This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]

On: 03 April 2013, At: 15:36

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary Music Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmr20

ENP: A System for Contemporary Music

Notation
Mika Kuuskankare
Version of record first published: 10 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Mika Kuuskankare (2009): ENP: A System for Contemporary Music Notation,
Contemporary Music Review, 28:2, 221-235

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07494460903322505

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Contemporary Music Review
Vol. 28, No. 2, April 2009, pp. 221–235

ENP: A System for Contemporary Music

Notation
Mika Kuuskankare
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

The focus of attention of this paper is a music notation application, the Expressive
Notation Package or ENP, conceived by Mika Kuuskankare. We explore some important
design issues, through examples dealing with user interface design, music representation,
and semantics. Our applications relate closely to computer-assisted composition. In this
paper we deal particularly with contemporary music notation. The notational examples,
all of which are based on real contemporary scores, attempt to illustrate several
important, and at times unusual, design decisions. All of these scores share a common
underlying representation, a hierarchical model for music representation that aims for
the combination of representational simplicity, notational flexibility, and extensibility.
The ENP system aims to let composers make their own aesthetic decisions—including
decisions affecting music notation.

Keywords: Computer-assisted Music Notation; Music Representation; Computer-assisted

Composition; Graphical User Interface; Contemporary Music Notation; Algorithmic
Music Notation

Introduction
Classical music is primarily a written tradition. Throughout the centuries, musical
compositions have been preserved in music notation. Regardless of its apparent
success, it has also been subject to criticism, and many proposals have been made to
modernise it; see, for example, http://musicnotation.org (accessed 29 July 2009). Yet,
it is still the most complete and widespread method that we know of for notating the
complex and interrelated properties of a musical sound: pitch, intensity, time, timbre,
and pace (Roads, 1996).
Since D’Arezzo, music notation has evolved into a rich visual and semantic system
that has proven to be a challenge to model with computers. The history of computer-
aided music notation begins as early as in the 1960s. Towards the end of the decade a
few computer-based music notation programs started to emerge, and arguably one of
the earliest systems was developed at the National Research Council in Canada

ISSN 0749-4467 (print)/ISSN 1477-2256 (online) ª 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/07494460903322505
 222 M. Kuuskankare
(Maxwell & Ornstein, 1984). In the 1970s, several text-based programs were
introduced, among others, Smith’s early work MS (Roads, 1996) and Byrd’s SMUT
(Byrd, 1984). Among the first interactive editors were Scriva (Buxton, Ptel, Reeves, &
Baecker, 1981) and Mockingbird (Maxwell & Ornstein, 1984). The first commercial
notation programs, including, among others, the Score program by Smith (1997),
were also introduced in the 1970s, but it was not until the 1980s that these programs
were made available to the general public. Since then, programs such as FinaleTM and
SibeliusTM have practically taken over the music notation scene. On the one hand this
has lead to a situation where good-quality music notation software tools are easily
available to the general public. On the other hand, this has also led to a kind of
standardisation of the software sector where more specialised, flexible and
customisable software tools have become scarce.
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

Most of the previous work in the area includes both large commercial software
packages, such as Finale and Sibelius, and free software projects, such as, LilyPond
(Nienhuys & Nieuwenhuizen, 2003) and Guido (Hoos, Hamel, Renz & Kilian, 1998).
The commercial systems currently available usually emphasise conventional notation
and semantics. They rely on graphical user interfaces (GUI) and they also offer some
extensions for more contemporary scores. LilyPond, in turn, is an automated
engraving system that formats music automatically, and has a LaTeX-like input
syntax but does not have a native GUI. Systems like LilyPond, as they are
programmable, support user-definable notations better than their commercial
counterparts and also make it possible to generate musical scores algorithmically—
an important aspect of music notation in which ENP is aiming to excel.
In the remainder of this paper we will discuss several software design issues that
were important to us during the development of ENP. First, we give a brief general
overview of ENP. Then, we focus on several individual design issues. We attempt to
present new ideas and also provide some of our solutions for the aforementioned
problems. Next, we discuss musical structures, followed by an introduction to key
concepts behind the ENP expression scheme. Then we discuss the ENP user interface.
Here we discuss some basic properties of the GUI and give as an example a totally
‘uneditable’ score. We continue by focusing on the semantic aspect of the digital
musical score; we explain how the different symbols in the ENP score allow us to
interpret them in a musically meaningful way. In the following section, we introduce
the idea of extensibility of the music notation system. The ideas introduced in this
section allow us to look at the meaning of computer-assisted composition in a totally
new way. Finally, we discuss the extension mechanism of ENP that allows the users to
create their own notational graphics.

ENP: Expressive Notation Package

ENP, a music notation program written in Common Lisp and OpenGL, is among the
various music-related software packages developed at the Sibelius Academy
(Kuuskankare & Laurson, 2006). Diener (1990) gives three basic types of use for
 Contemporary Music Review 223
music notation programs: compositional, archival, and analytic. ENP has been
developed primarily in order to meet the requirements of computer-assisted
composition, and music analysis. Computer-aided music notation presents several
challenges in terms of visualisation, representation, and accessibility. Algorithmic
control, for example, requires a versatile representation of the structural and
notational information. Computer-assisted composition (CAC) applications, in turn,
require a high level of interactivity and built-in musical knowledge.
ENP is particularly designed for the needs of contemporary music. Both the
commercial and free notation programs available often overlook the applications of
contemporary music notation today. This is due to several reasons: (1) their music
representation scheme relies on conventional notation and semantics; (2) the user
interface mostly operates on the idea that music notation is an editable image instead
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

of data that can be interpreted in many different ways; (3) the extensibility is limited
since most commercial notation programs usually support only rudimentary user-
definable extensions, such as ‘Lines’ in Sibelius or ‘Shapes’ in Finale; (4) Sibelius and
Finale do not really support algorithmic generation of graphical scores; and (5) the
access to the notational structures is usually restricted.
To briefly illustrate the idea behind points (1) and (2), we give the following
example. Figure 1 shows an ENP score with three parts written in three very
distinctive styles. Let’s call the first part the original. It is written in a conventional
style with a meter, rhythms, etc. The second part, in turn, gives the Schillinger graph-
style representation of the original and the third a ‘tape-notation’ version of the same.
These representations are achieved just by instructing ENP to draw the original part
using a different notational style. Notational styles are a powerful feature that allows
the user to examine the same material from different representational viewpoints. In
all these cases the underlying structures are not destructively modified. The user is
able to come back to the original representation whenever that’s called for. Note, that
all the parts are also synchronised, so it is perfectly possible to mix different kinds of
notational styles in the same score.

Figure 1 The same part written is three different notational styles: conventional (top),
Schillinger graph-style (in the middle), and tape-notation style (bottom).
 224 M. Kuuskankare
ENP is primarily intended to be used as a notational front-end in the
cross-platform general-purpose visual programming language PWGL (Laurson,
Kuuskankare & Norilo, 2009), which has a strong emphasis on CAC and other
music- and sound-related applications. PWGL is a combination of several software
packages built on top of Common Lisp and OpenGL. ENP is an important bridge
between these components in that it allows the packages to inter-operate by using its
representation of musical objects, i.e. scores can be generated algorithmically using
the visual patch-language, the musical objects can be processed with our scripting
language ENP-Script (Kuuskankare & Laurson, 2004a); the contents of the score can
be calculated using our constraint-based CAC system (Laurson & Kuuskankare,
2005); our software synthesiser PWGLSynth (Laurson, Norilo & Kuuskankare, 2005)
can be controlled using ENP, etc. ENP together with PWGL are making available to
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

users more than 20 years of knowledge and experience in CAC and music analysis.

Design Issues in ENP

Music Representation
One of the difficulties one faces when constructing a system like ENP is designing an
effective underlying representation scheme for the music. Music is naturally
hierarchical, which suggests a hierarchical representation. However, music is also
full of cases where the hierarchies cross. In ENP we have chosen an approach in
which the rhythm is the primary structure, and everything else is attached to it as
attributes. One of the most important attributes in this model is the expression (the
ENP expression, to be precise) that can be attached to both note and chord objects.
Figure 2 shows an overview of the hierarchical score structure of ENP.
Furthermore, unlike other software packages, ENP provides for a genuine ‘time-
notation’ as shown in Figure 3. Traditionally, the user has to produce this kind of
notation artificially; i.e. by hiding measure lines, stems, time-signatures, etc. In
contrast, in ENP time-notation is really another kind of way to notate music. It
allows the user/composer to position and arrange the musical objects freely on a
continuous time-line. The start-times and durations of the objects are not
represented by beats or fractions of beats, but instead by seconds and milliseconds.
This kind of representation of time is useful for the applications of electronic music,
for example.
Figure 4 gives an example of an ENP score written for full orchestra. Here the
visual counterparts for the structural components enumerated in Figure 2 can be

Figure 2 An overview of the hierarchical object structure of an ENP score.

 Contemporary Music Review 225

Figure 3 An example of an ENP score written in non-mensural notation (time-notation).

Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

Figure 4 An orchestral score excerpt written in a contemporary style with partial and
completely hidden measures (Kuuskankare’s Soave per Orchestra da Camera, 1996).

seen. The score also contains several expressions, such as slurs and glissandi that span
over the hierarchical boundaries of the score structure (e.g. measures). Here, the
contemporary look is achieved by manipulating one of measure attributes affecting
 226 M. Kuuskankare
the relative width of the staff lines. These partial measures drawn this way consume
the same space as their normal counterparts. This is important, as we want the music
to align in a traditional polyphonic way.
The chosen music representation scheme is simple and uniform. This has allowed
us easily to develop a textual description called ENP-score-notation (Kuuskankare &
Laurson, 2004b). Instead of inventing a totally new syntax, it was actually important
to us to come up with a textual description that mirrors the hierarchical object
structure of the score accurately. The current syntax is similar to the Lisp list syntax.
The basic syntax describes only the rhythmic skeleton, along with the overall
structure of the score (i.e. parts, voices, measures, etc.). The flexibility of notation is
achieved by attributes attached to the objects in this hierarchy. For example, a triplet
rhythm is notated as (1 (1 1 1)). The pitch information can then be added by using
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

the attribute :notes. For example, the notation (1 ((1 :notes (60 64 67)) (1 :notes (60
64 67)) (1 :notes (60 64 67)))) creates a triplet of three C-major triads. On the one
hand, this simple scheme makes the structures compact and the textual notation
producible by humans. On the other hand, it also allows us to easily generate ENP
scores algorithmically. Furthermore, the uniformity and readability of the notation
are of primary importance in terms of extending the system, for example, with a new
type of expression. It is simple to add or remove properties without breaking the
system. It is also possible to remove certain properties that are not needed by a
particular application. For example, the rhythmic structures of the score could be
examined easily just by removing the pitch property.
Figure 5 gives a partial textual description of the flute part of Figure 4. The
corresponding score fragment is displayed on the right rotated clockwise. Here, some
of the connections between the elements of the two representations are highlighted

Figure 5 An example of ENP-score-notation (left) and the corresponding score (right,

rotated clockwise). Some of the structural elements in the textual notation are connected
to the matching sections in the score.
 Contemporary Music Review 227
with connected boxes drawn with light dashed lines. As can be seen, many of the
structural components of the score are in quite a readable format: pitch and
expression information especially can be followed relatively easily.

Expression Scheme
ENP-expressions (Kuuskankare & Laurson, 2003) are multipurpose, programmable
graphical objects that can represent an array of information as a part of the musical
score. They are of central importance in ENP and under active development. ENP
offers some unconventional expressions that exhibit programmable behaviour; i.e.
they calculate the information dynamically, according to their musical context. The
significance of this type of expression is that the displayed image depends upon
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

the underlying notes and changes if the notes are transposed, for example. The
dynamicity of objects was an important factor in the design and development of the
ENP expression scheme. Furthermore, the flexibility in creating new notation,
examples of which are given below, is probably unique.
ENP-expressions may carry real musical significance, because they can contain any
kind of data; e.g. annotations, other objects (sub-images), information about timing
or pitch. Moreover, the user can access the data they contain; e.g. the graphical
information can be converted into playback information as demonstrated in Laurson
and Kuuskankare (2008).
ENP expressions allow us to make arbitrary connections between objects in
different hierarchical levels in the score. One of the apparent applications of ENP-
expressions is computer-assisted music analysis and the visualisation of the analysis
information. Unlike other existing analytical software packages—e.g. HumDrum
(Huron, 2002) and athenaCL (Ariza, 2005)—that use a text-based representation as a
starting point, in ENP we have chosen another kind of approach where the analysis
information is visualised directly in the score. As an example, let us examine the score
given in Figure 6. Here, composer Kuitunen used ENP in his Trio for Clarinet, Cello
and Piano to visualise its structural organisation. The areas drawn in the score enclose
the notes belonging to a given texture class. The textual annotations above the areas
give the names of the texture classes (SOL for solo, HOQ for Hoquetus, etc.). Colours
are used in the original score to further emphasise similarity.
It is important to realise that in ENP the user does not draw this information in the
score. Instead, the user indicates the desired events by selecting them and instructing
ENP to apply an expression to the selection. From the user’s point of view, this
should of course be enough. However, in terms of ENP, the situation is a bit more
complex. This particular ENP expression is a good example of a relatively complex
dynamic object. Firstly, mathematically speaking, the area enclosing the notes in this
case is called the ‘hull’. The hull is a well-known problem in computational geometry
and there exist numerous variations of the hull algorithm. To put it simply, the hull
of a set of points is the smallest polygon that includes the points; see http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_hull (accessed 29 July 2009). Secondly, the dynamicity
 228 M. Kuuskankare
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

Figure 6 A visualization of the structure of Kuitunen’S Trio for Clarinet, Cello and Piano,
displayed as part of the musical texture.

of the object means here that if the user, for example, transposes the score, the hulls
are updated automatically.
Finally, an interesting side effect with which the expressions provide the user is the
ability for selective listening. By selecting an expression, or a group of expressions, it
is possible to listen only to the area defined by them. In our current example the user
could select any of the hull expressions and, by typing the space bar, hear only the
enclosed music. This kind of playback functionality is especially beneficial in music
analytical applications.

Graphical User Interface Issues

ENP has an object-oriented GUI that is based on direct manipulation. According to
Cooper (1995), direct manipulation can be broken down into three basic principles:
(1) visual representation of the objects, (2) the use of dragging instead of text entry or
menu selection, and (3) feedback on the impact of the manipulation. Object-oriented
UI, in turn, is an interface paradigm where the user first selects an object and then
chooses an action from a context menu or via direct manipulation. The underlying
idea behind the ENP GUI is to allow the user to manipulate the information in the
 Contemporary Music Review 229
score as straightforwardly as possible. As a general guideline, any musical object of
any complexity can be edited directly in the score. All editing operations also provide
synchronised visual feedback for the user. One of the most important design
decisions behind ENP is that it operates on the data behind the notation instead of
operating on the image itself.
Within the scope of this paper we cannot enumerate all the fine-points of the GUI.
Instead, as an example, we give one rather unusual scenario. Figure 7 shows a score
that remotely resembles those produced in the 1960s by Bussotti and others. Each
part is rotated by an arbitrary degree. Let us say the user wants to increase the slope of
some of the slurs at the same time in a score with rotated staffs. In this example, the
slurs point basically in every direction, up, down, left, etc. Should the user interface
be based on what the user sees on the screen, i.e. the image, this operation would be
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

close to impossible to realise. There is no single direction the user can drag a slur in
this case. In ENP, however, it is not a question of editing the image, but instead of
editing the underlying data. In this case it’s the question of ‘increasing’ and
‘decreasing’ the slope parameter of the slurs. In practice, this means that the user
always drags the mouse only in two directions, up or down, regardless of what
happens in the ‘image’. The resulting graphics are thus the side effect of the
underlying data. As ENP provides instantaneous visual feedback the result of the
editing operation is easy to verify.
The same principles apply to other editing operations as well. This allows us, for
example, to transpose using a user-adjustable resolution, where notes can be

Figure 7 An example of modern free notation.

 230 M. Kuuskankare
transposed not only chromatically but also by micro-intervals. This is a feature that
does not exist in any other music notation program.

Semantic Considerations
Every ENP score object can carry user-definable semantic information, even score
objects defined by the user. This information can be used, for example, for
controlling sound playback. Figure 8 is based on a notation used by Penderecki and it
contains information on how to generate the string glissandi. First, as the glissandi
are attached to notes specifying discrete points in the rhythm/pitch space the timing
and range can be defined exactly. Second, the thickness of the expression could
potentially be mapped to the range of the glissando cluster.
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

This approach is completely different from that of attaching to the notation passive
images generated outside the notation program. This is unfortunately the approach
in many of the current notation programs. It obviously makes it close to impossible,
for example, to play a graphical score. It also makes it difficult to manipulate this
kind of notation, as the graphical objects are not really aware of their function or
context. In ENP all the expressions are associated with some score objects, like notes,
which makes it possible for the graphics to be computed in a completely different
manner whenever the layout, pitch, rhythm, or one of the other associated
parameters changes. This means that these traditionally purely graphical entities, like

Figure 8 An example of modern time-notation. In this case, a shape-expression (in a

form of a line segment) has been used to connect the invisible (hidden) note heads to
mimic a string glissando writing in the style of composers such as Penderecki.
 Contemporary Music Review 231
glissandi, can be transposed, for example. In general, when the user edits the notation
they can see and hear the changes immediately.
Furthermore, as can be seen in Figure 8, these graphical objects can be associated
with other information in the same way as notes can, for example. The clusters are
here associated with ‘conductor marks’, crescendi, diminuendi, and octave markings.
Thus, the graphical entities can be associated with conventional performance
information. It is an important design aspect that ENP makes no difference between a
traditional instrumental score and a graphical one.

Algorithmic Control over the Score

We would like to emphasise that with ENP, it is possible to generate the notation
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

itself as part of the compositional process. Figure 9 shows an example of relatively

complex graphical notation. The most interesting detail here is that the score is
generated algorithmically. Some 60 lines of Lisp code were used to construct this
example containing a selection of randomly generated and placed graphical
primitives, such as circles or filled polygons. Due to space limitations we cannot
give the complete definition here. Suffice to say that it is possible to populate the
score with graphical objects by using simple Lisp-expressions like this:

ðmake-canvas-object : line : vertices'ðð0:0 0:0Þ ð1:0 1:0ÞÞÞ

This particular example was created by dividing the score the into 16 equi-
dimensional areas enclosed inside squares. These areas were further divided into nine

Figure 9 A modern graphical score generated automatically with the help of Lisp and
ENP. For a similar notation, see, for example, the score for Parentheses by Levine.
 232 M. Kuuskankare
zones. Each of the nine zones was then randomly filled in two different ways: (1) by
using a ‘big’ shape (as in the top right corner), or (2) by filling the zone with 0–4
randomly selected ‘small’ shapes. This simple algorithm produces notation relatively
similar to that found in the piece Parentheses by Levine.
There are two interesting implications in the present scheme. Firstly, as the user is
able to access all the individual components of the graphical score, it becomes
possible for users to create their own realisation of the piece. Composers can
nowadays use computers to create their own sounds. Correspondingly, composers
should be able to invent their own notation and notation semantics, i.e. they should
be able to use these new notations to control the production of their aural
representation. Secondly, while it may not be apparent, the facilities provided by
ENP would make it possible to analyse graphical and electroacoustic scores. For
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

example, in Kuuskankare and Laurson (2008) we used ENP to realise excerpts from
the listening score that Wehinger originally created for Ligeti’s electronic piece
Articulation. As it is possible to generate this kind of notation using ENP, it would
also be possible to analyse it respectively. This obviously presents a new way of
looking at computer-assisted music analysis.
As in the case of every ENP score, the user is also free to define his/her own
semantics here. Each of the sub-images constituting the score can be accessed
individually, their properties can be inspected and modified, and their meaning can
be defined freely. This provides, for example, the possibility for the sonification of
graphical scores.

Extensible Music Notation

In the field of contemporary music, a long-standing problem has been the
extendibility of computer-based music notation. There is clearly a need for a tool
that allows the user to invent their own notation. There is an increasing number of
instrument-specific playing techniques (Brindle, 1987; Karkoschka, 1966), and these
markings can even be invented on a piece-per-piece basis.
This makes it difficult for a music notation program to provide a comprehensive
collection of expression markings. To make ENP more extensible, a specialised editor,
Expression Designer (Kuuskankare & Laurson, 2005), or ED, has been created to
develop new expressions. This editor organises the task and even allows
inexperienced programmers to build custom expressions that suit their special
needs. The expressions can be saved in a file and reused in any ENP score.
The users can build new expressions by using the editor as a conventional drawing
program. That means that the user can select different shapes, place them in the
canvas, and manipulate them with the mouse. Experienced users can program new
expressions directly in Lisp and OpenGL. Here, expressions can be built out of
computer algorithms. Note, that these two approaches can be mixed freely, i.e. some
parts of the expression can be defined using an algorithm and others can be defined
by hand. This is no doubt a unique and powerful approach.
 Contemporary Music Review 233
One difficulty in allowing the users to create their own customised graphics is the
reproducibility of the images in other formats, such as Postscript. ENP is designed so
that all the user-definable graphical extensions are immediately available in, for
example, paper printout without any extra work required from the user. The graphical
objects are reproduced on paper exactly as they are seen on the computer screen.
As an example, we have chosen a score that mimics the notation found in
the listening score Wehinger created for Ligeti’s electronic piece, Articulation (see
Figure 10). A set of expressions was created using the Expression Designer. Because
of the irregularity and diversity of the objects the hand-drawn and algorithmic
approaches were selected as appropriate. A number of expressions were created
among others: (1) a ‘surface’ expression, (2) a ‘comb’ expression, and (3) an
‘impulse’ expression. An interesting detail concerning the algorithmically created
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

comb shaped expression is that the code is written so that the user can control the
number of the cones directly from the GUI. This is also a unique approach and allows
the user to read from and write to the objects any kind of pertinent information.
Apart from using this information to control the visual appearance we could as easily
use it to control the sonification of the object, e.g. the number of cones could be
interpreted as a number of overtones present in the resulting sound. As a result, this
kind of a graphical score is not anymore just a passive image, but instead an object
that can adjust itself, and be adjusted by the user, using an array of different methods.
Composers can thus build their own vocabulary and musical language by creating a
library of unique expressions.

Postscript
This paper has presented some design issues concerning the development of the
music notation program ENP. Here we concentrated specifically on applications
dealing with contemporary music. The ENP approach to contemporary—and more
specifically graphical—notation is different from the one found in other music

Figure 10 A score, mimicking the writing found in the score for Ligeti’s Articulation,
created with the help of ENP and ENP Expression Designer.
 234 M. Kuuskankare
notation programs. ENP emphasises uniformity, extendibility, flexibility, and open-
endedness. ENP provides for a relatively rigid hierarchical score structure, but enables
extensibility through a flexible concept of properties. ENP does not confine itself to
traditional notation semantics, but instead allows the users to create their own. The
facilities provided by ENP for creating user-definable notation graphics are probably
unique.

Acknowledgements
The work of Mika Kuuskankare has been supported by the Academy of Finland (SA
114116).
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013

References
Ariza, C. (2005). An open design for computer-aided algorithmic music composition. PhD Thesis, New
York University, New York, USA.
Brindle, R. S. (1987). The new music: the avant-garde since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buxton, W., Patel, S., Reeves, W. & Baecker, R. (1981). Scope in interactive score editors. Computer
Music Journal, 5(3), 50–56.
Byrd, D. (1984). Music notation by computer. PhD Thesis, Computer Science Department, Indiana
University.
Cooper, A. (1995). About face. The essentials of user interface design. Foster City, CA: IDG Books.
Diener, G. R. (1990). Modelling music notation: a three dimensional approach. PhD Thesis, Stanford
University, California, USA.
Hoos, H. H., Hamel, K. A., Renz, K. & Kilian, J. (1998). The GUIDO music notation format—a
novel approach for adequately representing score-level music. In Proceedings of International
Computer Music Conference (pp. 451–454). San Francisco.
Huron, D. (2002). Music information processing using the humdrum toolkit: concepts, examples,
and lessons. Computer Music Journal, 26(2), 15–30.
Karkoschka, E. (1966). Das Schriftbild der Neuen Musik. Celle: Hermann Moeck Verlag.
Kuuskankare, M. & Laurson, M. (2003). ENP-expressions, score-BPF as a case study. In Proceedings
of International Computer Music Conference (pp. 103–106). Singapore.
Kuuskankare, M. & Laurson, M. (2004a). Intelligent scripting in ENP using PWConstraints. In
Proceedings of International Computer Music Conference (pp. 684–687). Miami, USA.
Kuuskankare, M. & Laurson, M. (2004b). Recent developments in ENP-score-notation. Paper
presented at Sound and Music Computing ’04, Paris, France.
Kuuskankare, M. & Laurson, M. (2005). ENP Expression Designer—a visual tool for creating user
definable expressions. In International Computer Music Conference (pp. 307–310). Barcelona,
Spain.
Kuuskankare, M. & Laurson, M. (2006). Expressive Notation Package. Computer Music Journal,
30(4), 67–79.
Kuuskankare, M. & Laurson, M. (2008). (Re)creating symbolic electroacoustic scores using ENP. In
Proceedings of Computer Music Modelling and Retrieval (pp. 327–332).
Laurson, M. & Kuuskankare, M. (2005). Extensible constraint syntax through score accessors. Paper
presented at Journées d’Informatique Musicale, Paris, France.
Laurson, M. & Kuuskankare, M. (2008). Towards idiomatic and flexible score-based gestural
control with a scripting language. In Proceedings of NIME’08 Conference (pp. 34–37). Genova,
Italy.
 Contemporary Music Review 235
Laurson, M., Kuuskankare, M. & Norilo, V. (2009). An overview of PWGL, a visual programming
environment for music. Computer Music Journal, 33(1), 19–31.
Laurson, M., Norilo, V. & Kuuskankare, M. (2005). PWGLSynth: a visual synthesis language for
virtual instrument design and control. Computer Music Journal, 29(3), 29–41.
Maxwell, J. T. & Ornstein, S. M. (1984). Mockingbird: a composer’s amanuensis. BYTE, 9(1), 384–
401.
Nienhuys, H.-W. & Nieuwenhuizen, J. (2003). LilyPond, a system for automated music engraving.
Paper presented at XIV Colloquium on Musical Informatics (XIV CIM 2003), Firenze, Italy.
Roads, C. (1996). The computer music tutorial. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The MIT Press.
Smith, L. (1997). Beyond MIDI. The handbook of musical codes (pp. 252–280). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 15:36 03 April 2013