Issuu

Contemporary

HOWARD Four Musical Proofs and a Conjecture for String Quartet

Score and Parts

EP 73344

EMILY HOWARD

Four Musical Proofs and a Conjecture for String Quartet (2017) Co-creator, The Music of Proof: Marcus du Sautoy

EDITION PETERS L E I P Z I G · L O N D O N · NEW YORK

INSTRUMENTATION 2 Violins Viola Violoncello Score in C Duration: c. 10 Music commissioned by the Nicholas Boas Charitable Trust Collaboration and world premiere performance supported by New Scientist First performed on 28th September 2017 by the Piatti String Quartet and presented by Emily Howard and Marcus du Sautoy as part of New Scientist Live 2017, The ExCeL, London, UK

PROGRAMME NOTE Four Musical Proofs and a Conjecture is a collection of miniatures for string quartet: five short movements, each associated with a different mathematical idea, each a poetic translation of a mathematical idea into sound. The work arose out of The Music of Proof, a PRiSM collaboration between composer Emily Howard and mathematician Marcus du Sautoy, an exploration of different forms of mathematical proof through the creation of music with the aim of revealing connections and differences between their practices. The work can be performed either as a continuous string quartet in five movements, or in The Music of Proof original format outlined in the following pages. In this presentation, before a performance of each movement, du Sautoy spoke about the mathematical idea and Howard spoke about how she had responded to it creatively. Written for the Piatti String Quartet, Four Musical Proofs and a Conjecture was commissioned by the Nicholas Boas Charitable Trust and lasts approximately ten minutes. The Music of Proof collaboration between Emily Howard and Marcus du Sautoy, and the world premiere performance of Four Musical Proofs and a Conjecture, were supported by New Scientist. Emily Howard and Marcus du Sautoy, 2019

PERFORMANCE NOTES In a complete performance of the work (rather than in the presentation format), omit Movement 4, Sections I and II. Vibrato All instruments play without vibrato unless specified. Vibrato is graded throughout the work in the following way: senza vibrato (s.v.): play without vibrato poco vibrato: play with a very small amount of vibrato vib.: play with a small amount of vibrato molto vibrato (m.v.): play with a lot of vibrato wide vibrato (w.v.): play with a wide exaggerated vibrato (a large deviation ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Bb B from µ ˜ the central pitch). It is notated with the following sign: ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ

∑

Percussion very wide vibrato (v.w.v.): play with an even wider, very/exaggerated vibrato (an extremely large deviation from the central pitch – towards glissando). It is notated with the following sign: ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ If vibrato is not specified, play with the appropriate vibrato associated with the musical ∑ quotation, as outlined in the score. Percussion /

∑ Bb B µ ˜ ∑

Quarter tones

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Bb Bthree-quarter µ ˜ tone flat ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ Bb B µ quarter ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ˜ tone flat ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Bb B µ ˜∑quarter tone sharp ∑ ∑ Percussion / ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Bb B µ ˜∑ three-quarter tone ∑sharp ∑ Percussion / ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ ∑ ∑ ∑ Percussion / ∑ ∑ Arrows∑ Percussion /

∑

∑ ∑

Arrows signify gradual transitions: (1) A continuous arrow with a black head: transitioning between vibrato gradations (2) A continuous arrow with a white head: transitioning between bow positions (3) A dashed arrow with a black head: transitioning from (nat.) towards col legno tratto Movement 1 Glissandi (bars 8–24): to begin with, the glissandi are very wide (greater than a tone in each direction). Gradually they become less wide throughout the movement (towards a quarter tone by b.24). Cross [X] note head used alongside sfz marking (bars 9–24): these notes are outside the crescendo (bars 8–24) and should always be played with a heavier sound, and with increasing intensity throughout the section.

∑ ∑

THE MUSIC OF PROOF An outline of our original presentation Emily Howard & Marcus du Sautoy Introduction [MDS] To be a mathematician is to be a composer of proofs. A proof is a journey from the axioms and established truths of the past to the new revelations of the future. It was Euclid’s great work The Elements that introduced the power of proof as a means to access the eternal truths about numbers and geometry. The axioms are where it all begins: the self-evident truths of mathematics from which we begin our logical saga. The proof is the logical moves that we can make from those axioms. Already in Euclid we find some of the classic archetypes of proofs used by mathematicians down the ages. [EH] I have created a set of five miniatures for string quartet Four Musical Proofs and a Conjecture by considering the question “What if I approach writing music as though I am proceeding with the construction of a mathematical proof?” I have therefore made it a mission to make logical compositional decisions wherever possible, and this new way of working has enabled me to find new creative insights. Throughout the piece I have used direct quotations from string quartets by Haydn, Beethoven and Schubert, as a way to provide clear arrival and departure points in the music. 1. Proof by Contradiction [MDS] Proof by contradiction. If you want to prove that a statement about numbers is true then start by assuming the opposite. For example suppose I want to prove that the square root of two is not a fraction. Start by assuming that there is a fraction whose square is 2. Then follow the logical implications of assuming the opposite until you reach an absurd conclusion. The contradiction that you have deduced means that the opposite assumption you made must be false. Hence your original hunch about numbers is the truth. [EH] I chose the opening bars of Haydn’s first published string quartet to represent something ‘axiomatic’ in string quartet composition. Now Haydn made his own journey through to the end of the movement ie the work itself. I then imagined what it might sound like if I attempted to prove this ending ‘true’, simulating a proof by contradiction. I asked myself ‘Suppose the opposite is true’, and this helped me with a number of creative decisions: – beginning with extremely high and low sounds (rather than middle register) – a gradual transition from soft to loud (rather than loud then abruptly soft) – all four instruments playing at different times (rather than together) – always getting faster ie a gradual accelerando (rather than having a steady pulse) I then used these ideas to create music with the aim that it led directly into a musical contradiction of Haydn’s axiomatic opening bars (bars 22–25 “Reductio ad absurdum”, repeat ad infinitum). And therefore, in my compositional game, we accept the ending of the Haydn as “true”. 2. Geometric Proof [MdS] The Elements is full of geometric proofs that show how by combining simple geometric steps you can construct complex mathematical shapes. Each proof shows how by combining a sequence of drawing straight lines or arcs of circles you can gradually build such complex shapes as a pentagon or a hexagon. [EH] So how did I approach Geometric Proof musically? Shape is important within geometric proof, and so this made me think about taking two very short musical fragments and concerning

myself with their musical shapes. I had a conversation with the Piatti String Quartet about repertoire they love. They mentioned a very fast movement from one of Beethoven’s last quartets as one of their favourites. So I asked myself “How can I get from a fragment of Haydn already used in the previous proof to a fragment of Beethoven by changing the shape of the musical fragment systematically using discrete steps? 3. Proof by Induction [MdS] Proof by Induction allows the finite mathematician to navigate the infinity of mathematics. You might have a formula that you want to prove works whatever number you insert into the formula. But how can you check it for the infinite choice of numbers that mathematics offers. The proof by induction works on the principle of how to get someone to climb an infinite ladder. First you show them how to get onto the first rung of the ladder. Then you show them how if they’ve got to the nth rung they can get to the next rung up (the induction step). It’s the combination of these two instructions that allows someone to climb as high as they want. [EH] Mathematics is informed by what has come before. We don’t always go back to the axiom, and therefore I chose to make good use of the (ascending) musical fragment of Beethoven reached at the end of Proof 2. Is it true for any n? We hear the first rung of the ladder being checked, with the ascending melodic idea appearing in a low register on the cello. To check the induction step, I’ve taken the initial “Beethoven rung” as “true”. I’ve twisted and turned it musically, and it steps outside of the Beethoven sound world before being reassembled into the next Beethoven rung. 4. Proof by Algebraic Transformation [MdS] Some of the most exciting proofs take two seemingly unrelated formulas and show they are two sides of the same equation. By using algebraic transformations the proof gradually mutates one formula step by step until eventually the second formula emerges. Each algebraic step seems obvious and yet the combination of all these transformations can create a new tunnel connecting disparate bits of the mathematical universe. [EH] Beginning with a full section from the fast movement in Beethoven’s string quartet (from Proof 3), I have created a series of musical transformations that gradually turn this Beethoven into the slow movement of a Schubert string quartet (another recommendation from the Piatti String Quartet). 5. Conjecture [MdS] Although proofs are the ultimate goal of mathematics, the conjecture is its lifeblood. It is the unresolved questions that make mathematics a living breathing subject. They are the challenges which push mathematicians to create new ideas, like the square root of minus one or the calculus, in order to venture into the mathematical unknown. [EH] The question I asked myself is this: “What kind of music will I get if I take the Schubert melody as my starting point and apply a number of new (new to the world of Schubert) processes to it?” In Proof 3, I have already stepped outside of the sound world of the ‘classical string quartet’ language briefly to ‘prove’ the induction step. In Conjecture, the work moves into a musical unknown. © Emily Howard & Marcus du Sautoy, 2019 Reproduced with kind permission from Marcus du Sautoy, Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and Professor of Mathematics, University of Oxford

The Music of Proof A collaboration between composer Emily Howard and mathematician Marcus du Sautoy

Four Musical Proofs and a Conjecture for string quartet

1. Proof by Contradiction Music: Emily Howard Proofs: Marcus du Sautoy

“Axiomatic” Haydn Op.1 No.1 Movt.1: Opening Bars

° b6 Violin 1 & b 8 j œ Presto

j œ œ

j œ

œ œ J

j œ œ

j œ

œ œ J

B bb 68 œj

œ œ J

œ J

? b6 j ¢ b 8œ

œ œ J

œ J

b & b 68 j œ

Violin 2

Viola

Violoncello

œ œ œ. œ

‰

Œ™

œ J

j œ œ

j œ

j œ œ

j œ

œ œ J

œ J

j œ

œ œ J

œ J

j œ f

œ œ J

‰

Œ™

œ œ J

‰

Œ™

œ J

œ œ œ œ

œ J

œ œ œ œ

œ J

œ œ œ

Consider Haydn Op.1 No.1 Movt.1: Final Bars

° b &b œ

œ œ J

b &b œ

œ œ J

œ J

B bb œ

œ œ J

?b œ ¢ b

œ œ J

Edition Peters 73344

U ‰

° b6 j &b 8 œ

U ‰

b6 & b 8 œj

U ‰

B bb 68 œJ

U ‰

? b6 œ ¢ b 8J

œ œ. œ œ œ œ.

Ÿ Ÿ œ ‰ œJ œ œ œ J

œ œ. œ œ œ œ.

œ œ œ. œJ ‰ j œ

j ‰ j œ œ œ œ œ

nn 43

œ œ. œ œ œ œ.

œ œJ ‰ j œ J p

j œ ‰ œj œ

j œ

nn 43

œ œ. œ œ œ œ.

œ j ‰ j J œ œ

j œ ‰ œj œ

j œ

3 nn 4

Ÿ œ œ œ. œJ ‰ œJ

Presto

nn 43

Suppose the Opposite is “True”

“” √ ˙™

accel.

Very Slowly (q=42) senza vib.

° 3 &4 4

4 4

ppp

√ ˙™

4 4

ppp

√ B 43 ™ #˙

senza vib.

4 4

ppp

pp (cresc.)

œ R ≈ J

pp (cresc.)

≈

œ œ

≈ œj™

10 b>¿ ™ ° ≈ J &

™

≈ #>¿

(sfz)

≈

#>¿

≈ œ™j

(sfz)

bœ ™ ≈ J

≈

>¿

≈ œ™j

≈ ≈

j™

≈ œ

≈ #œ ≈ œ

(sfz)

≈ >¿ ™ ≈ J

bœ

p (cresc.)

b>¿

≈ œ œ ≈ #œ #œ œ >

≈ #¿j™ >

≈ œ™j

p (cresc.)

≈ #œ

≈

≈ œ

œ™ ≈ J

(sfz)

(q=66) accel.

≈

(sfz)

œ œ >

œ™ ≈ J

pp (cresc.)

≈ #œ

≈

(sfz)

≈ œ

pp (cresc.)

j ™ œ

#œ

>¿ ™ R ≈ J J

(sfz)

bœ ™ ≈ J

œ™ ≈ J

œ™

bœ ™ ≈ J

accel.

bœ

(sfz)

bœ ™ ≈ J ≈

poco a poco cresc.

(q=54)

≈

>¿ ™ ≈ J

b˙

poco a poco cresc.

? 43 √ ¢ n˙ ™

™

4 4œ

ppp

° &

bœ ™ ≈ J

œ™ ≈ J

poco a poco cresc.

senza vib.

œ bœ

poco a poco cresc.

senza vib.

3 &4

œ bœ

b>¿

J bœ ™ ≈ J

(sfz)

≈

™

≈

œ™ ≈ J

˙ œ™ ≈ J

(sfz)

>¿

j™

≈ œ

≈ ¿ >

(sfz)

≈ œ p

(cresc.)

≈ œ

≈ œ ≈ œJ ™

≈ #œ

b>¿ ™ ≈ J (sfz)

≈ œ

≈ œ J

™

≈

° b œ &b 34

œ <b> œ

œ œj œ

“” œ œ

œ œj œ

Ó™

B bb Ó™

Ó™

? bb Ó™

Ó™

œ <b> œ

œ œj œ n œ

◊ÿ

œ œj œ

:“;

œj

œ nœ

œj

b & b Ó™

Ó™

B bb Ó™

Ó™

? bb Ó™

Ó™

œ <b> œ

:◊;

° b œ &b 42

œj

œ nœ

œ œj œ

* Continue as far as physically possible...(!)

œ œj œ n œ

b & b Ó™

° b œ &b

œ œj œ n œ

œ o

b & b Ó™

Ó™

B bb Ó™

Ó™

œ o

? bb Ó™

Ó™

œ o

Ó™

Œ ∑ ∑ ∑

4. Proof by Algebraic Transformation Beethoven Op.130 Presto, Section B

° b6 &b 4 œ '

Presto

œÆ œj œ

œ '

b & b 46 Ó™

Ó™

B bb 46 Ó™

? b6 ™ ¢ b 4Ó

œj ° b œ œ œ œ œ œ &b 5

œ œj œ nœ sf

Ó™

œj

œ œ nœ œ œ œ

b & b Ó™

œ œ œ

B bb Ó™

œ œ œ

? bb Ó™

œ œ œ

Transformation 1 Presto (q=240)

° 4 &4 9

#œ 2.

Æ # œ œ <n> œ

j œ

f pesante

B 44 œ Œ

? 44

bœ Œ f

œ œ œ

Ó™

œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ œj œ nœ

Ó™

™™ nn 44

œ œ œ

™™ nn 44

œ œ œ

™™ nn 44

œ œ œ

™™ nn 44

Ó™

œ œ œ

Ó™

œ œ œ

œ Œ

Ó™

œ œ œ

Ó™

œ œ œ

œ Œ

Ó™

œ œ œ

Ó™

œ œ œ

œ Œ

<n> œ

Æ <n> œ œ b œ

œ œ

j œ

œ bœ œ

œ bœ

œ œ

œ œ bœ

3 3

Æ œ œ bœ

œ nœ

œ œj œ

fp leggiero

4 & 4 œ œ bœÆ ' '

q=q

œ <b>œ

œ bœj œ œ œ sf

Æ œ œ œ

#œ

œ œ 3

œj

œ nœ œ

œ œ œ

œ œ œ bœ œ œ

œ œ œ

° & 13

<n> œ

Æ bœ œ bœ

œ bœ

œj

œ bœ

Æ œ œ <n> œ

Æ œ œ œ

j œ

Œ 3

œ nœ

œ bœ

œ œ

œ œ 3

#œ

Æ #œ œ <n> œ

#œ

Æ œ œ #œ œ

œ bœ

j bœ

Æ œ œ œ

#œ

bœ

fpp leggiero

œ œ 3

bœ

<n>œ

Æ bœ œ bœ

œ œ

Œ Œ œ

œ 3

<n> œ

Æ <n>œ œ b œ

#œ

œ œ #œÆ

œj

œ nœ

#œ

œ '

œ bœ' '

bœ

Æ #œ œ <n>œ

& œ

j œ

œ nœ

B #œ

#œ œ #œ'

? Ó

œ bœ

bœj

Œ œ

#œ œ

œ 3

œj

œ nœ

nœ

œ bœ

œ œ <n>œ'

j nœ

ff pesante

œ œ œ bœ

Œ 3

œ Œ

œ bœ 3

œ bœ

n œj

œ 3

Æ œ œ bœ

pp leggiero

Œ 3

Æ œ œ bœ

<n>œ <n>œ œ <n>œ'

#œ œ #œ' bœ

nœ

ff (pesante) 3

j œ

pp leggiero

Æ bœ œ œ

œ œ

Æ œ œ œ

° #œ &

œ nœ œ

? Ó

œj

<n> œ

Transformation 2

Æ œ œ bœ

ff pesante

œ 3

œ œ

° œ &

? Ó ¢

œ œ

B Ó

bœ

Æ bœ œ bœ

#œ œ

œ œ #œ' œ

œ bœ 3

° œ & 25

œj

œ nœ

bœ œ <n>œ'

? Ó ¢

Æ œ œ bœ

& #œ

#œ œ <n>œ'

b œ œ <n>œ'

° &

° & 33

bœ

œ bœ

j bœ

Æ œ œ <n> œ

bœ

bœ œ bœÆ

œ bœj œ

bœ œ œÆ

bœ œ œ'

Œ 3

Æ #œ œ #œ

<n>œ

<n>œ œ bœ'

bœ

b œ œ œ'

œj

Œ Œ

Æ œ œ œ

nœ

œ œ #œ'

œ 3

œ œ

Œ Œ Œ

œj

Æ <n>œ œ œ

œ '

œ bœ' '

Æ #œ œ œ

#œ

œ œ <n>œ'

œ œ bœÆ

œ œ #œ'

j œ

ff pesante

nœ

œ bœ

œ œ #œ'

j œ

f pesante

œ bœ

Æ bœ œ bœ

j œ

œ nœ

Œ Œ 3

Æ #œ œ #œ

#œ

œ œ œ'

j œ

Œ Œ 3

œ nœ

Æ œ œ bœ

bœ

Œ 3

#œ

œ <n>œ œ œÆ

b œ <n> œ œ <n> œÆ

œ nœ

j œ

ppp leggiero

œ œ bœ' œ

fff pesante

Æ #œ œ #œ

<n>œ

ppp

œ nœ

b œ <n> œ œ b œÆ

ffppp leggiero

œ œ <n>œ'

œ bœ

? bœ

<n> œ <n> œ œ <n> œÆ

& œ B

bœ

ppp

<n>œ

Æ œ œ bœ

œ bœ

Transformation 3

j œ

œ nœ

œ <n>œ œ œÆ

Æ œ œ œ

ppp leggiero

Æ œ œ œ

5. Conjecture ° 4 &4 Ó

Skeletal (q=90) senza vib.

fff

4 &4 Ó

senza vib.

fff

˙ B 44

senza vib.

fff

molto vib.

mp molto vib.

& Ó

molto vib.

° senza vib. & ˙ 9

ppp

senza vib.

& ˙

B Œ

‰ ‰ œJ œ

ppp

senza vib.

œ œ ‰ ‰ J

senza vib.

? Œ

bœ

#˙

∑

œ œ ‰ ‰ J

‰ ‰ œJ œ

bœ

œ œ ‰ ‰ J

bœ

ppp

œ œ ‰ ‰ J

#œ

œ œ ‰ ‰ J

ppp

∑

#˙

#œ

bœ

molto vib.

bœ

senza vib.

° Ó &

fff

?4 ¢ 4

#œ

fff

œ œ ‰ ‰ J 3

fff

° b˙ & 25

senza vib.

œ ‰ ‰ Œ J

senza vib.

bœ

? Œ

bœ

senza vib.

œ ‰ 3

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ <n> ˙ œ

° &

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ µ˙ œ

‰ Œ

? ‰ ‰¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ <n>œ œ œ œ ‰ ‰ ¢ J J very wide vib.

senza vib.

nœ œ J ‰ ‰ &

B B˙ ¢

? B˙

senza vib.

œ ‰ Œ 3

œ ‰ Œ

œ ‰

3 ‰ ‰ œj œ

œ 3

œ ‰

‰ ‰ œJ œ 3

B˙

œ 3

œ ‰ ‰ J

∑

œ J ‰ ‰ ‰ µœ œ

œ ‰ Œ

B˙

œ ‰ Œ

fff

‰ Œ

œ J ‰ ‰

fff

‰ Œ

µ˙

fff

#˙

œ <n> œ œ J ‰ ‰ ‰

fff

œ ‰

∑

œ ‰ ‰ J

‰ Œ

œ bœ œ nœ J ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ J

œ ‰ Œ

bœ

‰ Œ

‰ ‰ #œJ œ #œ

œ ‰ ‰ J

œ ‰ Œ

œ ‰

œ Bœ œ Bœ J ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ J

œ ‰

œ J ‰ ‰ Œ 3

#˙

j 3 œ ‰ ‰

µ˙

‰ Œ

b˙

‰ Œ

‰ ‰ Bœ œ J

œ ‰ ‰ Œ J

œ J ‰ ‰ Œ

œ ‰

µœ œ œ J ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ J

senza vib.

œ J ‰ ‰ Œ 3

Bœ œ œ J ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ J

#˙

‰ Œ

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ B ‰ ‰ Bœ œ œ œ ‰ ‰ J J

senza vib.

#˙

very wide vib.

<n> œ œ 33 ° ‰ ‰ J &

œ ‰ ‰ Œ J

µ˙

very wide vib.

bœ

very wide vib.

#˙

œ ‰

œ J ‰ ‰ Œ 3

B Œ

œ J ‰ ‰ Œ

œ ‰ ‰ J

µ˙ ˙

œ œ

‰ Œ

° & ‰

molto vib.

bœ œ

œ J ‰ ‰

<n> œ œ ‰ &

molto vib.

œ J ‰ ‰

molto vib.

B ˙ ¢

° & 41

µœ œ

‰

œ J ‰ ‰

œ ‰ Œ 3

“” µ˙

“” B˙

senza vib.

µ˙

œ 3

pp senza vib.

#œ

‰ Œ

‰ #œ

µœ

j ‰ ‰ œ

‰

µ˙ ™

Œ j œ

j œ

œ 3

œ œ

‰

nœ

œ œ

B˙

b˙

œ ‰ Œ

µ˙

Bœ ™

j œ

˙™

‰ Œ

“” #˙ ™

˙™

µœ ™

j µœ œ

nœ ™

j œ œ

bœ

j œ ‰ ‰

µœ ™

j Bœ œ

nœ ™

j œ œ

” <n>“˙ ™

œ ‰ Œ 3

j 3 œ ‰ ‰

#˙ ™ Bœ ™

∑

œ ‰ Œ

‰ Œ

j œ

œ J ‰ ‰

#œ

” µ“˙ ™

∑

µœ œ 3

œ J ‰ ‰

B œ™

j ‰ ‰ œ

” <n>“˙ ™

Bœ ™

‰ Œ

‰

“” µœ œ

senza vib.

œ ‰ Œ

? ‰3 ¢ µœ

B˙

° &

œ J ‰ ‰

œ ‰ Œ

molto vib.

B ‰

‰

œ ‰ Œ

senza vib.

“” Bœ œ

œ œ

” µ“˙ ™

ppp

#˙ ™

pppp

B˙ ™

col legno tratto

ppp

Bœ ™

ppp

j Bœ

œ™

j œ

ppp

” µ“˙ ™

col legno tratto

œ œ

pppp

b˙ ™

col legno tratto

pppp

B˙ ™

pppp

Œ Œ Œ

Emily Howard

Emily Howard (b. 1979) first won critical acclaim with the orchestral work Magnetite, commissioned by Liverpool European Capital of Culture for the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. Her music has been commissioned, performed and broadcast internationally by festivals and ensembles including the BBC Proms, London Symphony Orchestra, New Scientist Live, Wien Modern and Bamberg Symphony. Known for her music’s connection with science, Howard studied Mathematics and Computer Science at Oxford University and holds a Doctorate in Composition from the University of Manchester. Howard is currently Professor of Composition at the Royal Northern College of Music and Director of PRiSM (the RNCM Centre for Practice & Research in Science & Music). Emily Howard (*1979) wurde zunächst durch ihr Orchesterwerk Magnetite bekannt, das anlässlich der Ernennung Liverpools zur Europäischen Kulturhauptstadt für das Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra entstand. Zu den Interpreten und Auftraggebern ihres Schaffens zählen Festivals und Ensembles in aller Welt, darunter die BBC Proms, das London Symphony Orchestra, New Scientist Live, Wien Modern und die Bamberger Symphoniker. Howard, die in ihrem Schaffen Verbindungen zur Naturwissenschaft herstellt, studierte Mathematik und Informatik an der Universität Oxford und wurde an der Universität Manchester im Fach Komposition promoviert. Gegenwärtig ist sie Professorin für Komposition am Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester und Leiterin von PRiSM, dem hochschuleigenen Zentrum für Praxis und Forschung in Naturwissenschaft und Musik.

EDITION PETERS GROUP L E I P Z I G

L O N D O N

N E W

w w w . e d i t i o n p e t e r s . c o m

Y O R K