The Sound of Hendrix Playing Bartok Tran

The Sound of Hendrix Playing Bartók: Transpositional Combination in King Crimson
Author(s): Brett Clement

Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Summer 2017), pp. 167-198
Published by: Perspectives of New Music
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7757/persnewmusi.55.2.0167
Accessed: 09-07-2018 18:23 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Perspectives of New Music
This content downloaded from 147.226.7.162 on Mon, 09 Jul 2018 18:23:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE SOUND OF HENDRIX PLAYING
BARTÓK: TRANSPOSITIONAL
COMBINATION IN KING CRIMSON
BRETT CLEMENT
Aaspects of rock with techniques borrowed from

RECOGNIZED AGENDA OF PROGRESSIVE ROCK music is the merging of
European art music.
To date, much of the scholarship on this music has been devoted to
detailing classical elements as exhibited in formal and developmental
techniques, rhythmic/metric aspects, or an emphasis on strict contra-
puntal procedures.1 A model case in point is the band King Crimson,
who has pursued this fusion in various ways over the years, even deriving
inspiration from classical models outside the European mainstream
(e.g., American minimalism). Robert Fripp, the band’s guitarist and
leader, has described his aim as “to take the energy and spirit of rock
and extend it to the music, drawing on my background as part of the
European tonal harmonic tradition. In other words, what would [Jimi]
Hendrix sound like playing Bartók?”2
In this article, I focus on one significant manifestation of this tendency
in King Crimson: the pervasive use of the technique of transposition.
Example 1 lists a core series of instrumental pieces that are the subject
of this study. These works, composed primarily by Robert Fripp, span
168 Perspectives of New Music
Title Album Year

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part I Larks’ Tongues in Aspic 1973
Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part II Larks’ Tongues in Aspic 1973
Fracture Starless and Bible Black 1974
Red Red 1974
Breathless Exposure (Robert Fripp) 1979
Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part III Three of a Perfect Pair 1984
All or Nothing I Live! (League of Crafty Guitarists) 1986
All or Nothing II Live! (League of Crafty Guitarists) 1986
Eye of the Needle Live! (League of Crafty Guitarists) 1986
Driving Force Intergalactic Boogie Express (League . . .) 1991
Intergalactic Boogie Express Intergalactic Boogie Express (League . . .) 1991
Larks’ Thrak Intergalactic Boogie Express (League . . .) 1991
VROOOM Thrak 1995
VROOOM VROOOM Thrak 1995
The ConstruKction of Light The ConstruKction of Light 2000
FraKctured The ConstruKction of Light 2000
Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part IV The ConstruKction of Light 2000
Level Five The Power to Believe 2003
Elektrik The Power to Believe 2003
Radical Action Radical Action (To Unseat The Hold of 2016
Monkey Mind)
EXAMPLE 1: INSTRUMENTAL PIECES EXAMINED,

ALL WORKS PERFORMED BY KING CRIMSON UNLESS NOTED
over forty years of the band’s career, including contributions from every
incarnation of the band since 1973, as well as works taken from the
solo career of Fripp.3 The primary analytical tool I employ is transposi-
tional combination (hereafter TC), whereby a pc set is combined with
one or more of its transpositions to form a larger set.4 Cohn observes
that TC effectively models three techniques, all of which are common in
the repertory under study: (1) sequence, with transposed patterns occur-
ring successively in the same voice; (2) planing, with simultaneous
transpositions occurring in two or more voices; and (3) canon, with
overlapping transpositions in different voices.5 Example 2 provides
examples of each of these three techniques in King Crimson’s music.
While the relevance of transposition in these passages is obvious, the
larger sets generated through TC are indeed significant. For example,
the excerpt from “Red” (Example 2a) begins by transposing the
“operand” (0235) by T6, or (0235) * 6, yielding the “product” 8-28
(the octatonic collection). “Level Five” (Example 2b) arrives at the
same product using a different operand and transposition: (0369) * 7.
The Sound of Hendrix Playing Bartók 169
“Elektrik” (Example 2c), on the other hand, generates 6-35 (the

whole-tone scale) with the operand (0268) through both a sequential
series (0268) * 10 and a canonic (0268) * 4 from guitar 2 to guitar 1.
These three passages uncover a fundamental scalar strategy in the
employment of TC, whereby transpositions are linked to scalar
collections. Particularly noteworthy is the presence of whole-tone and
octatonic scales, which are otherwise quite rare in rock music. The use
of these scales is thus another indication of the music’s progressive
impetus, and Fripp has explicitly indicated his interest in the
possibilities of “expanding vocabulary.”6
This raises the question of where Fripp might have gotten his idea
for generating scales through transposition. Among the potential sources
are two influential books published in the 1940s: Joseph Schillinger’s
The Schillinger System of Musical Composition (1946) and Nicolas
Slonimsky’s Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns (1947), both of
which contain scalar patterns generated precisely as in the examples
above.7 The most relevant compositional influence is certainly Bartók,
whose music is often cited by Fripp in interviews.8 Several pieces
within the collection Mikrokosmos (1926–39) are close matches for the
techniques found in King Crimson. These include “Diminished Fifth”
(# 101)—which features the same (0235) * 6 strategy found in “Red”—
and “From the Island of Bali” (# 109) and “Whole-Tone Scales”
(# 136), which are potential models for some of the pieces to be
discussed below. Further similarities are uncovered in the smaller details
of the operands, which are often “fertile” sets (Cohn’s term): specifically
tetrachords that have at least one transpositional partition, and thereby
bear the TC property themselves.9 Commonly used operands include
(0134), (0167), (0235), (0246), (0268), and (0369).10
A perhaps more crucial factor explaining the overwhelming presence
of transposition in these pieces is discovered in Fripp’s guitar
methodology. As will be shown, the TC process described above is
deeply allied with the conception and performance of these works on
the guitar. Specifically, transposition is the process through which
Fripp explores the “new” musical paths of symmetrical scales while
circumventing musical notation, which he views as “taking music
further and further away from the original moment of conception.”11
Replacing notation is a guitar orientation in which scalar structures are
mapped onto the guitar fretboard, primarily through the transposition
of short melodic patterns. As Fripp states: “Since it takes three or four
years to work within any one scale fluently and utterly, there’s more
than enough work for a lifetime.”12
EXAMPLE 2A: SEQUENCE IN “RED” (1974, 0:00)

Red, by Robert Fripp
Universal Music - Careers (BMI)
EXAMPLE 2B: PLANING IN “LEVEL FIVE” (2003, 0:10)

Level Five, by Belew/Fripp/Gunn/Mastelotto
EXAMPLE 2C: CANON IN “ELEKTRIK” (2003, 1:43)

Elektrik, by Belew/Fripp/Gunn/Mastelotto
Indeed, as I turn now to the analytical portion of this article, much

of the focus remains on Fripp’s guitar part and its expression of TC.
The purpose of this section is not to provide a “complete” analysis of
any of the pieces under examination, but rather to follow the gradual
progress in Fripp’s quest to develop greater fluency with scales using
the technique of TC. In order to track chronological developments,
Example 3 divides most of these works into three compositional families:
“Larks’ Tongues in Aspic,” “Fracture,” and “Red.” Besides the pieces
with similar titles, works are grouped together due to shared thematic
content, scalar structures, pitch centers, and strategies of TC. I will
discuss in detail only the “Fracture” and “Larks’ Tongues” families
here, and only a handful of representative passages.13 Following this
overview, I conclude by taking a more critical look at the implications
of the analysis, first by reconsidering some the basic premises of the
approach, then by factoring in some additional guitar-based develop-
ments that impacted the evolution of the two families, and finally by
summarizing how this analysis helps one understand the reception
history of this music.
Before beginning, a brief word is needed on the musical examples to
follow. Given the large amount of music to be covered, I primarily use
analytical reductions, which are easily followed with audio recordings
(see time indications).14 Naturally, certain details of the music are
omitted from the reductions. When dealing with more elaborate
patterns than those of Example 2. I usually reduce them to a three- or
four-note operand, often stated clearly as the “head motive” of the
pattern. The remainder of the larger patterns, which I term the “fill,”
is usually omitted from the reductions. I employ two methods for
representing TC on the examples. The first, set-class transposition, is an
abstract representation that shows the “operand” in prime form and
the level of transposition as the ordered interval from the operand to
Larks’ Tongues in Aspic Fracture Red

Part I (1973) Fracture (1974) Red (1974)
Part II (1973) FraKctured (2000) Breathless (1979)
Part III (1984) Elektrik (2003) VROOOM (1995)
Larks’ Thrak (1991) VROOOM VROOOM (1995)
Part IV (2000)
The ConstruKction of Light (2000)
Level Five (2003)
EXAMPLE 3: COMPOSITIONAL FAMILIES
its transposed form. The second, more concrete, representation is an

adaptation of Heinemann’s “line multiplication.”15 Here, the original
melodic “pattern” is shown as an ordered series of integers, with the
first note in the pattern labeled as “0” and subsequent integers
indicating the intervallic distance between the initial note and each of
the following notes. The next part of the equation shows the ordered
example, “Elektrik” (Example 2c) states the pattern 0-8-2-6 at C#, B,

pitch-class transpositional levels at which the pattern appears. For
A, and G, or <1E97>.
THE FRACTURE FAMILY
The “Fracture” family is characterized foremost by the extensive use of

whole-tone scales. The initial “Fracture” (1974), though “one of the
hardest pieces to play” according to Fripp,16 is perhaps the simplest of
all the works under study in its methods, making it a useful starting
point for this analysis. Regarding collection, it is overwhelmingly focused
on WT1.17 Operands are limited to (0268) and (0246) and their shared
subset (026), and transpositional levels are few, being realized through-
out as rudimentary sequences. Relatedly, pitch centers are organized in
reference to notes of the F+ triad. In essence, there are only two
strategies of TC presented in the piece, which can be demonstrated
within the middle “moto perpetuo” section: a showcase for Fripp’s rapid
cross-string picking technique, where two different themes alternate.
Theme 1 utilizes the operand (0268) and is associated with an initial
T2. All four phrases shown in Example 4 are constructed as a pattern
followed by two transpositions, ending with a cadential arpeggio of the
F+ triad. The first transposition is always by T 2, generating the com-
plete whole-tone collection by (0268) * 2. The second transposition is
less predictable, being either (0268) * 4 or (0268) * 10, but it likewise
generates the same collection. More specifically, it is WT1 that appears
in all cases. As demonstrated on the music starting at (4:06), another
feature of this theme is that each phrase presents the same series of pc
sets in the exact same order: [1,3,7,9], [3,5,9,E], [1,3,7,9]. This result
is due to the T6/T0 relations between the initial operand and its third
iteration: values at which the operand (0268) is transpositionally
symmetrical.
Theme 2 (Example 5) is even simpler in execution, featuring the
operand (026) and T4 exclusively. Since T4 must be applied twice to
(026) to produce a complete whole-tone collection, T4 cycles occur
throughout. These are conjoined to the notes of the F+ triad, which
manifest in large-scale transpositions, as the first phrase on C# moves by

appears again as a phrase-ending arpeggio. Interval class 4 is also
T4 to the second on F, while the third phrase on C# moves down four

half steps (T8) to the fourth phrase on A. The process of transposing
along the T4 cycle culminates at the climactic statement of this theme
(9:59) (not shown), where the cycle commences on the guitar’s low A
and ascends by T4 until the high register of the guitar is exhausted.
EXAMPLE 4: REDUCTION OF THEME 1

FROM THE MIDDLE SECTION OF “FRACTURE” (1973)
EXAMPLE 5: REDUCTION OF THEME 2

FROM THE MIDDLE SECTION OF “FRACTURE” (1973)
Viewed in totality, “Fracture” is a tentative step in Fripp’s mission to

master new scales with transposition. As described, once a pattern of
transposition is established, the music generally continues along in a
similar manner, with only small variations allowed.
We now skip ahead nearly thirty years for the next item of the
Fracture family: the companion piece “FraKctured” (2000). Not surpris-
ingly, “FraKctured” is much more sophisticated in its strategies. Among
the obvious advancements include the increased presence of planing
and canon, the exploitation of numerous levels of transposition, and
the employment of several different scalar resources. The best evidence
of improved facility with TC is found again in the central “moto
perpetuo” section: another spotlight for Fripp that is clearly modeled
on theme 1 of “Fracture.”
Unlike the corresponding music from “Fracture” (i.e., Example 4),
“FraKctured” exploits more than one operand (see Example 6). The
five-note pattern “A” functions as the principal motive, and consists of
the four-note pattern “a” (the 0-8-4-6 familiar from “Fracture”) plus an
extra note that expands the set-class to (02468). Pattern “B” maintains
“a” but displaces the fifth pitch of “A” by a half step, creating (02368).
Conversely, pattern “C” varies the opening pattern “a” by displacing its
second and third notes down by whole step, creating four-note pattern
“b.” Given the similarity between these motives, their interaction in
this section will naturally suggest the technique of transposition.
However, since such situations are not strict transpositions, being
rather “near” or “split transformations,”18 the label “+” is used to
indicate the combination of different patterns (e.g., “A” + “B”).
Example 7 reduces four phrases from the central section. 19 Several
aspects of the corresponding music of “Fracture” are maintained,
including the phrase structure of a pattern and two transpositions and
the closing cadence/link. Here, the initial segment exploits the five-
note patterns (beamed eighth notes on the reduction), while the
EXAMPLE 6: MOTIVE FORMS USED

IN THE CENTRAL SECTION OF “FRAKCTURED” (2000)
EXAMPLE 7: REDUCTION OF FOUR PHRASES

FROM THE CENTRAL SECTION OF “FRAKCTURED” (2000)
cadence features transpositions of the four-note patterns (beamed

sixteenth notes). Another similarity is the continued prevalence of
whole-tone collections, which are often achieved by an initial T2.20 As
did “Fracture,” the first phrase (1:22) and the following phrase (1:36,
not shown) generate WT1. However, this specific collection does not
enjoy the privileged position it held in the earlier piece, nor are pitch
centers of the F+ triad emphasized in any consistent way. The
demotion of WT1 is most obvious in the phrase at (2:45), which
C#. One will recall that C# plays an important role in “Fracture,” yet
begins with three untransposed statements of pattern “B” on the note
pattern “B” is a subset of the octatonic collection, thereby thwarting

whole-tone associations. In fact, the octatonic scale is first generated at
the end of the opening phrase (1:22), where B is stated as an “extra”
five-note pattern and is followed by a T3 transposition of “a,” which
combines to the octatonic: (0268 * 3 = 8-28). Therefore, one prelim-
inary conclusion is that Fripp is now demonstrating knowledge of a
wider range of scalar structures that can be generated through the TC
of his operands.
However, outside these scalar references, there may be a more general

principle at play in some of Fripp’s choices of transpositional level,
namely that of complementation. That is, the “a” * 3 operation at the
end of phrase 1 not only produces a familiar collection (8-28), but also
one in which the pattern and its transposition avoid pc duplications.
Many of the other transpositions in Example 7 produce similar results.
For example, the second transposition of most phrases is T 1 (or near-
T1). These all combine to ten-note sets that avoid pc repetitions,
including 10-1 and 10-5. Further, the cadence/link passages, which
transpose four-note patterns, feature the already mentioned 8-28 as
well as 8-13, the latter created by quasi T11.
This analysis confirms the technical advancements resulting from the
years of Fripp’s work between the two pieces. If “Fracture” is
predictable in many ways, “FraKctured” seems comparably random in
its organization; even when certain expectations are met (e.g., the
opening T2), some other variation is likely to occur, whether it impacts
the operand, the level of transposition, or the resulting collection.
Therefore, it is somewhat surprising to find “Elektrik” (2003), the final
piece in the Fracture family, returning to the more predictable patterns
established in “Fracture.” For one, the piece uses exclusively whole-
tone collections from beginning to end, and even follows “Fracture” by
treating WT1 as the primary scale. The specific model for much of the
piece is, in fact, theme 2 from “Fracture” (Example 5), which trans-
poses by T4 along the F+ triad. See, for instance, the passage above in
Example 2c, with prominent use of F+ and T4.
EXAMPLE 8: REDUCTION OF THE CLIMAX OF “ELEKTRIK” (2003, 6:36)

Elektrik, by Belew/Fripp/Gunn/Mastelotto
Instead, “Electrik” is interesting for how it balances linear/

sequential transpositions with vertical/canonic counterpart between the
members of the guitar ensemble. The climax of the “Electrik,” reduced
in Example 8, is representative. Here, the instruments demonstrate
some independence, with guitar 1 playing the pattern “a” (0-8-4-6)
throughout, guitar 2 alternating between pattern “b” (0-8-10-2) and
canonic statements of “a,” and the bass using “b” until it switches to
single notes at the ending. Observe that the guitars do not always
synchronize their transpositions. However, they do work together to
produce an ordered series of scales, beginning in WT1, alternating
several times with WT0, and returning to WT1 at the ending. Though
the guitars do not have identical transpositional paths, there are some
noticeable consistencies. For example, the beginning and ending WT 1
segments follow “Fracture” by using T4/8 transpositions along the F+
triad. In fact, all of the transpositions that retain the same collection,
be they sequential/planed/canonic, are T4/8. Conversely, transpositions
that shift to a different collection are usually T1 (see guitar 1 or the
bass). In sum, “Elektrik” seems to exist between the extremes of
“Fracture” and “FraKctured,” following some of the predictable pat-
terns from the early work, while incorporating the variety of operand/
collection/transposition found in “FraKctured.” In this way, it is a
fitting conclusion to the series.
THE LARKS’ TONGUES IN ASPIC FAMILY
The “Larks’ Tongues” family contrasts with the Fracture family in

several obvious respects. Rather than whole-tone scales, it features
octatonic collections, and it replaces the even transpositions of
“Fracture” with ic3 transpositions (T3/T9). Its primary operand is
(0167), the “Z cell” known to Bartók scholars.21 Therefore, the basic
TC process implied by this scenario is (0167) * 3, which generates the
octatonic collection.22 Also, in contrast to the pervasiveness of WT1 in
“Fracture,” the Larks’ Tongues family generates some tonal drama by
pitting two scales against each other, namely OCT1,2 and OCT0,1. This
opposition is made more easily heard by linking certain pitch centers
with particular collections: pitch center G (and E secondarily) being
associated with OCT1,2 and pitch center C being allied with the
opposing OCT0,1. The story I tell below focuses on how each
successive work develops the TC strategies established at the beginning
of the series. The first two “parts” of the Larks’ series (both of 1973)
are quite enigmatic, largely avoiding the clear transposition-to-scale
process that characterized “Fracture.” This leaves the subsequent
works, all of which were premiered decades later, to clarify the

function of the elements introduced in the earlier works.
Considering “Part I” and “Part II” together, the opposition between
pitch centers G and C is most apparent, creating a structurally important
T5 relation that is referenced throughout the series. For example, in
unfolds the notes of the C (0369) (C-Eb-F#-A) before being answered

the opening section of “Part I” (2:52–3:38), the violin gradually
by a crushing guitar statement of the G (036) (3:39). At several other

places in this piece, pitch centers G and C appear, with G often
functioning as the tonic of a minor mode (e.g., 5:00, 6:18, 12:25). At
other times, the two centers clash against one other. For example,
“Part I” contains a passage in which the lead guitar plays the main
(0167) motive on C, while the bass simultaneously copies the motive a
perfect fourth below on G (Example 9a). “Part II” embeds the
opposed centers as the two lowest notes within the prominent stacked-
fourths chord that begins the piece (Example 9b).
As for the other proposition stated above, whereby TC is employed
to form OCT1,2 and OCT0,1, these two pieces offer contradictory
evidence. For example, both works contain a thematic area in which
the G (0167) occurs as the pattern 0-7-1-6-(0) (hereafter theme 1). As
the reduction of Example 10 shows, each version of the theme
contains a pattern and three transpositions, the last two of which are
together transpositions the first two. In order for the G (0167) to form
its associated OCT1,2, it must be transposed by ic3. However, T8
transpositions occur instead here, which form 8-9. Therefore, one might
again conclude that complementation is more central to this music than
EXAMPLE 9: OPPOSITION OF G AND C PITCH CENTERS

IN “LARKS’ TONGUES IN ASPIC,” PARTS I AND II (1973)
Larks’ Tongues in Aspic—Part 1, by Cross/Fripp/Wetton/Bruford/Muir
Larks’ Tongues in Aspic—Part 2, by Fripp
Universal Music - Careers (BMI) & Universal Music - MGB Songs (ASCAP)
EXAMPLE 10: TC PROCESSES IN THEME 1

OF “LARKS’ TONGUES,” PARTS I AND II (1973)
octatonicism. This alternative conclusion is particularly convincing in

part 2 (Example 10b), where the three transpositions of 0-7-1-6 at
<73E> combine to the full aggregate. The only manifestation of OCT 1,2
is uncovered by combining statements on G and E that occur at the
beginning and end of each theme (in bold).
Octatonic associations are stronger in theme 2, which is identifiable
primarily through its initial pitch center of C and cycles of T3 transposi-
tions (Example 11). Because “Part I” uses the familiar (0167) operand,
the result is the associated OCT0 , 1 scale. However, “Part II” uses a
different operand—primarily (025)—which results in the different
octatonic scale OCT2,3. Therefore, the pattern of T3 transpositions
seems to be more fundamental than any particular octatonic collection.
Further, it should be mentioned that other musical elements not
shown in Example 11, including the “fill” of “Part I” and the accom-
paniment of “Part II,” are not strictly octatonic. One the whole, then,
these two initial pieces leave many questions unanswered.
“Part III” (1984) is the only contribution from the 1980s incarnation
of King Crimson to the repertoire of this article, and it immediately
reveals the progress made in the decade between it and parts I and II.
For example, the rapid-fire opening guitar phrase of the introduction
finds Fripp much more at ease with the realization of pc sets on the
guitar (Example 12).23 This begins with the established pattern 0-7-1-
6-(0), which is immediately transposed by T5 from the G (0167) to the
EXAMPLE 11: TC PROCESSES IN THEME 2

OF “LARKS’ TONGUES,” PARTS I AND II (1973)
EXAMPLE 12: FIRST PHRASE OF THE GUITAR INTRODUCTION

TO “LARKS’ TONGUES,” PART III (1984)
Lark’s Tongues in Aspic—Part III, by Belew/Bruford/Fripp/Levin
Universal Music - Careers (BMI) & Universal Music - MGB Songs (ASCAP)
C (0167), thereby reigniting the opposition between G and C pitch

centers. Then, in the following “fill,” it spins out a series of (0167) sets
in a variety of different patterns (see brackets).
More importantly, “Part III” provides a stronger octatonic frame-
work for the elements introduced in the first two parts, with the
previously dormant OCT1,2 now coming to the fore. Consider larger-
level TC processes across the guitar introduction (Example 13). Each
of the eight phrases begins with a statement of the (0167) operand, as
represented in the reduction. In the first half of the introduction (i.e.,
the first four phrases), the G (0167) appears in this position, with the
EXAMPLE 13: OVERVIEW OF THE GUITAR INTRODUCTION

TO “LARKS’ TONGUES,” PART III (1984)
only exception being the third phrase, where a significant T 5 trans-

position to the opposing C (0167) occurs: a large-scale projection of
the transposition that began the piece (Example 12). The second half
of the introduction (Example 13, last line) is mostly a T9 transposition
of the first half. Therefore, the three statements of the G (0167) move
to E (0167): a (0167) * 3 relation that finally realizes OCT1,2. The
emergence of OCT1,2 is enhanced by breaking the large-scale T9 at the
third phrase, where T7 is used instead. That is, rather than transposing
the C (0167) by ic3 to complete its associated OCT0,1, T7 returns the
G (0167), allowing OCT1,2 to define the section as a whole.
While OCT1,2 has some primacy due to its role in initiating gestures,
most of “Part III” simply reinforces the opposition between the G and
C (0167) operands and their related scales. The central section
(Example 14) contains elements recognizable from both themes 1 and
2 of the earlier works. For example, similar to theme 1 of “Part II,”
both phrases (0:57 and 1:39) begin with the operand on pitch center
G and use ic4 transpositions to produce a complementary set: 8-13
here (compare Example 14 and Example 10b). However, the T 8 trans-
the notes Eb, F#, and A, an organization familiar from theme 2 of “Part
position of the second phrase launches a cycle of ic3 transpositions on
II” (Example 11b), and here the sets indeed combine to OCT 0,1.
Many of these same elements culminate in the following music
(Example 15), where the two guitars create planed transpositions of the
EXAMPLE 14: TC PROCESS IN THE MAIN THEME

OF “LARKS’ TONGUES” PART III (1984)
EXAMPLE 15: TC PROCESSES IN THE GUITAR BREAK

OF “LARKS’ TONGUES” PART III (1984)
theme from the introduction (guitar 1 sometimes inverts the theme’s

contour). Guitar 2 states the theme a minor third below, thereby
creating multiple octatonic scales throughout by (0167) * 3, the first
two scales of which are naturally OCT1,2 and OCT0,1. Then the entire
centers along the G and C (0369) sets (G-E-C#-Bb and C-A-F#-Eb),

theme is subjected to a T-3 chain, which produces a series of pitch
allowing for multiple reiterations of OCT1,2 and OCT0,1. In sum, these

passages from “Part III” show the G and C pitch centers beginning to
function steadily within an octatonic network of transpositions.
“Part IV” (2000) brings the developments detailed above to an
appropriate conclusion. Now, nearly all melodic/harmonic events ref-
erence octatonic collections, including local “fill” material that was not
always strictly octatonic in previous parts. Also, continuing the scalar
relations developed over the first three parts, OCT1,2 easily emerges as
the primary collection over OCT0,1. Compare, for example, the guitar
theme of “Part IV” given in Example 16 with the music from “Part
III” in Example 12. Like the earlier passage, Example 16 exploits a
single pc set, here (016), and states it in various patterns at different
pitch levels. However, unlike Example 12, all pitches remain within the
controlling OCT1,2 collection. This passage also reveals a new develop-
ment in the “Larks’ Tongues” family regarding pitch centers, true for
the works composed after 1984. While G and C centers remain linked
to OCT1,2 and OCT0,1, respectively, E often replaces G as the primary
pitch center of OCT1,2. This change is due to a practical consideration:
the use of “new standard tuning” for the guitar (more on this below)
in “Part IV.”24
One section in “Part IV” will suffice to illustrate the exceedingly
virtuosic employment of TC in this piece: the music labeled “Part 2”
on the studio CD, which is centered once again around Fripp’s rapid
cross-string guitar playing. As the reduction shows (Example 17), this
section consists of four periods, each containing three phrases. Phrases
are demarcated on the reduction by barlines, and all begin with the
familiar (0167) operand. Not shown is the substantial “fill” of each
phrase, which exploits notes of the local octatonic scale indicated on
the example.
Scanning the succession of scales in Example 17, one finds a directed
motion from OCT1,2 through all three octatonic collections, with a
return to OCT1,2 in the final period. Aiding this progression is a series
of transpositions that dramatizes the opposition between OCT1,2 and
OCT0,1. The primary transpositions are those by ic3, which maintain
the given scale and represent the opening transposition of each period,
and ic5, which achieve shifts in collection and which occur as the
second transposition of most periods. One will recognize both of these
transpositional strategies from earlier works of the series. T5 is further
highlighted by beginning period one on the G (0167) and period 2 on
EXAMPLE 16: “LARKS’ TONGUES” PART IV (2000)

Lark’s Tongues in Aspic—Part IV, by Belew/Fripp/Gunn/Mastellotto
EXAMPLE 17: OVERVIEW OF

“LARKS’ TONGUES IN ASPIC, PART IV” (2000), PART 2
Lark’s Tongues in Aspic—Part IV, by Belew/Fripp/Gunn/Mastelotto
the C (0167). As mentioned above, E ultimately overtakes G as the

primary pitch center of OCT1,2, and this emergence is fostered by
some subtle changes to the series of the transpositions in the last two
periods. For example, period 4 uses only ic3 transpositions T9 and T3,
which creates an emphasis on the E (0167) at the beginning and end
of the period, and further avoids collection shift away from OCT1,2.
More confounding are the changes made in period 3, which, at first
glance, seem unnecessary. Had period 3 followed the established
pattern, period 4 would still begin with the destination operand of E
(0167). So why replace T9 and T5 with their complements T3 and T7?
One possible answer is that these changes allow period 3 to end with the
opposing OCT0,1 scale, thereby strengthening the effect of resolution
into OCT1,2 in the final period. Further, the pitch centers on A and E
in this final shift appear earlier in period 1 at the initial scalar shift. The
fact that these ic5-related centers are both a minor third below the
familiar G and C pitch centers may also be a factor. Whatever the
explanation, this music can certainly be regarded as Fripp’s most
impressive demonstration of the skills he had gained by honing his
craft with TC over the years.
After the composition of “Part IV,” one can reasonably state that
the TC strategies first introduced nearly thirty years earlier were largely
exhausted. This conclusion is confirmed in the remaining pieces of the
Larks’ Tongues family, “The ConstruKction of Light” (2000) and
“Level Five” (2003), which make little attempt to add anything new
regarding TC, pitch centers, and the opposition between OCT1,2 and
OCT0,1. Instead, these final two works hold a similar position within
the Larks’ Tongues family that “Elektrik” does in the Fracture family.
That is, at this point, the elements of TC described above are simply
treated as fundamentals with which the entire ensemble may partake,
resulting in greater overall contrapuntal complexity. One final example
is offered to support this conclusion. Example 18 is a transcription of a
EXAMPLE 18: “THE CONSTRUKCTION OF LIGHT” (2000, 1:33–2:07)

The ConstruKction of Light, by Belew/Fripp/Gunn/Mastelotto
section from “The ConstruKction of Light” (2000) that presents a

stratified texture and multiple canonic and retrograde relations.
Minimal annotation is given on the example, as the reader will by now
easily recognize familiar elements of OCT1,2 TC processes. The bass
utilizes the (0167) operand (see brackets) and transposes it along the
T3 cycle from the initial pitch center of E. The two guitars employ a
similar plan, but present their transpositions in canon at T3 (beginning,
not surprisingly, from pitch centers E and G). Given the use of
polymeter between these two layers, as well as the unpredictable
retrograde relations occurring within the upper two guitars, the
primary transpositions between bass and guitars do not coincide, and
must be tracked separately. And while this music may not require the
same virtuosity of technique present in the Fripp-oriented passages
discussed above, it is equally a tour de force of ensemble playing.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The preceding section offers a wealth of compositional detail tracking

gradual advancements in the application of TC over the course of
several decades. It is useful at this point, however, to step back
momentarily from such specifics and consider how one might
understand these findings in a broader context. A necessary starting
point for this is to reevaluate the central hypothesis of my analysis,
specifically the contention that TC functions as a tool with which to
generate the particular product of scales (whole-tone, etc.). There is
reason, however, to question the validity of this scale-oriented
approach. The best alternative would be to place greater emphasis on
the act of transposition. In essence, this is an issue of the relative
importance of the scales produced versus the patterns of transposition
that generate them. Richard Cohn suggests that whole-tone and
octatonic scales have been interesting to composers not so much as
musical objects, but rather due to the fact that “they can be generated
by so many different transformational routines.”25 The motivation
behind this discussion is not to declare that transpositions are
necessarily more important than scales in this music. There is little
analytical benefit in such a pronouncement, and one can easily find
examples from the given repertoire where one or the other seems to
take the upper hand. The distinction is essentially one of perspective,
with transpositions representing a “bottom-up” approach and scales a
“top-down” orientation.
Instead, the primary reason for revisiting this issue is that it leads us
back to the more practical consideration of guitar playing. Indeed,
much of the analytical discussion above could easily be recast from the
standpoint of a guitarist, with transpositional nomenclature replaced by
references to shifts of the guitarist’s hand across some specified number
of frets and/or strings. Important here is a missing chapter in the story
told thus far, specifically Robert Fripp’s development of the “Guitar
Craft” method, which was first presented as a course in 1985. Fripp
describes Guitar Craft as “a way to develop a relationship with the
guitar,” focusing on “the fundamentals of playing the guitar with a
pick, rather than discussing music theory.”26 A detailed discussion of
Fripp’s guitar technique, which deploys a right hand in “free
suspension” for quick cross-string picking, is ultimately beyond the
scope of this article.27 Instead, Guitar Craft is directly relevant to this
study due to its promotion of “new standard tuning” for the guitar.
Example 19 shows the notes on the open strings for standard guitar
tuning and new standard tuning. The two share certain features, such
as being generated by a particular interval (perfect fourth in standard
tuning, perfect fifth in new standard) with one deviation in the
pattern.28 Fripp has offered various justifications for his conversion to
new standard tuning, such as stating that it is “an infinitely better
standard tuning than the old one, in terms of chords and single notes”
and emphasizing its ability to force guitarists out of learned patterns
(“you have to play intentionally”).29 These justifications tend to sidestep
any compositional benefits, yet Fripp admits that he found standard
tuning limiting, being “not able to place my skills as a guitarist at the
service of the muse to a degree which convinced me.”30 It seems more
likely that the repertoire under study, with its associated transpositional
techniques, acted as the primary impetus for adopting new standard
tuning. Given that Fripp’s guitar technique here involves the strategic
movement of a closed-position left-hand pattern (the operand) to
EXAMPLE 19: STANDARD TUNING AND NEW STANDARD TUNING:

NOTES ON THE OPEN STRINGS
different fret positions on the guitar (the transpositions), standard

tuning indeed presents challenges. Specifically, the deviation in tuning
between the third and second string limits Fripp’s ability to move a
pattern freely to all strings without changing hand position and
fingering.31 New standard tuning, on the other hand, increases the sym-
metry of the fretboard. Therefore, it greatly facilitates the process of
transposition, as it allows the given pattern to be realized with the same
left-hand shape over a greater pitch range. It is no accident, then, that
there is a noticeable spike in TC-oriented instrumentals on the last three
King Crimson albums, including reworked versions of earlier pieces.
The pieces composed by Fripp during the Guitar Craft era offer
additional insight into the interplay between transpositions and scales.
Example 20 is a reduction of “Intergalactic Boogie Express” (1991).
Here, the familiar tactic of using T3 to generate octatonic collections is
pitch center C to center Eb and the “planed” statements in the upper

employed: see the initial transposition of the upper melodic pattern on
voices at 0:45, 1:03, 1:12, and 1:49. While the strategies of the upper
guitar parts appear thoroughly octatonic, inspection of the lower guitar
reveals that many transpositions in fact have very little to do with
octatonic scales. Rather, an overall C-minor tonality seems to motivate
many moves; observe in particular those transpositions that imitate the
functional progressions IV–V–i and ii–V–i. Further, the lower guitar’s
melodic material is highly indicative of blues-guitar playing, with its
juxtaposition of major and minor thirds above each pitch center.
Cleverly, these blues patterns utilize only the notes of the same
octatonic scale established in the upper parts. Perhaps this is what
Fripp had in mind when he imagined what Hendrix would sound like
playing Bartók!
EXAMPLE 20: REDUCTION OF “INTERGALACTIC BOOGIE EXPRESS” (1991)
Another Guitar Craft piece, “All or Nothing II” (1986), appears on

the surface even less concerned with generating scales. Instead,
transpositions are derived from the intervals found in the head motive
“x” (see Example 21). Motive x is the pattern 0-3-5 (025), which
features interval classes 2, 3, and (most importantly) 5. In the three
statements of the main theme (Example 21a), transpositions are
centers D-A-D-A-F#. In the transition (Example 21b), transpositions

consistently by ic5 and ic3, always realized in the succession of pitch
of x alternate between T2 and T3, which thereby sum to T5.32 The

importance of the number five extends beyond transpositional matters.
Observe that the main theme (Example 21a) actually exploits three
motivic forms (x, y, and x2), and that each thematic statement presents
the motives in a different order: x-y-y-x-x2 (statement 1), y-x-x-y-x2
EXAMPLE 21A: REDUCTION OF STATEMENTS OF THE MAIN THEME

OF “ALL OR NOTHING II” (1986)
EXAMPLE 21B: REDUCTION OF THE TRANSITION SECTION

OF “ALL OR NOTHING II” (1986)
(statement 2, 0:40), and finally y-y-x-x-(y, in place of x2) (statement 3,

3:06). Therefore, this process involves the permutation of five elements.
The number five is not just derived from the pitch-intervallic structure
of x, but also references the quintuple meter used throughout the entire
piece. The transition (Example 21b) cleverly manages to reference both
measurements: its pattern of transpositions being taken from the inter-
vallic structure of x and its hypermetrical organization, which features
the alteration of groups of three and two measures, projecting the
quintuple meter.
Though “All or Nothing II” seems entirely driven by transposition,
one cannot completely discount the concept of scalar generation from
an analysis of this piece. The three motives, for example, all have scalar
associations, with x (025) suggesting pentatonic/diatonic scales, y (014)
functioning as an octatonic variant of x, and x2 (0136) combining
elements of x and y. All of these scalar associations are in fact attained
in the final statement of the main theme (Example 21a, 3:06), which
functions as a large-scale resolution. For one, through the reordering
of motives as y-y-x-x-y, the adjacent versions of x on D and A yield the
pentatonic collection F-G-A-C-D.33 Octatonic scales are withheld until
the end of the final statement, where motive y, appearing unexpectedly,
is coupled with a planed statement a minor third above, finally achieving
octatonicism through the required T3. Straightforward octatonic scales
also occur in the interludes at 1:45 and 2:58. In sum, these two Guitar
Craft pieces demonstrate again how one much balance consideration of
transpositional routines and scales in an analysis of this music.
Finally, one might wonder whether the analysis presented here sheds
any light on the reception of progressive rock bands such as King
Crimson. As is well known, rock critics have often attacked progressive
rock for its perceived allegiance to highbrow classical techniques.34
Perhaps more so than any other progressive rock musician, Robert
Fripp would appear to fit the stereotype of many of these critics, with
his frequent attacks on the “anti-intellectual stance” of rock music.35
Therefore, the analytical methodology employed here might similarly
invite criticism for playing into such stereotypes, as it places emphasis
on procedures associated with elite classical music at the expense of
more immediate aspects.36 In fact, Atton’s survey of fanzines shows
that progressive rock listeners often “seem disinterested in the specifics—
even the generalities—of how their music resembles classical models.”37
But if fans find such details uninteresting, what is it that attracts them
to pieces such as those under discussion? Hung suggests that an answer
can be found by focusing more on the “musical surface, visceral effects,
and elements such as texture and timbre.”38 Certainly, an important
delivery of visceral effects comes by way of Fripp’s guitar performance,

which is often overwhelming in its speed and accuracy, made strangely
more impressive in live performance in that he stays seated!
Ultimately, Fripp’s own comments offer a compromise between
these two positions. Consider his ruminations in 1998 on the piece
“Fracture”: “Twenty years later, [Fracture] continues to provide
technical challenges. The musical challenges remain, but more so for
an American: the piece is distinctly European. Very little power rock is
uncompromisingly European and convincing. Crimson metal of the
early 1970s is a rare exception.”39 This quote nicely encapsulates many of
the essential tensions of this music, on the one hand flaunting a loyalty to
European classical music, yet simultaneously emphasizing the body, both
in the references to the practical technical difficulties and in the choice of
stylistic labels from visceral “power rock” and “metal” genres. But what
about the analytical approach I have utilized, which seeks to uncover less
obvious structural features of the music through the concept of TC? As this
concluding quotation makes clear, Fripp views musical structure as a
fundamental consideration, both from the standpoint of the performer and
the listener: “The interesting thing about the heavy bands is that the weight
is in the volume. For me, the weight is in the structure of the music, the
tension in the music as it is written and played. And if you then add
enough volume so it is visceral, it doesn’t have to be deafening to rip
you in two places.”40
NO T E S
1. Among the many sources that forge connections between classical

and progressive rock music are Josephson (1992), Covach (1997),
Macan (1997), Holm-Hudson (2010), Lundberg (2014), and
Clement (2015).
2. Tamm (1990, 31).
3. This list is not intended to be exhaustive of all such works by
Fripp/King Crimson, but the pieces listed are those most relevant
to this inquiry. The last piece listed in Example 1, “Radical Action
(To Unseat the Hold of Monkey Mind)” (2016), will not be
discussed here. With its date of composition being far removed
from the rest of the repertoire, it may be viewed as more of a “new
beginning” than a continuance of the earlier works. Specifically,
though it continues to feature TC, it introduces a new rotational
technique not found elsewhere, perhaps an indication of a new
path for Fripp.
4. TC, and the related technique of “multiplication,” has been
applied to the music of Bartók (Cohn 1988, 1991b), Debussy
(McFarland 2005), Crumb (Scotto 2002, Moseley 2007), Boulez
(Heinemann 1998, Scotto 2014), and Adams (Sanchez-Behar
2016).
5. Cohn (1987, 1–2).
6. Tamm (1990, 16).
7. These books influenced a number of musicians, including the likes
of George Gershwin (Schillinger) and John Coltrane (Slonimsky).
Schillinger is even named-checked by Fripp in Tamm (1990, 16).
See Schillinger (1978, 150) and Slonimsky (1975, 8) for examples
of patterns identical to that of “Red.”
8. See, for example, Tamm (1990, 31) and Fripp (1999).
9. See Cohn (1991b, 268).
10. Of course, the scales and (sub)sets under discussion also exhibit
the property of inversional symmetry: a topic commonly associated
with Bartók. See, for example, Antokoletz (1984). However, the
King Crimson works under study make little to no use of the
surface technique of inversion, instead being entirely driven by
transposition.
11. Tamm (1990, 26).

12. Tamm (1990, 16).
13. It should be observed that the distinctions between the three
families become less clear in the latter portion King Crimson’s
output. For example, the piece “FraKctured” (2000) contains a
passage (5:10) with clear membership in the “Larks’ Tongues”
family; a varied statement of this music does in fact occur as
“Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part IV (Part 2)” (2000).
14. The author independently transcribed each of the pieces examined.
Additional fan transcriptions of some of the works discussed here
can be found online.
15. See Heinemann (1998, 77).
16. Fripp (1998).
17. In this article, WT1 refers to the whole-tone collection containing
pc 1, while WT0 contains pc 0. Similarly, for octatonic scales, the
labels OCT0,1, OCT1,2, and OCT2,3 will be used.
18. See Straus (1997) and O’Donnell (1997).
19. These phrases are mostly adjacent to one another; I have not
included the phrase at (1:36) given that it features nearly identical
techniques as the preceding phrase at (1:22) (but transposed by
T8).
20. Of course, the phrase at (2:18) is not strictly a transposition, being
a combination of patterns “A” and “C,” but the starting and
ending notes of the patterns suggest T2 regardless.
21. See Antokoletz (1984).
22. A Bartókian model for the family is therefore “From the Island of
Bali” (Mikrokosmos #109).
23. An alternative transcription of this phrase is to utilize a consistent
simple quadruple meter throughout.
24. That is, in order for Fripp to play patterns similar to those used
previously at the G pitch center, he must find an ic3-related pitch
that occurs at a nearby fret on the lowest string on the guitar. In
standard tuning, G occurs at fret three on the lowest string, while
in new standard tuning E occurs nearby on fret four, making it the
logical choice. A similar consideration informs the choice of pitch
centers for the short introduction to “Larks’ Thrak” (1991). This
music transposes (0167) by the ic3 cycle of the OCT0,1 scale (C-Eb-
F#-A), similar to theme 2 of parts I and II. However, the primary
pitch center is Eb rather than the more familiar C. This is due to
the fact that Eb is played at fret number three of the lowest string
in new standard tuning, the same position as G in standard tuning.
Therefore, the OCT0,1 scale here is an incidental result of Fripp
choosing fret number three at the default launching point for TC
processes.
25. Cohn (1991a, 23).
26. Fripp (2004).
27. In Rosen (1974), Fripp describes the technique as follows: “My
left hand is very similar, if you like, to a classical guitar position,
and my right hand is operating in free suspension which demands a
great deal of control.”
28. The major third in standard tuning improves the guitarist’s ability
to play major and minor triads, particularly open-position triads on
E. The aberrant minor third in new standard tuning, on the other
hand, is simply a concession to practicality, as it is difficult to find a
dependable string gauge for a string pitched at a high B.
29. Mulhern (1986).
30. Fripp (1999).
31. Such changes in fingering are not uncommon in the works before
1985, but most often apply to the fill, as Fripp usually avoids
transpositional levels that will affect the operand.
32. This same strategy is used in the interlude (1:54), though the
transpositions occur in a descending direction.
33. This strategy of using a pentatonic operand and transposing by ic5
to produce pentatonic/diatonic scales is common in this repertoire
(ex: “Eye of the Needle” [1986]).
34. As observed by Macan, critics “asserted that the [progressive rock]
style’s eclecticism and appropriation of devices associated with
classical music removed it too far from rock’s roots in rhythm-and-
blues.” Macan (1997, 169).
35. Tamm (1990, 20).
36. Keister and Smith (2008) argue that musicological approaches that
emphasize traditional analytical techniques ultimately diminish the
more vibrant (or “nasty”) aspects of the progressive rock style.
37. Atton (2001, 35).
38. Hung (2005, 256).
39. Fripp (1998). Emphasis added.
40. Mandi (1991). Emphasis added.
REFERENCES
Antokoletz, E. 1984. The Music of Bela Bartók. University of California

Press.
Atton, C. 2001. “‘Living in the Past’?: Value Discourses in Progressive
Rock Fanzines.” Popular Music 20/1: 29–46.
Clement, B. 2015. “Scale Systems and Large-Scale Form in the Music
of Yes.” Music Theory Online 21/1.
Cohn, R. 1987. “Transpositional Combination in Twentieth-Century
Music.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Eastman School of Music.
———. 1988. “Inversional Symmetry and Transpositional Combi-
nation in Bartók.” Music Theory Spectrum 10/1: 19–42.
———. 1991a. “Properties and Generability of Transpositionally
Invariant Sets.” Journal of Music Theory 35/1-2: 1–32.
———. 1991b. “Bartók’s Octatonic Strategies: A Motivic Approach.”
Journal of the American Musicological Society 44/2: 262–300.
Covach, J. 1997. “Progressive Rock, ‘Close to the Edge,’ and the
Boundaries of Style.” In Understanding Rock: Essays in Musical
Analysis, eds. J. Covach and G. Boone. 3–31. Oxford University
Press.
Fripp, R. 1998. “Diary, Wednesday, 16 September 1998.” DGM Live.
http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=1591 (accessed 20
December 2014). [As of 19 February 2018, available at
https://www.dgmlive.com/diaries/Robert%20Fripp/this-morning-
i-sat-with-210916.
———. 1999. “Interview with Robert Fripp.” (February 10). http://
www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hage0101/interviews/fripp.100299.html
(accessed 19 January 2016).
———. 2004. “An Introduction to Guitar Craft.” https://web.archive
.org/web/20040805181801/http://www.guitarcraft.com/monog
raphs/introduction.htm (accessed 2 May 2016).
Heinemann, S. 1998. “Pitch-Class Set Multiplication in Theory and
Practice.” Music Theory Spectrum 20/1: 72–96.
Holm-Hudson, K. 2010. “A Study of Maximally Smooth Voice
Leading in the Mid-1970s Music of Genesis.” In Sounding Out Pop,
eds. Mark Spicer and John Covach. 99–123. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Hung, E. 2005. “Hearing Emerson, Lake, and Palmer Anew:
Progressive Rock as ‘Music of Attractions’.” Current Musicology 79
and 80: 245–59.
Josephson, N. 1992. “Bach Meets Liszt: Traditional Formal Structures
and Performance Practices in Progressive Rock.” The Musical
Quarterly 76/1: 67–92.
Keister, J. and J. Smith. 2008. “Musical Ambition, Cultural
Accreditation and the Nasty Side of Progressive Rock.” Popular
Music 27/3: 433–55.
Lundberg, M. 2014. “‘To Let It Be Without Pretense’: Canon, Fugue,
and Imitation in Progressive Rock 1968–1979.” Music Theory
Online 20/3.
Macan, E. 1997. Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the
Counterculture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Mandi, D. 1991. “Interview with Robert Fripp.” Reflex Magazine
(February 5). http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with
_Robert_Fripp_in_Reflex_Magazine (accessed 1 July 2016).
McFarland, M. 2005. “Transpositional Combination and Aggregate
Formation in Debussy.” Music Theory Spectrum 27/2: 187–220.
Moseley, B. 2007. “Integrating Analytical Elements through Trans-
positional Combination in Two Works by George Crumb.” M.M.
Thesis, University of Cincinnati.
Mulhern, T. 1986. “On the Discipline of Craft & Art.” Guitar Player
(August). http://mulhern.com/articles/Fripp.html (accessed 25
January 2015).
O’Donnell, S. 1997. “Transformational Voice Leading in Atonal
Music.” Ph.D. Dissertation, City University of New York.
Rosen, S. 1974. “Interview with Robert Fripp.” Guitar Player 8
(May). http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_
Robert_Fripp_in_Guitar_Player_(1974) (accessed 1 July 2016).
Sanchez-Behar. A. 2016. “Finding Slonimsky’s Thesaurus of Scales and
Melodic Patterns in Two Concerti by John Adams.” Music Theory
Spectrum 37/2: 175–88.
Schillinger, J. 1978. The Schillinger System of Musical Composition.

New York: Da Capo Press.
Slonimsky, N. 1975. Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns. New
York: Amsco. (Originally published 1947 by Charles Scribner’s
Sons.)
Scotto, C. 2002. “Transformational Networks, Transpositional
Combination, and Aggregate Partitions in Processional by George
Crumb.” Music Theory Online 8/3.
———. 2014. “Reexamining PC-set Multiplication, Complex Multi-
plication, and Transpositional Combination to Determine Their
Formal and Functional Equivalence.” Perspectives of New Music
52/1: 134–216.
Straus, Joseph. 1997. “Voice Leading in Atonal Music.” In Music
Theory in Concept and Practice, eds. J. Baker, D. Beach, and J.
Bernard. 237–74. University of Rochester Press.
Tamm, E. 1990. Robert Fripp: From King Crimson to Guitar Craft.
Boston and London: Faber and Faber.

The Sound of Hendrix Playing Bartok Tran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sound of Hendrix Playing Bartok Tran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sound of Hendrix Playing Bartók: Transpositional Combination in King Crimson

Author(s): Brett Clement

Aaspects of rock with techniques borrowed from

Title Album Year

EXAMPLE 1: INSTRUMENTAL PIECES EXAMINED,

“Elektrik” (Example 2c), on the other hand, generates 6-35 (the

EXAMPLE 2A: SEQUENCE IN “RED” (1974, 0:00)

EXAMPLE 2B: PLANING IN “LEVEL FIVE” (2003, 0:10)

EXAMPLE 2C: CANON IN “ELEKTRIK” (2003, 1:43)

Indeed, as I turn now to the analytical portion of this article, much

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic Fracture Red

EXAMPLE 3: COMPOSITIONAL FAMILIES

its transposed form. The second, more concrete, representation is an

example, “Elektrik” (Example 2c) states the pattern 0-8-2-6 at C#, B,

THE FRACTURE FAMILY

The “Fracture” family is characterized foremost by the extensive use of

manifest in large-scale transpositions, as the first phrase on C# moves by

T4 to the second on F, while the third phrase on C# moves down four

EXAMPLE 4: REDUCTION OF THEME 1

EXAMPLE 5: REDUCTION OF THEME 2

Viewed in totality, “Fracture” is a tentative step in Fripp’s mission to

EXAMPLE 6: MOTIVE FORMS USED

EXAMPLE 7: REDUCTION OF FOUR PHRASES

cadence features transpositions of the four-note patterns (beamed

pattern “B” is a subset of the octatonic collection, thereby thwarting

However, outside these scalar references, there may be a more general

EXAMPLE 8: REDUCTION OF THE CLIMAX OF “ELEKTRIK” (2003, 6:36)

Instead, “Electrik” is interesting for how it balances linear/

THE LARKS’ TONGUES IN ASPIC FAMILY

The “Larks’ Tongues” family contrasts with the Fracture family in

works, all of which were premiered decades later, to clarify the

unfolds the notes of the C (0369) (C-Eb-F#-A) before being answered

by a crushing guitar statement of the G (036) (3:39). At several other

EXAMPLE 9: OPPOSITION OF G AND C PITCH CENTERS

EXAMPLE 10: TC PROCESSES IN THEME 1

octatonicism. This alternative conclusion is particularly convincing in

EXAMPLE 11: TC PROCESSES IN THEME 2

EXAMPLE 12: FIRST PHRASE OF THE GUITAR INTRODUCTION

C (0167), thereby reigniting the opposition between G and C pitch

EXAMPLE 13: OVERVIEW OF THE GUITAR INTRODUCTION

only exception being the third phrase, where a significant T 5 trans-

EXAMPLE 14: TC PROCESS IN THE MAIN THEME

EXAMPLE 15: TC PROCESSES IN THE GUITAR BREAK

theme from the introduction (guitar 1 sometimes inverts the theme’s

centers along the G and C (0369) sets (G-E-C#-Bb and C-A-F#-Eb),

allowing for multiple reiterations of OCT1,2 and OCT0,1. In sum, these

EXAMPLE 16: “LARKS’ TONGUES” PART IV (2000)

EXAMPLE 17: OVERVIEW OF

the C (0167). As mentioned above, E ultimately overtakes G as the

EXAMPLE 18: “THE CONSTRUKCTION OF LIGHT” (2000, 1:33–2:07)

section from “The ConstruKction of Light” (2000) that presents a

The preceding section offers a wealth of compositional detail tracking

EXAMPLE 19: STANDARD TUNING AND NEW STANDARD TUNING:

different fret positions on the guitar (the transpositions), standard

pitch center C to center Eb and the “planed” statements in the upper

EXAMPLE 20: REDUCTION OF “INTERGALACTIC BOOGIE EXPRESS” (1991)

Another Guitar Craft piece, “All or Nothing II” (1986), appears on

centers D-A-D-A-F#. In the transition (Example 21b), transpositions

of x alternate between T2 and T3, which thereby sum to T5.32 The

EXAMPLE 21A: REDUCTION OF STATEMENTS OF THE MAIN THEME

EXAMPLE 21B: REDUCTION OF THE TRANSITION SECTION

(statement 2, 0:40), and finally y-y-x-x-(y, in place of x2) (statement 3,

delivery of visceral effects comes by way of Fripp’s guitar performance,

1. Among the many sources that forge connections between classical