Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This article is an attempt to classify and describe the array of new techniques that
Helmut Lachenmann has invented or exploited for string instruments. I mention features
of each extended technique and give examples of where they occur in the three string
quartets. I have also created a chart to help readers identify these new sounds.
1 Introduction
A defining feature of Lachenmann’s music is a subversion of inherited musical norms
through which he comes to terms with his musical genes. Clear examples of this are
to be found in his writing for string instruments in his three string quartets: Gran
Torso (1971/1972, with later revisions), Reigen seliger Geister (1989), and Grido (2000/
2001, revised 2002). In this essay I shall define the broad features of the norms of
playing technique that Lachenmann confronts (section 1.2) and describe the
abnormal techniques as seen in the quartets, which arise from this encounter (section
2). I will also suggest a loose taxonomy of sounds and techniques, which point to
their compositional significance (Figure 2, discussed in section 3). In conclusion, I
shall discuss the significance of these sounds and techniques to interpreter, audience
and composer (section 4).
Where I refer to Lachenmann’s own words, they are taken from Musik als
existentielle Erfahrung (MaeE; Lachenmann, 1996). All translations and errors
pertaining thereto are my own.
1.1 Notation
I will not spend much time discussing or explaining Lachenmann’s notation. His
publisher has to some extent provided a key to musical symbols, but not always to
ISSN 0749-4467 (print)/ISSN 1477-2256 (online) ª 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0749446042000293592
40 D. Alberman
instructions in German next to the stave. Should any reader prefer to contact me
rather than the composer for clarification, I will be delighted to help if I can. In this
article, however, I want to describe not only how Lachenmann’s new sounds are
produced and how they strike the ear, but also, more importantly, I would like to
discuss the significance to Lachenmann and to us of these sounds and techniques.
The use of visual symbols to capture the music is for me to some extent a
distraction from this discussion. What then does one lose if one discusses new
sounds and techniques without discussing notation? The answer for me depends on
the composer. Without going into Barthesian or Schoenbergian discussions about
the relationship between text as seen, text as heard and text as neither seen nor
heard, I believe that some composers conceive their music in textual/symbolic form
more than others. Iannis Xenakis, for instance, conceived of structures that he
discovered and invented in symbolic form. He could not illustrate them on an
instrument and did not discover them by experimentation on an instrument,
although he had a very clear concept of how his works should sound (string
players, for example, should never use vibrato unless specifically requested to do
so). The irrelevance of metre in much of Xenakis’ music and the probabilistic
distribution of events in time suggest to me that the notation is an antecedent of
the music as it sounds in a way quite unlike the case with Lachenmann.
Lachenmann set out to discover new sounds and techniques for producing them on
string instruments. Then he adapted classical notation so that the players know
what to do. In that sense, I believe, the music is self-standing to a larger extent than
that of Xenakis by the time it is written down. However, one important insight into
the conceptual history of Lachenmann’s techniques is the division and dismantling
of the component parts of each technique. By that I mean that established and
normal classical techniques consist of particular combinations of left-hand and
right-hand activity. For instance: a classical dolce, legato sound is made up of
vibrato (i.e. left-hand technique) and bow speed, bow inclination and the contact
point of the bow on the string between the bridge and the fingerboard (i.e. right-
hand technique). Lachenmann has separated out these elements (whether
‘deconstructed’ is the proper word is a question for another discussion) and uses
different staves for left-hand and right-hand activity, which allows him, for
instance, to specify that the hands should be rhythmically independent (Reigen, m.
109, violin 1). Lachenmann’s notation also allows him to make clear where he takes
a sound which would be continuous in classical music, but which he has dissolved
into its molecular parts. I shall limit myself to one example of notation, and discuss
these and other issues, in section 2.9.
Figure 1 Second Violin Part, from Lachenmann’s Second String Quartet, ‘Reigen seliger
Geister’, p. 62, mm. 369 – 370. # 1989, Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden.
stave, the full instruction to the left of the line in the original is ‘arco gepresst, Bogen
in Faust, Zeigefinger auf Bogenstangenrücken gelegt’ (‘press the bow, bow in fist,
index finger placed on the back of the bow stick’).
The crenellated descending line is a representation of the closely spaced, almost
continuous clicks that are produced. The descent of this line through the upper
stave shows that the contact point of the bow should shift gradually from
somewhere near the bridge to somewhere over the fingerboard. It is this shift in
contact point which changes the vibrating length of the strings (which have been
specified two bars earlier as the detuned third and fourth, D and G, strings) and
hence the resultant pitch as shown in the lower stave. See section 2.4 for an
explanation of this effect.
Note the marking mp express[iv]. Here is a keyhole glance at Lachenmann’s view of
his own music. The origin of these playing techniques may have been a highly
organised programme of subversion, but the music that Lachenmann produces using
these techniques is often warm, gentle and expressive. Interpreters forget this at their,
and the music’s, peril.
The syncopated ‘notes’ beneath the lower stave are in fact instructions to dampen
and undampen the strings in the given rhythm. The notehead O signifies an
undampened open string. The notehead Ø signifies that the open string should be
dampened lightly with the left hand. See again section 2.4 above for an explanation of
this effect.
In general, it is the precisely specific nature of the notation that is most relevant to
the theme of this article. Even the word ‘approx.’ in this example is subject to a
footnote in the original (‘the given pitches show what ought to result from the
shifting of the pressed bowing action’). Lachenmann has specified how to play,
separating each hand; then he has explained what the result should be, although this
48 D. Alberman
is contingent on the correct technique being used (and not vice versa). Before all of
this, he indicates the dynamic and expressive character of the music. Thus, the
notation illustrates the composer’s order of priorities in creating his music and the
position of playing techniques within that order.
4 Conclusions
4.1 The Significance of the Playing Techniques for Interpreters
While learning these techniques, I would argue that they need to have no significance
at all. What is paramount is a patient mastery of the sounds. That a classical son filé is
being subverted by a sphärisch long note is irrelevant if the player allows a clear pitch
to contaminate and poison the sound even for a nanosecond. Obedience is more
important than faith. These techniques use the instruments in ways unimagined by
their makers. If performed carefully, they will not damage an instrument. However,
they clearly challenge the player to accept the sounds produced into the canon of
classical concert music sounds.
The structure of Lachenmann’s music grows from the nature of the techniques
themselves: rubbed sounds, for instance, may transform from one instrument to
another into short, impulse sounds. This transition may be a vital link between two
sections of a piece and so great precision is vital in obeying the composer’s
instructions. The techniques, in short, are not optional when playing the music—they
are the music. One could not, for instance, transcribe Lachenmann’s three string
quartets for piano four hands; the music would simply disappear.
Contemporary Music Review 49
Figure 2 A Taxonomy of Some Playing Techniques in Lachenmann’s String Quartets.
50 D. Alberman
Following on from this, a large portion of the interpretative task—the selection
of sounds and techniques appropriate to the music—simply falls away. This is not
an emasculation of the interpreter—his or her role merely becomes subtler. This
article shows how tight the circumscription of the technical possibilities is for the
interpreter. But, to take an example, the elements of irony, nostalgia and
provocation conjured up by classical rhythmic patterns in the string quartets
(waltz, march, siciliano, etc.) can be mixed afresh for every performance while
respecting the technical instructions. Interpretation has been purified, not
legislated away.
Reference
Lachenmann, H. (1996). Musik als existentielle Erfahrung. Schriften 1966 – 1995 (J. Häusler, Ed.).
Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel.