This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL]

On: 28 February 2012, At: 02:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary Music Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmr20

All Dressed Up and Nowhere to Go

Elke Hockings

Available online: 15 Sep 2010

To cite this article: Elke Hockings (2005): All Dressed Up and Nowhere to Go, Contemporary Music
Review, 24:1, 89-100

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0749446042000293637

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Contemporary Music Review
Vol. 24, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 89 – 100

All Dressed Up and Nowhere to Go

Elke Hockings
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

This article begins with an attempt at analysing Helmut Lachenmann’s Mouvement

(—vor der Erstarrung). A brief look at two other analyses of this work is then followed
by a short discussion of the serial ‘form from below’ in general and its consequences for
analysing such music. Given the necessary brevity within the scope of this article, this
discussion could regrettably only ever scratch the surface of the analytical history of serial
music. But by providing this context, the problems of analysing Mouvement may be
recognised as being of a more general nature.

Keywords: Lachenmann; Mouvement; Music Analysis; Serial Music

Assumptions about the analysability of serial1 paradigms in music generated

completely or in part by such principles still abound, possibly less now than they did
some years ago. However, these assumptions are indeed more received wisdom than
fact—there simply are very few such independent analyses to verify them—but they
nonetheless form an integral part of the history of this music. Like most images, these
assumptions have their roots in a number of sources, most likely because they have
ultimately suited all. In an attempt of justification (‘Any child could produce this
noise’), a lot of 20th-century music conjured up the possibility of analysis as a tool
that would reveal artfully constructed structures. Here the hidden logic and
craftsmanship of a piece would be proven. That composers of post-war serial music
in the end would do anything to avoid analytical discovery and be horrified if
anybody really did ‘crack the code’2 is only another side of the complex personal and
social situation over which they liked to keep some sense of control. A case of a
sorcerer’s apprentices calling ‘The spirits that I have cited my commands ignore’?
The overt and underlying assumption has always been that such music—including
the music of Helmut Lachenmann—would provide an absolute feast for the analysts.
But there will be no such feast after all. Not because analysing such music is
difficult—this would leave the assumption intact that it is ultimately possible if one
only tried hard enough—nor because analysis at this level does not address questions
of musical aesthetics; but because this music is no more rational and structured than

ISSN 0749-4467 (print)/ISSN 1477-2256 (online) ª 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0749446042000293637
 90 E. Hockings
any other music of the past. The Darmstadt effort, including Helmut Lachenmann,
may not have escaped the romantic metaphysical dichotomies after all.
This article has no intention to lay blame for the creation of an illusion, or to
proffer any judgement on Helmut Lachenmann or his music. It is rather a report of a
journey through the available material. There is good reason to believe that other
people might see in this report similar experiences reflected, doubts expressed and
questions asked.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

Do not torment yourself too much with analyses. The question is always: which
means are used in which ways, why and to what effect, or better, inasmuch to what
innovative effect. It is therefore more important to define the categories which are
used, installed and stretched rather than to measure things—hence it is more
important for analysis: WHAT IT IS rather than how it is made—processes which
are often totally buried under later interventions. (H. Lachenmann, personal
communication, March 27, 1994)3

An explanation of what a composition of Helmut Lachenmann may be can be

attempted from many different perspectives.
In defence of his unique soundscapes, it has always been said that these unusual
sounds and gestures are not merely shocking (as this would be nothing more than
anarchistic) and not there for their own sake (that would be self-indulgent, lacking in
craftsmanship), but that elements and shapes of these noise-rich sound situations
have infiltrated the formal and structural fabric of the piece, have become the basic
material with which the artist has fashioned his work of art. The obvious way of
explaining what Helmut Lachenmann’s pieces may be/stand for/mean would,
therefore, still reach first for traditional analysis: taking apart of its constituent
elements; establishing a set of relevant data; showing how the various elements
interact; if there are hierarchies, algorithms or rules of development; if so, where they
are missing, where they become ambiguous, dissolve, become cancelled out; etc. All
of this will not be possible without that first analytical step: the identification and
measuring of the basic units and rules. Only by this tedious exercise can we begin,
with any sense of objectivity, to understand the relationships and deviations and to
venture some interpretation about the underlying reasons. If objective sense and
craftsmanship are the values for which we are looking, that is.
Helmut Lachenmann made a case for ‘dialectic structuralism’4 and his sketches at
the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel show clear signs of algorithmic and serial thinking
(see Hockings, 1995). It should, therefore, be possible to analyse at least some of the
ways in which these elements/series have been applied. When talking about his works,
Helmut Lachenmann (1966) also spoke of Klangtypen (‘sound categories’), which
define several levels of abstracting the data of a more or less single acoustic event to
the coordination of larger sections or even the whole work. An analysis ought to
identify the basic acoustic events, understand Helmut Lachenmann’s classification of
their respective features, which become relevant when projected vertically onto the
timeline, and show in which way this projection has taken place. In short, his music
 Contemporary Music Review 91
ought to provide an embarrassment of riches for the analyst, an impression
supported by existing publications on Helmut Lachenmann’s works. There are two
analyses for Mouvement (—vor der Erstarrung) alone (Piencikowski, 1988; Shaked,
1995).
The first step in approaching a work like Helmut Lachenmann’s Mouvement is to
find some significant smaller sections within the more or less continuous one-
movement time span—i.e. to establish some kind of formal divisions. There are clear
differences in textures, forms of articulation, speed, mood, etc., but a division into
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

sections through listening itself is not easy, not least because the energy states and
forms of articulation of most sections do not change abruptly but more or less
gradually and often in an overlapping fashion. There are a number of general pauses
inserted in the score, but they are frequently not obvious to the ear because of the
many other surrounding hesitations and pauses.
Two passages are, however, clearly discernible: the passage with the continuous
bright doorbell in the first half of the piece and the other with the regular pulse in the
second half. A drastically simplified listening diagram would describe the work thus:
After an introduction (mm. 1 – 10) follows a passage of predominantly sniffing sounds
(mm. 10 – 42), followed by a short transition (mm. 42 – 50). Here begins the
aforementioned doorbell passage (mm. 50 – 111). The next two instrumental
articulations that define the respective overall impression create first a scraping sound
(mm. 111 – 92) and then a snapping sound (mm. 192 – 231), after which we hear a
passage with much exhaling (mm. 231 – 262). A real pulse, albeit still very irregular, is
introduced in measure 262. This eventually develops into a fast regular pulse, the other
obvious passage mentioned before (mm. 319 – 425). This pulse passage is bound to fall
apart and does so in mm. 425 – 477. The work is rounded off by gestures sounding
somewhat of conspiracy (mm. 477 – 491). One feels immediately, though, that such an
oversimplified listening diagram does the work no justice at all.
Both the programme note and the score mention a quote from the song O du lieber
Augustin, the same song that Arnold Schoenberg had quoted in his second string
quartet. Helmut Lachenmann in his Mouvement quotes only the rhythm of the song.
Despite claims to the contrary (even the instruction in the score), there is reason to
believe that O du lieber Augustin cannot, and was possibly never intended to, be heard
at all because

1. its rhythmic design is too trivial and has no salient feature (three dotted crotches
to 36 crotchets and nine quavers) to be recognisable;
2. it is embedded in a context of too many distracting pulses;
3. nearly each note is given to a new instrument;
4. most notes are obscured by double or triple impulses;
5. the rhythm is not supported by its original triple metre; and
6. the odd writing mistake has (consciously or unconsciously) cropped in by
transferring the traditional crotchet to the new underlying pulse of seven
semiquavers (double dotted crotchets) as Figure 1 shows.
 92 E. Hockings
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

Figure 1 Number of Demisemiquavers Separating Each Syllable in the Quote of O du

lieber Augustin.

One may suspect that, by putting the text all too neatly under the score and
mentioning its existence demonstratively in the programme note, Helmut
Lachenmann had his fun with a kind of emperor’s-new-clothes syndrome. The
expectant, diligent programme note reader, the musicians and the analyst know
about its existence, but hesitate to admit that they simply cannot hear it. Filled with
expectation, they may, however, hear a similarly trivial kind of rhythmic fragment
somewhere else, or they may even suspect a short phrase on the right spot before they
are lost again in the sea of exhaling noises.
Where then should the analyst cut into the flesh of the piece? Taking refuge in the
score, things look a little more clear cut. Adding the beginnings and endings of the
bell passage and the regular pulse passage, the divisions along the 491 measures of the
whole piece can be obtained (see Table 1). A closer look reveals a number of overlaid
symmetries, obscured by + / 7 1, + / 7 2 as shown in Figure 2.
There are too many symmetries to assume that they may be coincidental. They
are clearly the result of the composer’s manipulation. They are also too complex to
be done without some reference to pen and paper. Clearly, there ought to be
sketches testifying to these manipulations. Yet a thorough look through Helmut
Lachenmann’s sketches and manuscripts for Mouvement (—vor der Erstarrung) at
the Paul Sacher Stiftung (where the composer explicitly left all of his manuscripts)
reveals not a single indication of him having worked on the design of such
symmetries.
Among Helmut Lachenmann’s papers at the Paul Sacher Stiftung, there are also no
indications of which basic series (or pool of series) for Mouvement may have served as
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

Contemporary Music Review 93

Figure 2 Symmetries of Sections in Mouvement (—vor der Erstarrung). Redrawn by Jonathan Roblin.
 94 E. Hockings
Table 1 Formal Divisions of Mouvement (—vor der Erstarrung)

Measure

50 Beginning of the doorbell passage

111 End of doorbell passage
167 GP
192 Double bar line
209 GP
211 GP
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

217 Beginning of quote O du lieber Augustin

248 End of quote O du lieber Augustin
278 New section headed più calmo
308 Double bar line
319 Beginning of regular pulse passage
322 Double bar line
419 End of regular pulse passage
425 Double bar line
443 New section headed più calmo
468 GP

starting point(s), if and how Helmut Lachenmann translated his list of instrumental
gestures and articulations into number series, etc., or where the seemingly random
algorithmic tables that do exist may come from or how they relate. But Helmut
Lachenmann clearly works with such generative algorithmic principles, at least at the
start. Above most manuscripts since 1969/1970, including Mouvement, is a ‘structural
melody’ (Toop, 1994, p. 15) or ‘net of time articulation’ (Lachenmann, 1992, p. 7).
This melody appears to be a sequence of pitch and rhythm series unfolding in one
continuous line. This structural melody may or may not determine a certain event
rhythm, a pitch issue or the length of a section. One can only guess that there is a
relationship between this structural melody and the coordination of particular
instrumental actions (col legno battuto, frullato, different echo forms, various
incarnations of pulse, etc.), possibly by way of numerical/algorithmic processes. It is
clear from the manuscripts that this relationship does not work one-dimensionally,
which is to say that one has difficulty detecting a direct relationship between this
structural melody and the de facto events unfolding in the score.5 There may well be
several action fields overlaid. What also becomes clear in the manuscript is that this
structural melody does not determine the overall design as its notation often becomes
increasingly lax towards the end of a work and sometimes even disappears entirely.
While it seems impossible to deduce the driving series or algorithm from the
manuscripts, Helmut Lachenmann’s very early description of his composition
Introversion II (1964, withdrawn) may give some clues to the compositional
principles of the later works. This seems to border on the ridiculous, given that the
composer’s sound world became so distinctly different after ca. 1969/1970, but,
reading the following, one cannot help feeling that there may be a much stronger
connection than previously suspected:
 Contemporary Music Review 95
The concept is totally different from Introversion I, but it starts equally from a
situation created by me. . .. In this case, the situation created by me is a varyingly
dense net of pitch entries [Tonhöhen-Einsatz-Netz], which runs across the whole
length of the movement, and in each version a different section is allowed to come
through: the net is scanned for permissible pitches and timings for entries by means
of various twelve-tone series, which can be chosen at random from a given pool;
this for each part respectively. At the same time, I composed a clearly directed
process for all 6 instrumental parts, consisting of a number of—to use
Stockhausen’s term—events in which everything is characteristically determined
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

(timbre, form of motion, intensity curve, etc.) except pitch and duration and point
of entry. These are determined differently from work to work by transposing the
events to the pitches let through by the net as mentioned above, or they are
projected in the times between their entry and the next entry. Depending on when
and where an entry is let through for various instruments, different sound mixtures
and dense motion structures emerge each time. We are dealing here with a kind of
six-part polyphony coordinated vertically by this overriding net. . ..6

Interestingly, Helmut Lachenmann describes here a supposedly aleatoric work.

Together with the other compositions of his aleatoric phase in the 1960s, it is all too
often overlooked. Yet his basic compositional concepts may very well have been
formed during this time. It would indeed be very interesting to compare the score of
Introversion II with Lachenmann’s later composition. Unfortunately, the score is
nowhere to be found. Should his compositions after 1969/1970 be written-out
versions of the principle concept developed in Introversion II? As the aleatoric
Lachenmann only ever gave the musicians structured freedom, so may the
structuralist Lachenmann never have left the aleatoric game. But where does the
analyst fit in?
Helmut Lachenmann’s Mouvement clearly does not provide an embarrassment of
riches for the analyst. It seems extremely difficult to cut sensibly into the fabric of
his textures to the point where one begins to question the usefulness of the
exercise. If one succeeds at all (whereby more or less ignoring the aural architecture
the ear follows), a plethora of symmetries becomes apparent, intricately overlaid
and occasionally blurred. This creates the impression that the composer does not
appreciate analytical scrutiny. This impression is supported by the conspicuous lack
of evidence among his sketches and manuscripts at the Paul Sacher Stiftung. The
example of the quote O du lieber Augustin invites the speculation that the
composer may even consciously lead the analyst of his works astray. One can also
not entirely exclude the possibility of random procedures, given the laxity of the
structural melody towards the end of his compositions and Lachenmann’s roots in
the ideologies of freedom and chance of the 1960s and 1970s. A certain relaxation
of the self-inflicted order may also not finish with the first performance but
continue in the many later revisions of works (to name some revisions from recent
years: Fassade, 1987, Guero, 1988, Notturno (Musik für Julia), 1990, Tableau
(ongoing), Consolation I, 1990, 1993, Gran Torso, 1988, Streichtrio, 1993, and Air,
1994).
 96 E. Hockings
Analysts have been tempted to take refuge in personal contact with the composer.
Yuval Shaked’s (1985) analysis of Mouvement may be such a case. Here is not the
place to discuss any analysis in detail. In order to prove the lack of objectivity, it may
suffice to concentrate on a few issues. Yuval Shaked points, for example, to the
supposedly crucial measure 112. This is not evident in the score (the doorbell passage
finishes at m. 111). Shaked may have had access to Lachenmann’s manuscripts, where
the composer does indeed mention such numbers as 49 and 112. But why did Shaked
choose exactly this number mentioned only by and by in manuscripts that at the
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

point of his writing were not even publicly available at the Paul Sacher Stiftung?
A healthy suspicion emerges also about Shaked’s clear-cut definition of the staged
process. First, the regular pulse passage does not start with the double-bar line
between mm. 321 and 322 but began already in m. 319. Additionally, Shaked’s
divisions between mm. 152 – 153, 259 – 260 and 365 – 366 are similarly unjustified.
For example, the ‘diatonic, chromatic, sequence and arpeggio-runs’ (sic) that are
supposedly marking the change of texture at mm. 152 – 153 can already be observed
in the preceding measures in the flutes, clarinets and cellos. One could argue similarly
against the other divisions mentioned.
Another questionable independent analysis of Mouvement is by Robert
Piencikowski (1988). He exhibits, with the same confidence as Shaked, data that
are most unlikely to have been extracted from the score. They have either been
obtained from the composer and/or from Piencikowski’s own theoretical will power.7
The discussed pitch constellations invite particular suspicion. He mentions, for
example, impressively organised harmonic progressions of the brass and wind
sections at the end of the regular pulse passage (which is probably from m. 425
onwards), as seen in Figure 3.
How he arrived at that level of abstraction from the score remains a mystery. After
having consulted a substantial amount of Lachenmann’s manuscripts myself, it is fair
to say that harmonic manipulations of the kind that Piencikowski describes are
scarcely to be found in the composer’s sketches. Even if Piencikowski’s harmonic
progressions may truly reflect a level of Lachenmann’s construction, he could not
easily have arrived at this information independently.

Problems of analysing serially generated music result from the difficulties in

identifying the basic series. The set of proportions (rather than the single event)
determined by the series rarely formed clearly audible or sufficiently memorable
entities in the way that a theme in much tonal music once did. The basic building
blocks in serial music were often quite deliberately not isolated or articulated. The
serialists’ goal of serial works lay precisely in the elimination of salient gestures and
hierarchy (Boehmer, 1993a, p. 114):

The finally liberated music reacted to the totalitarian political demand which
intended to rule even artistic activities with a recantation of any committing
articulation . . . by musically resisting false principles of hierarchical dependence
 Contemporary Music Review 97
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

Figure 3 Piencikowski’s Harmonic Progression of Brass and Wind Instruments at the

End of the Pulse Passage. Reproduced with kind permission of edition text + kritik and
Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden.

(this is the relation of the dodecaphonic to the tonal axiom), new music objected to
unreflected authority in general.

In addition to that, different strata were overlaid, interwoven and superimposed,

leaving no markers for an outsider to unravel the weave. One of the challenges for
composers using serial techniques was to create macroforms, and one way of
avoiding the danger of simply adding serial texture A to serial texture B was the use of
anticipation and extension.8 There was a school of thought within the German form
debate (mainly expressed in the Darmstädter Beiträge) which understood serial form
as being an attempt to create a new concept of form as the interweaving of serial
strata (Adorno, 1966, pp. 18 – 19, ‘form from below’, ‘knot without dramaturgy’,
‘impenetrability of intimately bound-up structures’, ‘form-generating power of the
line’, ‘superimposition of several structures’ and ‘multilayered form’). On a practical
level, a composer’s decision of form seemed to have a lot to do with blurring the
junction between various serially generated textures.
The salient articulation was absent in serial music to the degree that the existing
salience and caesurae—if they were to be found at all—did not clearly indicate their
roles within the serial generation method. The final audible architectures were—
contrary to the serially generating method—what György Ligeti (1966, pp. 31 – 32)
once so pointedly described a malgré lui result.
To support their concept of serialism, however, composers and their supportive
musicologists intended to show that the shift of emphasis to these serially generative
methods (at the expense of the aural architecture) was more than an irrational
individual decision but historically conclusive and justified by the craftsmanship of
building structures. This is where analysis came in as a promotional tool. No less than
Carl Dahlhaus (1970, p. 238) claimed repeatedly ‘serial music, assumes, or at least
 98 E. Hockings
suggests, accompanying reading and analysis for an adequate reception and
understanding’.
A paradoxical situation governed the music discussions. Analysis was seen as the
justifying/promotive pendant to serial structuralism. The assumed objective of
analysis was to identify the functional relationship between the series, its elaboration
and its deviation or avoidance. The minimum requirement of independent analysis
is, however, the prudent articulation of structurally relevant categories. The effective
goal of serialism aimed to the contrary on the avoidance of hierarchical and salient
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

articulation. In the case of post-war continental serialism, this gulf between

compositional structuring and analytical structure became incompatibly deep.
So far, there has been little awareness of the two facts that (1) the analyses of
structures were mostly related to non-serial works and highly selective (with a
preference for works where the series formed indeed a theme or motive) and (2) that
the few analyses of core serial works were often nothing more than ‘paraphrased
composer’s comments’ (Stephan, 1985, p. 353). Thus, the realisation clouded the
facts that (a) the essence of serial overlaying endangers analytical imitation and (b)
composing serially and interpreting serial structures oppose each other as rationalism
and mysticism. ‘Nowadays it is only with difficulties possible to make out to which
exact degree Adorno’s musical-philosophical writings contributed to an under-
standing held by the young, postwar composers . . . that the serial procedures they
developed were rational ones’ (Kinzler, 1987, p. 97).
Helmut Lachenmann’s music seems to represent a world of irrational ambiguity.
One may come closer to addressing what his works may be/stand for/mean if one
addresses the reasons and contradictions that have driven the creation of such
ambiguous objects. The very essence of his music may simply be this possibility for a
rich multitude of interpretations and in that it is no different than any other great
work of the past.
This holds true even while accepting that the premise of the investigation—the
search for objectivity and the value of craftsmanship—was not suited to the object
investigated. Nobody would, of course, dream of applying these criteria when
discussing, for example, Morton Feldman’s musical canvasses, the beauty of a
kaleidoscope, non-representational modern dance, or the value of games.
Undoubtedly, Helmut Lachenmann’s soundscapes provide a rich and dazzling pool
of new colours and musical motions, unique combinations and a fascinating game
with representational signs. They are merely not verifiable.

It appears to me that it is not primarily the fault of our ear that we face the colours
of the timbral world helplessly, that we can never systematise them reliably. This is
rather due to our kind of terminology. . . . We float in the ocean of timbre without
being able to locate signs of orientation. . . . We rather ought to design a
terminology which can encompass the phenomena of timbre. . .

The difficulties are rooted in the fact that the relationship among the colours/
timbres has no constant dimension—at least for us these days (the sound of an
 Contemporary Music Review 99
oboe relates to the harp as the marimba to a ___?) . . . Those difficulties, however,
are not perceived as such by the painters and musicians. On the contrary, the
romantic inclination toward irrationalism, currently stronger than ever before,
makes us appreciate and prefer the non-categorisable as a sign of freedom.
(Karkoschka, 1976, p. 126)

Helmut Lachenmann’s irrationality causes disorientation and, with this process of

disorientation, facilitates an intriguing play with new sounds, players and rules.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

Notes
[1] ‘Serial’ as in the German seriell, not the 12-tone technique in general.
[2] I am immeasurably grateful to Richard Toop for all of his support and patience over the
years and in particular his comments to this article. He told me, for example, Stockhausen’s
story about Nono’s annoyance that he (Stockhausen) had so easily ‘cracked the code’ of a
movement from Il canto sospeso (R. Toop, personal communication, March 4, 2004).
[3] This and all subsequent translations are my own.
[4] In his lectures in Oslo and Berlin (1989) and Leningrad (1990); revised and extended, see
Lachenmann (1990).
[5] Lachenmann (1983) himself describes the use of a structural rhythm in his article,
‘‘‘Siciliano’’—Abbildungen und Kommentarfragmente’. But how the relationship between
this rhythmic frame and the acoustic events works in practice is not really clear from this
either. Simply by calling it a ‘framework for various polyphonies’ does not reveal the
generating principle.
[6] Lachenmann, letter to Ernst Thomas from December 12, 1964, in the archive of the
Internationale Musikinstitut Darmstadt. Richard Toop made a crucial connection when he
commented the following about Lachenmann’s descriptions: ‘This piece (like the highly
aleatory Introversion I) was written at roughly the same time Helmut Lachenmann was
attending Stockhausen’s Kölner Kurse, and in particular, had been studying Stockhausen’s
Plus Minus, and had made a partial realisation. Helmut Lachenmann describes this
somewhere as an overdue completion of his studies with Nono. The word events in your
quotation refers directly to Plus Minus. Though the latter work is extremely aleatory at one
level (not so much a composition as a genetic blueprint for making one), its components are
extremely highly structured’ (personal communication, May 15, 2004).
[7] Piencikowski’s article was the result of analysis courses at IRCAM in 1986/1987 within which
Mouvement was also performed by the Ensemble Intercontemporain. It is possible that
Lachenmann participated in some form or another at these courses or in the rehearsals prior
to the performance.
[8] Boehmer (1967, p. 54, n. 15) described this method in relation to Boulez, Koenig and Kagel:
‘During the last years a compositional technique of connection has become established which
could be described as pseudo-osmotic. While in dialectical tonal forms a structure was
developed out of another one, the verges of individual serial structures were now merged by
means of anticipation and extension. The material of structure X appears and fades within
structure Y, and vice-versa, the material of structure Y can emerge already at the end of
structure X’. In 1989, Boehmer (1993b, p. 221) stated about Luigi Nono that this composer
not only knew disparate ‘‘‘ localities’’ . . . which are tied together, but that he conceives each
individual locality, as it were, as a fabric, as a liana, which winds its way through the piece,
thus associating itself with others to bigger strata, motions and waves’.
 100 E. Hockings

References
Adorno, T. W. (1966). [No title]. Form in der Neuen Music. Darmstädter Beiträge zur Neuen Musik,
10, 9 – 21.
Boehmer, K. (1967). Zur Theorie der offenen Form. Darmstadt: Edition Tonos.
Boehmer, K. (1993a). Reihe oder Pop (1966). In B. Söll (Ed.), Das böse Ohr. Texte zur Musik 1961 –
1991 (pp. 96 – 116). Cologne: DuMont.
Boehmer, K. (1993b) Das verteufelte Serielle (1989). In B. Söll (Ed.), Das böse Ohr. Texte zur Musik
1961 – 1991 (pp. 207 – 222). Cologne: DuMont.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPL] at 02:57 28 February 2012

Dahlhaus, C. (1970) Ästhetische Probleme elektronischer Musik. In Carl Dahlhaus. Schönberg und
andere. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Neuen Musik. Mainz: Schott.
Hockings, E. (1995). The Helmut Lachenmann Collection at the Paul Sacher Stiftung: A Report.
Musical Objects, 1, 9 – 20.
Karkoschka, Erhard (1976). Nicht-Analysierbarkeit als willkommenes Nebenprodukt. In E.
Karkoschka (Ed.), Analyse neuer Musik (pp. 124 – 129). Herrenberg: Doring-Verlag.
Kinzler, H. (1987). Anmerkungen zur Verwendung des Begriffs ‘Rationalität’ im musikalisch-
musikwissenschaftlichen Kontext. In O. Kolleritsch (Ed.), Studien zur Wertungsforschung:
Entgrenzungen in der Musik, 18, 82 – 103.
Lachenmann, H. (1970). Klangtypen der neuen Musik. Zeitschrift für Musiktheorie, 1, 20 – 30.
Lachenmann, H. (1983) ‘Siciliano’—Abbildungen und Kommentarfragmente. Schweizerische
Musikzeitung, 123, 348 – 356. (Reprinted in Musik-Konzepte, 61/62, 73 – 80.)
Lachenmann, H. (1990). Über Strukturalismus. MusikTexte, 36, 18 – 23. (Reprinted under the title:
Dialektischer Strukturalismus. In Ästhetik und Komposition. Zur Aktualität der Darmstädter
Ferienkursarbeit. Darmstädter Beiträge zur Neuen Musik, 20, 23 – 32.
Lachenmann, H. (1992, February 18). Interview with Christine Mast. Jetzt . . . Das Streichquartett 2
[radio broadcast]. Frankfurt am Main: Hessischer Rundfunk 2, programme transcript in
Breitkopf’s archive, pp. 1 – 14.
Ligeti, G. (1966). [No title]. Form in der Neuen Musik. Darmstädter Beiträge zur Neuen Musik, 10,
23 – 35.
Piencikowski, R. (1988). Fünf Beispiele. Musik-Konzepte, 61/62, 109 – 115.
Shaked, Y. (1985). ‘Wie ein Käfer, auf dem Rücken zappelnd’. Zu Mouvement (—vor der
Erstarrung) von Helmut Lachenmann. Musik Texte, 8, 9 – 16.
Stephan, R. (1985). Über Schwierigkeiten der Bewertung und der Analyse neuester Musik. In R.
Damm & A. Traub (Eds), Vom musikalischen Denken. Gesammelte Vorträge. (pp. 348 – 358).
Mainz: Schott.
Toop, R. (1994). Breaking taboos (CD booklet). II. Streichquartett: Reigen seliger Geister. Montaigne
Auvidis: 782019, pp. 14 – 17.