Lesson with Alexander (Modern Analysis, History, Aesthetics and Musicology)

Previously me and Alexander had a dialogue over PMs concerning Berio, so I'll post what I posted there so that we can continue the analysis/dialogue in this thread.

I posted:

So, the sequenzas from Berio.

First thing I should mention is that the name Sequenza (and subsequent references) come from an old style of church music, specifically, gregorian chants. This is in part due to the fact that Berio's father was an organist and in charge of church music, as well as his grandfather. There's obviously a relationship here between that tradition and these modern pieces, though at first it may not be so obvious.

So, since each Sequenza is different, I'll focus on III and VII, for voice and oboe respectively. Both pieces can be thought as solo pieces that exploit the sound characteristics of the instrument beyond the traditional parameters established by the western musical canon. The key here is not how these unorthodox methods are used, but how the overall pieces are meant to showcase the full range of possibilities within a presumably limited context of the solo instrument.

In that sense, here we see a very clear relationship between the chants and these pieces, in that they are thought out as mostly "horizontal." That is to say, the line is what is most important rather than any sort of interval or vertical relationships (though of course the movement of the same voice in particular intervals is important, it's not the same as chord-formations or intervals which are vertically constructed.)

Another point of interest is the notation. Both these Sequenzas are written using a mixture of standard notation practice and specially built symbols and staffs to accommodate for not only the new techniques but also for the different effects Berio wanted to achieve such as "inexact" notation (notes "as short as possible" or "around a specific pitch.")

This integration of imprecise elements is a staple for the pieces written in the post-serial 60s, and can also be found by Penderecki, Ligeti, and so on.

However, both Sequenzas also have time markings, much like serial and electronic music. Sections are notated in groups of seconds, which are all estimations. Much in the same way as the imprecise notation, the seconds are only a loose guideline for keeping the sections coherent within a whole. They are, thus, a form of form organization which has no rhythm implication and is in direct relationship to the actual time it takes to perform the piece in practice (as opposed to a abstraction a time signature implies.)

Concerning the problem of the form in modern music, the sequenzas can be said to be an experiment in maintaining a "form" coherency by the use of specific effects and sound textures. In such way, for example, the III Sequenza has a moment which can be considered for all intents and purposes a "climax" (consisting of a build up and a high pitch as the culmination of the form.) There are also other implications, but this approach to the structuring of a piece is also a characteristic by the early 60s composers.

Though the idea of using extended techniques is not particularly new, what Berio did here was bring a new meaning to the usage of these techniques within a new context. For instance, he wanted to get rid of the implied meaning the singing voice has in the western tradition and to do so he not only employed many sounds beyond just "singing" such as humming and sounds using the hand or the tongue, to render the voice an instrument with no attached symbolism. The text is also modified and used in such way that a concept of "meaning" in the text is deconstructed so as not to build, again, any preconceived notion of what the sung text must be like.

These pieces don't just shine a new light on the same instruments from the western musical canon, but they elevate these instruments to new standards of expression by expanding the repertoire of possibilities available to each.

He replied:

Thanks SSC! I can definitely see the relationship between chants and Berio's sequenzas. I'd like to ask you though whether this relationship applies to all the sequenzas' date=' even in those that are written for polyphonic instruments like the second one for the harp or the one for the guitar for example?

The third sequenza is in my opinion very similar to John Cage's Aria. I don't have the score, so I am only speaking judging what I've heard. Aria is written several years before the Sequenza and there too the voice is used in an unconventional way. I do think, however that Berio treats the voice and the text in a more fragmentary way than Cage. I referred to the Aria, because I'd like to ask you whether Berio was at all influenced by it or not...

What you said about the form, reminded me of the relationship between orchestration and form in Debussy's music only that in the case of sequenzas ochestration is replaced with specific effects/sound textures (meaning specific techniques of playing the instrument). Am I wrong or is there some truth to what I am saying here?

So yeah. I think that's good enough for a first look at the whole thing. Tell me if you want me to be more specific about either III or the VII sequenza.

I have to present a more detailed analysis of the piece so I'd be grateful if you could be more specific. I know that you don't have much time so we can focus on one page or one section every time.

In any case, you can't imagine how much you are helping me. I feel kind of bad so if I could possibly do anything for you, it would be my pleasure! :)

Alexandros

To which I replied:

Thanks SSC! I can definitely see the relationship between chants and Berio's sequenzas. I'd like to ask you though whether this relationship applies to all the sequenzas' date=' even in those that are written for polyphonic instruments like the second one for the harp or the one for the guitar for example?[/quote']

Yes, the relationship is in some cases more pronounced, but it is always in the background. Each polyphonic instrument is treated different too, but overall the linear influence is always present in some way.

The third sequenza is in my opinion very similar to John Cage's Aria. I don't have the score, so I am only speaking judging what I've heard. Aria is written several years before the Sequenza and there too the voice is used in an unconventional way. I do think, however that Berio treats the voice and the text in a more fragmentary way than Cage. I referred to the Aria, because I'd like to ask you whether Berio was at all influenced by it or not...

Well I'm not sure if Cage had a direct influence, but certainly the experimental music from Cage and the fluxus movement played a role. This is where the whole notion of "inexact" notation comes from to begin with, the quasi-aleatory way of writing certain passages sure takes back to that early experimental music.

What you said about the form, reminded me of the relationship between orchestration and form in Debussy's music only that in the case of sequenzas ochestration is replaced with specific effects/sound textures (meaning specific techniques of playing the instrument). Am I wrong or is there some truth to what I am saying here?

The problem of the form was already present by the time of Debussy, you can also see it in Schoenberg's expressionist pieces and so on. Different composers dealt with it in different ways; the neo-classical period was all about old form ideas with new material, the early atonal period was a deconstruction while the 12 tone period was an attempt to establish form formulas again within non-tonal music. These pieces from the 60s had a different approach which took the concept of form to the characteristics for the sound itself, rather than to single specific elements such as motives or rhythms. A good example of the same thing is Ligeti's Atmospheres or Penderecki's Anaklasis.

Anyways, glad to be of help. I'll post more detailed info on the Oboe sequenza since you have the score.

And further more:

Interesting. Is it my impression' date=' or is it true that the composers have been more and more interested in the manipulation and use of raw sound? After the first half of twentieth century we have the development of electronic music, concrete music, examples of music where the attention is drawn to the timbre like the scores you mentioned, spectral music and sound synthesis. Aren't all this leading to a new definition of music composition (sound sculpture...?)? Yeah, I am probably wrong, but I'd like to hear your opinion on this.

Thanks! :)

Alexandros[/quote']

Yeah. Basically what you can say with certainty over the course of the 20th century is that something like the "emancipation of noise/sound/dissonance" happened. Overall, you can attribute this also to instruments like percussion instruments being given a major role (Varese's Ionisations, etc) and that with the advent of electronic music people learned the intricacies of timbre, acoustics, etc etc in much more detail.

The shift is really that people are a lot more open to consider "anything" music, specially after Cage and the Music Concrete guys, so that basically any and all sound is just as valid as, say, a violin or a piano.

There are specific pieces and styles that take advantage of this, like the sound-mass composition of Ligeti, Penderecki and so on.

Sound mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for more info

As for actual sound sculpture, there are attempts like the one by Duchamp and La Monte Young, Xenakis and so on where you try to think of music as an "space" art rather than a "time" art. That means that these composers/artists tried to build a in a 3d space, using speakers and acoustic principles, music that isn't simply listening but your position in relation to this structure of "sound" matters and you can move about it like you would with a sculpture.

This article talks a little about a couple of different directions modern music has gone towards: NewMusicBox Specially interesting is La Monte Young's ideas here.

The concept of "crafting out music" like you would with a sculpture isn't particularly new, as you can see, but it's really up to the composer to make a particular meaning out of that or use it in any specific way.

and finally:

The shift is really that people are a lot more open to consider "anything" music' date=' specially after Cage and the Music Concrete guys, so that basically any and all sound is just as valid as, say, a violin or a piano.

There are specific pieces and styles that take advantage of this, like the sound-mass composition of Ligeti, Penderecki and so on.

Sound mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for more info

I use sound-mass composition in my new string orchestra piece (I didn't know it had a name, lol). It's a piece where it starts with silence, then an abrupt sound ends the silence, aleatoric subtle noises disrupt it, moving to a single tone gradually played by the whole orchestra in unison, when the unison is gradually disrupted ending in a sound mass, a cluster where each player plays a different tone and then gradually moving back to silence following a reverse procedure. I also use golden sections to organise the material in time and a different arrangement of the orchestra (spherical) so as to give the impression of a source where the sound originates. I will post the piece when it is completed. :)

As for actual sound sculpture, there are attempts like the one by Duchamp and La Monte Young, Xenakis and so on where you try to think of music as an "space" art rather than a "time" art. That means that these composers/artists tried to build a in a 3d space, using speakers and acoustic principles, music that isn't simply listening but your position in relation to this structure of "sound" matters and you can move about it like you would with a sculpture.

I think that music is a time-space art, but I don't think so far we've done much to develop the "space" part. Of course, there are inherent difficulties in this. Apart from intelligent position of the sound sources in space, it's difficult to have a moving sound source (perhaps electronically it's easier...). Well, in a way I guess everything is a moving sound source since everything vibrates, but we can't hear everything, right?

I hope I don't get too boring...

Alexandros

So, I think that's all that needs to be posted before we can resume. I'll continue on with a more in depth analysis of Berio's Oboe Sequenza soon.

And, of course, after that we can move on to a different topic of your choice. :>

Ok, SSC. :)

Edit: Since as I've told you I don't really have any knowledge on any of the subjects I chose, I was thinking if you could form a lesson plan as I can't really suggest any topic (that is pick up a topic that you think we should start with from any of these subjects and give me assignments I should work on). What do you think?

In my opinion, I think for starters, it would be good to have an introductory lesson in the philosophy of art and a brief historical study of music and its progress up to the early Baroque. As you can see, I'd like first to acquire a general theoretical knowledge of music, art and its history and the philosophy of it so as to be able then to study more specific topics. Do you think we could do something like that?

Alexandros

SSC, did you have any progress with the Sequenza? Is there anything I could...?

Sorry, I've been held up by other stuff, but I'll post ASAP don't worry.

Ok! By the way, I found a book on Amazon about Berio's Sequenzas and I read through the chapter which discussed the seventh Sequenza and it talked about the score layout being a grid and about spatial rhythm (it compared it with the first Sequenza) and most of the chapter talked about another version made by a woman which decided to transcribe the score using time signatures and it also compared how accurate two executions of the piece were since the performers had chosen to study it from different versions (the one with the seconds and the grid system and the other one with the time signatures made by Leclair) and that both of them were more or less the same inaccurate as far as local sections of the piece were concerned, but that they managed to keep true to the overall time of the three distinct sections of the piece, which by the way I didn't understand which they were and it also talked about harmonic fields (if I remember the term correctly) whose logic I didn't quite grasp.

...and I was wondering whether this whole issue about the other version with the conventional notation would be necessary to be mentioned in the analysis or not... :)

Alexandros

Ok! By the way, I found a book on Amazon about Berio's Sequenzas and I read through the chapter which discussed the seventh Sequenza and it talked about the score layout being a grid and about spatial rhythm (it compared it with the first Sequenza) and most of the chapter talked about another version made by a woman which decided to transcribe the score using time signatures and it also compared how accurate two executions of the piece were since the performers had chosen to study it from different versions (the one with the seconds and the grid system and the other one with the time signatures made by Leclair) and that both of them were more or less the same inaccurate as far as local sections of the piece were concerned, but that they managed to keep true to the overall time of the three distinct sections of the piece, which by the way I didn't understand which they were and it also talked about harmonic fields (if I remember the term correctly) whose logic I didn't quite grasp.

...and I was wondering whether this whole issue about the other version with the conventional notation would be necessary to be mentioned in the analysis or not... :)

Alexandros

Well, first of all, one of the things to keep in mind is that there is no "right" way to analyze anything. Instead, what I'm doing is pointing out things of interest and you can make your own conclusions based on that. And no, one of the important things about the Sequenzas is precisely that they use non-standard notation, so ignore that particular version.

The VII sequenza also has a particular oddity, you have to keep a sustained note throughout the entire performance of it. In the score itself, the instruction reads:

A B natural must sound throughout the piece. The sound-source should preferably not be visible, this can be an oscillator, a clarinet, a pre-taped oboe, or something else. The intensity should be kept to a minimum, with quite small variations. The B natural should give the impression of lending a slight resonance to the solo oboe.

This isn't the only Sequenza where Berio has played with the possibility of having resonators or messing with acoustics, the Sequenza X for trumpet for example is to be played into an open piano with the sustain pedal pressed and certain chords pressed in the keys so only their strings resonate (and other such things.) (performance: YouTube - Sequenza X (1984) Luciano Berio part.1 )

So that's one crucial aspect. The other is that from the abilities of the instrument, Berio took a lot of care to write a page within the score explaining which positions and fingerings are to be used within the piece, which is all very detailed work and also shows a trend towards a very specific usage of instruments (not just giving them a pitch and duration, but telling them exactly how the instrument has to be used.) That's very common also in the rest of the 20th century, specially with composers like Lachenmann.

Concerning the actual analysis of the piece's form and structure, it can be very hard to really come to any sort of satisfying end-all analysis, because after all a piece such as this can lend itself to a number of interpretations. However, it's worth noting that because of the sustained B natural, the piece uses this tone not only as an effect throughout, but as a type of structural anchor around which the piece gravitates.

For example, the very beginning of the piece starts off with the Oboe playing the same tone that is sustained. You can note that as a crucial structural point, as the entire first segment of the piece is based at this play with the unison. Later on the piece also does the same with different intervals, and at the end it returns to a mix of these elements, coming briefly back to the starting b.

You can say that the unison beginning can be traced back to the traditions of pre-baroque and renaissance music, where the octave and unison were of major importance and used often as beginning and ending. Such relationships can be explored within the piece in numerous sections if you're bothering to go that deep.

Then there's the aspect of what kind of sound techniques he's using, the handling of the instrument itself. The piece uses multiphonics, over-blowing techniques, micro-intervals and double-trill figures. These all require a good firm grasp on the instrument and certainly they bring out completely different sound textures, which Berio of course uses.

I've mentioned before how these different techniques can be used to outline a particular form for piece, and certainly they're used to that effect here.

So, yeah, before I get into more depth if it's necessary, do you have a score with you? And, also, should we look also at the III sequenza?

Yes, I have a score, but I don't have the page where he explains the various ways of playing. I'd prefer if we did a good and thorough analysis of this sequenza and perhaps then move on to the third or something completely different.

Apart from the held notes, I noticed that he also makes use of group of notes. For example the first group of notes that he uses is: B-Bb-A-C. I want to see whether the other notes he introduces later are added to this group or form completely different note groups. Concerning rhythm, I believe that spatial rhythm cannot be followed 100% as the measures of the grid are not always relative to the time they are to be played in. So, this lends in a way more freedom to the performer, doesn't it?

I would be very interested to see how the pitch selection, the dynamics and the various playing techniques create the form of this piece. Concerning rhythm and time in general, one cannot miss the periodicity of the piece. I was wondering whether this periodicity has anything to do with taleae. If so, then I believe there would be more than one talea as the pitches are not fixed (hmm... perhaps the pitches are not fixed and the periodicity just alludes to isorhythm, like the unison and the sequenza to earlier practices, forms and styles. Too many allusions to be a coincidence, if you ask me) Also, I noticed that after the high G, which also seems to be the climax of the piece the rhythm of progress of the piece slows down through the use of fermatae.

Interesting stuff! :)

Alexandros

I just thought, what if the B natural also alludes to the cantus firmus or the byzantine chant and the pedal point (isocrates)?