ouvert, encore - about brown & open form (boulez)

8/13/2019 Ouvert, Encore - About Brown & Open Form (Boulez)

1/3


2/3

. . . ouvert, encore . . .Pierre Boulez

In this article, rearranged from an interview with Dan Albertson on 3 December 2006,

the author explores various themes relating to Earle Brown and open-form notation, as

well as to his own work, and affirms the modern-day relevance of the techniques used inthe 1950s and 60s.

Keywords: Earle Brown; Conducting; Darmstadt; Form; Notation; Open; Technique

I first became acquainted with Earle Brown through John Cage and David Tudor. My

connection to Cage dates back to 1949, when I met him in Paris. In 1952, I had come

to New York with Jean-Louis Barraults Theatre Marigny company and also to hear

David perform my second piano sonata. Naturally, I also met everyone who was

associated with John and his circle at that time. I was rather reserved about Johns

music, because I do not believe much in chance. Earle was then working on his Folio,

works which did not leave an impression on me. These sketches seemed to be art of a

post-Mondrian style, closer to paintings than music, and I was not convinced. We

remained in contact and often exchanged ideas, as everyone did in the 50s. In 1957, I

wrote an article,Alea, in which I made clear the aesthetics that I had come to believe,

certainly inspired by my exchanges with Earle and others, but also by my reading of

James Joyce and Stephane Mallarme. Earle and I both evolved in mostly the same

direction: the composer must always be present in his music and his guidelines mustbe precise. Our differences are mainly in how open a work could be without giving

up control as a composer. Many works from the 50s share this basic philosophy, but

as with any burgeoning artistic age, only the best works will survive and the worst

were a preparation for the best. Time will be the judge. My group, Ensemble

Intercontemporain, recently organised a sort of retrospective of American music in

the 1950s, flagged by Cage, but also featuring Brown and others. All of these years

later, this music, despite or because of its different philosophies, remains relevant.

In 1957, I asked Earle to write a piece for the Domaine Musical concerts that I held

at the Theatre Marigny. He did so, and the result was a nonet in standard notation

called Pentathis. I am sure that I conducted it later, but I do not remember it

Contemporary Music ReviewVol. 26, Nos. 3/4, June/August 2007, pp. 339 340

ISSN 0749-4467 (print)/ISSN 1477-2256 (online) 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/07494460701414181


3/3

well; Bruno Maderna conducted the premiere, probably because I was conducting

somewhere else. I view Earles two Available Forms, written soon after, as his

chefs-doeuvre, although I remain fond of his later music as a whole. It is unfortunate

that we saw each other so little in later years. Earle spent much time in Paris in the60s, but as far as I remember, we spent relatively little time together then, much less

than in the late 50s. Even in New York in the 70s, when I conducted the

Philharmonic, we were both busy with our own activities.

I learned much from the spirit of the time and from Earle too. Maderna, Karlheinz

Stockhausen andmuch, much lessLuciano Berio, among others, were also

exploring open form, trying to integrate openness and structure. As I continued to

conduct more often in the 60s, and frequently with orchestras instead of the

ensemble that I had for my Domaine Musical concerts, I learned to become more

practical with my notation. I suppose that my earliest open-form works are a bit

utopian. My third piano sonata, for instance, remains incomplete in two movements,with three that need further consideration. I came to be pragmatic by the time I

envisionedEclat/Multiples, a work which is now, decades later, theoretically finished.

The way in which I cue musicians to perform certain aleatory passages was probably

the result of my experiences with Earles music, Brunos music, etc. Orchestras are

expensive, and each moment of rehearsal costs more money, so one must be practical

when one deals with any work for such a large group of musicians. This is a lesson

that could only come from experience. Nonetheless, I have maintained the belief that

open form, if properly integrated into a musical piece and if not used as a

replacement for musical creativity, is still valid today. Younger composers, I fear,have mostly avoided this technique because they have already been trained to be

practical, perhaps too practical.

In a much more recent work of mine, sur Incises, for three harpists, three pianists

and three percussionists, an elaboration of my early piano miniatures Incises, I have

again used some elements of open form. In certain parts of the score, I have provided

the music but I have not provided a specific time span for it, or no metres, for

instance. At times the work is free-flying. I have remained realistic, however, and I

think that I have fully realised the possibilities that we first imagined in the 50s

without demanding additional rehearsal time.

One of my future projects is Anthemes III, the third incarnation of a solo violinwork from 15 years ago. After the solo version, I created with Andrew Gerzso a form

for violin and live electronics. Such a project, or series of projects, I suppose, could

be traced back to a broader interpretation of open form. Now each work itself

is open for other works to develop from the originals basic premise. Another

example is Derive II, which I recently expanded, after not being satisfied with my

first attempt. Now open form could well symbolise my view of composition itself,

with the formthat is, each workbeing open to revisions, reevaluations,

reconsiderations . . .

340 P. Boulez

ouvert, encore - about brown & open form (boulez)

Documents