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.