Pression Revised

the “implied ideology of its [Pression’s] own process of creation,” Ferneyhough’s third
criterion. I will come back to the topic of freedom for the performer in the
discussion of performance practice, below.
I have attempted to describe Lachenmann’s aesthetic practice, with its nota-
tional and performance implications. Now I will look at the new edition of
Pression and discuss the changes it makes to the original.

looking at the revised score of pression

As I mentioned, Pression was composed in 1969, published in 1972, [Fig. 1] and
revised in 2010. The new edition was prepared by the composer himself,
in dialogue with renowned cellist Lucas Fels, with whom he has worked for
many years. A handwritten manuscript by Lachenmann was published in July
2010, [Fig.  2] and the computer-engraved version in July 2012 [Fig.  3]—both edi-
tions prepared for the cello lectures of the Darmstadt International Summer
Courses for New Music. When citing the revised version, I refer to the
computer-engraved version unless stated otherwise. When comparing the two
newly published scores, it is interesting to note the visual difference between
them. In the handwritten score, the calligraphic writing is clear and clean,
quite similar to the printed letters, especially with regard to the layout and
inner proportions. Still, as the human hand offers a more nuanced and subtle
picture than print, Lachenmann’s handwriting reflects the gestural notation
and graphic signs in a more lively way than the printed letters, thus offering
new information about the music. However, the great number of handwritten
instructions and the fainter print in the score makes the music more difficult to
read than the computer-engraved version. “Editing” has been described as “the
critical investigation of a text and its readings in order to establish the likeli-
hood of their truth within a piece’s historical context” (Greer 2011). Looking
at this revised text (score) of Pression, I will reflect upon Pression’s trajectory in
time, showing a relationship with the living performance practice today.
The new edition presents us with detailed performance instructions in
German and English, as well as an English translation of all the text found in
the score. The different techniques are well explained and have now been given
suggestive names like Morse-Abschnitt (Morse-section) and Gepresste Aktionen
(pressed actions), offering a clear direction for interpretation. However, the
name Schweinestall (pigsty), introduced in the handwritten 2010 version (bar
27), is omitted in the computer-engraved version. In the 1972 version, nearly
all the instructions were placed in the score in the course of the piece, whereas
now, the central techniques and sound ideals are explained in the performance
instructions, a common notational practice today.

The most significant change in the score is the addition of dotted bar lines
throughout the piece. The first edition had quite a few dotted bar lines, mainly
in the more rhythmic sections, but the piece is now fully sectioned into bars.
The original metric division lines are kept in an unfolding spatial notation
showing the approximate length of a quarter note, but what is new is that time

99