Indeterminate Composition
by Note Omission,
Shortening and
Contraction
by
Kit Buckley, Bachelor of Music (Honours)
This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of Music.
The University of Western Australia
School of Music
November 2012
1
Abstract
Although various forms of chance and indeterminacy have been utilised to varying
degrees over the last 60 or so years by many different composers, not all possible
avenues have been explored. This research proposes to examine three new methods of
indeterminate composition, and compare them to established indeterminate techniques.
This study will investigate three means of realising performance ‘indeterminacy’,
through the removal of part of a written, determinate score by the performer. These
procedures are note omission, where a note is replaced with a rest of equivalent value,
note shortening, where part of a note's duration is removed and replaced with a rest of
an equivalent value, and note contraction, where the note is skipped over, with the
performer proceeding immediately to the next note. In each case, the application of
these procedures should serve to highlight particular elements and sub-structures within
the full score.
In the introduction, the definition of ‘indeterminacy’, and other closely related terms,
such as ‘chance’ and ‘improvisation’ will be established. As these terms have been used
inconsistently from author to author, a clarification of their definition, as used in this
thesis, is necessary before specific compositions and approaches can be discussed.
After the literature review in the first chapter, the second chapter will examine some of
the established indeterminate methods. Although this survey will not be exhaustive, it
will discuss key indeterminate works, and works that contain indeterminate elements
from the mid to late 20th Century, including compositions by Pierre Boulez, John Cage,
Morton Feldman, Brian Ferneyhough, Karlheinz Stockhausen and Iannis Xenakis, to
establish the context for the author's new methods of composition.
The final chapter of the thesis will discuss the author's three new methods of
indeterminacy. This will be undertaken with specific reference to three of the author’s
original compositions, which will tie the composition portfolio together with the
research. Passages from each piece will be analysed, with the implications of the
indeterminate techniques compared to the works discussed in Chapter Two. Particular
mention will be made of how this version of partial indeterminacy affects the basic
elements of music such as melody, rhythm, form and harmony; and also how this may
alter the nature of performance and rehearsal. The composer-performer-audience
relationship will also be discussed, along with possible implications of recordings, and
potential interpretational bias.
2
Table of Contents
Abstract:
Table of Contents:
Acknowledgements:
2
3
4
Introduction:
5
Chapter 1:
Literature Review
10
Chapter 2:
Examination of Established Indeterminate Methods
Chapter 3:
Note Omission
Note Shortening
Note Contraction
Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble
Lots of Pieces for String Quartet
Piece 2 for Solo Cello
Ideological Implications
14
23
23
24
24
29
32
34
37
Conclusion:
42
Bibliography:
46
Appendices:
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
3
52
53
54
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors Chris Tonkin and David Symons for their constant
support and suggestions. By forcing me to rethinking many of my musical convictions,
they have helped make my thesis and compositions much more unilateral and open than
they would otherwise have been.
I would also like to thank my family, particularly my mother, who read through and
edited many of the thesis drafts. Without their support and assistance, this thesis would
probably never have been finished.
4
Introduction
This thesis examines three new forms of indeterminacy that have been devised by the
author. The three are used in his original compositions and comprise performance
‘indeterminacy’ that allows the performer to omit part of the written score by either
shortening note lengths, (note shortening), eliminating notes entirely and replacing them
with silence, (note omission) or skipping notes and proceeding immediately to the next
note, (note contraction). Before these processes are explained in more detail, the
concept of indeterminacy needs to be examined.
Whilst the term 'indeterminacy' is relatively new in musical parlance, compositions that
can be described retrospectively as indeterminate have been written for many centuries.
Indeterminacy in music has however, been explored as a significant compositional field
in its own right almost exclusively since World War II, concurrently with similar
investigations in the other arts. Since then, only a small number of composers have
consciously set out to introduce indeterminate elements in their compositions. As such,
the potential of indeterminacy as a compositional method is still being examined.
However, the explorations that have occurred thus far, alongside those in other closely
related experimental music fields, have led to radical changes and re-evaluations of
many aspects of music.
From the outset, it is useful to establish a working definition of the terms chance and
indeterminacy. In musical literature, the terms 'chance' and 'indeterminacy' are often
used interchangeably. However, considering both in their original context, the Penguin
English Dictionary defines them as: Chance: '1a) the incalculable assumed element in
existence that renders events unpredictable. b) an event without discernible human
intention or observable cause ...' 1 Indeterminate: 'not definitely or precisely determined
or fixed; vague.' 2 With their adoption into music, these two key terms were given a
more specific meaning in the context of experimental music. It follows that the word
'chance' would naturally refer to something that has already been determined via an
unpredictable or uncontrolled process, whilst indeterminate suggests that the event that
1
2
5
Robert Allen (ed.), The Penguin English Dictionary Third Edition, (London: Penguin Books, 2007),
209.
Ibid., 653.
will determine something that has yet to occur. Confusion arises when Paul Griffiths'
article in Grove Music Online, groups chance and indeterminacy under the general label
of 'aleatory' music, which the article defines as 'a term applied to music whose
composition and/or performance is, to a greater or lesser extent, undetermined by the
composer.' 3 This is a meaningless categorisation, as it does not clarify whether the
composer, performer or both are responsible for the undetermined elements. The term
aleatory in fact only refers to chance, but not indeterminacy. Boulez states: ''Aleatory' is
a word that is frequently used, rightly or (more often) wrongly when speaking of
'chance'. It means a directed, or controlled, chance, one that you have yourself chosen.' 4
which is an unhelpful conflation of the traditional meanings of the terms 'chance' and
'indeterminacy'. The author has therefore avoided using the word aleatory in the thesis,
as the definition does not clarify the range and scope of either chance or indeterminacy.
Although some scholars have suggested alternative definitions for the terms
indeterminacy and chance, there are problems created when these definitions contradict
the general meanings of the words. One problematic alternative suggested by Roger
Reynolds, states 'I see improvisation, indeterminacy and chance as progressive degrees
of a tendency to leave detail unspecified',5 and later, 'If ... a composer wants an
indeterminate situation, there can be no preferred solutions – and, ultimately, in the case
of chance, virtually no "rules"'.6 However, this proposal only suggests a degree of
freedom that each term might provide, without considering how it is to be created or
realised within compositions. More importantly, it puts improvisation, indeterminacy,
and chance on a linear scale of 'indeterminacy' by introducing a hierarchy of terms
which are at odds with the standard definitions of the words. However, measuring the
extent of the term 'indeterminacy' is a useful concept, so that a distinction can be made
between compositions based on how 'indeterminate' they are.
The difference between the terms indeterminacy and chance can be understood by
considering John Cage's Music of Changes (1951), a solo piano work that was
3
4
5
6
6
Paul Griffiths. 'Aleatory.' In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/00509 (accessed September 20,
2010).
Pierre Boulez (ed. Christian Bourgois), Orientations (trans. Martin Cooper) (London: Faber and Faber
Limited, 1986), 461.
Roger Reynolds, 'Indeterminacy: Some Considerations', Perspectives of New Music Vol. 4, No. 1
(Autumn – Winter, 1965), 136.
Ibid., 136.
composed through the use of chance procedures. Cage governed how chance would be
generated and combined to form the composition, by tossing coins and consulting the I
Ching to determine each of the composition's elements. In the score itself he writes, 'it
will be found in many places that the notation is irrational; in such instances the
performer is to employ his own discretion,'7 so that certain parts of the score are in a
rough sense 'indeterminate'. Cage points out that 'though no two performances ... will be
identical ... [they] will resemble one another closely.'8 However, while Music of
Changes is somewhat more indeterminate than say, a Beethoven Piano Sonata, the level
of variance between performances will be slight, and as such, it is more correct, in the
author's opinion, to consider Cage's piece as an example of chance rather than
indeterminacy. In this way, Music of Changes also serves to highlight the difference
between indeterminacy and chance – if a piece is an example of one, then it does not
necessarily imply it is an example of the other. A related example is Earle Brown's
Indices. Although the piece was composed 'by means of tables of random numbers
(used in a way [that] introduces bias),'9 the score uses conventional notation
throughout, with no unusual performance instructions, so the resulting sounds are
determinate.
The terms 'indeterminacy' and 'chance' are however not mutually exclusive. John Cage's
4'33” (1952) for example, contains both indeterminate and chance elements. 4'33” is
clearly indeterminate, as the sounds heard within the piece have not been determined by
Cage, but it is also an example of chance as the sounds are also not determined by the
performers, and the duration was determined by chance operations.
The definition of indeterminacy does not distinguish between different 'degrees' of the
term. As 'determinate' and 'indeterminate' are used in standard music nomenclature, it is
useful to define the opposite of determinacy, named here as 'total indeterminacy'. With
total indeterminacy, a composition is independent of its performance, and any
performance is independent of the composition. This means a performance cannot be
easily, if at all, 'back-related' to the original score, and because of this, an unidentified
recording of the piece cannot be evaluated as an accurate representation of the original
7
8
9
7
John Cage, Music of Changes (New York: Henmar Press, 1961), Preface to Score.
John Cage, Silence: Lectures and Writings (London: Calder and Boyers, Ltd., 1961), 36.
Ibid., 37.
composition. Total indeterminacy is perhaps best seen as an extreme, as there are very
few scores that give performers this degree of freedom. Its polar opposite, total
determinacy, is very much an ideal in a non-electronic context, as no amount of detail
on a musical score can account for every possible variable in human performance. As
such, although the terms determinacy and indeterminacy are only relative, they
nevertheless serve to separate some works from the latter half of the 20th century from
earlier indeterminate compositions, as composers began to intentionally relinquish or
delegate the control of key elements of pieces to performers.
In music of the common practice period, where composers have indicated their
intentions to the performer with conventional notation, their ideas can be readily
comprehended by the performers. The role of the musicians is to interpret the notes on
the score by following the composer's intentions, to perform the piece as well as
possible. The audience hears and receives the composer's vision through the performer's
interpretation. With the exception of world premieres and/or very obscure works, there
is likely to be a score and/or a recording available, which can be studied in advance by
the audience to acquire an 'outline' of the composition. Consequently, the audience can
attend a concert knowing exactly what will be heard, but without knowing how it will
be interpreted by the performers. Thus in western art music, 'determinate' compositions
revolve around a fixed score, with the interest in the performance centred on the quality
of the original composition and the comparison and evaluation of different
interpretations of the piece. Indeterminate compositions, however, are not limited to a
single outcome, so the quality of the realisation depends not just on the performer's
interpretation, but also on how they select their material in indeterminate sections.
Within conventionally notated music, particularly prior to the 20th century, verbal
instructions or suggestions to the performer are seldom seen outside of a piece's title.
The composer's intentions were instead conveyed through musical notation, most of the
time through a collection of pre-existing symbols and common descriptive terms. In
many cases, these musical symbols only give a general guideline as to how the
composition is to be interpreted by performers. Notational symbols may be used to
preference certain interpretations of a work over others because of stylistic
considerations. Different symbols also take on different meaning according to the
performance traditions that have accrued for each individual composer and composition,
8
as well as from the general stylistic traits of the period. If a performer is confronted with
musical nomenclature that they have encountered many times before, they may see
these symbols as being suggestive of how the work should be interpreted. For this
reason, many indeterminate compositions utilise unusual methods of notation and/or
presentation, to emphasise the non-traditional approach that the performers need to take.
All non-electronic but otherwise determinate compositions are independent of their
performances to a certain extent. This can be attributed to instrumental factors, (for
example, the brand of instrument used), the subjectivity of musical notation (for
example, the length of a staccato), and the performance space (for example, a large
concert hall versus a small room). However, the overall differences are minor, as the
framework of the composition is, in most pieces, consistent between performances. As
such, the sounds heard can be recognised as different renditions of the same musical
score. Any observed differences are almost all very minor and are related primarily to
performance practice.
The first chapter of this thesis comprises a literature review. The second uses John
Cage's writings and those of other composers and musicologists as a basis for exploring
some of the established compositional methods that employ indeterminate elements.
The compositions examined include work by John Cage and the other members of the
New York school – Morton Feldman, Earle Brown and Christian Wolff – as well as the
Europeans Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pierre Boulez, along with Iannis Xenakis's
Evryali. This forms the conceptual basis for the third and final chapter, in which the
author's techniques of note omission, shortening and contraction are defined and
discussed with relation to his original compositions. The dissertation concludes with a
discussion of the wider issues raised by note omission, shortening and contraction.
9
Chapter 1
Literature Review
This literature review focuses primarily on the writings and interviews of composers
whose views on indeterminacy can be related directly to the compositions discussed in
this thesis. Seminal works by these composers are analysed in Chapter 2 and the
literature reviewed relates to these compositions. The foremost composer/author in the
field of indeterminacy, John Cage, published several books that chronicle his writings
and thoughts over a given time, including Silence,10 A Year from Monday,11 M,12
Empty Words,13 X14 and Anarchy.15 Cage's extensive interviews have been collected
in several books including Conversing with Cage.16 One definitive lecture, given in
1958 and published in Silence, discusses 'compositions that are indeterminate of their
performance.'17 This refers to pieces where the composer allows one or more important
elements of a composition to be determined by the performer. Cage's lecture forms the
structural basis of Chapter 2, due both to its wide-ranging focus on a variety of
compositions, and its place as one of the earliest discussions of indeterminacy. Cage's
interviews, and books written collaboratively, or with the close assistance of Cage, also
provide a substantial amount of information on his compositions and thought processes.
These include The Roaring Silence, 18 and The Music of John Cage. 19
Morton Feldman's Intersection 3 (1953), when examined from the perspective of
indeterminacy, is an example of a piece that provides choices within discrete intervals of
time in the composition's overall framework. Feldman wrote extensively on his own
10
11
12
John Cage, Silence: Lectures and Writings (London: Calder and Boyers, Ltd., 1961).
John Cage, A Year from Monday: New Lectures and Writings (Middletown: Wesleyan University
Press, 1967).
John Cage, M: Writings '67-'72 (London: Marion Boyars, 1998).
13
John Cage, Empty Words; Writings ’73–’78 (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1979).
14
John Cage, X; Writings ’79–’82 (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1983).
15
John Cage, Anarchy: New York City–January 1998 (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press,
2001).
16
17
18
19
10
Richard Kostelanetz, Conversing With Cage (New York: Limelight Editions, 1988).
Cage, Silence, 35-40.
David Revill, The Roaring Silence – John Cage: A Life (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1992).
James Pritchett, The Music of John Cage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
music and the indeterminate elements involved in his compositions. Some of his
writings have been collected in the book, Give My Regards to Eighth Street.20 Of these,
the most important text for this thesis is Liner Notes (1962),21 where Feldman outlines
the rationale behind his stylistic changes in composition. He discusses the ideas that led
him to write graphically notated music and the reasons why he subsequently rejected
this approach and went on to explore other methods of indeterminacy.
This dissertation also discusses Earle Brown's piece 4 Systems (1954), which is
independent of its performance as a result of its use of graphical notation, hence making
it indeterminate. Brown has spoken and written about his music in several important
articles and lectures, including 'The Notation and Performance of New Music',22 a
lecture presented at Darmstadt in 1964, and 'Transformations and Developments of a
Radical Aesthetic'.23 Brown is an interesting case study, since some of his compositions
utilise indeterminate elements, while others remain fully determinate, although only his
indeterminate works fall within the scope of this thesis.
Christian Wolff's Duo for pianists II (1958) is indeterminate in performance: – while
each pianist has a separate part, they cannot proceed through the piece independently, as
their selections also need to take the other pianist's actions into account and react to
their interpretation. The most important of his writings for this thesis is the article 'On
Form'24, in which Wolff discusses the indeterminate procedures involved in Duo for
pianists II, and how they are extension of those seen in Stockhausen's Klavierstuck XI.
In addition to this, he has given several interviews on the subject, including one with
David Patterson25 and another with Stephen Chase and Clemens Glesser.26 In the
aforementioned article, Wolff discusses the inspiration for Duo for pianists II, as well as
its realisation in performance.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
Morton Feldman (ed. B. H. Friedman), Give My Regards to Eighth Street: Collected Writings of
Morton Feldman (Cambridge: Exact Change, 2000).
Ibid., 3-7.
Earle Brown, 'The Notation and Performance of New Music', The Music Quarterly Vol. 72 No. 2,
(1986), 180-201.
Earle Brown, 'Transformations and Developments of a Radical Aesthetic', Current Musicology 67/68,
(Fall 1999), 39-57.
Christian Wolff, 'On Form', Die Reihe Vol. 7 Form—Space, (1964), 26-31.
David Patterson, 'Cage and Beyond: An Annotated Interview with Christian Wolff', Perspectives of
New Music 32:2, (1994), 54-87.
Stephen Chase and Clemens Glesser, 'Ordinary Matters: Christian Wolff on his Recent Music', Tempo
- A Quarterly Review of Modern Music 58:229 (July 2004), 19-27.
In their writings about indeterminacy, Pierre Boulez and Karlheinz Stockhausen have
examined the role it played in some of their compositions from the 1950s. One piece by
each composer is discussed in this thesis. Boulez's 3rd Piano Sonata (1957-) is analysed
as a composition that has an indeterminate form that allows the performer to choose
their own path through the composition, within certain restrictions. In his article,
'Sonate, que me veux-tu',27 Boulez principally examines this work, outlining his own
thoughts on indeterminacy. He further explores these issues in a series of articles, the
most significant being 'Alea'.28 Stockhausen's Klavierstuck XI (1956) is also studied as
an example of an indeterminate composition where the order of segments may be varied
in performance. In Stockhausen's case, his 'Texte zu Eigenen Werken zur Kunst Anderer
Aktuelles',29 as well as his seminal article, '... how time passes...'30 and some of his
collected interviews 31 examine his instrumental music, including Klavierstuck XI.
Although Iannis Xenakis does not generally utilise indeterminate techniques in his
compositions, a few of his pieces are (almost) impossible to play as written, forcing the
performer to compromise the written score. His solo piano piece Evryali (1973) has a
few passages that fall into this category, where the performer is unable to play the score
in a completely determinate manner. Many articles have been written on this
composition, some by performers who have collaborated with Xenakis on the work and
can recount his views, most notably those by Peter Hill32 and Marc Couroux.33
Michael Nyman's book, Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, 34 is an important
source for early developments in indeterminacy. He describes how an alternative to the
European avant-garde emerged in America from Cage's ideas, and analyses a variety of
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
12
Pierre Boulez (ed. Jean-Jaques Nattiez, ), 'Sonate, que me veux-tu' in Orientations: Collected
Writings (trans. Martin Cooper), (London: Faber and Faber, 1986), 143-154.
Pierre Boulez, 'Alea' in Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship (trans. Stephen Walsh), (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991), 26-38.
Karlheinz Stockhausen, Texte zu Eigenen Werken zur Kunst Anderer Aktuelles, (Köln: Verlag M.
DuMont Schauberg,1964).
Karlheinz Stockhausen, '... wie die Zeit vergeht …', (Die Reihe 3, 1957): 13-42. Trans. by Cornelius
Cardew as '... how time passes ...', English ed. of (Die Reihe 3, 1959): 10–40.
Karlheinz Stockhausen Official Website – Stockhausen.org 2009, Kürten, viewed 31 October 2009,
<http://www.stockhausen.org/>.
Peter Hill, ‘Xenakis and the Performer’, Tempo New Series, No. 112 (March 1975), 17-22.
Marc Couroux, ‘Evryali and the Exploding of the Interface: From Virtuosity to Anti-Virtuosity and
Beyond’, Contemporary Music Review 21:2-3 (2002), 53-67.
Michael Nyman, Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, (London: Studio Vista, 1974, repr.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
pieces, including many of the key American indeterminate compositions of the 1950s.
Nyman's work is one of the earliest secondary sources that profiles and explores the
creative direction of various indeterminate composers, including Cage and other
members of the New York School.
The German musicologist and sociologist Theodor Adorno developed arguments in
some of his later writings, including the essays 'Music and New Music' and 'Vers une
musique informelle', both published in Quasi una fantasia. 35 These articles discuss
issues surrounding the post World War II avant-garde, including composers that utilise
indeterminate procedures in their music. While Adorno's writings do not discuss
particular compositions in detail, they are relevant because they highlight the context
surrounding indeterminacy.
Paul Griffiths has written extensively on new music, and in works such as A Concise
History of Modern Music 36 and Modern Music and After 37 has covered the early
developments of indeterminacy in detail, including an examination of all the composers
mentioned in Chapter 2. He also wrote the Aleatory 38 entry for Grove Music Online,
which in spite of the mistaken definition of terms, still provides the most comprehensive
encyclopaedic source for this topic. Notwithstanding the avoidance of the term 'aleatory'
in this thesis, the article still contains much valuable information on indeterminacy.
Composers and scholars have discussed and defined indeterminacy in various ways, and
it would be outside the scope of this paper to examine all that has been written about the
subject. The most important writings on indeterminate music come from the American
composer, John Cage, and of these, the lecture Indeterminacy 39 given in Darmstadt
forms the basis of the next chapter. This lecture was one of the first formal, systematic
attempts to investigate indeterminacy in detail. The indeterminate compositions
discussed in Cage's lecture will be supplemented with the comments of other scholars,
35
36
37
38
39
13
Theodor W. Adorno (trans. Rodney Livingstone), Quasi Una Fantasia - Essays on Modern Music
(London: Verso, 1992).
Paul Griffiths, A Concise History of Modern Music: From Debussy to Boulez (London: Thames and
Hudson, 1978).
Paul Griffiths, Modern Music and After: Directions Since 1945 (New York: Oxford University Press,
1995).
Paul Griffiths, 'Aleatory', Grove Music Online (ed. L. Macy), <http://www.grovemusic.com>
(Accessed 15 February 2008).
Cage, Silence, 35-40.
composers and their compositions, and will contextualise some of the established forms
of indeterminacy.
14
Chapter 2:
Cage's lecture Indeterminacy presented on the 8th of September, 1958 at Darmstadt was
the second of three lectures he gave at the Darmstadt International Summer Courses for
New Music. Although the lecture was the most conventional of the three with regard to
formal structure, it describes and questions the ideology behind significant European
and American indeterminate compositions of the 1950s.40 It comprises six sub-lectures,
the first five of which discuss one or two pieces. Each is prefaced with the statement
“this is a lecture on composition which is indeterminate with respect to its
performance.”41 As the central topic of this thesis is indeterminacy, only the
indeterminate works mentioned in Cage's lecture, and parts of the last sub-lecture are
examined. Although the pieces examined in this chapter are not fully representative of
all indeterminate developments, they highlight the differences between the more
'indeterminate' approach taken primarily by the New York School of American
indeterminate composers and in response, the more 'controlled' approach taken by many
major European indeterminate composers.
In the second half of the first sub-lecture, Cage discusses Karlheinz Stockhausen's
Klavierstuck XI, one of the most important indeterminate compositions from Europe in
the 1950s. This work shares stylistic similarities with contemporary American
indeterminate compositions, such as Feldman's Intermission 6, which also use a variable
layout on the page, although Stockhausen's work is considerably more complex and
places additional restrictions upon the pianist. Klavierstuck XI consists of 19 short
musical fragments, distributed irregularly on an oversize sheet of paper. The performer
is instructed to start at any fragment, and then proceed to whichever the eye catches
next. The interpretative markings for the next fragment are determined from the
previous one, and the piece ends after any fragment is heard for a third time. Thus, “the
sequence of these parts ... is indeterminate, bringing about the possibility of a unique
form, which is to say a unique morphology of the continuity, a unique expressive
content, for each performance.”42 However, as Eco mentions, “Stockhausen's
Klavierstuck XI ... will never be [in performance] gratuitously different. [The piece is]
40
41
42
15
Martin Iddon, 'Gained in Translation: Words about Cage in Late 1950s Germany', Contemporary
Music Review 26:1 (2007), 95-96.
Cage, Silence, 35.
Ibid.
to be seen as the actualisation of a series of consequences whose premises are firmly
rooted in the original data provided by the author.”43 Certain key aspects of the work
including the notes and rhythms (in relative terms, as the tempi may change) are fixed,
ensuring that Stockhausen's influence over the final sound of the piece is still present.
However, as two different performances could potentially use completely different
fragments, Klavierstuck XI is still a composition that is clearly independent of its
performance.
The instructions for Klavierstuck XI allow for performances of varying lengths, but
there seems to be an unspoken intention that most, if not all of the fragments will be
played twice before one is repeated for a third time. This approach allows for a longer
performance of the piece, so the audience can hear more outcomes of the decisionmaking process. Another issue, discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, is the choice of
which fragments to play. Although Stockhausen indicates that the order of the fragments
should be governed by what the eye sees next, in practice, pianists are likely to prepare
a version of the work that allows for a large number of fragments to be heard twice
before any is repeated for the third time. Moreover, by the time a pianist has learned this
difficult piece, they are likely to have memorised where the various fragments are on
the score and would not move their eyes spontaneously without knowing what they
would see next. This would seem to run contrary to Stockhausen's desire for spontaneity
in performance. This issue not only applies to Stockhausen's piece, but it also highlights,
in general terms, how a performer might approach any indeterminate composition.
There is always the possibility of memorising an interpretation, and determining
beforehand exactly which elements are to be heard in performance. As it is impossible
to tell from a performance if the performer has pre-prepared their interpretation,
Stockhausen's instructions for spontaneity seem to be at cross-purposes with the
composition's structure.
Morton Feldman's Intersection 3 (1953), is a representative example of his graph music
from the 1950s and '60s, and illustrates the freer approach to indeterminacy taken by the
New York School. Intersection 3 consists of a division of the piano keyboard into low,
medium and high registers, and a division of time into discrete intervals, indicated
43
16
Umberto Eco, The Open Work (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 19.
respectively by the horizontal and vertical columns on the score. In each box a number
of notes, indicated as a numeral, are to be played at the specified register, the
combination of these elements creating the graph-like appearance of the score. Feldman
does not specify exactly where the low, medium and high registers fall, nor does he
provide any suggestions for the melodic, harmonic or rhythmic elements, beyond
specifying how many notes are to be heard in a given register at a given interval of time.
Cage, in the second sub-lecture, observes that the performer's role in Intersection 3 as
“that of a photographer who on obtaining a camera uses it to take a picture. The
composition permits an infinite number of these,”44 highlighting how the basic subject
matter remains fixed, but the range of possible interpretations within that framework is
almost unlimited. Whilst Feldman does not give any interpretative guidelines in the
score of Intersection 3, he nevertheless seems to prefer some realisations over others.
Nyman observes that, “after several years of writing graph music Feldman began to
discover its most important flaw. He found it was not only allowing the sound to be free,
but was also liberating the performer. He had never thought of the graph as an “art of
improvisation” but more as “a totally abstract sonic adventure”. Feldman regarded this
realisation as important, stating, “I now understood that if the performers sounded bad it
was less because of their lapses of taste than because I was still involved with passages
and continuity that allowed their presence to be felt.”45 Cage also argued that,
“Feldman's conventionally notated music is himself playing his graph music.”46 Thus,
the unspoken (or unwritten) implication is that any interpretation of his graphical scores
has to be harmonically, rhythmically, and dynamically in line with his conventionally
notated works of the same period, as per traditional ideas of performance practice.
Whilst Intersection 3 is clearly indeterminate, this element is tempered by the above
performance considerations that provide unwritten guidelines for how the piece should
be realised. Indeed, Feldman later indicated his dissatisfaction with graph music, stating
that “if the means were to be imprecise the result must be terribly clear”47, referring to
the difficulties arising from the amount of freedom given to the performer, while
preferring certain outcomes over others in indeterminacy, both of which are problematic
areas of graph music. The issue of potential interpretative bias will be further explored
in Chapter 3 of the thesis.
44
45
46
47
17
Cage, Silence, 36.
Nyman, Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, 70.
Ibid., 53.
Feldman, Give My Regards to Eighth Street: Collected Writings of Morton Feldman, 6.
Next, Cage discusses 4 Systems (1954), one of Earle Brown's earlier indeterminate
experimental compositions. 4 Systems comprises a single page of notation, consisting
entirely of black rectangles of various sizes. On the score Earle Brown notes that the
piece “may be played in any sequence, either side up, at any tempo. The continuous
lines from far left to far right define the outer limits of the keyboard. Thickness may
indicate dynamics or clusters.”48 Despite the use of the phrase 'outer limits of the
keyboard' and the dedication of the score to the pianist David Tudor, the piece has no
specified instrumentation. Cage describes the performer's role in 4 Systems as “that of
making something out of a store of raw materials ... The performer's function, in the
case of 4 Systems, is dual: to give both structure and form; to provide, that is, the
division of the whole into parts and the morphology of the continuity.”49 Although the
elements in 4 Systems are determined in relation to each other, the relative ranges of the
notes, the temporal aspects such as rhythm and the overall performance length are
indeterminate. Beyond the suggestion of 4 Systems being a piano work, it is unclear
whether there are any other unspoken intentions or preferred interpretations. However,
as Brown was also writing music of a more determinate nature at the time, these works
may provide interpretative guidelines for his indeterminate compositions. Although 4
Systems is clearly an example of indeterminacy, the piece is 'indeterminate' to such a
degree that performances are unable to be followed on the score. Consequently, it is
easier to understand each performance as an original work in its own right.
The final indeterminate composition discussed in Cage's lecture is Christian Wolff's Duo
for pianists II (1958). Wolff states, “Karlheinz Stockhausen's Klavierstuck XI introduced
the notion of a variable, unpredictable continuity of structural sections, variably
characterised according to the sequence in which they happen to appear, and an
indeterminacy of the total length of a piece at any particular performance. Beginning
with that idea my Duo for pianists II makes a counterpoint of two sequences of
structural units each indeterminate before any performance.” 50 The score consists of a
number of small blocks of music which are each highly indeterminate, with elements of
pitch, rhythm and dynamics to be determined and interpreted by the performers. In
48
49
50
18
Earle Brown, 4 Systems (New York: Associated Music Publishers, 1961), Footnote on Score.
Cage, Silence, 38.
Wolff, 'On Form', 29.
addition, the two pianists need to react dynamically to each other, following detailed
cueing instructions from the composer for how to proceed between sections. The
players take cues from each other that are specified in general terms but are not
necessarily limited to a single outcome. The indeterminate nature of this work stems
from the interactions between the two performers in addition to their independent
actions. Cage writes, “in the case of Duo for pianists II, structure, the division of the
whole into parts, is indeterminate.”51 This piece has no overall 'determinate' score, but
the parts each performer plays are not completely independent of each other. Cage
describes the piece as “evidently not a time-object, but rather a process the beginning
and ending of which are irrelevant to its nature.”52 The piece is a series of connected
events that are both independent and indeterminate. Cage goes on to state that: “the
function of each performer in... Duo for pianists II is comparable to that of a traveller
who must constantly be catching trains the departures of which have not been
announced but which are in the process of being announced. He must be continually
ready to go, alert to the situation, and responsible.”53 Wolff states that “both fluidity
and exactness of performance are possible. And no structural whole or totality is
calculated either specifically or generally in terms of probabilities or statistics. The
score makes no finished object, at best hopelessly fragile or brittle. There are only parts
which can be at once transparent and distinct.”54 Here, he refers to how only a limited
number of possibilities from the overall score can be realised in any one performance,
with even the overall structure being indeterminate. The length of the work is also
indeterminate, as “there is no cue for ending the piece; the performers agree on a total
duration.”55 As music is experienced over time, a variation of length between different
performances adds an additional level of indeterminacy to Duo for pianists II. The
Cage, Feldman, Brown and Wolff compositions discussed in this chapter are
collectively classified in the remainder of the thesis as representative examples of the
'radical' approach to indeterminacy, where multiple elements of the score are left for the
players to determine in performance.
The overall theme of Cage's lecture is an examination of how musical possibilities can
51
52
53
54
55
19
John Cage, Ibid., 38.
John Cage, Ibid., 38-39.
John Cage, Ibid., 39.
Christian Wolff, ‘On Form’, Die Reihe Vol. 7 (1964), 30.
Wolff, 'On Form', 30.
be expanded with regard to compositions that are indeterminate of their performances.
Although it briefly explores a range of possibilities, some other methods will be briefly
described below to help contextualise the discussion of the author's methods in the final
chapter of the thesis.
One other important European indeterminate composition, contemporary to
Stockhausen's Klavierstuck XI, is Pierre Boulez's Third Piano Sonata (1955- ). Although
the whole composition was performed by Boulez in 1967, only Trope, the second
movement and Constellation-Miroir, the retrograde section of the third movement,
Constellation, have been published complete as of 2012, although fragments and
facsimiles exist of some other movements56. Boulez became aware of indeterminacy
through his contact with Cage in the 1940s and 50s, although his approach to it was
more restrictive than the composers of the New York school. Boulez was also inspired
by the open form found in Stephane Mallarme's Un Coup de Dés Jamais N'Abolira Le
Hasard, where the structure, layout and typeface allow for the poem to be ordered in
various ways, whilst still maintain the original context 57. In justifying the Third Piano
Sonata's approach, Boulez asks: “Why compose works that have to be re-created every
time they are performed? Because definitive, once-and-for-all developments seem no
longer appropriate to musical thought as it is today, or to the actual state that we have
reached in the evolution of musical technique, which is increasingly concerned with the
investigation of a relative world, a permanent “discovering” rather like the state of
“permanent revolution”.''58 By 'relative world', Boulez is referring to all the varying
possibilities encompassed by each indeterminate composition, so that performances of
the work are continual discoveries. The 'restrictions' placed on the Third Piano Sonata
vary throughout, but certain elements of the piece are conventionally notated (and hence
fixed), most importantly the notes and rhythms. In the sections Parenthese and
Commentaire, from Trope, there are optional passages that can be played or omitted
independently of each other. There are only a small number of optional sections, and as
these are interspersed with determinate sections that must be played, the total number of
outcomes available to the pianist is relatively limited and these outcomes are
structurally unified by the determinate sections. Although performances will differ from
56
57
58
20
Dominique Jameux, Pierre Boulez, (trans. Susan Bradshaw), (London: Faber and Faber, 1991), 299.
Dominique Jameux, Ibid., 93.
Pierre Boulez, 'Sonate, que me veux-tu', 143.
each other, making the overall piece indeterminate, these differences are not radical.
The determinate elements and conventionally notated score ensure that the overall
sound of each section is maintained in Boulez's style. Boulez describes the nature of the
3rd formant, Constellation and its pair, Constellation-Miroir as thus: 'There is a certain
resemblance between this Constellation and the plan of an unknown town ... The actual
route taken is left to the initiative of the performer, who has to pick his way through a
close network of paths.'59 However, in the Third Piano Sonata the overall degree of
indeterminacy is relatively limited when compared to, say, Feldman's Intersection 3.
Although the Third Piano Sonata's form may vary in performance, all the sounds heard
have been envisaged during the compositional process by Boulez, making the work also
more 'determinate' than Stockhausen's Klavierstuck XI. There are far fewer pathways
that can be taken through the score, resulting in a composition that is for the most part
determinate, with possibilities for small 'indeterminate' divergences. The Boulez and
Stockhausen examples suggest that variation in structure alone is unlikely to lead to a
highly indeterminate composition. These two European compositions are used as
representative examples of what is termed, in the remainder of the thesis as the
'conservative' approach to indeterminacy, where the composer still maintains a
significant degree of control (or determinacy) over the final sound of a performance.
One category of indeterminate compositions not mentioned in Cage's lecture (possibly
because there were no extant examples at the time), is that of pieces which are
indeterminate because they are conventionally unplayable. As only a portion of these
scores can be reproduced by their performers, the pieces become (perhaps
unintentionally) indeterminate in performance. Examples can be seen in some
compositions from the 1960s onwards, which developed in parallel with new advances
in technical virtuosity. Several sections of Iannis Xenakis's solo piano work Evryali
(1973), exceed the limitations of any human performer, as acknowledged by
commentators including the pianist Marc Couroux. Couroux writes that 'the gauntlet is
so clearly thrown down that the difficulties cannot be anything other than
premeditated.'60 Consequently, although Xenakis is not usually considered to be an
indeterminate composer, several of his pieces have to be 'simplified' by their performers.
59
60
21
Ibid., 151.
Couroux, ‘Evryali and the Exploding of the Interface: From Virtuosity to Anti-Virtuosity and
Beyond’, 57.
It should be noted that whilst Xenakis used stochastic and other mathematical formulae
to assist in the generation of many of his compositions, these compositional methods
fall into the category of chance rather than indeterminacy, as the final scores all use
determinate notation. Aside from the purely technical aspects of Evyrali, such as the
very fast moving semiquaver chordal passages throughout; between the fifth bar of Page
9 and the fourth bar of Page 10 there are stretches of over two octaves, which are well
beyond the reach of almost any human hand. Although these stretches could perhaps be
arpeggiated, this would seem to be a betrayal of Xenakis's intention, and even this
would be nigh impossible to perform at the full tempo indicated. In this respect, Evyrali
is different to many of Xenakis's other compositions, including his earlier piano work,
Herma (1962). Although Herma also places extreme demands on a pianist's technique,
including very rapid wide leaps, the composition still remains within human
capabilities. Couroux's article also discusses whether Evyrali should be subject to a
fixed reduction of notes, or whether the player should attempt to find their own path
through the piece at each performance. Couroux describes a conversation with Xenakis
where he was asked Couroux whether he 'rethought Evryali every time [he] played it.'61
Although this idea is not stated explicitly in the score, the question suggests Xenakis
would prefer ceaseless reinterpretations. If the piece is realised with the same selection
of notes each time, then the reduction essentially becomes a new piece, as some parts of
the original will always remain hidden from the audience, as is the case with Peter Hill's
approach to Evryali.62 Of course, these variations would be slight, as in most places,
the score is able to be played as written by a virtuoso pianist.
Many of Brian Ferneyhough's compositions also contain sections that are virtually
unplayable, requiring the performers to decide which details are feasible for them to
execute. Ferneyhough states, 'What interests me is encouraging the performers, in any
given composition, to come to terms with their own natural limits, and thereby
transcend them.'63 Although Ferneyhough, like Xenakis is not considered to be an
indeterminate composer, by forcing performers to make compromises in order to play
his compositions, he adds an indeterminate element to them.
61
62
63
22
Ibid., 66.
Peter Hill, ‘Xenakis and the Performer’, Tempo New Series, No. 112 (March 1975), 17-22.
James Boros and Richard Toop (eds.), 'Interview with Joel Bons', quoted in Brian Ferneyhough
Collected Writings, (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995), 233.
It should be added that these issues of difficulty do arise in earlier repertoire,
particularly in some piano music of the 19th century. In the works of Liszt, for example,
the use of 10ths and 11ths that appear in some of his early piano works lie out of the
reach of many pianists, and as such the score needs to be compromised or simplified
either by arpeggiating chords or transposing parts down an octave. Due to developments
in the piano over the last two centuries, certain passages that could be executed cleanly
on earlier instruments cannot now be effectively realised on a modern piano. An
example of this noted by Alan Walker is the opening bar of the 8th of the 12 Grandes
Etudes (1837), where the piece in the final version, Wilde Jagd from the Études
d'exécution transcendante (1851), was simplified as 'such measures are virtually
unplayable on a modern piano; at any rate, the texture will not speak.'64 In this case,
because of the performance difficulties, the potentially indeterminate 1837 version of
the work has been superseded by the 1851 revision, and so in practice this piece cannot
be considered as an indeterminate composition.
Only a small number of compositions that utilise different methods of indeterminacy
have been discussed. Although these methods are not fully representative, they do cover
the key trends within indeterminate music as they represent some of the pioneering
'radical' and 'conservative' indeterminate compositions. While many of the above
techniques share some similarities with the author's approach, the indeterminate
methods that have been used in his original compositions since 2008, are to his
knowledge largely unique. These techniques are the subject of the third chapter.
64
23
Alan Walker, Franz Liszt: Volume Two, The Weimar Years, 1848-1861 (London: Faber and Faber,
1989), 148.
Chapter 3:
This chapter details the techniques used in the author's original compositions dating
from the beginning of 2008. During 2007, the author began to question the idea of a
fixed performance with a predetermined outcome, and started to explore ways in which
musicians could have a greater role in a composition's realisation. The first piece written
giving the performer more freedom was the Piece for Solo Violin (2007), where the
violinist is asked to play 'extremely expressive[ly]' and 'with much freedom'. Although
this instruction had the potential to change the piece's character a little, the potential
outcomes would however still remain relatively fixed. The author felt uncomfortable
with traditional ideas of musical interpretation, where composers specify almost all of a
composition's details, leaving only minor interpretative decisions to the performer. He
also began to ponder the intent of musical performance, which led to the following
questions: If one cannot surpass or even equal existing, definitive recordings of a
composition, is there any reason to perform at all? Why attend performances at all, if
one is already familiar with the piece, and knows exactly what notes and rhythms will
be heard? Is there a need to try and reproduce a fixed ideal (or near ideal)? Or is it better
to give the performer, in conjunction with the composer, some freedom to create their
own ideal? Starting from these questions, the methods of note omission, note shortening
and note contraction evolved over the next three years. These methods are a form of
what Adorno describes as the transformation of 'psychological ego weakness into
aesthetic strength.' 65 The author's unwillingness to have control over all elements of a
composition (psychological ego weakness) and subsequent use of note omission,
shortening and contraction serves to increase the expressive potential and variety
available in performance (aesthetic strength). In their simplest form, all three procedures
are performed on an otherwise conventionally notated, 'determinate' score. This is the
case for all of the author's original compositions discussed in this thesis.
Note Omission
In 'indeterminate composition by note omission', the performer may omit any number of
notes from the original score, and replace them with a rest (i.e. silence) of the equivalent
65
24
Adorno, Quasi Una Fantasia - Essays on Modern Music, 283.
duration. Whilst each decision on note omission is independent of others, the overall
effect of note omission aims to highlight ideas and motives that would not be evident, or
as evident in a completely determinate performance.
Note Shortening
Indeterminate composition by note shortening involves reducing the length of a note by
subtracting a portion of its duration and replacing the removed section with a rest of an
equivalent value. The subtraction of the value takes place from either the beginning or
the end of a note (depending on the composer's instruction) to avoid subdividing a note
into two different sounds.66 Note shortening can reduce the duration of a note by any
amount, including the whole of a note's value, which would then have the same effect as
note omission. This method is not suited to all instruments, as plucked or beaten
instruments only offer limited control over a note's duration, hence the effect would not
be as audible.
Note Contraction
The third method of indeterminate composition created by the author involves the
technique of 'note compression' or 'note omission and contraction' (note contraction). In
note contraction, each performer can omit notes at will in a similar manner to note
omission. However, instead of replacing the omitted notes with a rest of an equivalent
length, the performer proceeds directly to the next note. One advantage of this technique
is that when two or more instruments play the same line, their interpretations of it are
likely to differ. If the two performers are only one note apart, then some sort of canonic
synthesis between the parts will be created. This allows for a common thread to be
created in a composition through multiple, simultaneous interpretations of the same line,
instead of just through the relationships within the individual part, or between multiple
distinct parts.
Note contraction, in one sense, allows for greater variation than note omission or
shortening. In addition to changes in melodies and rhythms (and by implication,
66
25
If subdivision were employed in the middle of the note, this process would then become analogous to
free rhythm on a given note, which would negate the identity of the technique of note shortening.
harmonies as well), it will also change the vertical alignment of parts, the relative length
of each and consequently the overall length of all of the composition's sections.
However, the flexibility provided by note contraction must be tempered by the
performers so that the resulting performance does not become anarchic. The disruption
of a composition's vertical alignment means the original score must be carefully
constructed so that note contraction can realise the potential within the score, and not
completely obscure the original ideas. Note contraction will also change the duration of
a piece. A related example was seen earlier in the discussion of Wolff's Duo for pianists
II, but instead of the duration being determined by the performers, with note
contraction, the maximum length of a piece is fixed, as the duration can only be
shortened from the original score. Although Duo for pianists II also shares some
similarities with note omission in ensemble pieces, the piece also requires the two
pianists reacting to cues from each other, instead of acting independently within their
own parts.
Despite the added flexibility note contraction provides over note omission or
shortening, it also has some limitations. Although a composition using this technique
could be scored for a single instrument, all the decisions undertaken by the performer
would remain completely concealed from the listener. This is different from note
omission, where the notes still retain their full value as silence. Another problematic
area, when scoring for multi-stave instruments such as the piano, would arise if each
hand were treated independently, or if contrapuntal lines were present in a single hand
or part. The situation could arise where the performer is forced to read from the score in
two different places simultaneously. Although further restrictions could be added,
requiring both hands to remain together 'vertically' on the score, this would limit the
freedom of the method in a way that seems contrary to the spirit of it. A similar situation
may arise if chords or contrapuntal lines are written in a single part. If these were not
treated as a 'single' note, the performer could omit one note of the chord and proceed
directly to the next note whilst playing the others. Again, this could require the
performer to read from the same score at two different places simultaneously. Of course,
to counter this, the note contraction method could be applied to both hands, so that they
always progress at the same rate. This may also be a practical necessity if the score
indicates some sort of chord, for example, a double stop on the violin. A possible
solution might be to require all notes of a chord to be omitted before the player can
26
proceed onto the next note in the piece. While a performer may appreciate these sorts of
restrictions, this in effect turns all of the piece's independent lines into a single linear
block. If each line were assigned to an individual part instead, then it is unlikely that all
the parts would remain absolutely in unison throughout, so in effect, the piece becomes
a restricted example of note contraction. In theory at least, it would seem that for
instruments like the piano, note omission rather than note contraction is a simpler and
more effective means of achieving a composition that is independent of its performance.
There are no upper or lower limits placed on note omission, shortening or contraction,
as the extent of their application may vary throughout the piece, as governed by each
performer's interpretation. However, the overall effect of note omission, shortening and
contraction should serve to realise the potential within a composition, rather than just
being applied haphazardly with no regard for formal implications. As these methods
remove material from the original score, in comparison to other forms of indeterminacy,
the subtractive processes involved may be seen as self-defeating. In order for these
techniques to be musically justified, they must serve to highlight relationships in the
original score that would not be as easily detected if the piece were played as written.
Each of the author's compositions discussed in this thesis has been composed with the
expectation that the performers will apply the procedures in this manner, as indicated in
the scores.
The desired intention of these techniques is similar to Feldman's Intersection 3, as in
both cases, performers need to utilise them in a convincing, rather than arbitrary,
stylistic manner. However, the author's approach differs from Feldman's, as the intention
to remove material to highlight areas of the piece is clearly articulated and the melodic
and rhythmic basis that the performer chooses from is also fixed. In contrast, the
performer of Intersection 3 chooses the relative notes and rhythms in a manner that fits
with Feldman's style, without any supporting guidelines.
It needs to be noted that Cage has experimented with similar techniques to the author's
in some of his works that are based wholly on pre-existing material, including
Apartment House 1776. This work was written for the United States Bicentennial
celebrations, and draws musical material from a number of vocal, orchestral and drum
fragments that were contemporary to the Declaration of Independence. However, Cage
27
used these methods in order to transform existing four part choral music. He first tried
and rejected the possibility of using chance to determine how many lines were to be
heard in each measure (both with and without the option of having zero voices singing
in a measure), in effect subtracting material from the original in a similar way to note
omission. Cage then used chance procedures to determine how the duration of notes (or
rests that could replace them) were prolonged past their written value, overwriting the
notes that would otherwise have been there in the original score 67. This process shares
similarities with note contraction, in that the number of notes heard in the piece are
reduced – however in Apartment House 1776, the rhythmic durations are extended and
the total length of the segment remains fixed. On the other hand, with note contraction,
the written rhythmic values are retained, but only some of the notes are played, resulting
in a shorter piece. Another key difference is Cage's use of chance to generate the work
from existing material, making Apartment House 1776 an example of chance music,
whereas in the author's compositions, that role is given to the performer, making them
indeterminate compositions. Most importantly, Cage's Apartment House 1776 is all
derived from pre-existing musical material generated via chance procedures, whereas
the author's compositions involve performers removing material from newly-composed,
determinate scores. Therefore, although both methods remove material from a piece,
Cage's approach in Apartment House 1776 has little in common with the author's
methodology in note omission, shortening and contraction.
In the author's compositions, there is no specification that the indeterminate procedures
should be applied spontaneously. This avoids the dilemma that arises in works such as
Klavierstuck XI, where, as described in Chapter 2, there is a conflict between a 'forced'
spontaneous performance and the determinate score. Because of this, the author lets the
performer decide whether to apply these indeterminate techniques spontaneously,
determine them prior to the performance or use a combination of both, as any of these
approaches may lead to a successful outcome.
Both the Boulez and Stockhausen examples discussed in Chapter 2 suggest that varying
the order of certain segments or allowing for their omission entirely, is a relatively
conservative approach to indeterminacy, because the composer still retains considerable
67
28
James Pritchett, The Music of John Cage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 3.
control over the material heard. This is comparable to the author's methods, although the
author's techniques lead to more 'indeterminate' pieces than the Boulez and Stockhausen
examples. Although there are multiple ways of realising the potential of different
passages with note omission, shortening and contraction, any use of these techniques
requires the original composition's structure to be preserved. This limits the extent to
which omission, shortening and contraction can make a composition 'indeterminate', as
their application still needs to realise the composition's potential. There is however the
remote possibility that two performances of a work using note omission (or shortening
and contraction) may have no notes in common, which could also occur in Klavierstuck
XI, if there were no shared fragments between different performances. Although this
would make the performances indeterminate of each other, for both pieces, any
realisation would still be a subset of the original score and would still also be
indeterminate of the source material.
In the following compositions, note omission, shortening and contraction are employed
on otherwise 'determinate', conventionally notated scores. Only one technique can be
used at a single time, as indicated on each composition's score. Since note shortening
completely encompasses the technique of note omission, these two procedures cannot
be combined. If note omission and contraction, or if note shortening and contraction
were utilised simultaneously, the distinction between the methods may be lost. The
author also hypothesises that the combination of note omission, shortening and
contraction with other indeterminate methods may lead to situations where the effects
could be realised in a simpler format. While these three techniques could also be
combined with variations in pitch or structure, such a discussion is beyond the scope of
this thesis.
Although the author's compositions using note omission, shortening and contraction are
written as determinate scores from which it is intended that material be removed, if a
performer or performers choose not to apply these techniques, they are in effect making
the score for that performance into a completely determinate composition. By refusing
to engage with the composition's instructions, the piece's potential is not realised. As
compositions using these three indeterminate techniques are designed around their
employment, a performance will be 'worse' if it fails to exploit them. Compositions
using these techniques are in effect the opposite of pieces like Cage's Music of Changes,
29
which, as described earlier, was composed by chance procedures but remains essentially
determinate in performance. The contrapositive of this statement, that pieces not
generated by chance (i.e. conventionally determinate compositions) can be
indeterminate in performance, expresses what the author is seeking to explore in his
compositions. As a result, performances that fail to apply these indeterminate
procedures cannot be considered valid interpretations.
In all three original compositions discussed in this thesis, the techniques of note
omission, shortening and contraction have been applied to regular and frequently
repetitious rhythms. This has been done for two primary reasons, the first of which is to
enable to effects of these techniques to be perceived. If irregular meters and rhythms
were used, then it may not be clear to the audience if and how note omission, shortening
and contraction were being employed, whereas if the performers are given a repetitive
pattern to which these techniques are being applied, the resulting effects can be
perceived as stemming from the original process. Additionally, practical considerations
were also taken into account, as note contraction in particular poses difficult rhythmic
challenges to performers, who cannot rely on a fixed beat or use other performers as a
reference. The use of relatively simple rhythms which are based on equal subdivisions
of a beat, will enable performers, with some practice, to perform these passages
perfectly in time.
Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble
Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble is scored for piccolo, oboe, alto saxophone,
contrabassoon, trumpet, tuba, snare drum, vibraphone, violin, cello and double bass. In
general, the more material and/or density a piece has, the less noticeable each
application of omission, shortening or contraction will be. In this eleven instrument
ensemble, at least two instruments from each family were chosen, as well as some
auxiliary woodwinds. This allows for every instrument's part to be distinguished
timbrally from the others, which ensures that each omission will have an audible effect
on the piece. The eleven instruments chosen encompass an extremely wide tessitura,
allowing for a greater degree of separation in how the notes are arranged, further
ensuring that every note can be perceived independently. Piece for Large Chamber
Ensemble uses only note omission, so the composition is able to best display how the
30
presence of certain notes and instruments at any given moment may change the timbre,
density and texture. To ensure that the vertical alignment of the parts was maintained
throughout, note contraction was not used. Note shortening was also avoided as
executing this technique on the snare drum is problematic since differences in note
lengths cannot be realised effectively. In Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble, the
performers are instructed to omit notes from the written score, independently of the
other performers, to highlight or emphasise features of the piece. The performers, either
collectively, or as individuals, need to use their own judgement to decide upon which
notes they should omit.
Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble uses serialism of pitch as the composition's
structural basis. As serialism provides a logic behind the arrangement of notes, it allows
for note omission to affect the piece's foundation. If notes are omitted from a row, then
subsets will be heard instead of the complete row, allowing the performers to highlight
these fragments in a variety of ways. The number of different potential combinations of
notes is restricted, by limiting the number of variations of the main row used to three (in
addition to P(0), I(0), R(0) and RI(0)), which enables the intervallic relationships
between each of the four rows to be distinguished clearly.
Not every section of Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble utilises the note row. Besides
the introduction (bars 1-18), and two extended interludes (bars 96-109 and 126-139),
there are a few short solo instrumental melodic fragments (such as bars 172-174), which
only use a segment of the note row. The primary function of the introduction and longer
interludes is to highlight the contrasts between note omission in a general atonal context
and note omission in a limited serial (atonal) context. Note omission also creates variety
within each shorter segment and helps disrupt the piece's regular formal structure. As an
example, consider the vibraphone solo heard in bars 191-193. In this interlude, a one
beat vibraphone ostinato is repeated 12 times. Due to the lack of melody, this interlude
creates expectations about whether melodic fragments are being omitted in other parts.
It also contrasts with the 'serious' mood of most of the composition, by providing 'banal'
relief.
The use of note omission will affect the rhythms in the section between bars 111-123. In
this section, every instrumental entry begins at the start of the beat, and is exactly one
31
beat long, with four or more notes being played per beat. This creates a constant
backdrop through which holes are 'punched' via note omission. Variations will be
created within the regular rhythms of each one-beat fragment, while the compositional
structure ensures that the individual fragments passing from instrument to instrument
can be heard. Melodically, this also allows each performer to decide which notes of the
row subset to play and highlight, and which to omit. This example demonstrates that
there are many ways of achieving a variety of effects through the omission of certain
notes, whilst maintaining the overall structural integrity of this section.
Note omission will also disrupt the linear presentation of the note rows, by breaking the
sequence of the twelve notes contained in each row. This will remove certain intervallic
combinations within and between the rows, allowing for contrast between the remaining
notes and silence. This results in a greater melodic emphasis on individual notes and
short sequences of intervals.
From bars 34-52 note omission will have a noticeable effect on the timbre. Each of the
five melodic lines are played by two or three instruments at the same pitch, (with the
exception of the snare drum/vibraphone pairing, which is only rhythmic) and same
dynamic level, with one of the instruments on each part having added grace notes. If
shared notes are omitted by one of the paired instruments, the timbre will change,
whereas if shared notes are omitted from both parts, the melodic line's row structure will
be disrupted. Furthermore, the omission or retention of the added grace notes will not
disrupt the legato melodic line (as a grace note has no rhythmic value in the written
score), but will alter the number of unique notes that an instrument plays. The use of
note omission in this passage is clearly justifiable, as it gives the performers a variety of
possibilities when realising this effect.
Between bars 160-171, the melodic lines played by the alto saxophone and oboe
combine two note rows – from 161-165, R0 and I0, and from 166-170, P0 and RI0. In
this passage, note omission in the melodic lines will change the interactions between the
two note rows, by removing potential intervallic combinations, and disrupting the linear
presentation of rows between the parts. In the accompaniment, note omission can
disrupt the presentation of P0 in the strings, by removing some of the notes from the
repeated chords, for example, the first six notes of RI0 in the vibraphone line, or
32
rhythmically, by disrupting the snare drum ostinato. In all of these sections, what is
important is the omission of notes from the row within a traditional
melody/accompaniment section, and how these omissions will alter the interval
relationships. Although this outcome can be achieved in many ways, it should be noted
that the passage's potential will not be realised if the performers choose not to omit
notes. Instead of limiting the result to a fixed, determinate score, the author believes
note omission gives performers a variety of options to realise and highlight various
passages in their lines.
Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble reveals the potential pitfalls in scoring for large
chamber ensembles when using note omission. Although additional parts give the
performers more flexibility and freedom to omit notes, the compositional flexibility of a
piece is curtailed by practical difficulties. As the above musical examples from Piece for
Large Chamber Ensemble indicate, for note omission to be a viable technique, the
composition needs to be structured so that the decision to play or omit any note will
audibly change the piece's musical content. It follows then that when a composition
using note omission is scored for an even larger ensemble, such as a full orchestra, there
may be better and/or simpler ways of achieving similar effects using alternative forms
of indeterminacy. It is however beyond the scope of the thesis to consider the
implications of ensemble size for note omission, shortening and contraction in detail.
What can be said is that note omission appears to be more effective in works written for
solo performers or small chamber ensembles.
Lots of Pieces for String Quartet
Lots of Pieces for String Quartet uses all three techniques (note omission, shortening
and contraction), in a sequence of fifteen short pieces for string quartet, joined to form
the overall composition. This work demonstrates the diversity of note omission,
shortening and contraction as each piece is designed to exploit a single technique. As
the following analysis demonstrates, without the application of note omission,
shortening and contraction, the work would not be as successful, and it would not
succeed with an excessive usage of the techniques that obscures each piece's potential.
Each piece is compositionally built around a single idea, with the melodies, harmonies
and rhythms being composed to best support that. This creates large contrasts between
33
the individual pieces through the juxtapositions of modal/atonal and regular/irregular
rhythmic passages. The parts are vertically aligned on the overall score, and the
conclusion of each piece is marked by a double barline. Each piece begins only when all
performers have finished the previous one, which enables note contraction to be utilised
effectively in the composition. If there were no breaks between each piece, the
performers could be playing at different tempi and be in different pieces simultaneously,
which would result in musical structural problems and would increase the risk of
technical errors.
It was decided to utilise all three techniques in Lots of Pieces for String Quartet to allow
for a greater range of expression. Note shortening is well suited to string instruments,
while note omission is viable for any instrument. Note contraction allows for time
displacements between each player's part, in an ensemble small enough to rehearse this
technique effectively and realise it in performance. As each piece is short, and built
compositionally around relatively simple melodic, rhythmic and/or dynamic ideas, the
use of only one technique in each piece enables the effects they have on the work to be
clearly realised by each performer, and perceived by the audience.
In one piece from bars 165-178, glissandi are used throughout and are combined with
note shortening. As noted in the score's preface, note shortening only subtracts value
from the end of a note, hence a shortened glissando will only cover part of the written
range. With this use of note shortening, the essential characteristics of the glissandi in
this piece are maintained. However, note shortening also allows for variety in the
individual range and lengths of each glissando, the contrast of glissandi and silences
within each line and the counterpoint between the parts.
Another piece, from bars 193-204, employs note contraction and gives all four
instruments an identical part. As well as allowing for slight changes in timbre and
instrumental balance (which could also be provided by note omission or shortening),
contraction allows for the performers to proceed through the piece with different
selections of notes, resulting in them being out of synchronisation with each other on
identical parts. Similar effects have been utilised by other composers, such as Peter
Sculthorpe's gagaku-inspired technique of fuori di passo, which he describes as 'In the
rain-forest music of Mangrove (1979), the cellos, marked fuori di passo, play the
34
Japanese melody, Ise-no-umi, out-of-step with each other.' 68 Note contraction allows for
variations between and within identical lines, having them operating independently
rather than dependently of each other, creating the potential for many heterophonic
possibilities from a single determinate melody.
A similar approach using note contraction can be seen in the piece from bars 135-164,
where the second violin and cello parts double each other at the octave. The use of
contraction in this piece will change the vertical alignment of the parts relative to each
other, creating a canonic effect. Although the performers may not necessarily play all of
the same notes, this effect should still be perceptible. This contrasts with the constant
rhythmic background of the first violin and viola lines. As all the rhythmic values in
these two parts are identical throughout the piece, the rhythms will be the same
regardless of the notes that the performer chooses to contract, and because of this, the
hemiola between the two pairs of lines will be present throughout. This piece shows two
different facets of note contraction – the contrast between the fixed rhythmic hemiola
juxtaposed against a quasi-canonic, variable melody, that allow for varied realisations
within a relatively uniform texture.
To show the contrasts between note shortening and contraction, the piece first heard
between bars 205-219 is repeated at bars 240-254. Interspersed between these sections
is a contrasting 'B' section from bars 220-239, that uses note shortening with double
stops throughout for all four instruments. In this section, as indicated in the score, note
shortening is applied independently to each string, allowing for the double stops to be of
different lengths, creating further potential for rhythmic variety within and between
each instrument.
The first time the piece is heard at bars 205-219, note shortening is used, whereas at
bars 240-254 this is changed to note contraction. Thus the listener can obtain an idea of
how the lines relate to each other vertically, before hearing the piece with contraction,
where the vertical alignment of the parts will be skewed by the choices the performers
make. When heard with note shortening, each part will sound relatively disjunct because
of the large leaps present in each part. However, with note contraction, each player is
68
35
Peter Sculthorpe, Sun Music (Sydney: ABC Books, 1999), 79.
able to smooth out the contour and tessitura of their parts, by contracting notes that
would otherwise create a large leap. Because of the continual leaps between high and
low notes, the application of note contraction is likely to make each part more conjunct,
as there is an increased chance of juxtaposing more notes in a single register. However,
this unity is likely to be offset by the skewed vertical alignments that result from note
contraction, which will affect the relative lengths of each part and further desynchronise
the rhythms, as well as the slight tonal suggestions present in the original melodies and
harmonies.
Piece 2 for Solo Cello
Piece 2 for Solo Cello combines the techniques of note omission, shortening and
contraction in a single work. Compared to Lots of Pieces for String Quartet and Piece
for Large Chamber Ensemble, the solo context allows for greater flexibility on the
performer's part. For this reason, the work is able to explore all three techniques within
a more diverse formal structure combined with variations in tempi. The following
analysis concentrates on three sections of the piece in order to highlight how omission,
shortening and contraction gives the cellist interpretative flexibility, while maintaining
the essential characteristics of the composition.
The piece is built from a large number of musical ideas, joined together into a
continuous, single movement. Unlike Lots of Pieces for String Quartet, where the
instruments can only proceed to the next piece once all performers have finished the
preceding one, Piece 2 for Solo Cello allows frequent and smooth changes in tempo to
be executed by a single performer. Piece 2 for Solo Cello is built from a number of pitch
centres and small cells of notes and rhythms that develop gradually and evolve to form
the basis of the rhythms, melodies and resulting harmonies. This provides the cellist
with a framework that helps ensure that even after the application of note omission,
shortening and contraction, most realisations will retain a degree of rhythmic, melodic
and harmonic unity both within and between segments.
The opening six bars of the piece are built from a slowly evolving rhythmic and melodic
ostinato fragment, and employ note omission and note contraction in a manner that aims
to contrast the two techniques. From the sixth note of bar 5 (A) to the second note of bar
36
6 (Ab), the use of note omission will result in silences. This contrasts with the earlier
contraction section that began the work, where all realisations will result in a constant
stream of notes without any interspersed rests. If note omission were not applied here,
then this contrast would not be evident, negating the musical effect of this passage.
The use of contrasts can also be seen in bar 9, where the C and the resulting rest created
by note shortening will always last for four beats, in contrast to the surrounding sections
from bars 6-8 and bars 10-14 that use note contraction. Although the relative ratio of
sound to silence can be changed by performers, the note's function in the piece is to
interrupt the consistent rhythmic flow of the adjacent passages. Regardless of how
performers play this note, the sound will affect the surrounding texture. Note shortening
provides a simple way for this effect to be realised in multiple ways.
Note contraction can potentially make a piece more difficult or even unperformable if
the new juxtaposition of notes creates or adds to the existing technical problems. One
example would be through the creation of an extremely fast large leap that would not
otherwise be present in the written score. To avoid these sorts of possibilities, the
sections of Piece 2 for Solo Cello that utilise note contraction such as bars 151-169 have
a restricted tessitura, so that all possible combinations of notes can theoretically be
realised by the cellist. This point also applies for all applications of note omission,
shortening or contraction in the two compositions discussed previously. Performers
need to use their own discretion in order to create a piece that can be effectively realised
in performance without any technical errors. This is similar to the procedure Xenakis
uses in Evyrali. By writing a work that is, in places, impossible to play as written, he
ensures that 'note omission' must occur in performance. In both cases, the performers
must create a realisation that lies within the limits of their technique. This is also similar
to the approach that Ferneyhough takes in some of his compositions. Although
Ferneyhough is not regarded as an indeterminate composer, he forces performers to
make compromises in order to play his compositions in a manner very similar to that
used by Xenakis in Evyrali. Process-wise, this is linked closely to the author's
compositional methods. However, in the author's compositions the intent differs – the
performers remove material from pieces to realise specific effects instead of out of
necessity.
37
Comment [FAHSS UWA1]: Can’t
guarantee this if left to performer
discretion
In Piece 2 for Solo Cello, what is important is the general musical effect. As this can be
realised in many ways by the cellist, there is no need to write the work as a fixed,
determinate score, which can only provide one example of a broad concept. The
flexibility created by note omission, shortening and contraction allows for variations
between different performances, and also enables the cellist to participate in a limited
way in the compositional process. By giving the performer a greater role, they are better
able to shape their own realisations of the piece. As the notes and rhythms are fixed, and
provide a superset of possibilities for a performance, it follows that note omission,
shortening and contraction are a means for the subset of sounds heard within the piece
to exist within an overall framework. The general principles of this idea are also
applicable to Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble and Lots of Pieces for String Quartet.
However, unlike Earle Brown's 4 Systems, where each performance is close to an
original work in its own right, in Piece 2 for Solo Cello, even if two performances were
to use completely different selections of notes from each other, what is heard would
always be a subset of the original score. Hence, each performance cannot be considered
a separate composition.
Piece 2 for Solo Cello attempts to extend the procedures found in the earlier two works.
The added flexibility provided by the solo context allows for continual structure and
tempo changes throughout the piece. Note omission, shortening and contraction are able
to exist in a unified work, instead of as individual moments within a series of short
pieces. The solo context does, however, limit the scope of each method, as the cellist
needs to maintain the overall structure of the composition whilst still employing these
techniques. Every note omitted or shortened in a solo piece will always result in a
silence, which differs from the variety of timbral possibilities that can be created in an
ensemble work. In general terms, this limits the amount the performer can omit or
shorten whilst still realising the piece's potential. It follows that when note omission,
shortening and contraction are all incorporated into a single piece, the composition
should utilise structural techniques and effects that cannot be easily achieved in an
ensemble to offset the potential lack of timbral variety.
Ideological Implications
In establishing the parameters of indeterminate compositions, it becomes evident that
38
pieces composed with note omission, shortening and contraction have different
ideological implications to conventional determinate works. The traditional
relationships between composer, performer, and audience will all be altered. In
indeterminate compositions, the interest is created by which notes the performer lets the
audience hear, rather than the expectation of just hearing a 'good' performance of a
fixed, known score. However, one of the fundamental premises of indeterminacy is
accepting any outcome. Adorno writes that “experimental music should not just confine
itself to refusing to deal in the current coin; it should also be music whose end cannot be
Comment [FAHSS UWA2]: But, the
limitations are foreseen by the
composer and accepted
foreseen in the course of production. In genuine experiments there has always been
something of a surplus of that objectivity of the production process.” 69 Seen in this
light, the performance of an indeterminate composition is no different to hearing a
determinate composition for the first time, as in both cases, the performance can only be
judged on what is heard. Cage's thoughts in Indeterminacy are similar. When discussing
in general terms the nature of compositions that are indeterminate in performance, he
mentions “that [indeterminate] composition is necessarily experimental. An
experimental action is one the outcome of which is not foreseen. Being unforeseen, this
action is not concerned with its excuse.”70 By this, Cage suggests that the resultant
outcome of an indeterminate event does not need an 'excuse', and instead needs to be
'accepted', in effect by not favouring one outcome over another. However in Cage's own
music, performers found that when interpreting his graphic notations, “the composer
demanded extraordinary discipline of them, being intolerant of cliches and notoriously
difficult to please.” 71 This illustrates the difficulty in closing the ‘gap’ between the
composer’s specific intentions and the broader, more 'open' instructions they have
included on the score. In the author's works, this contradiction has been avoided by a
preceding statement which clarifies for the performers that any interpretation that
engages with the piece and utilises the techniques to highlight the potential of each
section is correct. Although the idea of 'potential' is a vague directive, the open nature of
the term allows performers to decide how to use the overall determinate composition to
form their own unique interpretation.
From the perspective of a performer, the author's compositional methods seem to
69
70
71
39
Adorno, Quasi Una Fantasia - Essays on Modern Music, 303.
Cage, Silence, 39.
Richard Taruskin, Music in the Late Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005),
96.
Comment [FAHSS UWA3]: Therefor
e, any outcome is NOT acceptable …
provide partial authorship. In addition to interpretation, the performer is allowed to
create a version of a score that helps to reveal the piece's potential. However, as there
are no restrictions placed overtly on the method, it is open to certain seemingly
unacceptable outcomes. For example, every note in a composition could be omitted.
This approach would be extremely problematic as it completely negates the original
composition. Such a performance of 'silence' could be undertaken independently of the
composition and its methodology, raising the question of whether it could be considered
as a representative performance. Although this process may seem analogous to Cage's
4'33”, the intent behind this piece and one from which notes have been removed is very
different. 4'33” is a silent work, to which sounds from external sources are added, as
opposed to a determinate composition from which all the notated sounds remain
unplayed. In this sense, a 'silent' performance of a piece utilising these compositional
techniques is not ideologically equivalent to a performance of 4'33”, and hence cannot
be justified by Cage's precedent.
This leads to the question of whether or not there should be some direct limitations on
how many notes the performer may be allowed to omit, shorten or contract. To avoid
interpretations where large portions of a composition are left unplayed, one possibility
would be to instruct the performers to only omit a certain percentage of notes, or a
certain number of notes on each page. This solution would be very effective for
electronic versions of the compositions where it is possible to program a computer to
only play a certain percentage of notes, or to hold them for a certain rhythmic value.
However, this approach would likely force a human performer to prepare the selection
of note omissions in advance and would restrict the spontaneity with which the work
can be interpreted in performance. That being said, a spontaneous performance of a
composition is neither more nor less desirable. In the author's opinion, it is best to give
the performer complete freedom to choose how many notes to play, entrusting them
with responsibility of producing a 'good' interpretation that remains sensitive to the
intent of the original score. This is the approach used in all three compositions that are
discussed in this thesis. As these indeterminate methods were created with the idea of
allowing for the potential of a composition to be highlighted, the preferred option is to
leave the performer to select from the broad range of possibilities suggested by this
open term.
40
Another option is to instruct the performer(s) in exactly how to approach each section of
the piece, by including some or all of the following: giving a description of the desired
effect of note omission, shortening or contraction in a passage; describing how it is to be
achieved; or dictating how much material is to be removed. However, the author finds
these alternatives undesirable, and has chosen not to utilise them. Providing a possible
solution to the performers, or even giving suggestions or opinions, negates the potential
for the performers to find their own approach. As they will also be very familiar with
the composition, both as a piece and on how it works in practice on their own
instrument, their original ideas may differ from the composer's suggestions, and could
be equally valid or even superior. Providing guidance may hamper or limit the potential
for creative input from the performer, which is another reason why the author has left
the performers with an open set of directions.
An example of this can be seen in the earlier extract from bars 193-204 in Lots of Pieces
for String Quartet. Despite the previous suggestion of creating a polyphonic texture
from a single, identical melodic line, this is not the only option available to the
performers. There is no reason why the line has to be played by four instruments, and
even if only one instrument plays some notes, the resulting monophonic line would not
be 'incorrect', as it could provide a good contrast with the surrounding music. If no
performers chose to play this piece, contracting all of the notes, they can proceed
straight to the next piece. This solution cannot be considered as 'incorrect', as it changes
the order of the movements and structure of the composition, and does not invalidate the
musical material of the adjacent pieces. In effect, this solution would produce a similar
result to a performance of Klavierstuck XI if the performer chooses not to play one of
the fragments. In Lots of Pieces for String Quartet, there is the potential for an extreme
range of 'acceptable' outcomes available to the performers because there is no clear limit
at which to draw a boundary, nor are there reasons to do so. Because of this, the author
has decided that it is more logical to give the performers freedom within the parameters
of omission, shortening and contraction to achieve an outcome that emphasises the
composition's potential, instead of guiding them towards specific interpretations via
instructions.
If the basic principle of these methods is accepted – that the selection of notes the
performer chooses should realise a composition's potential, then the author believes the
41
best means of realising this aim is to allow the performer to decide how to approach the
piece. However, this could also be interpreted as a decision by the composer to abdicate
responsibility for what is heard. As the performers take sole responsibility over what to
play and omit, their decisions help generate the relative quality of the realisation (as
judged by the listeners) to a greater extent than that found in music of the common
practice period, which consequently determines the overall 'success' of the composition
in a conventional sense. This issue becomes even more important if a composition using
these techniques is to be recorded. Above and beyond a performance, a recording stands
as a permanent testament to a given interpretation of a piece. Because omission,
shortening and contraction give a much wider degree of interpretative freedom to the
performer (compared to music of the common practice period), the degree to which any
recording is representative of the composition is reduced. While one could offer
multiple recordings of a composition on the same CD, each using a different selection
of notes, this would still only cover a very small range of the composition's
interpretative possibilities. This poses the question of whose work is being listened to –
the composer's or the performer's 'composition'. However, every recording of the piece
can primarily still be considered the work of the composer rather than a co-composition
or collaboration between composer and performer. This is because any realisation that
the performer provides is bound up within the notes and rhythms of the original
composition. The composer has specified a composition's maximal outcome and hence
maintains control over all possible realisations of a piece, although as each application
of omission, shortening or contraction occurs independently, the outcome cannot be
'foreseen' in the same way as it can in works like Stockhausen's Klavierstuck XI. In
short, a composition using note omission, shortening or contraction exists more as a
piece for the performers, rather than the audience, who are limited to the realisations
that the performer provides.
The original compositions discussed in this chapter do not detail all of the implications
of indeterminate composition by note omission, shortening and contraction. However,
the three pieces do exhibit a reasonably wide variety of styles and give a sense of what
is possible with these methods. While omission, shortening and contraction have some
obvious strengths, in terms of creating a unique performance from simple instructions,
this use of indeterminacy also reduces the composer's authority. As the performer takes
on a position of greater responsibility, they also become more responsible for the
42
'success' or 'failure' of the music, as well as for its structural features. Although the
composer is not necessarily aiming to delegate all responsibility to the performer, they
are given the freedom to realise the composition's potential which may directly affect all
of a composition's major elements. This gives the performer a greater role in creating a
unique realisation, albeit one within the composition's stylistic boundaries.
43
Conclusion
This thesis has examined a number of compositions that are independent of their
performances, from both standard indeterminate repertoire and the author's original
works. This raises the question as to how these methods can be evaluated. Are the
techniques of indeterminate composition by note omission, note shortening, and note
contraction just an attempt at innovation for its own sake?
When a composer chooses to utilise indeterminate techniques in a composition, the
evaluation of their traditional 'role' and that of the performers can only be made on a
piece by piece, composer by composer basis. However, the common theme that
underscores all these compositions remains the same: the composer has less control
over the final result. Although note omission, shortening and contraction all aim to
realise the potential within a composition, it is left for the performer to decide how to do
this, or even to decide what part of a score's potential to realise. Paradoxically, although
the performer assumes a part of the composer's role in this genre of music, they can
never literally become the composer as they always interpret an 'original' score, unless
they take on the roles of performer and composer simultaneously. Although the
performer's role in a piece using note omission, shortening or contraction involves more
active input than a traditional determinate composition, their decisions need to consider
why the composer has utilised this method. As a starting point, they should come to an
interpretation that works for, rather than against the method. Likewise, with earlier
indeterminate compositions from the standard repertoire that require performers to
determine and fix elements of a work within parameters, the final result should flow as
a logical outcome of the potential created by that method, not from the superimposition
of an existing, known determinate idea upon an indeterminate score. Returning to the
question posed in the previous paragraph regarding the musical value of these methods,
the responsibility for making the author's techniques more than mere innovation lies
with the performers. In order to present a successful performance of the three pieces
discussed in this thesis, the performers must remove material from passages to introduce
variety to the regular melodic and rhythmic ostinati. The pieces were composed to
utilise a new method of indeterminacy, and without a performance that seeks to express
the 'new', these methods will not fully succeed.
44
Although the techniques and approach to performance used in established indeterminate
repertoire differ from the author's ideals, all of the compositions discussed give the
performer a greater degree of creative freedom, and to a varying degree, allow the
performers to become co-composers. All indeterminate compositions alter the dynamics
of the traditional relationship between the composer, performer and audience. It is clear
that compositions that are indeterminate in performance give performers greater
freedom in their realisation. It follows logically that the composer has less responsibility
over the outcome of the piece and the performer to some extent becomes a co-composer.
These changes also serve to undermine the traditional ideas of performance practice, as
there may not necessarily be a fixed score to be interpreted. Instead, performance
practice may be more to do with the selection of notes, rather than their interpretation
(although this will still be an important factor). Traditional ideas of ensemble and
rehearsals are also subverted, as the performers are unable to take cues from each other,
and can only rely on their individual parts.
In the author's works however, this 'subversion' is only partial, as the idea of an
ensemble in the traditional sense is still operational. Although the configuration of notes
between parts is not guaranteed, the framework of the piece is, ensuring that ensemble
considerations such as dynamic balance retain importance. The rehearsal procedure is
also important. While the players are unable to take cues from each other in a
conventional sense, the determinate framework of the composition ensures that the
players need to be coordinated with each other in order for their parts to be rhythmically
and dynamically balanced. In the same way that note omission, shortening and
contraction take a 'familiar' determinate score and give performers rights to perform
'unfamiliar' actions to it, during the rehearsal process players need to be aware of the
other parts, and not only focused on their own performance.
What note omission, shortening and contraction represent to the author is a fusion of the
best elements of 'conservative' and 'radical' indeterminacy, whilst avoiding the
shortcomings of each. In comparison to more conservative indeterminate compositions
such as Stockhausen's Klavierstuck XI and Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, these three
techniques allow for greater performer input and a wider variety of possible realisations.
Although both the 'conservative' approach and the author's approach give the performer
a fixed outline of notes to work from, the author's method offers additional flexibility
45
and variety to the performer, as decisions are made on every note, instead of on larger
sections. The conservative approaches to indeterminacy discussed in this thesis
primarily give the performer flexibility within sections of material, as each decision
made determines how all the subsequent notes within a section or fragment are to be
performed. Although the length of sections, number of decisions made and the amount
of variability each decision creates differ between examples of pieces written with this
approach, the idea that each decision will fix the next series of notes a performer will
play is generally true. This is in contrast to the author's methods, where decisions are
made on every note, increasing both the number of possible outcomes and the influence
that performer choice may have on the composition.
In more 'radical' indeterminacy, performers often have to determine at least one major
element of a composition within very loose parameters, as seen in works like Feldman's
Intersection 3 and Earle Brown's 4 Systems. In many cases, these involve leaving at
least one or more of the most important elements of a musical sound (pitch, rhythm,
timbre and dynamics) largely indeterminate, thus allowing for a wealth of harmonic,
melodic and rhythmic possibilities, many of which may suggest a musical style that
cannot be identified as the composer's. The author specifies all of these in elements of
his compositions with determinate notation, which ensures that any outcomes that result
will have a unity to them that may not be present in some of the more radical
indeterminate scores. This avoids the situation in radical indeterminacy where
performers have to deal with abstract outlines to produce an interpretation that fits with
the composer's style. Although both the 'radical' approach and the author's methods rely
on performers to produce an interpretation within the 'style' of the original composition,
the author feels that by providing a determinate score from which material is removed
instead of a highly indeterminate score, there is a greater chance of ending up with a
'successful' interpretation. In addition, the author believes that this radical approach
often provides performers with far more freedom than is necessary to produce a work
within the composer's style.
Ultimately, to decide whether or not an 'interpretative ideal' or 'successful' interpretation
exists is impossible. By its very nature, this ideal is a subjective judgement without a
single answer, and can only be considered in terms of generalisations. All that can be
offered is an exploration of possibilities for creating 'compositions that are
46
indeterminate of their performances'. Whatever motives individual composers may have
for adopting indeterminate methods, all of their methods represent a continuing search
for innovation. If nothing else, compositions that are independent of their performance
open up a range of possibilities that cannot be achieved in conventional performance.
For this reason alone, these methods are justified, regardless of whether their
application succeeds or fails in individual pieces. Although any piece using the author's
techniques relies on the performer's abilities to make intelligent interpretative decisions
within the parameters of note omission, shortening and contraction, the attempt to
combine the perceived strengths of the 'conservative' and 'radical' philosophies has
created an original method of indeterminacy.
47
Bibliography
Composer References:
Bernstein, David W., Christopher Hatch (ed.), Writings Through John Cage’s Music,
Poetry and Art, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Bland, William and David Patterson, ‘Wolff, Christian’, Grove Music Online ed. L.
Macy, <http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 9 June 2008).
Boros, James and Richard Toop (eds.), Brian Ferneyhough: Collected Writings,
Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995.
Boulez, Pierre and John Cage (ed. Jean-Jacques Nattiez), The Boulez-Cage
Correspondence, (trans. Robert Samuels), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993.
Boulez, Pierre, Pierre Boulez: Conversations with Célestin Deliège, (trans. Ernst
Eulenburg Ltd., Norfolk: Caligraving, 1976.
Boulez, Pierre (ed. Christian Bourgois), Orientations, (trans. Martin Cooper), London:
Faber and Faber Limited, 1986.
Boulez, Pierre, Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship, (trans. Stephen Walsh), New York:
Oxford University Press, 1991.
Breatnach, Mary, Boulez and Mallarmé: A Study in Poetic Influence, Aldershot: Scolar
Press, 1996.
Brent, Jonathan and Peter Gena, A John Cage Reader: In Celebration of His 70th
Birthday, New York: Peters, 1982.
Brown, Earle, 'The Notation and Performance of New Music', The Music Quarterly Vol.
72 No. 2 (1986), 180-201.
Brown, Earle, 'Transformations and Developments of a Radical Aesthetic', Current
Musicology 67/68, (Fall 1999), 39-57.
Cage John, A Year from Monday: New Lectures and Writings, Middletown: Wesleyan
University Press, 1967.
Cage, John, Anarchy: New York City–January 1998, Middletown: Wesleyan University
Press, 2001.
Cage, John, Empty Words; Writings ’73–’78, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press,
1979.
Cage, John, M: writings '67-'72, London: Marion Boyars, 1998.
Cage, John, Silence: Lectures and Writings, London: Calder and Boyers, Ltd., 1961.
48
Cage, John, X; Writings ’79–’82, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1983.
Cardew, Cornelius (ed.), Scratch Music, Latimer New Dimensions Ltd.: London, 1972.
Chase, Stephen and Clemens Glesser, 'Ordinary Matters: Christian Wolff on his Recent
Music', Tempo - A Quarterly Review of Modern Music 58:229 (July 2004), 19-27.
Childs, Barney and Elliott Schwartz (eds.), Contemporary Composers on Contemporary
Music, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.
Couroux, Marc, ‘Evryali and the Exploding of the Interface: From Virtuosity to AntiVirtuosity and Beyond’, Contemporary Music Review 21:2-3 (2002), 53-67.
De Tugny, Rosângela Pereira, ‘Spectre et série dans le Klavierstück XI de Karlheinz
Stockhausen’, Revue de musicologie, T. 85e, No. 1er (1999), 119-137.
Dickinson, Peter (ed.), Cage Talk – Dialogues With and About John Cage, Rochester:
University of Rochester Press, 2006.
Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich (trans. Jeffrey L. Prater), J. S. Bach's The Art of Fugue: The
Work and its Interpretation, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1993.
Feldman, Morton (ed. B. H. Friedman), Give My Regards to Eighth Street: Collected
Writings of Morton Feldman, Cambridge: Exact Change, 2000.
Ford, Andrew, Composer to Composer: Conversations about Contemporary Music,
Sydney: Hale & Iremonger Pty Ltd, 1993.
Fux, Johann Joseph, (trans., ed. Alfred Mann), The Study of Counterpoint from Johann
Joseph Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1965.
Glock, William (ed.), Pierre Boulez: A Symposium, Ernst Eulenberg: London, 1986.
Harley, James, Xenakis – His Life in Music, New York: Routledge, 2004.
Haskins, Rob, ‘“An Anarchic Society of Sounds”: The Number Pieces of John Cage’,
PhD diss., Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester, 2004.
Hill, Peter, ‘Xenakis and the Performer’, Tempo, New Series, No. 112 (March 1975),
17-22.
Hill, Peter, ‘Letter to the Editor’, Tempo, New Series, No. 116 (Dec. 1975), 53-54.
Hoffman, Peter, ‘Xenakis, Iannis’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy,
<http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 18 June 2008).
Howard, Philip, ‘"Evryali": Beyond the Surface (What I Learned from "Evryali" by
Performing It)’, Perspectives of New Music Vol 42, No. 2 (Summer 2004), 144-157.
49
Iddon, Martin, 'Gained in Translation: Words about Cage in Late 1950s Germany',
Contemporary Music Review 26:1 (2007), 89-104.
Jameux, Dominique, Pierre Boulez, (trans. Susan Bradshaw), London: Faber and Faber,
1991.
Johnson, Steven, ‘Feldman, Morton’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy,
<http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 15 February 2008).
Junkerman, Charlies and Marjorie Perloff, John Cage: Composed in America, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Kostelanetz, Richard, Conversing With Cage, New York: Limelight Editions, 1988.
Kostelanetz, Richard (ed.), John Cage, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970.
Kostelanetz, Richard (ed.), Writings About John Cage, Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press, 1993.
Kuhn, Laura and James Pritchett, ‘Cage, John’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy,
<http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 15 February 2008).
Maconie, Robin, Other Planets: The Music of Karlheinz Stockhausen, Lanham:
Scarecrow Press, 2005.
Matossian, Nouritza, Xenakis, New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1986.
Mead, Rita, Henry Cowell’s New Music 1925-1936: the Society, the Music Editions and
the Recordings, Ann Arbor, Mich : UMI Research Press, 1981.
Miller, Leta E., ‘Henry Cowell and John Cage: Intersections and Influences, 19331941', Journal of the American Musicological Society 59:1 (Spring 2006), 47-111, 234.
Nicholls, David, ‘Brown, Earle’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy,
<http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 9 June 2008).
Nicholls, David (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Cage, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Patterson, David, 'Cage and Beyond: An Annotated Interview with Christian Wolff',
Perspectives of New Music 32:2 (1994), 54-87.
Potter, Keith., 'Earle Brown in Context', The Musical Times Vol. 127 No. 1726 (Dec.,
1986), 679-683.
Pritchett, James, ‘The Development of Chance Techniques in the Music of John Cage’,
PhD diss., New York University, 1988.
Pritchett, James, The Music of John Cage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993.
50
Retallack, Joan (ed.), Musicage: Cage Muses on Words, Art and Music, Hanover:
University Press of New England, 1996.
Revill, David, The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life, London: Bloomsbury
Publishing Limited, 1992.
Rivest, Johanne, ‘Le "Concert for Piano and Orchestra" de John Cage, ou les limites de
l'indétermination’, PhD diss., Université de Montréal, 1996.
Sculthorpe, Peter, Sun Music, Sydney: ABC Books, 1999.
Stacey, Peter F., Boulez and the Modern Concept, Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1987.
Stockhausen, Karlheinz, '... wie die Zeit vergeht …', Die Reihe 3 (1957): 13-42. Trans.
by Cornelius Cardew as '... How Time Passes ...', English ed. of Die Reihe 3 (1959): 10–
40.
Stockhausen, Karlheinz, Texte zu Eigenen Werken zur Kunst Anderer Aktuelles, Köln:
Verlag M. DuMont Schauberg,1964.
Stockhausen, Karlheinz, Texte zur Elektronischen und Instrumentalen Musik, Köln:
Verlag M. DuMont Schauberg,1963.
Takahashi, Yuki, ‘Letter to the Editor’, Tempo Vol. 115 (1975), 53-54.
Toop, Richard, ‘Ferneyhough, Brian’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy,
<http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 9 June 2008).
Toop, Richard, ‘Stockhausen, Karlheinz’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy,
<http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 9 June 2008).
Truelove, Stephen, ‘The Translation of Rhythm into Pitch in Stockhausen’s
“Klavierstück XI”’, Perspectives of New Music Vol. 36, No. 1 (Winter 1998), 189-220.
Ulman, Erik, ‘The Music of Sylvano Bussotti’, Perspectives of New Music Vol. 34, No.
2 (Summer 1996), 186-201.
Varga, Bálint András, Conversations with Iannis Xenakis, London: Faber and Faber,
1996.
Walker, Alan, Franz Liszt: Volume Two, The Weimar Years, 1848-1861, London: Faber
and Faber, 1989.
Wolff, Christian, 'On Form', Die Reihe Vol. 7 'Form―Space' (1964), 26-31.
Xenakis, Iannis, ‘Tutorial Article: Determinacy and Indeterminacy’, Organised Sound
1:3 (December 1996), 143-155.
Xenakis, Iannis, Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition,
51
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971.
General References:
Adorno, Theodor W. (ed. J.M. Bernstein), The Culture Industry, London: Routledge,
1991.
Adorno, Theodor W. (trans. Rodney Livingstone), Quasi Una Fantasia – Essays on
Modern Music, London: Verso, 1992.
Allan, Robert (ed.), The Penguin English Dictionary, Third Edition, London: Penguin
Books, 2007.
Behrman, David and Henri Pousseur, ‘The Question of Order in New Music’,
Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn – Winter, 1966), 93-111.
Behrman, David, ‘What Indeterminate Notation Determines’, Perspectives of New
Music, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring – Summer, 1965), 58-73.
Berger, Karol and Anthony Newcomb (eds.), Music and the Aesthetics of Modernity,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Blass, Joseph Herring, ‘Indeterminacy as a Factor in Scientific Attitudes and Artistic
Attitudes of the Twentieth Century’, PhD diss., Florida State University, 1968.
Boretz, Benjamin and Cone, Edward T. (ed.), Perspectives on Notation and
Performance, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1976.
Christensen, Thomas (ed.), The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Cope, David H., New Directions in Music, Fourth Edition, Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown
Publishers, 1984.
Eco, Umberto, The Open Work, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Feisst, Sabine M., 'Der Begriff “Improvisation” in der neuen Musik', PhD diss., Freie
Universität Berlin, 1995.
Gann, Kyle, American Music in the Twentieth Century, New York: Schirmer Books,
1997.
Godfrey, David and Elliott Schwartz, Music Since 1945: Issues, Materials, and
Literature, New York: Schirmer Books, 1993.
Griffiths, Paul, A Concise History of Modern Music: From Debussy to Boulez, London:
Thames and Hudson, 1978.
Griffiths, Paul, Modern Music and After: Directions Since 1945, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
52
Griffiths, Paul, 'Aleatory', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy,
<http://www.grovemusic.com> (Accessed 15 February 2008).
Hasty, Christopher F., Meter as Rhythm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Jeppesen, Knud, The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance, London: Oxford
University Press, 1946.
Karolyi, Otto, Modern American Music: from Charles Ives to the Minimalists, London:
Cygnus Arts, 1996.
Kramer, Johnathan D., The Time of Music: New Meanings, New Temporalities, New
Listening Strategies, New York: Schirmer Books, 1988.
Nyman, Michael, Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, London: Studio Vista, 1974,
repr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Potter, Gary Morton, ‘The Role of Chance in Contemporary Music’, PhD diss., Indiana
University, 1971.
Reynolds, Roger, ‘Indeterminacy: Some Considerations’, Perspectives of New Music
Vol. 4, No. 1 (Autumn – Winter, 1965), 136-140.
Rich, Alan, American Pioneers: Ives to Cage and Beyond, London: Phaidon Press
Limited, 1995.
Stone, Kurt, Music Notation in the 20th Century: a Practical Guidebook, New York: W.
W. Norton, 1980.
Taruskin, Richard, The Oxford History of Western Music, Volume 5, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005.
Watkins, Glenn, Soundings: Music in the Twentieth Century, New York: Schirmer
Books, 1988.
Whittall, Arnold, Exploring Twentieth-Century Music: Tradition and Innovation,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Williams, Alastair, New Music and the Claims of Modernity, Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Limited, 1997.
Websites:
The Earle Brown Music Foundation 2009, Rye, Accessed 31 October 2009,
<http://www.earle-brown.org/index.php>.
Karlheinz Stockhausen Official Website – Stockhausen.org 2009, Kürten, Accessed 31
October 2009, <http://www.stockhausen.org/>.
53
Appendix 1
Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble Performance Notes
Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble uses note omission throughout, in which performers
may remove notes from their part, and replace them with a rest of an equivalent value.
The performers may remove as many or as few notes as they desire. However, the use
of note omission must serve to highlight potential in the overall piece that would not
otherwise be present if the score were played as written. In this sense, the score does not
necessarily represent an ideal performance, but rather a superset of possibilities. During
rehearsal and performance, the players may make their decisions dependently or
independently of each other as they desire. In general terms, although there is no single
correct way of approaching Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble, performers still need to
use their stylistic and artistic judgement when choosing which notes to omit.
In Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble, the double bar lines represent the compositions'
structure; however, the performers must maintain a constant tempo both within and
when moving between sections.
54
Appendix 2
Lots of Pieces for String Quartet Performance Notes
Lots of Pieces for String Quartet uses note omission, in which performers may remove
notes from their part, and replace them with a rest of an equivalent value, note
shortening, in which performers may shorten the duration of a note by subtracting some
or all of the value from the end of the note, and replacing this space with silence, and
note contraction, where the performers may remove a note from a piece, and proceed as
if that note did not exist in the score. The performers may apply these procedures to as
many or as few notes as they desire. However, the use of note omission must serve to
highlight potential in the overall piece that would not otherwise be present if the score
were played as written. In this sense, the score does not necessarily represent an ideal
performance, but rather a superset of possibilities. During rehearsal and performance,
the players may make their decisions dependently or independently of each other as
they desire. In general terms, although there is no single correct way of approaching
Lots of Pieces for String Quartet, performers still need to use their stylistic and artistic
judgement when choosing which notes to omit.
In Lots of Pieces for String Quartet, the double bar lines represent the compositions'
structure. There should be an audible break between pieces, and the next piece can only
be begun once all performers have finished the previous piece.
55
Appendix 3
Piece 2 for Solo Cello Performance Notes
Piece 2 for Solo Cello uses note omission, in which performers may remove notes from
their part, and replace them with a rest of an equivalent value, note shortening, in which
performers may shorten the duration of a note by subtracting some or all of the value
from the end of the note, and replacing this space with silence, and note contraction,
where the performers may remove a note from a piece, and proceed as if that note did
not exist in the score. The performers may apply these procedures to as many or as few
notes as they desire. However, the use of note omission, note shortening and note
contraction must serve to highlight potential in the overall piece that would not
otherwise be present if the score were played as written. In this sense, the score does not
necessarily represent an ideal performance, but rather a superset of possibilities. During
rehearsal and performance, the cellist may pre-prepare or spontaneously interpret the
score as they desire. In general terms, although there is no single correct way of
approaching Piece 2 for Solo Cello, performers still need to use their stylistic and
artistic judgement when choosing which notes to omit.
56
Contraction
q=80
Vc.

Omission
Contraction
Shortening

                              
               

 

              


10
Vc.
Kit Buckley
March 3, 2010 - Jan 23, 2011
 
                          


pp
Violoncello
5
Piece 2 for Solo Cello
Contraction
cresc.
Vc.
Vc.
15
Omission
q=120
18
Contraction
 
                                 
mp
 


      
                         
22
Vc.
        
  

            




Omission




        

                     
27
Vc.
Omission
Contraction
Contraction Omission
                     


 


    
 
 
31
Vc.
35
Vc.
 

Vc.

                      Shortening

     
    




q=100
  
 

39
    

















   
 
                  
f
 
     
     





        
 

 
ppp cresc. fff
Omission
50
Vc.
Omission Shortening
Copyright © 2010
       
  


2
     

 
 

61
Vc.
67
Vc.

f

Contraction
q=132
        

       
      


            
p
dim.
       
71
Vc.
 

Vc.
        
     
             
     


    

 

Omission
      
      
  
 

fff dim.
       
  
  
ff dim.
Omission
Shortening Omission
   
       


          
   
dim.
88
f
91
Vc.

q=132
Omission
p
Vc.

Shortening Contraction
83
Vc.
            
Shortening
Shortening Omission


       

              

            
           




pp
79
Vc.
               
mp
f
75
mf

   
           

   
Shortening
pp
Contraction
     
           

ppp
              

        
      
                      


93
Vc.
Omission
 
 
                         
 
96
Vc.
cresc.
Vc.
Contraction
q.=80
                


 


99
p
   
 
mp
   
    

         










 

      

107
Vc.
f


Shortening
3
q=80
114
Vc.
3


                              
pp

   
    










    
  

   

122
Vc.

        

128
Vc.

 

   
141
Vc.
   
147
Vc.


    
152
Vc.

Contraction

 


Omission
135
Vc.
    
  







        
 


                     
  

 
Shortening
   

       

3
Omission


      


   
 

3:2
e
Contraction
q._q_q=72 (e=504)
                         


f
                         
Omission
Contraction






















       

      
157
Vc.
Omission






























       
   
162
Vc.
q=120 Omission
pizz. arco
              
  
      

               
167 Contraction
Vc.
arco


 
 
     




       
    
       
    
172
Vc.
pizz.
4

  

Vc.
Vc.
185
Vc.
 


   

   

 
  

 
     



    
Omission

  

Vc.


p
221
Vc.

230
Vc.


  
  


 
pp



q=72
mp
sul pont. sul tasto

 

  
Shortening
gliss.
gliss.

Contraction

      
    
     

  
  

       
  
  
Omission
 

         


Shortening Omission
q=80
217 Omission








              

211 Omission
Vc.
 

       



Shortening Omission
203
Vc.
 
 
     


196
Vc.
  

Omission
q=60
189
Vc.
q=96
Shortening

  

     
   
               

    
 


 
   
181
  
 



 



















     



 
 
    








176
 



Omission
q=80
arco

   
 

Contraction
        
arco

Contraction Shortening

   
 gliss. 

gliss.


sul pont.


 
 

Shortening
arco
sul tasto sul pont. sul tasto
 

 
        
 

       

f
237
Vc.



240
Vc.


 
 







 





   

 
            
5
Accel.





 

 

  


dim.
   

ppp



q=96
 
mp

  
5
 

 















  
    

















  

5
6
243
Vc.
6
6

 
 

248
Vc.
6
Vc.
p
6
6


  
 



6
    
 
f dim.
Shortening
  
6
7
 










    






 
   











   Shortening

























     

 


258
Vc.
    
 
       
 


253 Omission
 

q=80
mp
pizz.
pizz.
arco
arco
















    
 
 













          
                     


 



mp
e=80
265
Vc.
Omission
p
arco
arco

  pizz.
   


        pizz. 
  

  
 








           







    
                
     
 

 

 


273
Vc.
mp
arco
  pizz.
   


         







        
      
           




         
     


 


arco



 pizz.

287

   
     pizz.


           



 
     
       
         
  

       
280
Vc.
Vc.
 
  
   

    
  
6
293 q=144
Vc.
  arco

                















ff
295
Vc.

            























 
                            













 


297
Vc.
           











299
Vc.
Shortening
e=176
Contraction
302
q=72
Vc.


f dim.
 


 
Omission
320
Vc.


326
Vc.




Shortening
q=60

ppp cresc. fff

   


 



         
  
311
Vc.

 
















   





 

mp
 




   




      
   






dim.
Omission, Shortening or Contraction
q=72
   



 
    
  

      
p
  
 
            

        
     

Lots of Pieces for String Quartet
q=132 - Note omission
Violin I

         
p
5
5
3
        
    
mf
 
Violin II

         
Viola
Violoncello
Kit Buckley
February 5 2010 - February 22 2011


p


    







mf
3











Vln. I 
                       
 
Vln. II
 5   


5
 


 
 




   

 


                                    












 





    











 


Vc.



   

Vla.
6













Vln. I 
                                   
    


  



 


Vln. II 


  
 

   
Vla.
Vc.

 
 

                                           





 


 



 


 


   
2
9

 
Vln. I 
 

 

Vln. II
 

 
 

 
  





5


5
        

5





 

11








Vln. I 
                     
Vln. II
Vla.
 


                           
    
Vla.
Vc.


 
 



   
 
   




 





cresc.

  

    

                             
   





Vc.
           




 



      
               
Vln. I 





mp
cresc. 5
    
















Vln. II     
   
5
13
Vla.
       



Vc.
 




 
 
 
     

 
 


mp

 
             
cresc.
3
       
 
       
 
    
   
Vln. I  
      
      
       
15
mf
cresc.


5
3
    

 
   
     

 
   


f



                      
        






   
 
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.

   
  
     
cresc.
      





cresc.
f





 
  

 

 
mf

q=96 - Note shortening
18
5

Vln. I  
                                        
    
 
mf



 
Vln. II 
 
   

p
        


Vla.  
       
Vc.




21


Vln. I 
    
 
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.

  


 
 

  
 

p



p
  

          
   

  




3







    
5

      
    



4
24

Vln. I         
   
 

Vln. II

Vla.
Vc.





     
           
           
             
  




 

 





    
 
 
Vln. I    
 
     
    
     
 
27
   
Vln. II
  
Vla.
Vc.




 



31
 
 
Vla.
Vc.






 


Vln. I    
       
 
 

Vln. II  
 







  
  

     
 




   


 
     


  

 
     




 

   
      

          
       

    
   


 
 
 
 
 


  


 
 


5
34

       








                

Vln. I 
  
   
  
  
 


 

Vln. II 
  
    


Vla.
Vc.

  
 
39

Vln. I 
 
Vln. II
 
Vla.
Vc.

 










mp



mp
 



      
Vln. I    
     




 
    
Vln. II 


      
Vla.  

  
51
Vln. I
 


Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.


mp

    




    
 



  

 
 
  

q.=144 - Note omission
     

pp
    


   
  

    
 




   


   
4


   


           



      
  


 
     

pp











    
   

   
  

  


         
   

         
mp
    
4



     
 
 
45
Vc.


  


 





  
     
 



 
 
 

 


 
q=60 - Note contraction
     





   




      

pp
 


  



pp

 

  
   

6
57
Vln. II
Vla.
 


 



Vln. I 

    


  
 
Vc.
  

 



63

Vln. I  


   


   
   





         

 


 
    
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.

 
 
73

Vln. I  
Vln. II


 

     


  

     

  

4

  





  







    




 






 


  
     


 

    




  
     








 
  




  

      


     

  



     

 




Vla.    

 

Vc.
    
 
  

   
     



  

 

  
    



 

 
 



  
    




 
 




   
   
     
 
 



 
     
 
   
  

 

    




  
    
Vla.  
  

   

Vc.

 

68

 








Vln. I 
   

Vln. II







 






  

7
79
   
Vln. I    



Vln. II  
 

 
Vla.  
Vc.





 


Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.

 
    
 






 
 
  

  


     


   
      
 
 
   



 
 


 
    

    
   
 


85

      
 
Vln. I 

 

  
 
 







 



    
   
     
q=132 - Note omission
mp


             




mp




89
               











   
    
 

Vln. I       
Vln. II
Vla.
              
                     
                                    
mp
                                   
Vc.


mp
 
                
Vln. I 
   
                 
Vln. II 
   
    

Vla. 
               
92
Vc.

            
             
          




                                     
8
95
                










        


  


   
       
  

 













 
   
 



Vln. I 
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.


                                    








Vln. I 








  
                 
Vln. II          
                          




      
 




Vla. 
98
Vc.



 
                  

 

        
    
                   
Vln. I 

  
   
  
 
Vln. II 
     










                              
Vla. 
Vc.
101


     

        
   







    

   









      
          







105
                                    
Vln. I 
 
              
Vln. II 
         

           
Vla. 
Vc.

   

 

  
       







                        
9
108
             
Vln. I 
 
 

Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.
 
 

      

Vln. II
Vla.
 
   
Vc.

3


114
Vln. II
Vla.


mf

  

 
mf

  
 

 






 
  


Vc.
    

3

 
  


3

 

3
3

     

3
    



 
   


 

 




    






3
    

  
   

   
      

 


3
3
   
 



 


     
3
    

3
  



     

3


 

 
     

 
 3  
 

3



3




      

   


pizz.
pizz.
3
       

 5 
       
    

pizz.
3
          

 3 
Vln. I 

 

  

 
  

     
mf
 
3  






    
mf

111
Vln. I

   


 





 

q=100 - Note omission
pizz.


3

 
 3
        


   


3

 

3
10
 4:3q 


117


Vln. I  
 
 
     
 
3:2e
Vln. II
 
Vla.
q=88 - Note shortening
mute, sul tasto




 
 
  
 
 
    
 



 


 

134
Vln. I



Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.


 

 
pp

 



 

 



  

 
 

 
 
 

   
 
 
 


 
 
 

  

   

    

   
  
 

h.=60 - Note contraction
unmute, arco



                       



p unmute, arco

  

9
9
9






mf
unmute, arco
9
    
 
                  



   
p

 
 
 
 
 
 
Vc.

pp
125
Vla.

pp
mute, sul tasto


Vln. I   
Vln. II

mute, sul tasto

           
  
 

Vc.
 

pp
mute, sul tasto



 

unmute, arco
mf








     
    




11
139
Vln. I
 
   
 
9
 

Vln. II
  
   




  
  
     
9
   
 

9
9
9
 
         
 


    
                  
     
         





      



Vc.



 


Vla.
144
9
               
        



   
 
   
Vln. I 

Vln. II


149

Vln. I 



       


  

 



       

  



            

9
  
 
9



                 
 
9
  
9
  
 
 
 


9
  












9
 



          
 
       
 
              
    
             


Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.

9
9

           
Vla.
Vc.

9

       
 

 






     


12
154
                    


           





  
Vln. I 
9
Vln. II
9
    

 
  

9
9
 
  

9

 
    

 



          
  
 










Vla.
      
  
      

             
Vc.






9
   
            
                    
 
Vln. I 
9
159
Vln. II

  
9
9

 
   
 
  

 


   
 
9

   
    















Vla.
          


 

 














  
 
 

Vc.
 
 

q=80 - Note shortening
164
  9

Vln. I 

  

Vln. II 
Vla.
    
  

  

Vc.











  
gliss.
gliss.
 
p

 


f
 
gliss.

dim.
gliss.

mp
3g
liss.


  
mf
gliss.
  
gliss.

gliss.



 



gliss.


 
gliss.

 
gliss.

 
gliss.
 
gliss.
cresc.
gliss.



p
13

gliss.
168

 
Vln. I  
gliss.




gliss.
gliss.
gliss.
Vln. II
 
Vc.


Vln. II
Vla.

 
3
 .
gli
ss
cresc.
gliss.

  

p
.   gliss.

  
  
gliss
gliss.
gliss.
gliss.
f dim.


cresc.
gliss.
177

Vln. I      



mp


 
gliss.

f

p
 
 



pp
pp cresc.
ff dim.

  
 

pp 


ff


 

glis
s.

 
p
gliss.
 

mf
mp cresc.

    
ff
 
f
p
3

p
 
ppp
gliss.
 

 
  
  
 

    

  

gliss.
gliss.
pp
gliss.
dim.

  
mf

  


 

f
dim.

   
pp

gliss.
ppp cresc.

3
gliss.
dim.

mf
gliss.
 
  



  
gliss.
gliss.
 
     


gliss.



 
f
q=96 - Note shortening


3
  
gliss.


mf
 



  

cresc.

 
  
gliss.
gliss.
gliss.
mf
gliss.
gliss.
mp
gliss.
  



  
gliss.

    


Vc.





Vc.
 
   
cresc.
gliss.
Vla.
  

    
3
pp
Vln. II
gliss.
cresc.

 
gliss.
 
 

3
p
     
cresc.
gliss.

gliss.


Vln. I  
gliss.
p

172
gliss.
         

dim.
Vla.
gliss.

pp
gliss.
dim.
  
 
 gliss.
p cresc.

ff


fp
3
 
mf
    
f dim.
14
183
 
 
Vln. I 


 
pp dim. ppppp
fp dim.
3
          
3
Vln. II
fff
3
    
Vla.
Vc.
f

  

mp
pp dim.



  3  


Vln. I 
 
Vln. II
  
Vla.
 


p
   

 
Vc.

3


f dim.


3


   
mp

p

 
mp cresc. fffff



ppppp

pp
mp


    


 
ppppp

mf
q=80 - Note contraction





ppp

p
3





fff
 3 


ff dim.

ff dim.
  
mp
  
 
fff dim.


 
 
 


f

 
mp

ff
ff dim.


   

ppp cresc. 3

ppppp
f dim.
p
ppppp ff
f

  


dim.
pp
mf

  



mp
 

189
pp
pp
 
p


    

         
sempre p
         
sempre p
       


sempre p


       

sempre p
194

Vln. I 
                                       
       



                          
                                  
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.

  
  
     
                             








15
198


     

Vln. I 
















         

     


                         
   





 
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.



                                 
                                          





q=70 - Note shortening



Vln. I 
                          
202




   



Vln. II 








       

 
       
  
mp
                        



Vla.


                       


   
Vc.
  


mp
mp
206

Vln. I  
Vln. II
Vla.





 
                     




 
    



   
 
  

  

 






 
 

  

  








mp




  
   
Vc.  



 


     
 



  
 

16

210

Vln. I  
 
Vln. II

Vla.
Vc.



Vln. I


3



214









 

 


Vla.    
    



Vc.
 
  

 
 

 





 
 

Vc.



















 



   
 



  





  






     
Vln. I 
 




        

Vln. II 
 
 
5
5
      
5






   
       
Vla.
    



  
 




 

 






 






 







 5    

 
 

4




     



  5 
 
 
Note shortening applied
independently to each string
q=88
  
         
 

f

 





3
  



 





     
 




     

        


  



      
 
217
5



 

 
 





 
 


    
   



 
Vln. II

  
 
 
 
 





      
     

f



f


 

  


f






 

17
 
 
Vln. I 
Vln. II
Vla.

 




 

    
    
  


  
  

Vc.
 

231
Vln. I
Vln. II
Vla.



 
 


223
 
 







    
    




 




     
       
 


  







 
Vc.
  

 


 

 
  

  
 



 
 
  











 


  
 

 
 
 
      
       

 


  
 
 




    
    
 

 
  
  










     

   

 


 



 




  
 
 

 

 






      
   
   
 
   


   
    

    











Note contraction (only applies to notes, not rests, which retain their full value)
240 q=70
 
Vln. I   
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.

mf 

  
 
 
  
mf










 


mf







 



        

mf

 
  
            



    


 


  

   
  
 
  

  


   
 







 
18
244

  

 
 















Vln. I  







 
  

  
 


 





Vln. II 



  
 


  

  



Vla.  

   


 
 

   

 
   
 
3





Vc.



 


 


  



     
 

  


 
      
 
        
Vln. II 
248
 


  
        
  





Vla.
                

  


  



Vc.





  
   
Vln. I
  




  





Vln. I 
 
     


     
Vln. II 
       
5
5
      
5
  


          
Vla. 

  
 


252
5
Vc.




  
 


 

 
 

 




  
      








        
 3 
 
 





 
 5 
    


 


 5 

 



  
q=72 - Note shortening

 4



p
 


 


 


p


p
p
19
 
Vln. I 

256
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.



261

Vln. I 
Vln. II
Vla.
Vc.




Vc.
 






  


    

 


 
 
 


 
 

 




  


 
 
    
 
 


  
  

 
 





 
  
pp
  

 
    

 


pp
pp
   
         
 

  
 
 




 

  
 
 


 
  


pp

 

 

       


    

 
 
 
 
  
Vln. I 
Vla.

 
265
Vln. II
 



 
 


 


 
 
 


Piece for Large Chamber Ensemble
q=100
Apply Note Omission throughout the piece
Piccolo
Oboe
Alto Saxophone
Contrabassoon
 


 

  
 
    
 

 
Snare Drum

 

Vibraphone  

mp

f






Violoncello

Double Bass
 
 
 
mf
mp




     



  

mf




5

  

3
 

mp
5



mp
  

3
p

 

  
mf

q=100
 Apply Note Omission throughout the piece
Violin  


 


p 3

mp

 
      



   
 


mp

  
Trumpet in C   
Tuba


3
mp


5
mp
  

Kit Buckley
Feb 2, 2010 - Apr 17, 2010


 

 

  

  
 
 



3




    

p
mp
mp



 



3
 


3



 
3


2
5
Picc.
 

  5


   

mf

      
Ob.

Alto Sax.
mf
 
Cbsn.
 
C Tpt.
Tba.
S. D.





 


 





Db.


mp


 





   


mf

     ff
 



   


  



mf


3
   
3





 











mp

 

 
3
mp


mp 3

  

f

mp
 



p
  

mf


  
        





 
p



3
 
 
 
          
pp

p
 

f
f
 
3
mp
 


 


 
Vc.
   

 
   


Vib.  


mp

f
Vln. 1
    





 
mp
3

mp



   

mp



  

3
10


Picc.  
Ob.
 
Alto Sax.
 
Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.

mp 3

Vc.

 


 


 




mf
mp

 
   



f



 
 


mp



p
  



  


 
mp
 
 




 

f









 
 


  
   


   


p


 
3
mp


  


f








    
3

mf




 

3




  
3
mp
 
 

mf

3
mf
  
mp
mp
 





 
 
Db.
 
mp

p

3

 
 
   

Vib.  

Vln. 1


3
subito p
mp
   



mp
 


  
p

      
 
mp
S. D.
mp
 



 
 
 
p
 

mp


4

15

Picc.  

Alto Sax.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.
S. D.
Vib.




ff
fff





 












 


ff




 

f

 





f



Db.
 


 
ff

 
 

 
fff
  




fff


Vln. 1  
Vc.

ff
  
Ob.

         
pp cresc.
fff
pp


  






f





f


ff
fff




fff



ff

    
ppp




fff
 



fff








   

p 

   
 




fff

p
 

pp
5
21

Picc. 

fp
 
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.


 


    




3
   
mp

 
pp
 

  
    
 
pp
3

  
p
   
 
p
   
 
p




  3  3 
   
3
 



Vln. 1 
Vc.

Db.

mp







 
3
mp


3



 
p





mf

mp
3


 




3
p









pp
   
  

 




mp



mp dim. ppp

S. D.
Vib.





p

 
Ob.


3
 









p


 
 
       
pp

 
 
pp
   

    
mp


      






mp
mp

6
29

Picc.  
   


   


Ob.

Alto Sax.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.





S. D.
Vib.

Db.


pp

   


 
p

  


 


   


 

   







pp



 


   
 

 


 
pp

Vln. 1  
Vc.




   
  


 






 
ppp



ppp




 
p




 
  

   




3
 

 
 
  
p

 

 
p


 

     
 
 
       

p










mp
   

 

 
p

ppp




mp









 
mp

mp


p


 
  

   
   

  
   

p
3
 
 
7
36


Picc.  
 
Alto Sax.
C Tpt.
Tba.
S. D.
 

      
Ob.
Cbsn.



 

   

3
  



  
  
 


     

  
 




   

 

 










  
 
 
 
  
mf
  



 


   



mp
mp


  




     mp







  
  



 
 
   
3
3
 



    
mf
  





 

  
 





 





      

mf

 

mp






  

 
 
 


    


   






mf


   



  

mf
mf



 

mp
     
   
Db.

Vc.
3


  


 


Vln. 1 
Vib.



 
 

 





 
 
 
  

sempre mf
 
sempre mf


 

 
8
43
  
Picc. 



mf
Alto Sax.


 
S. D.
Vib.
Vln. 1
   
 


mp


















mf





mp





 
p
 
 





 


 
   






  





p




 

 











   







mp
   
        
    
  

mp
 


   


    

   


3
      
mf



Db.
 
Vc.
 


p
 
mf
 


3

3

   
  

 
  
mf
mp

C Tpt.  
Tba.

       
mf
3





Ob.
Cbsn.












  
 




p





p 

        





 



 



 
p



p




 






    







  



 

pp
9
51

Picc. 
Alto Sax.
C Tpt.
Tba.

 













pp
  

 
 







  











3
   

 
3
 


pp


   
Vln. 1 
Db.





      







Vc.


pp


S. D.
Vib.


   
Ob.
Cbsn.






pp


    

    






pp
 


 
pp


3


               
p


  
pp















pp

pp

  
 

pp
3
   






 




10
58

Picc.  

 
Ob.
  


  
Alto Sax.
   
C Tpt.


     
Vln. 1


 
   
 
Vc.
Db.

 
S. D.
Vib.


 



 
 





3
 





 
  
  











 

 





  


 









  

 


 



 

 
 


  


 






     

 





  

  

  

  



3


               

  





  

 
Cbsn.
Tba.



 
   








11
65

Picc. 





Ob.
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.





Vib.
mf

 
 






f



f
p













f






  


ff



pp




 


 
mp



  
mp



 






 
ff



 



  

3
fff

mp
    
p
 
fff

3
 

mf

f

mp


 
ppp



  







Db.




Vln. 1 
Vc.
  


p

S. D.
   



ff



fff

C Tpt. 
Tba.


  

mp


mf





 








pp
  
mp

12
72

Picc. 

  
Alto Sax.


mp
 
Ob.
 
 

fff
 





ff


  




ff

 


  

mf
f


mf
Cbsn.



C Tpt.  
Tba.


ff


   






ff



Vib.





    

fff


Vc.
Db.


  
 

 
 mp

   

 

3
ff





   


f





 


   

ppp
pp



 

f

  


mp

mp



  


p
mf
Vln. 1


  

fff
f




pp
S. D.

    
 
mf

pp










p

ppp

ff



 





  
ff
13
79

Picc. 









Ob.
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.























   
fff

f
3

3
   
mf






  
 
ppp
  


mp





f
mp





         
 
 




S. D.
Vib.

 
pp




mp
   
mp
ppp fffff







  

5
    

   

mp
mp

Vln. 1 

Vc.


Db.



mp fff






  
ppp


 

 
3:2e
mf



  


fff
mf
  
mp

mp

mp
 



  




14
86

Picc. 

Ob.
 
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.

3

   


3

3
   



   



3
mp

mp
  


3

mp



3

3

3



   
3
  
3

3
 
mp


3


                          
C Tpt.      
Tba.

           
 



S. D.
Vib.
Vln. 1

Db.

 

5
    



                              

 
Vc.

 
 





















 

 
  
 
 

 





 

 

 







  
 



  

 




 
 


15
  
91

Picc.  











      




Tba.

       
 






3




  
   
3
5
5
       

     
Vib. 

Vln. 1

 

Vc.
Db.

subito fff
3
3

3
    


S. D.



Alto Sax.
C Tpt.


Ob.
Cbsn.
  


subito fff

 

5
5
                       
ppp cresc.











 



 

  


 
  

subito fff

96

Picc. 
Ob.


   
f

   



5

Cbsn.
 


C Tpt. 

S. D.
Vib.
Vln. 1
 






f


  

      
3









5
6
        

            

f

                   
5
ff

6


f




  
f

 
 




  




16

100


Picc.  
Alto Sax.
C Tpt.
Tba.
Db.

  
 
f

 
      



    
5


 
3










f
   
 

3
  




7


S. D.
Vc.
6
f
 
         

6


 

3
3








5
 
 
               


f


 

f


104
Picc.




  
 
Ob.  

  
f
C Tpt.
 

   

  



S. D.


   




  

Vib. 
 





f
Vln. 1
Vc.
 
Db.

 

3

ff
  


fff
















5
f
Tba.
 
 
  




  
  





   
ff



 
   
 

3



5

  



 
        

   






  


3
 





17
108

Picc. 
Cbsn.


3
      
 
 

       




fff dim.
Tba.


   









mf
ppp subito fff

S. D.
Db.

 
  

mf

   
       


fff

 


mf

mf


Picc. 
112

 
Ob.



C Tpt.

 









mf









  




 

  



mf

Vln. 1 

Vc.
Db.



  
 


 
mf
 
S. D.

mf
  

Cbsn.


 
mf


Alto Sax.
Vib.

 



     




mf




mf


  



 
18

Picc. 
115


Ob.



Alto Sax.








Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.
S. D.
Vib.

  
 

 
Vc.
Db.

 

  




 

 





Vln. 1  
 








 

 

    


 
 






  


    





 









19
118
Picc.

 
 



Ob.



Alto Sax.










Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.


 
S. D.
Vib.
Vln. 1


 
 
Vc.
Db.

 



   


5

 




  



    





   




 

 


5



    
  


 







20
121

Picc. 













Ob.
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.
S. D.
Vib.


 







  

  
 

 




5


 




 
5



5
 
 
5
   


 

Vln. 1 

   



Vc.

Db.



  






   






 
5


6




21
124

Picc. 







Ob.
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.







p







 













     




mf





 
 


mp






Vc.
 
mp


Vln. 1 
Db.


 
   

  
 
 
               
S. D.
Vib.

mp




mp

C Tpt. 
Tba.


ff

   
mp

3








3
mp



  
mp



mp


 
 


   




22
 
Picc. 
130

Ob.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.
Tba.



 




  

3


   

  

3


   
 

  

 
Alto Sax.






  
f
  



Vib.
Vln. 1

 




 


     


 



 



3
    
 


3
 

  

 



 









fff








 
 










           
   









mf
 
 



mf
 
 
Vc.
Db.

  


f
S. D.










 

23
138

Picc. 


Ob.
Alto Sax.
C Tpt.
Tba.



 





pp


   




pp







 









 

 
mp








 
      
mp








f
Vib.
Vln. 1

             









p




      


 








3
3

   
mf
 
Vc.






p
Db.

 







      

mf
3
  
   
24
146

Picc.  


 

Ob.

Cbsn.

       
 



C Tpt.




Tba.



     
  
ff







  
 










pp





3



Vln. 1 

 
pp

     
    
f
   
   
 
 
f
Vc.



S. D.
Vib.


pp
 


 
      







pp
3
Alto Sax.



   











       








ppp

     
  
pizz.
pp






  
 
f

153

Picc.  

Ob.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.




3
  
Alto Sax.
 





f






    

3
pp
Tba.

 

Vln. 1  

Db.


 
 
pp

     

   
 



       


pp






 
   
 



 
arco
 


     




3

ff


       





3






 



subito f
 

  



ff
25
158
 
Picc. 

Ob. 




  

Cbsn.
      

 
Tba.
Vib.
Vln. 1










Db.









 
3
3
      









  
   
 
3

3
3
  
  
   

 


3
  
3
 
  


 

 
 
 


 

 
 



 



pp
 5 

 


3

pp


  



3

pp



 


pp


       

pp



3
 
3
mp



Vc.




 
S. D.

mp 3

Alto Sax.
  

165

Picc. 
Ob.
Alto Sax.
S. D.
Vib.

   
  
   
 
 
 

Db.
 
5:4q
   
         
     


mf

   

Vln. 1  
Vc.



mf
   
ppp


ppp

  

  

ppp
ppp
  
ppp

3

      


   
    
 


  


  


  


   
 

ff

 


 

   


 


           








   

  

 



  

 












26

 
Picc.  
173
Ob.
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.









 
    













Vln. 1 

Vc.


Db.






f





f



mp






f
f


f
   









 
                
fff

 










f

Vib.

f


S. D.




f


f

 
Picc. 



Ob.
 



Alto Sax.
 
179
Cbsn.
C Tpt.





Vc.







 

Vln. 1  
Db.



 
S. D.
Vib.












 



  



  



















 

 

 





 











  


  

 


 









 
ff














27
 
Picc. 

 

 





 

 



 



 

186
Ob.

Alto Sax.


Cbsn.

C Tpt.


 


 


    
S. D.
Vib.




Db.



  


 

 



 






 









               




p






 



 


 






 




 
Vln. 1 
Vc.




 









Picc. 

C Tpt.
192









3
     
  
  
3
3
3
f

S. D.



                       
Vib.   

                      

Vln. 1 



Vc.

Db.

mp

pizz.
 
      

     
 
pizz.


      
 
pizz.
mf

arco

mf
mf

  5     5     5     5  

 


  

arco
  
arco
 

 



     



   


 

28
196

Ob. 
  

3
f
Cbsn.

  


Alto Sax.
3
 
 
 

3
3
3
  

 


ff
  
 


 


 
 

      
3
  

 


 


 


 
 

f
 


3
 





3






  


  5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5  

      
S. D. 
C Tpt.
3
3
3
        
 









   
3
3
3
f
 
Vln. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 







        
      
Vc.









Vib.
Db.

  










  









 
 
 

 







       





  










 


3
  






Picc. 
199

Alto Sax.
 
Cbsn.
 


Vln. 1
 
 

 



f
 


      

3

3
 




 
 

 



 


 



3
 
 


 


3
 
 
 
 

 



        





  





3
3
3


3
           

 
Vc.
Db.
     
  5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5  

       
S. D.
Vib.
3
3
3
3
            
3
C Tpt.







   
 

 







       
  











   
 

 







       
    

 

 

 
29

Picc. 
202



Ob.

3
3
               
3
 
Cbsn.
 
3





Vln. 1  
 
 
 

 



        




Vc.
Db.
3

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 



 



 















  5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5  
        
S. D.
Vib.
3
3
        
   
3
Alto Sax.

   



 

 
  


 
 
 

 







       


    

 
3

       


 

 

    

3

 

 
 


 

 
 

3



 
 



Picc. 
205
Cbsn.


 
 
 


C Tpt. 
Tba.
S. D.

 


 
 
 


 



     
fff
 


   
  

3
        







Db.
          


 



6
   



3
3

  




   
3
ppp

5
ppp







    
ppp


   
ppp
3
         
ppp


   

ppp



    
6












    
    





  




ppp








  5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5  

                 





Vln. 1        



Vc.
 


   
3
Vib.
 




30
209

Picc.  




  
 
Ob.
3
   
    
Alto Sax.

ppp



 









 







  
3


        
3


ppp
Cbsn.

 
ppp

C Tpt. 
Tba.

Vib.



 

ppp
  
Vc.

 
  
5





      
 6  

   



3

 





 
 
3
3
3
3




6

Vln. 1
Db.



S. D.

   


 


3

3



3
                      
     

  
3
3




      

  
        

 


5



 












5



5





5
31

 
212

Picc.   

Alto Sax.
C Tpt.
Tba.

Vln. 1






 


 


   
  
  





 
   


 


 







              


 
3










6


3

3
3
     
        
3
3
3
3

 3  3 
 3 
 3 








                       
  
  
 

 


  






6


 

 
  




   
   
       

6
3
3

  



Vc.
Db.



 

S. D.
Vib.
 
 




 

   
       3        



 



Ob.
Cbsn.

5
5






  
 





 
  
 



 





32
215

Picc.  

Ob.
Alto Sax.
Cbsn.
C Tpt.




   
   

  
 

 

 








 



 
3


 


      
6
  




  
 
 

6

3

 


 


 
   
 
Db.



3
3
3
3



     
6
3
  


  
   


 
 

 
 










6

   




  
         
     
3
3
3
3
3




 3  3  3 
                             


S. D. 
                       

Vib. 

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5










 


Vln. 1  







 

  
 
Vc.



Tba.
3



  





 







  
33
218

Picc.  

Alto Sax.
 



C Tpt.  
Tba.










 






     


     
  

6



  
 
6















      




 

   
















        
3
3

 ppp cresc.



  
  

          


3
3


      



S. D. 
           

Vib. 

5
5
5
5


 

Vln. 1 





 

Vc.


6
3
Db.



 




 

3
             3  



 

 
Ob.
Cbsn.



3
5
5

3
5
5




  
 

 




34
221

Picc. 





Ob.
Cbsn.


Tba.




Vib.
fff


 



fff



 

3
      


Vln. 1
Db.

pppp







fff


Picc. 
226




Ob.
3
 
Alto Sax. 
    
C Tpt.
Tba.



Vc.
gliss.


  




 



gliss.













































    






    

fff

      
      

fff


fff





fff




 
ffff
                               
     
S. D.
Vib.


fff



 

 
 

 

fff
       
  


 



fff
3




 

fff
S. D.

fff

C Tpt.  



3
3
3
3


3
3
fff
Db.





ffffff molto dim.


pppppp