playing with transformations: boulez’s improvisation iii
Post on 15-Oct-2021
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Playingwithtransformations:
Boulez’sImprovisationIIIsurMallarmé
ErlingE.Guldbrandsen
Ihaveneverbeenquiteconvincedbythewaythestoryof‘highmodernism’has
generallybeentold.Moreoftenthannot,ithasbeenasagaofradicalrupturesandnew
starts—a‘progressnarrative’involvinglimitlessconstructivismandtheincreasing
rationalisationofmusicallanguageandcompositionaltechnique.Inshort,thesimplest
historiographicaltropesseemtohaveprevailed.Moreover,technicalanalysesofthe
musicinquestionoftenfailtoaccountfortheactuallisteningexperience.The
hegemoniclanguageofstructuralanalysisandmodernisthistoriographyfromthelast
fifty-oddyearsfallsshortofthemusicalimagery,poeticsensuality,andstrangeness
presentinworksbyMessiaen,Stockhausen,Ligeti,Xenakis,Berio,Saariaho,orSciarrino.
EventhoughthegeneraltextbookimageofEuropeanpost-WorldWarIImodernismasa
predominantlyrationalisteraofstrictly‘logical’compositionisgraduallychanging,it
appearstobechangingratherslowly.Duringthelastsixdecades,mainstreamstructural
analysesofmusicbyPierreBoulez(b.1925)—aprominentfigureinpostwar
modernismandaco-founderofso-called‘total’serialistcomposition—seemtohave
takenforgrantedacertainnotionofserialismthatemphasisestheneedforstructural
unityandrationalcompositionalcontrol.Toasurprisingextent—asidefromcertain
valuableexceptionsinmorerecentdecades—thegeneralanalyticalliteratureon
Boulez’smusicresortedtoaterminologyofsuchconceptsasstructuralcoherence,
2
unity,consistency,order,strictness,rigour,discipline,deduction,logic,necessityand
rationalcompositionalcontrol.Icallthisthe‘unityandcontrolmodel’ofserialism.1
AsimilarideainformsreadingsofBoulez’stheoreticalwritings,fromRelevésd’apprenti
toLeçonsdemusique.2Thislopsidedunderstandingofserialismwasintertwinedwith
thehardcorestructuralanalysisof‘formalist’musicologyfromthe1950sonward.3
Closelyrelatedtothe‘unityandcontrolmodel’ofserialismistheoftenunmentioned
historiographicalfigurewhoconstruespostwarhighmodernismasabreakwiththe
past—onethattriestoobliterateanytracesoftheclassic-romantictraditionofWestern
artmusic.
ItistruethatBoulez’sownrhetoricalstrategiesastheoristandpolemicisthave
themselvescontributedtotherationalistopticsthathasgovernedourpictureofBoulez
thecomposer.Boulezevenemphasises‘coherence’and‘control’inhisarticleson
compositionaltechnique,particularlytheearlierones,thoughhistextsareundoubtedly
ambiguousonthispoint.Fromthestarthealsosignalsthepresenceofotheraesthetic
1SeereferencesinErlingE.Guldbrandsen,‘NewLightonPierreBoulezandPostwarModernism:Onthe
Compositionof“ImprovisationI–IIIsurMallarmé”’inSørenMøllerSørensen(ed),InthePlural:
Institutions,PluralismandCriticalSelf-AwarenessinContemporaryMusic(UniversityofCopenhagen,
1997),pp.15–282PierreBoulez,Relevésd’apprenti(Paris:Seuil,1966),English:Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship,
collected and ed. by Paule Thévenin, trans. Stephen Walsh (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991);Penserlamusique
aujourd’hui(Genève:Gonthier,1963),English:BoulezonMusicToday,trans.SusanBradshawandRichard
RodneyBennett(London:FaberandFaber,1971);Pointsderepère(Paris:ÉditionsChristianBourgois,
1985);Jalons(pourunedécennie)(Paris:ÉditionsChristianBourgois,1989);Regards sur autrui (Points de
repère II), collected and ed. Jean-Jacques Nattiez and Sophie Galaise (Paris: Christian Bourgois, 2005);Leçons
de musique (Points de repère III), collected and ed. Jean-Jacques Nattiez (Paris: ÉditionsChristian Bourgois,
2005).3SeeJosephKerman’sdiagnosisofWesternmusicologyandstructuralanalysisinhisseminalMusicology
(London:FontanaPress,1985).
3
andartisticinfluencesonhiscompositionalthinking,andespeciallythepowerful
inspirationofpoetryandliterature,visualartsandarchitecture,andnon-European
musics.Thesesourcesofinspirationindeedappeartomarkthestylisticandaesthetic
surfacesofworksthroughouthisœuvre,fromthegesturaleruptionsoftheSecond
Sonata(1948)andtheestrangedorientalismofLeMarteausansmaître(1955)tothe
suggestivearchaismofRituel(1975),theintrovertedmurmuringsofDialoguedel’ombre
double(1985)andtheausteredarknessandgrandeuroftheostensiblyhypermodern
live-electronicsurfacesofRépons(1981–84).Farfromcommunicatingacoldand
calculated‘rationalism’,hisworkscomeforwardaspoeticstatements,ringingthrough
theechochambersoforchestrallabyrinthsandevoking—asitwere—ficticious
imageriesofforgottenritualsandfuturisticsplendour.
Fromearlyon,too,Bouleznotedanunpredictabledimensiontohisserialistprocedures.
Thoughitishardtodistinguishbetweenearlier(generative)andlaterstagesinhis
compositionalprocess,givenhisconstantback-and-forthmovementbetweenthem,an
irruptionoffreeelementscharacterisesboth.Ontheonehand,Boulezmakesstriking
freeaestheticchoicesinlaterphasesofhismusicalarticulation,constantlymoulding
andrephrasinghisfinaltextures.4Ontheotherhand,evenmoreinterestingly,the
serialistproceduresthathedevelopsintheearlystagesofthecompositionalprocess—
insidehisverylaboratoryoftechnicalgeneration—aremarkedbyanintentional
renunciationofcompositionalpredictabilityandcontrol.
Unpredictabilityandfreechoicedonotstandinoppositiontohisserialistwriting(asin
commonplacedichotomiesofstrictness‘versus’freedom);rather,theyareconstitutive
4SeeErlingE.Guldbrandsen,‘Casting New Light on Boulezian Serialism’ in Edward Campbell and Peter
O’Hagan (eds.), Boulez Studies (Cambridge University Press, in press)
4
conditionsfortheworkingsofthesystemitself.Inmyview,thenon-rationalistleanings
thatworkatthecentreofhiscompositionalpracticeshavebeenlargelyunderestimated
intheanalyticalandhistoricalrenderingsofwhatBoulezian—andindeed,European—
highmodernismwas,oris,allabout.5InBoulez’scase,onemightlabeltheseleaningsa
‘poeticsofpracticalmusicianshipandtaste’,onethatformsanindispensiblecriterion
forhiscompositionalchoices.Also,overthepastfourdecades,theinterplaybetweenhis
workasanorchestralconductorandhismodesofcompositionalwritinghasbecome
increasinglyapparent.Isuggestthattheseexperienceshavecontributedtoanewtake
onmusicalarticulation,phrasingandforminhiscompositionsafterthemid-1970s,as
wellashislaterrevisionsofearlierscores.6
InthischapterIwilltakemyexamplesfromBoulez’s‘ImprovisationIIIsurMallarmé—A
lanueaccablantetu’.7Thepieceisthefourthandthelongestofthefivemovementsin
Pliselonpli—portraitdeMallarméforsopranoandorchestra,whichstandsasa
milestoneinBoulez’sdevelopmentasacomposer.8WhileothermovementsofPliselon
plihavebeenmorewidelyanalysed,thegrandandcomplex‘ThirdImprovisation’still
awaitsanin-depthinternationalstudy.9Iwillhereconsiderdifferentkindsof
5SeeErlingE.Guldbrandsen,‘PierreBoulezinInterview,1996(PartsI–IV)’,Tempo,65/255–58(2011)6SeeErlingE.Guldbrandsen,‘ModernistComposerandMahlerConductor:ChangingConceptionsof
PerformativityinBoulez’,StudiaMusicologicaNorvegica,32(2006),140–687Firstversion(composed1959),UniversalEdition,London1963,withdrawn;secondversion,Universal
Edition,London1983(thescoresays1982,butthepublicationdateappearstobelate1983—see
DominiqueJameux,PierreBoulez(Paris:Fayard,1984),400–401).8Pliselonpli—portraitdeMallarmé(composed1957–60;1962;1982–83;1989),London:Universal
Edition.9BriefaccountsincludeRaphaëlBrunner,‘L’“ImprovisationIIIsurMallarmé”dePierreBoulez:Éléments
pourunemiseenperspective’,Dissonanz/Dissonance,50(1996),4–14;LuisaBassetto,‘Orient—Accident?
Pliselonpli,oul’“eurexcentrisme”selonBoulez’inPierreAlbèra(ed),PliselonplidePierreBoulez:
Entretiensetetudes,pp.37–44(Genève:ÉditionsContrechamps,2003);andArnoldWhittall,‘“Unbounded
5
‘transformations’thatcanbetracedinthelong-termprocessofcomposing,playing,
recording,revisingandre-recordingthismovementintheyearsfrom1959to1983and
onward.Onebyone,inakindofgeneralisteffort,Iwilladdressthefollowingfivekinds
of‘transformations’thatareatlargeinthemusicalbecomingandunderstandingofthis
particularmovement:
1.Performativetransformations:revisionsofthescorefrom1959to1983
2.Generativetransformations:fromserialstructurestomusicalform
3.TransformationsofMallarmé’spoeticsintomusic
4.TransformationsofMallarmé’spoemintomusic
5.Historiographicaltransformationsofcurrentimagesofpostwarmodernism
Fromtheoutset,thesefivepointswillbediscussedchronologically—althoughthefirst
one,labelled‘performativetransformations,’inevitablyintersectswithalloftheother
onesbyinvokingadeeperlevelofmethodologicalimpactthroughoutthefollowing
discussion.
Performativetransformations:revisionsofthescorefrom1959to1983
Asiswellknown,Boulezfrequentlyrewriteshisscoresasseeminglyunending‘worksin
progress’—atermheborrowedfromJamesJoyce’soriginalpublicationofthenovel
FinnegansWakeasafeuilletonunderthetitle,‘Workinprogress’.Asaconductor,Boulez
likewisefrequentlyoffersnewperformancesandrecordingsofthesame‘canonical’
visions”:Boulez,MallarméandModernClassicism,’Twentieth-CenturyMusic1/1(2004),65–80.
‘ImprovisationIII’,alongwiththerestofPliselonpli,isanalysedacross630pagesinNorwegianinmy
dissertation,Tradisjonogtradisjonsbrudd:EnstudieiPierreBoulez:Pliselonpli—portraitdeMallarmé,
unpublishedPhDdissertation,UniversityofOslo(1995)(publishedOslo:ScandinavianUniversityPress,
1997).
6
worksofthetwenty-first,twentiethandlate-nineteenthcenturies,includinghisown.
WhilehispresentationofWebern’scompleteworks,forinstance(recorded1967–72)
setanewstandardinthestructuralunderstandingofthismusicatthetime,inthe
1990sheeventuallyre-recordeditall,withastrikinglynewtakeontheromantic
gesturalagogicsofWebern’smusic.10
FarfromsettinghimapartfromthecommonpracticesofWesternartmusic,this
processofincessantreinterpretationactuallytiesBoulezquitecloselytotheclassic-
romantictradition.Thoughthisisnottheplacetodigintorecentreconstructionsofthe
conceptoftheartwork,sufficeittosaythattheideaofWerktreue—emergingaround
180011—hasbeenchallengedbythegrowingscholarlyconvictionthatthemusicalwork
ofartwasneverreallyconsideredaclosedentity,likeamarblesculptureorprinted
book,butinsteadalwaysregardedassomethinginneedofconstantrenewal.(Ofcourse,
sculpturesandbooksarelikewisesubjecttonewreadingsandinterpretations.)
Boulez’s‘ImprovisationIII’waswrittenin1959andrevisedmainlyin1982–83,
producingtwo‘completed’versionsofthemusicalscore.Inaddition,non-printed
amendmentshaveappearedoutsidetheprocessesofcompleting(1959)andrevising
(1983)thework,probablyduringrehearsalsatdifferentoccasionsoverthepastfive
decades.12Amendmentsaside,therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwomain
versionsofthescore,afewofwhichIshallmentionhere.
10SeeWebernCompleteWorks,opp.1–31,SonyClassical,recorded1967–72;andCompleteWebern,
DeutscheGrammophon,recorded1992–96.11LydiaGoehr,TheImaginaryMuseumofMusicalWorks(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1992).12MinorrevisionsweremadeduringBoulez’srecordingofthepiecein1969(withHalinaLukomskaand
theBBCSymphonyOrchestra).FurtherchangesweremadeduringhisrecordingwithPhyllisBryn-Julson
andtheBBCSymphonyOrchestrainLondonin1981,resultingindeviationsbetweenthesetwo
7
Inthe1959version,thepieceopenswithfourdistinctmusicalepisodes.Afterabrief
statementintwoharps(thefirstepisode),thesopranodeliversalongvocalisepassage
(thesecondepisode)onthevowel‘A’,whichisthefirstwordofthetextthatBoulezsets
here.Thencomesabriefpassageinthemandolin,guitarandcowbells(thethird
episode),followedbyarapidexchangeintwoxylophones(thefourthepisode).
Together,thesefourtextures(pp.1–2in1959)constitutewhatIlabel‘EpisodesI’(see
figure1,below).Anotheraspectofthe1959versionisitsrelianceuponanopenform,
comprisedofseveralvariantsorossiatextures,amongwhichtheperformers—orthe
conductor—caninprinciplechoosefreelyoverthecourseoftheperformance.Thusonly
alimitedportionofthewrittenmaterialwillactuallybeperformedonanygiven
occasion.
Themusicalcontrastsamongthefourinitialepisodesarestriking,andrelatedepisodes
returninthepiece’smiddleandendingsections(‘EpisodesII’and‘EpisodesIII’,
respectively).Remarkably,Boulezmadetworecordingsofthe1959version,thereby
confirmingitsauthoritativework-status,onlytothenwithdrawthescorecompletely.
Below,Ipresentanoverviewofthemainformalsectionsinthe1959and1983versions
(seefigure1):
Figure1:
1959: 1983:
Text: Pages: Text: Pages:
EpisodesI ‘A–’ 1–2 EpisodesI Verses1–8 1–7
recordingsofthe1959score.The1983versionwasrecordedbyBoulezin2001(withChristineSchäfer
andtheEnsembleInterContemporain),againwithdeviationsfromthatscore.
8
Alpha Notext 3–21 Alpha Verses9–14 8–16
Alpha(cont’d) Notext 17–31
Interlude Verse1 22–24 Interlude1 Verse1 32–35
EpisodesII 24 EpisodesII 36–37
Beta Verse2 25–34 Beta Verse2 38–57
Gamma Verse3 35–48 Gamma Verse3 58–84
Interlude2
(new)
Verse4 84–87
EpisodesIII 49 EpisodesIII 88–90
In1983,notleasttheexposition(‘EpisodesI’)hasbeenprofoundlychanged.Several
partshavebeenaddedandtheformerlydistinctepisodeshavebeenmergedintoamuch
morecontinuousmusicalflow.Addedmaterialismostlyplayedbyinstrumentswith
sustainednotes(trombone,fivevioloncellos,threedoublebasses),asopposedtothe
predominantlyattack-resonanceinstrumentsoftheothertextures(harps,mandolin,
guitar,xylophones,otherpercussion).Moreover,allofthetraitsassociatedwiththe
1959‘openform’havebeenabandonedin1983.
Inaddition,alotofnewtexthasbeenaccommodatedinthework.Intheplaceofthe
openingvocalise,allfourteenversesfromMallarmé’ssonnethavebeenadded,anda
flutequartetnowaccompaniesthevoiceinanewkindofheterophonictextureinan
expandedmusicalexpositionof.Throughoutthisnewexposition,themusicalphrasing
hasbeenchangedandthetransitionshavebecomemorefluid,amidmuchmoreornate
musicalfiguration.Inthefirstharpepisodeonpage1ofthe1959version(example1A),
therearearelativelybarrensixattacks,comparedtotheflurryofnoteswefindinthe
1983version(example1B).
EXAMPLES1A–1B
9
Theveryfew‘structural’notesfrom1959havebeenenrichedbyrepetitions,arpeggios
and‘diagonal’gesturesinthe1983version.Thesamegoesfortherevisedepisodesfor
voice,formandolinandguitar,andforxylophones.Thisenrichmentoftextureis,
broadlyspeaking,thewayBoulezgenerallyworkswhenherevisesandexpandsonhis
earlierpieces,andhehaswroughtsimilarchangesinthemiddleandfinalsections.To
sumup,theopeningsectionseesaprofoundtransformationfromits‘punctualist’
articulationandearly,‘French-Russian’episodicform(in1959)toprocessesofmore
gradualmusicaltransitions(in1983).Theearlierepisodicformwaspossiblyrelatedto
theinfluenceofMessiaen’sconceptionofmusicalformortoStravinsky’smusicalcellsin
TheRiteofSpring;Boulez’srevisions,ontheotherhand,appeartoreflectthemore
‘Austro-German’approachtocontinuousformalprocessesthatcharacterisesthelater
stagesofhisdevelopmentasacomposer.
Irefertothisasa‘performativetransformation’,sinceIsuggestitcanpartlybeseenin
lightofBoulez’sexperiencesasanorchestralconductorthroughthe1960sand1970s.
Hisabandonmentofopenformmaybereadasaquitepragmaticdecision.Inan
interviewwithBoulezthatIattendedinLondonin2011,hestatedclearlyandsimply
thatinthiscase‘theconductor’sexperienceoverruledthecomposer’sexperience’.13His
practicalexperienceswithabroadeningrepertoire,intandemwithhisincreasingfocus
onmusicalperceptioninhiswritingsofthelate1970sandonwards,likelymotivated
thestylisticchangeshemadeinthelaterversionof‘ImprovisationIII’,andinother
pieces.Intheearly1950s,Boulezwasmainlyanalysingandconductingrecentscoresby
composerslikeWebern,StravinskyandMessiaen,aswellashisownworkandthatof
13Author’snotesfromtheSouthbankCentreinLondon,1October2011.
10
thecomposersofhisgeneration.14Inthefollowingdecades,though,hegradually
immersedhimselfmoredeeplyintheAustro-Germanrepertoireofearlymodernistand
evenlateRomanticmusic.Thegeneraltrajectorywentbackintimefromthen-
contemporaryscorestothemusicofBerg,Debussy,andWagner.
Asimilartransformation—orbroadeningofscope—tookplaceinhistheoretical
writings.Inhisearlyarticles,hedistancedhimselffromBergasthe‘romanticViennese’
infavourofWebern(in1948,BoulezwrotethatcertaintraitsofBerg’sLyricSuite
‘springfromthebadtasteofromanticeffusioncarriedtothepointofparoxysm’).15
Lateron,however,hecametoappreciateBerg’s‘organic’compositionalprocedures,16as
wellasthelong-rangemusicalprocessesofthelateWagner,whichhecomparedtothe
writingstyleofProust.WhereasWagnerhimselfcalledhisTristanmusic‘dieKunstdes
Überganges’,TheodorW.AdornolaterreferredtoBergas‘derMeisterdeskleinsten
Überganges’.17Inaddition,inBoulez’stheoreticaloutputthereisagradualshiftof
perspectivefromanearlyfocusonproblemsofcompositionaltechnique(intheearly
1950s)toanincreasinginterestinquestionsofmusicalformandtext–musicrelations
(inthelate1950s),theninmusicalperformanceandaesthetics(the1960s),andthenin
issuesofmusicalperceptioncontemporarywiththefoundingofIRCAMandthe
EnsembleInterContemporaininthelate1970sandarticulatedthroughouthislectures
14JésusAguila,LeDomainemusical:PierreBoulezetvingtansdecréationcontemporaine(Paris:Fayard,
1992)15StocktakingsofanApprenticeship,p.185(Relevésd’apprenti,p.238)16BoulezonMusicToday,pp.71–73(Penserlamusiqueaujourd’hui,pp.79–80).Seealsohisaffirmationof
thecomposerinthearticlesonBergfrom1977to1979(inPointsderepère),andlaterinhisCollègede
Francelectures(inLeçonsdemusique).17LettertoMathildeWesendonck,29October1859,inRichardWagner:Briefe(Stuttgart:Reclam,1995),
p.365.TheodorW.Adorno,AlbanBerg:DerMeisterdeskleinstenÜberganges(FrankfurtamMain:
Suhrkamp,1995).
11
attheCollègedeFrancebetween1976and1995.Withhisincreasingcommitmentsasa
conductorinthe1960sand1970s(particularlywiththeBBCSymphonyOrchestra,the
NewYorkPhilharmonicandtheWagnerFestivalinBayreuth),thereisadeclineinhis
commencementofnewcompositions.Butitisduringthistime—uptothebeginningsof
Répons(in1980)andtherevisionof‘ImprovisationIII’—whenhiscompositionalstyle
graduallychanges,andhisrevisionsofearlierscorescometoalmostoutshinethe
productionofcompletelynewworks.
However,thisnarrative,suggestingalinearhistoricdevelopmentinBoulez’sconception
ofmusicalphrasingandform—fromWebernianpointillismandFrench-Russian
episodicformtowardsAustro-GermanflowandWagneriangradualtransitions—may
verywellbetoosimpleandstraightforwardtoaccountfortheintertwinedcomplexities
oftheactualhistoricalfacts.Notably,BoulezdeploredWebern’sexcessively
‘compartmentalizedforms’andinsteadsoughtanimaginedfuturemusicwhichJonathan
Goldmansummarizesasfollows:‘ItsformswouldbemoreDebussianthanWebernian,
sinceBoulezadmirestheformalunanalysabilityofcertainpiecesbyDebussy’(suchas
Jeuxfororchestra).18
And,uponcloserexamination,wefindthatbothtendenciescoexist(inpalpabletension)
inBoulez’slarge-scalepieces,andoppositionalthinking—betweenSchoenbergian
‘organic’continuityandStravinskian‘segmented’episodes—istoobluntaninstrument
toaccountforthethirdwayforwhichBoulezseemstobesearching.Lastly,the
transitionfromthemicro-leveloftheseriestothemacro-levelofmusicalformbecamea
pressingcompositionalissueveryearlyoninhiscareer.Towardthemid-1950s,Boulez
18JonathanGoldman,TheMusicalLanguageofPierreBoulez:WritingsandCompositions(Cambridge
UniversityPress,2011),p.48
12
alreadyappearstorejectdirectdeductionsfromseriestoform.Still,thingsarenot
alwaysasclear-cutasonemighthope.Insteadofcontinuingtospeculateintheabstract,
then,letuslookabitmorecloselyat‘ImprovisationIII’.Interestingly,inthe1959
versionthereisalreadyconsiderablesupplenesstothemusicalphrasingandform,not
leastinthelongsectionsthathavebeenlabelledAlpha,BetaandGammainthe
composer’ssketches(Iwillretainthosenameshere).Weseethattheselongsections,
withtheirmoreflexiblephrasingandgeneralsinuosity,arenotchangedmuchfromthe
1959version,whichalreadyhadthisqualityofoverallmusicalflow.
Intherespectivelongsections,wehearaflexibleplaywithelasticmusicalphrasesanda
flowingcontinuitytothemusicaldevelopment.Whenweanalysetheminturn,wefind
that,foralloftheirsuppleness,theyweregeneratedusingarathercrudeand
mechanicalprocessthatseemstocontradictthepseudo-‘romantic’allureoftheresult.
Inwhatfollows,Ishallbrieflyrecapitulatethemainstepsinthegenerativeprocessof
theseweightymusicalsections,orwhatIearlierreferredtoasa‘transformation’from
(tiny)serialstructuresto(large-scale)musicalform.
Generativetransformations:fromserialstructurestomusicalform
IwillpresentthegenerativeprocessbehindAlpha,BetaandGammainninesteps,
referringtoBoulez’sverybriefdescriptioninBoulezonMusicToday(pp.135ff),
supplementedbymystudiesofhissketchesatthePaulSacherFoundation.
Step1.Thegenerationstartswiththeextremelybasicfiguresof1,2,3and4(example
2),representedindurations.
EXAMPLE2
13
Steps2–3.Theorderofthesefournumbersisfreelypermutatedandplacedintoatable
(Example3,leftcolumn).Notably,thesefreepermutationshavedecisivemusical
consequenceslaterintheprocess.Multiplicationsoverthepermutation‘4-2-3-1’
produceanexpandedtable(Example3,middlecolumn).
EXAMPLE3
Theimportantpoint,methodologicallyspeaking,isthateachgroupofnumbersnow
comestorepresentadurationalseriesofmusicalnotes(Example3,rightcolumn).This
istheColumbiegg—thebrilliantyetsimpleidea—underpinningBoulez’smethodsince
1951atleast:inhisserialiststructures,hesupplantsthepitches,durations,dynamics
andsoonwithabstractnumbers,andinsteadofworkingwithhismusicalmaterial
directly,likeSchoenbergandWeberndid,hemanipulatesthenumberstoproducethis
material.19Onemightsaythattheoverallmodernisttendencytowardsabstraction
reachesitspeakatthispoint.
Steps4–5.Superpositionanddisplacement.Next,thefourdurationalseriesare
superimposedinadurationalgrid,producingakindoffour-partpolyphony.The
entranceofeachnewpartinAlphaisthenpostponed(asBoulezdescribesit)by
‘observingthedistances1–2–2astheirlinkingprinciple’.20(InBetaandGamma,inturn,
thelinkingformulaeare2–2–1and2–1–2,accordingtothesketches.)InAlpha,this
meansthatthesecondgroup(6,4,2,8)willenterafteronedurationispresentedbythe19RobertPiencikowskiseemstohavebeenthefirstresearchertopinpointthiscarryingprinciplein
Boulez’stechnique.See,forexample‘Naturemorteavecguitare’inJosefHäusler(ed.),FestschriftPierre
Boulez(Mainz:Schott,1985),pp.66–81.20BoulezonMusicToday,p.135.
14
firstgroup(4,12,8,16);thethirdgroup(3,12,9,6)willenteraftertwodurationsofthe
secondgroup;andthefourthgroup(1,2,3,4)willenteraftertwodurationsofthethird
group.Theresultisthefollowingtableofsuperimpositions(Example4).
EXAMPLE4
Steps6–7.Reductionofpolyphony.Insteadofexposingthispolyphonydirectly,thefour
voicesarethenreducedtoasinglepart(‘reduction’beinganothertypicaltraitof
modernistformalism,onaparwith‘abstraction’).Onlythelastparttoenterisexposed
atanygiventime,andthedeletedpartsareindicatedbygracenotes(example5).
EXAMPLE5
Asaresult,onlyonepartispresentedatanyonetime.Thereductionproducesthe
followingAlphaseries,accordingtoBoulez’ssketches(example6).
EXAMPLE6
Inthe1959score,thislittleseriesisextendedovermorethanfourminutesofmusical
time,fillingtheentireAlphasection.Infact,thefourteen‘mainnotes’ofthisseriesare
directlyrepresentedbythefourteenstaticchordsthatonecanreadilyhearinthewinds
andstrings.The‘gracenotes’oftheseriesareturnedintobriefstaccatochords,vividly
markingtheshiftsintheaforementionedprogressionofthestaticchords.Thusthis
durationalrow,generatedbythecrudearithmeticmanipulationsthatIhavepresented,
isalmostdirectlyresponsibleforthetemporalprocessofthegrandAlphasectionatthe
macro-levelofmusicalform.ThefirststagesofthisprocedurearepresentedinBoulez
15
onMusicToday,buttruetoform,Boulezdoesnotshowitall.Thesketchesreveala
considerableamountoffreechoicethroughoutthisprocedure,notleastinsubsequent
stagesofcompositionthatarenotmentionedinthebook.
Steps8and9.Afterseveraladditionalsuperimpositions,reductionsandother
amendments,thedurationalseriesfortheBetaandGammasectionscomeoutasfollows
(example7,Beta;example8,Gamma).Inexamples6–8,aswell,Ihaveenteredthe
rehearsalnumbersfromthemusicalscoreof1983(seenumbersframedinsquares).
EXAMPLES7AND8
TheentanglementofBoulez’sgenerativetechniques(ofwhichIhaveonlyshownthe
beginningshere)leadstothefollowingquestion:isthelarge-scaleformactually
determineddirectlybythesemechanicalprocedures?Certainlythedurationalgridis
mechanicallyproduced,generating‘automatic’resultswhoseproportionsandorderof
elementsmusthavebeenunforeseeableatthestart.However,thesketchesrevealhow
Boulezsubsequentlychangesthedurationsatfreewill.Someofthemaremultipliedby
four,somebyeight,andothersagainbysixteen,somethingthatchangestheinternal
proportions.Onaprincipallevel,thequestionofmusicalformcannotinanycasebe
reducedtoaspatialrepresentationofsectionsinadurationalgrid.Theformalprocessis
aresultoftheactualinterplayamongthetexturalelementsovermusicaltime.Likewise,
wemustdistinguishbetweenthegeneration(production)oftheelementsandtheir
placing(mise-en-place)throughoutthepiece.21Astonishingly,hereweseethatnotonly
21BoulezstressesthisdistinctioninBoulezonMusicToday.SeealsoPascalDecroupet,‘CommentBoulez
pensesamusiqueaudébutdesannéessoixante’,inPierreAlbèra(ed),PliselonplidePierreBoulez:
Entretiensetetudes(Genève:ÉditionsContrechamps,2003),pp.49–58
16
thedurationalgridbutalsotheplacingandsuperimpositionofthefourdistinctgroups
arestrictlyregulatedbythegenerativemechanics(thefourgroupsbeingcomprisedof
‘harps’,‘voice’,‘mandolin/guitar’,and‘xylophones’).22Nevertheless,freechoiceisin
playoneverylevel.First,thegenerationofthepiece’s‘timeline’itselfinevitablydepends
onanabundanceofminorchoicesthatarefreelymadeduringtheprocess.Second,the
ensuingmusicalresultdependsnotleastonthemusicalgestures,phrasings,textures
andarticulationsthatarepaintedontothemechanicallyframedcanvases,asitwere,
therebytransformingtheformalprocessintoanexpressivemusicalresult.
Wearethereforeforcedtorethinktherelationbetweenthemicro-leveloftheseriesand
themacro-levelofmusicalform,aswellasthe‘transformation’fromonetotheother.
CharlesRosenhasbrieflydiscussedthisrelationwithregardtothepiece‘Structure1a’
(1951):‘Themusicaleventscreatedbytheinteractionoftheseriesdonotinfact
constituteamusicalform,ifby“form”wemeanstrictlyatemporalorderofeventsin
whichtheorderitselfhasanexpressivesignificance’.23Thisisclearlythecasewith
‘ImprovisationIII’aswell,despitethedrasticdevelopmentsaroundBoulez’srethinking
ofmusicalformfrom1951to1959.
22Themusicaltexturesforeachgrouparegeneratedseparately(cf.‘production’),whereastheir‘placing’
(cf.‘mise-en-place’)isregulatedbythemechanicalgridandisfurthermoretransformedinthesketches
labeled‘Sectionnementspolyvalents’.Thegenerativesketchesofmaterialforthefourgroups(‘harps,
voice,mand/guit/cowbells,xyl’)arecollectedinseparatefoldersthatBoulezlabels‘Bullesdetemps’,
‘Echiquiers’,‘Paranthèses’[sic],and‘Hétérophonies’,respectively.Thisgoesfortheaforementioned
groupsinAlpha,Beta,Gammaandthe‘EpisodesI–III’,whereastherestoftheparts(mainlywindsand
strings)aregeneratedindependently.Furthermore,thesketchesto‘Interlude1and2’arefoundinthe
foldernamed‘Enchaînementsmultiples’.SeeSammlungPierreBoulez,film137(n.d.),pp.325–477,
mainly.23CharlesRosen,‘ThePianoMusic’,inWilliamGlock(ed),PierreBoulez:ASymposium(London:
Eulenburg,1986),pp.85–97,p.94
17
IfBoulezmakesmanyfreechoicesduringhisgenerativeprocesses,hemakesevenmore
inthefinalformingofhisstylisticsurfacesduringthelaterphasesofcomposition.
Regardingtheearlyphaseofarithmeticalgeneration,itiscrucialtorealizethatthe
resultsoftheproceduresarelargelyunpredictableatthestart,andinBoulez’stexts,the
dimensionof‘theunpredictable’(l’imprévisible)isunderlinedfromearlyon.Thesetexts
havebeenwidelyreadandreferencedbutstillmanagetoleavefewapparenttracesin
theanalyticinterpretationsofhismusic.Strictlymorphologicalanalyseshaveprevailed
instead,settingserialistmusicapart—asitwere—fromthemusicologicalpracticesof
musicanalysis,listeningand‘criticism’(inKerman’ssenseoftheword)thathave
developedinmostotherfieldsofmusicstudyoverthelastthreeorfourdecades.
However,thereisnoobviousreasontotreatpostwarmodernistpiecescompletely
differentlyfromallotherkindsofmusic.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatmodernistpieces
arealsowrittenmainlyforperformanceandlistening.Thequestionofmusicalrelevance
(or,asSchoenbergonceputit,of‘whatitis’)needstoberaisedforthemaswellvis-à-vis
thepainstakinganalysesofhowtheirstructures‘weremade.’Moreover,withoutfalling
intothetrapof‘intentionalfallacy’,itisofinteresttoseewhatBoulezsaysabout
analysishimself.Whilehealwaysrequiresanalysestobetechnicallypenetratingand
sound,healsopreservesanuntaintedspacefornon-rationalist,non-controlled
dimensionsthathevariouslylabels,forexample,the‘non-formulated’(l’informulé,with
referencetoAdorno)orthenon-analyzable(l’inanalysable).24Themotivationsforsucha
choiceofwordsbringmetomynext‘transformation’:theaesthetictransformationof
Mallarmé’spoeticsintoaveritableworldofnewproceduresformusicalcomposition.
TransformationsofMallarmé’spoeticsintomusic
24PierreBoulez,‘L’informulé’,Révued´ésthetique:Adorno,8(1985),25–30
18
AlongwithBoulez’sconceptsoftheunforeseeable(l’imprévisible)andthe‘non-
analyzable’(l’inanalysable),thereistheMallarméanconceptofl’anonymat—the
anonymityoftheauthor’svoice,whichallowsthevoiceofthecompositionalsubjectto
stepbackand‘giveawaytheinitiativetothewords’.25InthecaseofBoulez,thiswould
probablymeangivingawaytheinitiativetotheproceduresofserialistcomposition,and
hesaysasmuchduringhisworkonPliselonpli(1957–62).In1960,forexample,he
writes:
ThegreatworksofwhichIhavebeenspeaking—thoseofMallarméandJoyce—are
thedataforanewageinwhichtextsarebecoming,asitwere,‘anonymous’,
‘speakingforthemselveswithoutanyauthor’svoice’.IfIhadtonamethemotive
underlyingtheworkthatIhavebeentryingtodescribe,itwouldbethesearchfor
an‘anonymity’ofthiskind.26
BoulezapparentlyencounteredtheseideasbyreadingJacquesSchérer’spublicationof
Mallarmé’s‘Book’,Le‘Livre’deMallarmé,in1957.HeseemstoreferenceSchérer’s
prefacemorecloselythantheactualtextbyMallarmé(whichislittlemorethanan
amalgamofscatterednotesandsketches).TheideaspresentedbySchérerstruckBoulez
‘asarevelation’,eventhoughhehadbeenapassionatereaderofMallarmé’spoems
sincethelate1940s.27TheideashefoundinLe‘Livre’inspiredhisideasaboutopenform
(firstrealizedinhisThirdSonataandrephrasedinhisessay‘Alea’in1957).Healso25StéphaneMallarmé,‘L’Œuvrepureimpliqueladisparitionélocutoiredupoëte,quicèdel’initiativeaux
mots’inŒuvresComplètes(Paris:Pléiade,1989),p.36626‘Sonate,“quemeveux-tu”’[1960],Englishedition;Orientations(London:FaberandFaber,1986),p.154
(Pointsderepère(Paris:ÉditionsChristianBourgois,1985),p.175)27PierreBoulezandCélestinDeliège,Parvolontéetparhasard(Paris:Seuil,1975),p.64;ErlingE.
Guldbransen,‘Pierre Boulez in Interview, 1996 (III) Mallarmé, Musical Form and Articulation’, Tempo,
65/257 (2011), pp. 11–21),p.13
19
formulatednotionsabout‘theunforeseeable’andtherenunciationoftotalserialist
controlfromveryearlyon.Inhisarticle‘Possibly…’[Éventuellement…]from1952,
Boulezwrites,forexample,‘Fromtheprescriptionswehavebeenexaminingindetail
arisestheunforeseen’.28In1957,hewritesin‘Alea’,‘Inmyexperienceitisimpossibleto
foreseeallthemeandersandvirtualitiesinthematerialwithwhichonestarts’.29Much
later,Boulezadmittedthathissearchforan‘anonymity’forthecomposer’svoicemainly
appliedtothestructuralresultsofserialgeneration,whereasthefinalarticulationof
thatmaterialwasalwaysclearlymarkedbyhisown,highlyprofiledmusicalchoices.30In
myview,thisfactshouldencourageanalyststogonotaroundbutinto,throughand
beyondthetechnicalitiesofserialistproceduresintheireffortstounderstandthis
music.
Mallarméfamouslyconsideredthepoemtobenotafixedresultbutastrategyfor
reading.31Inthissense,readingapoemalmostamountstorewritingit,presentinga
strikingparalleltotheactofinterpretingascorebyplayingit.Appliedtoserialist
composition,thisideawouldinvolveashiftinperspectivefromregardingtheworkasa
fixedresulttoregardingitasaperformativeprocedure—forplaying,foranalytical
interpretation,forfurthercompositionalwriting.Thisideaofanalways-unfinished
‘unfolding’lies,asfarasIcansee,attheheartofBoulez’sconstrualofmusical
composition,revision,conductingandplaying,anditdirectlyinformstheconceptionof
Pliselonpli—portraitdeMallarmé.Thenotionof‘fold’orpli,takenasanincessant
unfoldingor‘becoming’,isnotcoincidentalhere.TheMallarméanimpulsemayalso
28Boulez,Stocktakings,p.133(Relevés,p.174)29Boulez,Stocktakings,p.29(Relevés,p.45)30Guldbransen,‘PierreBoulezinInterview,1996(III)’,pp.11–12and17–18.SeealsoGuldbrandsen,
‘Casting New Light on Boulezian Serialism’.31Mallarmé,ŒuvresComplètes;JacquesScherer,Le‘Livre’deMallarmé(Paris:Gallimard,1957)
20
representadditionalmotivationforBoulez’suseofJoyce’sconceptofa‘workin
progress’andpointstowardstheFrenchtextualtheory—théoriedutexte—thatwould
laterbedevelopedbyGillesDeleuze,JacquesDerridaandRolandBarthesinthe
disciplinesofphilosophyandliterarycriticism.ItisinterestingtonotethatBoulez
anticipatedDerrida’sreadingofMallarméinLadissémination(1972),forexample,byat
leastfifteenyears.WhileitcouldbearguedthatBoulez,duringtheearly1950s,installed
himselfwithintheFrenchstructuralistmovementthatwassocharacterizedbyclassic
‘oppositional’thinking,itwouldbeamistaketooverlookhisgradualunderminingof
dichotomiesingeneralandhismovementinthedirectionofpost-structuralist
thinking.32TheinfluenceofMallarmé’spoeticsmeansthatweoughttorethinkthe
aestheticbaseofBoulez’sserialismfromitsverybeginnings.Hisserialismisbasicallya
setofproceduresforgeneratingstructural‘rawmaterial’fromwhichhecanlater
choosefreely.Thenfollowshisartisticformation,articulationandrephrasingofthe
musicalsurface.Whereastheresultofthegenerativeprocessesmaybeunpredictableat
theoutset,Boulezintervenesandmakesfreeaestheticchoicesduringthecompositional
process.
IftheMallarméanimpulseismanifestprimarilyinamusicalperformativityoffree
choices,italsopromptstheintroductionofnon-Europeanstylisticelementsinto
Boulez’sscores.Hischoicesofinstrumentsandtwistingofidiomaticmodesofplaying
aretopicsthatremaintobesystematicallystudied.33LuisaBassettosuggeststhatthe
32WhileGoldman(2011)primarilyseesBoulezasstructuralistandgivesdocumentationforsucha
reading(seepp.18–30),EdwardCampbelldiscussesBoulez’srelationtopost-structuralthinkerssuchas
DeleuzeandFoucault:Campbell,Boulez,MusicandPhilosophy(CambridgeUniversityPress,2010).33Brunner(1996)andBassetto(2003)discusstheseaspectsofBoulez’smusicinsomedetail.Campbell
(2010),pp.23–25,presentsBoulez’searlyinterestinmusicethnologyasinfluencednotleastbyAndré
Schaeffner.
21
treatmentofthevoicein‘ImprovisationIII’recallsthemodeofsungdeclamation
characteristicofJapanesenôtheatre;likewise,thestrikingglissandoentrancesofthe
flutesinvokesthetraditionalfluteplayingofeighth-centuryJapanesecourtmusic,asit
isdescribedtous.Thesonoritiesofhiswoodenpercussioncanbeassociatedwith
Mexicanxylophoneplaying,andhistreatmentoftheharps—withtheirmicrotone
tuning,‘guitarist’styleofplayingandabsenceoftraditionalarpeggios—evokesplaying
techniquesfromPeruandBolivia.FollowingRaphaëlBrunner,Bassettoclaimsthatthis
isfarfromasimpleindulgenceinmusicalexoticismor‘orientalism’onBoulez’spart.
Thoughtheelementsarehighlystylized,theyarealsoconfrontedwithWestern
generativetechniquesatthehighestlevelofabstraction—contradictionsthataretaken
directlyintothemusicitself.Also,thereareinstancesofoutgoingmelodicgesturesand
‘romantic’phrasinginthecelloandtrombone,particularlyintheBetaandGamma
sections(seethecellosoloafter[35]).Tosumup,examplesconcerningBoulez’s
mouldingofsoundingsurfacesandmodesofplayingfitquitewellintothedynamicsof
whatIhaveherelabeledthe‘performativetransformations’ofhiscompositional
writing.Concerningthestrikinguseofdistinctiveinstrumentalsoundsand‘formants’
directlyrelatedtotheingeniouspatternofphonemesinMallarmé’ssonnettext,Idefer
tothecloserstudypresentedinmybookonPliselonpli.34Thisbringsmetothefourth
kindof‘transformations’inthischapter.
TransformationsofMallarmé’spoemintomusic
ManyofBoulez’sworkshaveremainedincomplete,partlybecausethematerialhas
continuedtogrowduetogenerativetechniquesthatseemtomultiplytheirown
elements,andpartlybecausehemayhavealwaysintendedtorevisethemusicalform
andrephrasethesurfaceafter‘testing’hisworksinperformance.Processesofongoing34Guldbrandsen,Tradisjonogtradisjonsbrudd(1995/1997),pp.351–57
22
revisionandexpansioncanbeassociatedwithworksstretchingfromDouzenotations
(1945)toDériveII(2006).35
Accordingly,‘ImprovisationIII’startedoutin1959withanapproximatelengthofless
thansixteenminutes(thedurationis15:51inBoulez’s1969recording),onlytobe
expandedtowellovereighteenminutes(18:29)inhis1981recordingandtojustover
twenty-oneminutes(21:09)in2001.Notably,theseexpansionsaremainlyconfinedto
thematerialintheopeningsectionofthepiece.Hadtheyalsobeenappliedtothemain
sectionsofthemovement(suchasAlpha,BetaandGamma),therevisedworkmight
verywellhavebeenmuchlonger.Asforserialgeneration,thesketchesto‘Improvisation
III’containmaterialforseveralfurthersections(Delta,Epsilon,Zeta,Eta,andsoon),
suggestingthattheoriginalplanmayhavebeentotransformnotjustverses1–3butall
fourteenversesofMallarmé’ssonnetintolikesections.Withfourteensuchsections,
Boulezmighteasilyhaveendedwithamovementofoneandahalfhoursinduration—
andthis,again,tooccurwithintheframeofthelarger,five-movementworkthatwasthe
entirePliselonpli.
In1959,Boulezobviouslyhadtopausehisgenerativeprocesses—orexcesses—after
thethirdverseofthesonnet(‘verse’ishereequivalentto‘line’).Thenin1982headded
thefourthverse,‘Parunetrompesansvertu’,inasectioninsertedtowardstheendof
thepiece.Thencametheadditionofallfourteenversesontopoftheexistingmusical35Thislistonlyhintsatthemanyrevisionsthathavebeengoingonfordecades:Douzenotationspour
piano(1945)—NotationsI–IV(1977–80)—V(1997);Levisagenuptial(1946;1953;1986–89);Livrepour
quatuor(1954–65–);Letroisièmesonate(1955–57;1963–);Figures-Doubles-Prismes(1957–58;1963;
1965–68;1988);Éclat(1965)—Éclat/Multiples(1966–70–);Livrepourcordes(1966–68;1988);
cummingsistderDichter(1970;1986);...explosante-fixe...(1972–74)—Mémoriale(1985)—Anthèmes
(1991–92)—Anthèmes2(1997);Répons(1980–84–)—Dérive(1984)—DériveII(1988,2002,2006);
Dialoguedel’ombredouble(1983–85;1985–95);Incises(1994;2001)—SurIncises(1996–98).
23
textures.Singlephonemes,wordsandverses,andcompleterenderingsofthesonnet
proliferatesimultaneouslyondifferentlevelsofthemusicalunfolding—‘pliselonpli’—
andcreateamise-en-abymestructureofunprecedentedcomplexity(thespiralorthe
labyrinthmightbesuitablemetaphorsfortheensuingresult).Inthisdialecticalplay,
thereseemstobenosynthesisorfinalclosure.TheMallarméanconceptofmobility
(mobilité)deconstructstheoppositionbetweenécritureandperformance(between
visionandlistening,orspaceandtime)byascribingtothepoeticaltextadouble
existence,onesplitbetweenthewrittensignsonapage(likeMallarmé’slabellingofthe
poemasa‘constellation’)andthesonicperformanceofthosesigns(likeMallarmé
havinghispoemsread,asinamusicalperformance).
ThecomplexityofmusicalformclearlytakesitsrationalefromBoulez’sexpressinterest
intheformalstructureofthesonnetitself,incasuthepoem‘Alanueaccablantetu’.36
Thislatesonnet(completedin1895)isarguablyoneofthemostequivocaland
enigmaticpoetictextsthatMallarméeverpublished,intermsofitssemanticmeaning,
itspatternofphoneticplay,anditsfinelycalculatedandirreducibleambiguityof
grammaticalsyntax.Thereadercannotevendeterminewithcertaintythegrammatical
subjectorobjectinthesinglelongsentencethatrunswithoutstopthroughthesonnet.37
Theformal,phonetic,syntactic,andsemanticambiguitiesofthispoemweretoalarge
extentretainedandevenreinforcedinBoulez’smusicby1959,notleastthroughallof
thedifferent—andmutuallyexclusive—alternativesandossiasinthescore.This
plenitudeoftrajectoriesrepresentedanextremelyrichcombinatorysetofpossible36Mallarmé,Œuvrescomplètes,p.7637RobertCohn,TowardsthePoemsofMallarmé(Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1980),pp.
229–36;Jean-PierreRichard,L’universimaginairedeMallarmé(Paris:Seuil,1961),pp.276ff;Michel
Butor,‘MallarméselonBoulez’,Melos,28(1961),356–59
24
choices.Asthisopenformwastransformedintoafixedversionin1982–83,moreover,
thingswerenotsimplified,asonemighthaveexpected.Onthecontrary,whenmostof
theossiatextureswerereusedandintegratedinthenewscore,theyproducedan
increasedmultiplicityofpossiblereadingsofthetext-musicrelationonseveralnew
levels.
In1959,Alpha,BetaandGammaclearlyconstitutethemainsectionsofthemovementin
question,andonlythefirstthreeofthesonnet’sfourteenversesaresung.In1983,anew
sectionisintroduced(‘Interlude2’—seefigure1above),presentingverse4,themusic
ofwhichisnothingotherthanthesecondvariantofverse1from1959,nowfurnished
withthetextofverse4insteadofverse1.Inaddition,thecompletesonnettextissung
atacomparativelyhighspeedduring‘Episodes1’andwellintothefirsthalfoftheAlpha
section.Thisnewtextpresentationarrivesintwoparts.First,thesopranosingsverses
1–8(thesonnet’stwoquatrains),accompaniedbythefourflutes,followedbyan
interludecomprisedofexpandedversionsoftheearlierepisodesfortwoxylophones,
fortwoharps,andformandolin,guitarandcowbells.Second,thesopranosingsverses
9–14(thesonnet’stwotercets),supportedbyvariousinstrumentaltextures.Then,from
‘Interlude1’onwards,thesopranostartsfromverse1againandmuchmoreslowly
worksherwaytoverse4.
Withitsinitialvocaliseonthevowel‘A,’theentire1959piececan—ononelevel—be
heardasasingle,vastlyprolongedelaborationofthesonnet’sveryfirstword(andthe
firstletterofthealphabet),or,indeed,ofthedarkphoneme‘a,’whichisthecentral
vowelinthepoem.Onanotherlevel,the1959versionfallslargelyintothreeparts,
clearlygravitatingaroundtheAlpha,Beta,andGammasections,eachofwhich
correspondsstructurallytoonesonnetverse(infact,Alphaiswithouttext,andverse1
25
isdislocatedto‘Interlude1’).Thepiecetherebycorrespondstothesonnet’sfirstthree
verses,andatripartiteformensues.
Incontrasttoallofthis,the1983versionfallsmoreclearlyintotwoparts,likethe
sonnet’sform,asdividedbetweenquatrainsandtercets.Withthenewinstallationof
verse4(in‘Interlude2’),themusicalformturnsinthedirectionofrepresentingthefirst
fourversesofthesonnet,or,indeed,thefourstrophesofthecompletesonnetformas
such—therebymimingthedirectrenderingofsonnetforminthetwopreceding
movements,‘ImprovisationI&II’.Furthermore,theinsertionofallfourteenversesat
thestartis—astonishingly—placedacrosstheotherwisedeep-structuraldividebetween
‘Episodes1’andtheAlphasection.Thisplacementofthetextcompletelydisregardsthe
constitutivelogicofthemusicalstructuresthatunderliethesefourteenverses,sincethe
fourepisodesoftheformer‘Episodes1’wereconstructedwithmethodsthatdiffer
completelyfromthosethatgeneratedtheAlphatextures.38HenceBoulezobviouslydoes
notcaremuchabouttheearlier,generative‘construction’,ortheproblemof‘structural
unity’,whenhesetsouttorecomposehisownpiece.Hedeliberatelyignoresthe
generativedeepstructureintherephrasingofthemusicalsurface.Asaconsequence,by
addingthecompletefourteenversesinthismanner,anotherlevelofcomplexityis
reachedintheinterplaybetweenpoeticandmusicaltext.
Howdoallofthesecomplexitiescomeacrosstothelistener?Arguably,thetextand
musicareperceivedlessasasetofstructurallabyrinthsthanasadirectlyaccessible
38Seesketches,‘Sectionnementspolyvalents,‘Bullesdetemps’,‘Echiquiers’,‘Paranthèses[sic]’,andsoon.
26
musical-rhetoricalflow.39InhisconversationswithDeliège,Boulezproposestwo
oppositereadingsofthetext-musicrelationinPliselonpli:themusicmayrepresenta
‘completeosmosis’or(atthesametime)a‘completetransformation’ofthepoetictext.40
Thisisafairlygoodaccountofwhathappensin‘ImprovisationIII’.Ontheonehand,in
bothversionsofthepiece,theformal,syntacticalandphoneticpatternsofthepoem
are—sotospeak—retainedandanalysedbythemusicinakindof‘completeosmosis’of
thetext.Ontheotherhand,preciselybybeingextremely‘true’toitsformalstructure,
thepoemisalsotransformedintosomethingcompletelydifferent.Thisformsa
paradox—atoneandthesametime,thereisa‘completeosmosis’anda‘complete
transformation’ofthetext.
Atthispoint,athematicreadingofthesemanticsofMallarmé’ssonnetandBoulez’s
interpretationofitmightcontributetoourdiscussionofthetext-musicrelation.The
connectionsgofromthesonicrenderingsofconsonantsandvowels—notleastofthe
moresignificantphonemes(a,b,u,ab,ba,tu,etc.)andtheiringeniousdistribution
throughoutthepoem—tothereadingsofthepoem’sambiguitiesinsyntaxandpoetic
meaningandtheirtransformationintoBoulez’shighlydifferentiatedorchestrationof
theformalelementsofthemusic.Onasemanticlevel,asisoftenthecaseinMallarmé,
nothingactuallyhappenswithinthescenerythatthepoemsuggests.Histextiscentred
arounda‘nothingness’oranabsence.InakindoffailedOdysseyofmodernpoetryor
art,the‘abolished’shipwreck,withitsmutedhornanditsbroken,‘phallic’mast,has
goneunder,leavingbehindlittlemorethansomewhitishfoamamongthefloating
wreckageinthedarkwaves,conjuringtheimageofamutedsiren,onceperhapsdeadly39Theformalprocessofthepieceisdescribedthroughauditivecategoriesofmusicallistening
(articulation,phrasing,timbre,allure,density,gesture,texture,andsoforth)inGuldbrandsen,Tradisjon
ogtradisjonsbrudd(1995/1997),chapter4,pp.381–506.40Parvolonté,pp.121–28
27
butnowprobablydrownedorinanycasenolongersinging.Thisabsenceatthepoem’s
centreevokesthesimilarfunctionofthepoemas‘centreandabsence’inthemusic,
particularlyinthe1959version.41Thetrulyvertiginousplaybetweentextualand
musicalmeaningsIhaveelaboratedonelsewhere.42
Historiographicaltransformationsofcurrentimagesofpostwarmodernism
Finally,theanalyticalfindingsandaestheticreadingsthatIhavebrieflypresentedhere
alsocallforahistoriographicalrevisionofthecurrentimageofwhatBoulezianserialism
ofthe1950s(andlater)wasandisallabout,includingthedimensionsofcompositional
unpredictabilityandfreechoice.AsfarasIcansee,thefullmethodological
consequencesofthesefindings—orreadings—stillremaintobedeveloped,regarding
theinterpretationofBoulez’spoetics,hiscompositionalproceedings,andthe
historiographicalunderstandingofhisroleinhighmodernisminpost-WorldWarII
Europe.Boulez’sfrequentlyrepeatedsuggestiontobreakwithtraditionby‘burning
downthelibraryeveryday’,therebyforgettingthepast,mustofcourseberead
metaphorically(inonecase,hereferstoRenéChar’spoem‘Labibliothèqueesten
feu’),43whereastheideaofmodernistrupture,conversely,ishistoriographicallydifficult
tomaintain.
41SeeBoulez’sreferencestoHenriMichauxatthetimehecompletesthefirstversionofPliselonpli,in
‘Poésie—centreetabsence—musique(Poésiepourpouvoir)’(writtenin1958).Pointsderépère,pp.183–
200.42SeeGuldbrandsen,Tradisjonogtradisjonsbrudd,(1995/1997),chapter3,pp.251–380,andchapter5,
pp.507–8843SeeBoulez’sstatement:‘Jepensequ’ondoitmettrelefeuàsabibliothèquetouslesjours,pour
qu’ensuitelabibliothèquerenaissecommeunphénixdesescendres,maissousuneformedifférente.Pour
moi,cequiestintéressante,c’estjustementdenepasêtreétoufféparlabibliothèque.’Goldman,
Jonathan, Jean-Jacques Nattiez, and François Nicolas, La Pensée de Pierre Boulez à Travers ses
Écrits (Paris: Delatour, 2010), p.250.
28
Theconceptofthemusicalwork,asithasbeenactiveinWesternartmusicsinceatleast
1800,carriestheconstitutiveimplicationthataworkhastobeplayedinalwaysnew
versions.Boulezundoubtedlyinscribeshimselfintothistradition,bothasacomposer
andasaconductor.44Alsointhisregard,wecannotsustainthenotionofaclear-cut
modernist‘rupture’withtradition.Boulez’spracticeofmakingfreechoicesinthecourse
ofhismusicalcompositiononlytieshimmorefirmlytothatsametradition,pointing
backtotheearlyGermanRomanticphilosophersandtoImmanuelKant’sconceptofthe
aestheticjudgment—aspresentedinhisCritiqueofAestheticJudgment,allthewayback
in1790.Twocenturieslater,in1986,inBoulez’ssignificantarticle‘TheSystemandthe
Idea’(Lesystèmeetl’idée),hewritesthatthesystemofgenerativeproceduresisnothing
morethanacrutch(unebéquille),ahelpfortheimaginationinordertogetstarted.45By
thisaccounting,herequiresserialistwritingonlytofurnishhimwiththerawmaterialof
structuralobjects,andtheninthenextroundhechoosesfromtheseobjects.Andwhat
doeshechoose?‘Ichoose’,saysBoulezin1986,‘whatIjudgetobegood,beautiful,
necessary’.46Tosomemusichistorians,thiskindofstatementmaystillcomeasa
surprise.InaconversationinParisin1996,Boulezconfirmedthispointatseveral
instances,however;hereisoneofthem:47
E.Guldbrandsen:Mr.Boulez,thisisnotthepictureofserialismthathassurvivedin
normal,ordinarytextbooks,andnoteveninthegeneraloutputofmusicological
44SeeGuldbrandsen,‘ModernistComposerandMahlerConductor’45‘Celarevientàconsidererlesystèmecommeuneaide,unebéquille,unexitantpourl’imagination’,
Jalons,p.378.ReprintedinLeçonsdemusique,p.407.46Jalons,p.378:‘Jechoisis,doncjesuis;jen’aiinventélesystèmequepourmefourniruncertaintypede
matérieau,enmoid’élimineroudegauchirensuite,enfunctiondecequejetrouvebon,beau,nécessaire’.47Guldbrandsen, Erling E., ‘Pierre Boulez in Interview, 1996 (II) Serialism Revisited’, Tempo, 65/256
(2011), 18–24,p.23.
29
analysesofyourwork.[…]Everybodyseemstotalkaboutsomekindoflogical
positivismofcomposition.
P.Boulez:Yes!ButImean,thatisexactlythepointwheretheyaretotallywrong.
Totallywrong!
Accordingtothefindingsabove,wemustabandonthe‘unityandcontrolmodel’of
serialistcompositionandallow—orpersuade—formalistmusicanalysistobeintegrated
intoamuchwiderperspectiveoninterpretation,or,indeed,oncriticism.InBoulez’s
case,themodernistprojectisobviouslycarriedbyafundamentalpoeticalvision—one
thatincludesnotionsoffreeaestheticchoiceandofthereinterpretationofthemusical
past.Thereisaneedtolookandseehowheactuallyreadspoetry,howheregards
paintingandarchitecture,howhelistenstonon-Europeanmusics,andhowheconducts
musicalworksfromthegreatWesterntraditionofthelast150years,inorderto
understandhismusicmorerichly.AndinordertograspwhathappenedtoCentral
EuropeanartmusicintheprecariousdecadesafterWorldWarII,weneedtoopenup
thefullcontextoftheperformative,aestheticandculturaldimensionsthatmadethis
musicnecessary—oratleast,possible—therebypavingthewayfornewmusical
experience.
top related