Donnacha Dennehy
At a concert in Illinois one could always be guaranteed of at least two audience members, one Herbert Brun, the other Jim Beauchamp. Beauchamp, seemingly not at all arty-farty, was, and I hope, will remain indefatigable in his support and encouragement of young composers. He is sincerely a gentleman and I will always and I will always remember his great kindness and assistance to me as a student. In my impatience to get the computers to follow my bohemian ideas, I could rely on Jim to help me out and to offer carefully considered technical advice. He has taught me many invaluable things, and in his teaching he was never condescending or impatient. Given the enormous amount that Jim knows in this area, this is no mean feat. I wish him a fruitful and enjoyable retirement, and I await eagerly his next synthetic discovery.
Benjamin Grosser
The retirement of Jim Beauchamp from the School of Music will bring kind reflections of the past from those who know him. More appropriately, however, I believe it should generate questions about the future of computer-music, and creative composition, at UIUC and elsewhere. Unfortunately, in order to present these questions I will have to be a bit retrospective.
Jim Beauchamp, creator of one of the first analog synthesizers, the Non-Linear-Filter instrument, SNDAN, and numerous other items was my teacher, mentor and colleague for many years. This happened during a period in which my compositional activities focused on 'computer-music'. I'm not talking about MIDI, sequencing, or sampling but about the composer's development of her own tools for her own music. Long before I met him, Jim identified the need composers have for low-level control over the construction of their medium.
Jim was integral in the development of the Computer Music Project, a facility devoted to two things: 1) the teaching of techniques and information required to understand and develop computer-generated music applications and 2) the composition of works using these applications. He, and other UIUC faculty did this at a time when there was no easy solution to the stumbling blocks composers cited as reasons to avoid the development of original digital applications. It was these stumbling blocks that I was particularly interested in overcoming, and with Jim's help I was able to.
Does it make sense for a composer to give timbral control to a corporationwho makes it their business to provide timbres to everyone and anyone? In some circumstances, yes, it does, but these exceptions are few. As I explored methods and techniques for the creation of my own applications and sound generation algorithms, Jim was always right there ready to answer any question I might be pondering, any problem I might encounter. He did this not only with a complete knowledge of the subject, but also with the opinion that a composer with the skills to generate their own methods is a composer with both high AND low-level control over their work.
The environment around the CMP those first few years is one which I have not seen duplicated at UIUC since. It involved the presentation of over 30 concerts in 2-3 years (by Jim and his students). It saw the completion of probably 20 new computer-generated works (at a time when the fastest computers available were slower than your average out- of-date computer). Many new applications were written by composers to aid themselves with the composition of their work. Jim's contribution to this environment was key.
I present you with this information in order to ask questions and to entice further inquiry into the state of computer-music at a time when so many pre-packaged tools are employed, promoted, and praised by composers. I also ask my questions in an environment which supports composers who regard computer-music as a silliness that doesn't fit with their traditionalist ideology. Here are my questions:
1. What is the state of "from-scratch" computer-music in the compositional activities of students and faculty at UIUC?
2. How will the community continue to explore both the advantages and possibilities of composer-developed, computer-based compositional tools?
3. How can you, as a computer-musicless composer, continue to avoid a compositional medium which is still in its infancy?
4. Are the limitations imposed on you and your compositional work by premade, commercial tools ones you consciously and gracefully accept?
These are some of the questions which Jim Beauchamp has helped me to formulate and answer over the last eight years. His impact on the school and the international computer- music community will be felt for some time to come.
Jim, I wish you luck in your retirement and thank you for your commitment.