is smart, down-to-earth wisdom.”
  —  Michael Bento, reviewer on Amazon.com .
W  hen reproduction, distribution, and categorization were all difficult, as they were for the last five hundred years, we needed professionals to undertake those jobs, and we properly venerated those people for the service they performed. Now those tasks are simpler, and the earlier roles have in many cases become optional, and are sometimes obstacles to direct access, often putting the providers of the older service at odds with their erstwhile patrons.”
  —  Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, p. 78.
W  e’re not being atomized. We’re molecularizing, forming groups that create local culture. What’s happening falls between the expertise of the authorities in the editorial boardroom and the ‘wisdom of crowds’.”
  —  David Weinberger, Everything Is Miscellaneous, p. 131.
Management guru, Jim Collins, will speak on Thursday 12-JUN about ‘From Good to Great and the Social Sectors’ at the 2008 National Performing Arts Convention in Denver. Among the topics are ‘Getting things done within a diffuse power structure’ and ‘Getting the right people “on the bus” within social sector constraints’.

The NPAC is portrayed as a technology-enabled event. Without doubt, it is that. An Advocacy Center will be available with computers for Convention delegates to send messages to the federal, state and local legislators about key issues. Software will be provided that gives comprehensive access to contact information, updates on the most important legislation, and supplies standard formats for letters. “Here's your chance to act on your commitment to take action!” exclaims the NPAC brochure. Delegates can set up 20-minute appointments to learn from experts in one-on-one consultations at the ‘SmART Bar’ at the Convention. NPAC will run from June 11 through June 14.

But technology-enabled is not the same as ‘egalitarian’ or ‘fair’. For example, professional doctors and lawyers determine the parameters and credentialling of their peers, the prerequisites for acceptance and licensing. And professional chamber music presenters and agents determine the parameters for performers and ensembles. But what happens to the word ‘professional’ when works of comparable quality and skill can be conceived, produced, and distributed without expensive or centralized means of production? Oftentimes, not much changes. Filtering by the traditional ‘gatekeepers’ continues. The usual suspects show up in force, and the conventional wisdoms are usually replicated. Little ‘outside-the-box’ thinking occurs. Few real revelations emerge.

Organized by discipline, the fields of dance, music, opera, theater and others have been supported by national service organizations that provide a range of leadership and support services as needed by the respective fields. The combined effort of local arts organizations and their partner national service organizations has resulted in an exponential growth in the number of producing and presenting organizations and audiences. Technology-enabled surveys tend merely to reveal the extent of the market fragmentation that has set in.

In fact, while the traditional discipline-centric structure has merit for new and growing genres, it works at cross-purposes against goals that are inter-disciplinary, that are beyond the remit of any one service organization, or that reveal contested turf between disciplines. In the 2008 convention, NPAC will offer delegates an opportunity to address interdisciplinary issues in ways that aim to harness the energy and expertise of the whole non-profit performing arts sector.

Taking Action Together is the theme of the 2008 National Performing Arts Convention (NPAC). NPAC aims to lay a foundation for future cross-disciplinary collaborations and effective advocacy in terms of funding and public policy.

Three ‘caucus sessions’ will be held, one each day (Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday) during the convention. The caucuses are designed to elicit ideas and set the agenda for consideration in Saturday’s summation ‘21st Century Town Meeting®’, which is aimed at driving future planning and priorities for the performing arts in the years to come. The caucuses will be broken into round tables of ten delegates each. Each table will engage in a facilitated conversation to identify goals and action items toward enhancing performing arts’ prospects in the U.S. Each caucus will address a specific question and target a specific outcome. The responses of all of the round tables will be compiled every day and shared with the full convention to form the basis of the following day’s work. Industrial survey methodology at its intensive best.

The National Performing Arts Convention has engaged AmericaSpeaks Inc. to lead the process of caucuses leading to the Town Meeting, using methods and technologies that they have refined in previous public opinion analysis projects. Facilitators are charged with insuring a level playing field for all ideas, opinions, and suggestions.

The ideas that surface at the three caucuses will be addressed at Saturday morning’s ‘21st Century Town Meeting®’. Using the realtime radiofrequency (RF) enabled keypad survey Electronic Voting System (EVS) technology, the topics will be consolidated, discussed and voted upon by the 5,000 thousand NPAC conferees. Results will be projected on large video screens in order to identify and hone an agenda to be ratified by the assembled performing arts community. The aim is to help set the agenda for the performing arts for the coming years: by U.S. communities; by national, state, and local governments; by performing arts organizations’ supporters; and by audiences.

To promote spontaneous interactivity, an audience response system (ARS) or participant response system (PRS) or EVS that equips attendees with radio frequency keypads at their seats to record their real-time responses to multiple-choice questionnaire items, will be used for the first time at NPAC. The EVS system enables the audience to provide immediate information and responses to questions posed by presenters. The responses from the RF handhelds are tabulated by software. Bar-charts of those tabulations are immediately displayed on large projection screens for all to see.

These systems have been in use in medical professional society meetings for more than 10 years, as well as in other industry marketing and market research meetings. The EVS respondents are traceable and identifiable (via the permanent database records that are created by the system when the votes are cast), although their identities are not revealed by the displays.

 Quizdom Q5 RF handset/keypad
One realtime effect of the anonymity is to remove respondents’ inhibitions—the opinions and votes tend to be more polarized than those collected by traditional survey methods and, if re-votes are taken, the respondents’ preferences tend to be more resistant to discussion and compromise than usual, because there is no accountability. This phenomenon makes sense in terms of psychology, but it runs ‘counter’ to what meeting organizers typically believe. Organizers typically see the real-time tabulations as wondrous and wholly factual representations of the prevailing opinions. The temptation is to ‘strike while the iron is hot’ and immediately act upon the wonderful statistical information that is so fresh and beautiful, without regarding it more carefully (and examining and tracing the votes to individual specific voters) and dispassionately later on. NPAC says it intends to “ratify” the results during the meeting. In my view, the RF keypad EVS survey technology is a “sword” that definitely has two edges—the capacity to help and the capacity to distort or harm. I hope that CMA and NPAC are mindful of this . . .

Besides special RF handheld EVS devices of the sort NPAC will use, cellphone SMS text-based EVS services have emerged as well, providing:
  • A short text number to dial (e.g., 41123) ;
  • Message content that each voter keys in (e.g., ‘CAST 82A SEND’);
  • Votes are caught, processed, and put on a dynamic web page that can be displayed to the conferees in real-time and embedded in Microsoft PowerPoint™.
  • Votes from SMS and web ASP/PHP HTML/XML apps can be combined. (Also can download spreadsheet form of the data.)
These might be considered for surveys at future classical music society meetings, including CMA. The cost is, in general, cheaper for cellphone SMS-based surveys than for surveys conducted using the older RF handhelds. A group need only arrange and pay for the service in advance and have a live internet (WWW) connection in the meeting hall. Audience members come with their regular mobile phones, and no other equipment or setup is necessary on the spot. PollEverywhere is one company offering SMS-based EVS services.

There are several issues, though, with SMS-based EVS. To cast each vote, each voter has to make about a dozen key presses, compared to one key press for conventional RF EVS keypads. This is a major issue in terms of ease-of-use and the time required for respondents to complete each survey question or an entire questionnaire.

Another factor is that mobile phone networks were not originally designed to handle hundreds of calls from a single room at once. This is not a fundamental technical barrier, but it rules out some off-the-shelf technologies that would otherwise be suitable. For example, Bluetooth™ is not currently able to handle 300+ respondents in a room. Even cell phone networks are not designed for EVS type loads with large groups of respondents all using their cell phones at once. For audiences of 300+ there is usually not enough cell capacity in any location. Each cell can handle 168 concurrent calls on digital cellular networks, 56 on analog. Concurrency will work differently for SMS texting, so those figures are context-agnostic, but for reliable EVS voting the phones may need to resend the message until they get a positive acknowledgment back from the server—which adds more latency time and causes problems with respondents in terms of ease-of-use (lack thereof), under-counts, and compliance.

In fact, a cell phone system could be deluged by a flood of SMS messages, which, if the EVS volume were big enough, would overwhelm the control channels, and prevent voice service as well as SMS from working in that area/cell. This means that it is likely the service provider will have defenses that would preclude large voting audiences.

Even if adequate coverage could be obtained, SMS messages (unlike voice calls, but like emails) are not guaranteed to be instantaneous or to be delivered within any specific time interval. Texts can be (and, in practice, often are—) delayed, and there are no prospects for an archictecture to allow text delivery for a vote within a guaranteed time (e.g., 2 minutes; vs. 2 seconds for the best regular RF EVS equipment). But not only is “prompt” delivery not guaranteed, it is frequently delayed beyond 2 minutes and drop-outs (uncounted votes) occur.

What’s more, the SMS service charging models are inappropriate. It’s probably impossible to arrange for the voting to be free to respondents/conference attendees, since they all use different providers. Local cells are expensive, and they will not be private but will fall under an existing licence and operator (AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Vodafone, O2, etc.) who has paid for that part of the radio spectrum. Charging respondents to participate is not a good way to get this approach off the ground, even if it wouldn’t matter in a mature model.

EVS systems have a ‘ranking mode’ that is used to obtain first, second, etc., preferences from a list of options—for example, prioritizing the order in which possible activities should be done. These are tallied and displayed immediately, in barcharts and pie charts and other easy-to-understand formats.

Yes, formative, summative, and peer assessments can be made conveniently and quickly with EVS. And building a sense of community could get off to a quick start with EVS, especially in large groups that have factions that are mutually misapprehensive of each other.

But those results should best be considered a ‘beginning’, not an end. The results should not be considered “actionable” or “ratifiable” as-is, in the way that NPAC says it intends to do. Why? Because of the unique psychology of anonymous EVS, which encourages fait accompli ‘American Idol’-style relativism: “I like choice ‘A’ because I like ‘A’.” In other words, voting is the only responsibility of the anonymous EVS respondents, and, by contrast, discussion and explanation would require unmasking of identities and the additional duties of civility and discourse. Anonymity tends to bring out the worst in people, in terms of self-interested fractious behavior.

In fact, in some EVS surveys that I have personally designed and conducted, some respondents were recorded electronically voting for positions that they were known to oppose in reality, and did so expressly so as to be categorized into a particular focus group. Then they inserted themselves into the subsequent discussions as “wolves in sheeps’ clothing” and (a) passively ‘lurked’ in-caucus, to perform reconnaissance on those adversaries of interest to them, or (b) actively intimidated the members of the other camp.

In yet other instances of EVS surveys that I personally supervised in 1998 and 1999, some respondents had hidden motives such that they wished to surreptitiously undermine the legitimacy of the survey process itself. To accomplish their goal to sow seeds of doubt among the broader membership, they voted disingenuously, capriciously, seemingly irrationally—so that the displayed EVS survey results would, to the assembled conferees, appear to be scatological, unusable, unreliable. The broad group would then, they hoped, be thrown into disarray, and the decision-making and policy-setting process would be effectively derailed. Remember, these were EVS surveys of academic medicine faculty members. Don’t kid yourselves! This summer in Denver CMA and other NPAC-member organizations are likely to discover some of these idiosyncrasies of EVS survey psychology and sociology, about ten years after other professional societies learned these lessons.

If you are interested in these topics, please have a look at Aaron and colleagues’ recent book and look also at the whitepaper materials of some of the EVS vendors (links below). EVS is very useful technology, yes. But it can be co-opted, distorted, and manipulated by factions who want to interfere with the goals, privacy, and priorities of other factions——or who are determined to fabricate a “unified voice” when those [dominant; paternalistic] factions earnestly but mistakenly believe that only by so doing can they “ensure a vital future for the performing arts.” This is not a ‘hypothetical’; it is an unfortunate reality, especially when the stakes are high.

 Li-Bernoff book

 Weinberger book