Rinne is the Japanese term for “reincarnation”. This piece, which grew from a rhythmic-melodic motif from Satsuki, continually reinvents itself in rhythmic cycles of 5 and 11 counts. Occasionally it multiplies these cycles together, to create a 55 count cycle.

This is based on an idea by Sandy, taken from her work with Balinese gamelan musicians. It transposes the microtonal temperament of the gamelan onto the melodies and ostinati of the koto and soprano sax. Rhythmically, this piece explores notions of rhythmic manipulation and illusion that are also found in Indonesian music

This piece is founded upon a rhythmic structure and framework developed by Tony on the djembe. The piece is in three sections (A, B, C) with A and C being contrasting ensemble sections. They are separated by B, an extended drum solo which explores an evolutionary approach to the transition from slow to fast tempi. The ensemble sections A and C were largely developed through Sandy and Satsuki improvising to the various rhythms of the djembe, and later formalising the most effective elements.

In this piece, Sandy has revisited the tuning structure of the koto. Conventionally, the koto strings are tuned in a sequential pitch structure, directly ascending-descending in proximity to the performer. But here the strings are gathered in groups of three, with each group tuned to a major or minor triad. This allows Satsuki to explore a chordal approach to the instrument, and Sandy to take a melodic approach that is based on chord movement rather than modality.

The germ of this piece was composed by Sandy in a time of great turmoil in one of Australia’s nearest and newest neighbours. It was then – and is now – offered as a prayer for peace and prosperity for these most courageous and resilient people.

Satsuki developed this piece after listening to some recording of the west African harp, the kora. It is deeply influenced by the cascading melodies and polyrhythms that are characteristic of kora music. The title means “gift” in the Shona language of Zimbabwe.

This is a wholly improvised cameo from Satsuki, in which she demonstrates her sensitivity, versatility, and virtuosity on the koto.

Ryuku is an ancient name for the far southern Japanese island of Okinawa, which is recognised as having its own strong and distinct culture. This piece grew from Satsuki experimenting with Okinawan tuning systems and performance techniques on the koto. It uses a pentatonic mode in which the neighbouring strings of the koto are tuned in identical pairs. The rhythms of this piece (which are not typical of Okinawa) explore differing ways of constructing a 37 count cycle.

The melody for this piece was unashamedly plagiarised by Tony from a little bird that would sing in his back yard in suburban Sydney. While bird song has often been the inspiration for musical works, Tony was struck both by the perfect 9/8 rhythmic structure of the repeated motif, and the subtle shifts of interval upon certain repetitions, which would create various moods. As the bird consistently refused to be identified (and was in any case unlikely to be of an age that would be recognised by Australian law as being appropriate for self-representation in any such bureaucratic procedures), Tony was not able to register the bird with any of the appropriate statutory bodies as a legitimate composer, nor of course as co-creator of the work in question, and is therefore unable to make the appropriate acknowledgements that would ordinarily be due to any party who may or may not have certain quasi-legitimate claims to ownership, in part or in full, of the cultural-intellectual property that may be construed to exist in the creation of any given musical item. In the event that, at a later date, the bird, any member of the bird’s immediate family, extended family, or ornithological species (and not including other species of the same genus), were to attempt to claim, in part or in full, any share of the proceeds – in the event that there are indeed any proceeds – of the musical item in question (identified hereabove in the subtext to Clause 9 as “Shrike” – which is not intended by any means to infer that the bird in question is indeed a shrike, any relative of the shrike, or bears any resemblance to any other shrike, living or dead, beyond the obvious shared qualities that define all birds, by law, as “birds”), then it is asserted that all rights to any such claim, recognition of ownership, in part or in full of any form of ownership, be it cultural, intellectual or cullinary, have been forfeited in full by the failure of the individual in question to properly identify itself when repeatedly requested to do so before a Justice of the Peace. In short, Tony gets the royalties, the bird loses.