Teasing the Ever-Expanding Sonnet from Pierre Boulez’s Musical Poetics

joseph salem

Pierre Boulez composed several related pieces during the latter half of the 1950s. These pieces all
share both serial structures and wholesale notational borrowings. Importantly, when Boulez reused
notated material, his focus shifted from executing organizational processes to nuancing the contour,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

dynamics, and instrumental character of his musical figures, a concern I equate with “revision” in the
broadest sense. His habit of revising works in this way altered his stylistic priorities in future works.

Keywords: Pierre Boulez, serialism, revision, improvisation, Pli selon pli, Strophes, L’Orestie.

I
n the following, I guide the reader through a number of
sketches to demonstrate the prominent role of revision in
a specific selection of Pierre Boulez’s works from the late
1950s.1 Virtually all of these sketches relate to what I have de-
scribed elsewhere as the L’Orestie genus, named after Boulez’s
withdrawn 1955 theatrical work for the Madeleine Renaud
and Jean-Louis Barrault theater company.2 My primary goal is
to demonstrate overt, notated connections among several com-
positions separated by just a few years, spanning from L’Orestie
in 1955 to Strophes in 1957 to Pli selon pli (itself spanning
from 1957 to 1962 and beyond), several of which have never
been discussed previously. A secondary goal is to characterize a
particular moment in Boulez’s compositional development,
one that may represent the most significant change in his crea-
tive process during his formative years as a composer.3
My argument is straightforward, if also speculative: Boulez
conceived certain musical ideas while composing L’Orestie (in-
cluding ideas shared with other works from the same year); he
revised some of these ideas for use in Strophes, and then he re-
vised these ideas again for use in Pli selon pli. Throughout,
Boulez’s sketches provide evidence of his creative process be-
yond his serial matrixes. Thus, the relationships between these
works provide evidence of Boulez’s changing priorities as a
composer during the 1950s. Furthermore, the stylistic effects
1 All references to specific sketches follow this format: PSS (Paul Sacher
Stiftung), BS (Boulez Sammlung)/ x (Mappe), y (Dossiers), or PSS, BS/
G,1c,2c, for example.
2 Salem (2014). This research is the result of several months of primary-
source investigations at the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel, Switzerland and
was funded in large part by that organization and the US Fulbright
Organization. I am grateful to both institutions for their generous
support.
3 The following studies consistently highlight the powerful mixture of
ideas—compositional and otherwise—in works from this period, espe-
cially in Boulez’s overt reference to non-musical literary and artistic influ-
ences of these and related works: Adamowicz (2015), Bradshaw (1986,
1996), Breatnach (1996), Campbell (2010), Edwards (1989, 2006),
Goldman (2010, 2011), Guldbrandsen (1997b, 2016), Nattiez (2004),
O’Hagan (1997, 2017), Piencikowski (1985, 1991, 1993, 2002, 2010a, b,
2013a), Stacey (1987), Leleu and Decroupet, eds. (2006), Tissier (2012),
and, most recently, Campbell and O’Hagan, eds. (2016).
of these changes extend to Boulez’s later efforts as a composer,
including his continued revisions to Pli selon pli decades after
its premiere.
For at least the last thirty years, scholars have used the ex-
pertly catalogued collection of Boulez manuscripts at the Paul
Sacher Stiftung in Basel, Switzerland (henceforth PSS) to
demonstrate the inter-workings of Boulez’s compositional pro-
cess by exploring his sketches.4 While the nature of these stud-
ies varies wildly, virtually all of them share a tacit
acknowledgment that most of Boulez’s works are interrelated,
either through the use of similar row materials, shared sketches
or matrixes, or the reuse of actual notated material. Indeed, the
vast majority of Boulez’s compositional efforts could be de-
scribed as “cumulative,” such that the musical ideas or sketches
of one work are explored in a “first” composition, only to be
re-explored in additional compositions years or decades later.
Although uncommon in the prevailing discourse, I describe
these and other practices as “revisions,” and I claim that this
practice is a fundamental component of Boulez’s mature com-
positional process.5 My reasons for this go beyond the termi-
nological: I aim to shift the conversation from observing
material changes as a teleological path toward a single, desired
outcome, to questioning the conceptual role of revision in
Boulez’s compositional process, including related questions of
intent, authorship, and ontological stability. Hence, unlike
Brice Tissier’s recent spatial summation of the interrelatedness
4 Representative examples include selections of the recent Pierre Boulez
Studies, Campbell and O’Hagan, eds. (2016), virtually all of Leleu and
Decroupet (2006), the extended studies of Decroupet (1994), Dal Molin
(2008), Losada (2014), O’Hagan (1997, 2007, 2017), Salem (2014, 2015,
2017), Strinz (1999, 2003), and Tissier (2012), as well as shorter studies
such as those by Edwards (1993, 2006) and Piencikowski (1993, 2013b).
Older studies correspond to either a private relationship with Boulez
(Bennett [1986], Bradshaw [1986], Piencikowski [1985]) or the opening
of the archive (Bonnet [1987], Edwards [1989], Bradshaw [1996]).
5 Piencikowski (2016) uses the word “revision” in ways that parallel my pre-
vious research with him, although in maintaining his usual virtuosic word-
play, Piencikowski ultimately suggests “perpetual alternation,” “re-
revision,” and “spiral” as possible replacements for mere revision (all his
references are to outside texts with deeper reflexive meanings).

244
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
L’Orestie Genus
L’Orestie (1955)
Strophes (1957)
Le Crépuscule de Yang Koueï-Fei (1957)
Improvisation I (1957-8)
Improvisation II (1957-8)
Improvisation III (1959)
“Don” for piano (1960)
Don for orchestra (1962)
Improvisation II (r.1962)
Éclat (1965)
Éclat/Multiples (1966-70)
Pour le D. Kalmus (1969)
Improvisation III (r.1983)
Don for orchestra (r.1989)
example 1. The L’Orestie genus
typical Boulez’s works, I categorize the composer’s various
forms of self-borrowing as manifestations of revision more
specifically, with individual works or families of works repre-
senting different types or applications of revision in his com-
positional process.6 In effect, Boulez is not merely revising
materials, he is reusing ideas in order to refine, expand, and/or
develop them as a catalyst for creative development, often us-
ing specific types of revision depending on changing contexts
or needs. This hypothesis marks his reuse of material with in-
tent, allowing one to reconsider the coherence of Boulez’s own
aesthetics by highlighting his willingness to change, adapt, and
alter previous works. It also applies pressure against his use of
organicist metaphors to stress the genetic relationship between
part and whole, microcosm and macrocosm.7
Boulez’s use of revision results in a multitude of composi-
tional families: here, I focus on only a few works to provide a
demonstration of the sheer variety of revisionist tactics used by
Boulez and how they may impact our view of him as a serial
composer.8 Drawn from the category of revisions I call
“genetic relations,” Example 1 (the L’Orestie genus) represents
a group of works that all share common “DNA.” In some
cases, this means that actual notes and themes are borrowed
from one work for use in another; in other cases, it merely
6 Tissier (2012), Salem (2014, 2016). Both studies were aided by the over-
sight of Robert Piencikowski.
7 Boulez’s aesthetics are not an object; they are a living, breathing body of
writings and thought. Nonetheless, certain themes show up consistently
from his earlier writings (Stocktakings, Orientations), through his later ones
(the Collège de France lectures), with one primary theme being the rela-
tion of part to whole, microcosm to macrocosm. This corresponds to
Boulez’s analyses of Webern’s music. See Goldman (2011) for a broad
consideration of this perspective.
8 I discuss several families of compositions and related types of revision at
length in Salem (2014, 47–71).
245
Oubli signal lapidé (1952)
Séquence (1955)
Douze Notations (1945)
Tombeau (1959)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
clarifies that a certain fundamental sketch (including specific
pitch material) was used as the basis for multiple works. In
all cases, it means that the works in the L’Orestie genus
share actual notes and structures with one another that
evolve over time. This is in contrast to works that could re-
late merely by title (the Mallarme Improvisations) and typi-
cal rewrites to parts and expression markings of a specific
piece (Don of 1962 and the revised Don of 1989), although
some members of the genus are also occasionally related in
these ways, too. Finally, while the L’Orestie genus includes
far more works than the four I discuss below, other works
will only be occasionally mentioned as I focus on the specific
ties between L’Orestie, Strophes, “Don” for piano, and vari-
ous elements of the Improvisations sur Mallarme from Pli
selon pli.9
DEFINING THE “DNA”
Boulez’s own jargon is useful for defining what constitutes the
DNA of his works. Given his penchant for literature and—
especially during the later 1950s—the poetry of Stephane
Mallarme, Boulez opted to label a number of side sketches
“sonnets,” just as he labeled his resulting work for flute
Strophes.10 Together, these terms reify an amorphous set of
9 Throughout this text, I will use < “Don” for piano > to designate the first
version of this work for piano and voice, composed and performed in
1960, and < Don > to designate the later, quite different orchestral move-
ment featured in the premiere of the Pli selon pli in 1962 and revised for
subsequent performances of that work.
10 These sketches are discussed at length by Guldbrandsen (1997b, 2011,
2016), as well as in his dissertation (1997a); see also Adamowicz (2015)
and Salem (2014). While much ink has been spilled on Boulez and
Mallarme, I trace a particular moment of Boulez’s fascination with the
poet in the year 1957, as relayed in his private correspondence with
 246 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)
poetically inspired conceptual and material relations. Strophes
seems to have been commissioned as an ensemble piece by
Wolfgang Steinecke in late 1956 or early 1957. At least three
commentators suggest the work was intended for flute and cham-
ber ensemble, and a letter from Wolfgang Steinecke implies as
much.11 However, extant sketches provide little indication that
Boulez ever seriously attempted to complete the ensemble
parts—a few pages appear ambitious in some respects, but they
demonstrate only the beginnings of any such compositional proj-
ect according to Boulez’s usual sketch progressions.12 Meanwhile,
two essentially complete scores for (presumably) solo flute lie dor-
mant in the PSS collection.13 (Rumors suggest that attempts to
have the work performed have been supported by the PSS but
were resisted by the composer.) Viewing the manuscripts of this
work evokes the lush, resonant, yet chiseled gestural sharpness of
Anthèmes 1 and 2; it is undoubtedly one of Boulez’s earliest solo
masterpieces for an instrument other than piano.
The “sonnets” are more difficult to place. Strophes is com-
prised of a number of repeating cycles of lengthy set permuta-
tions, some of which are derived from material labeled as
“sonnets” in Boulez’s sketches. Like many of his later works
(but few earlier ones), these repeating cycles of expanding mu-
sical “envelopes”—or structured multi-phrase units—
ultimately spill over into a disproportionately large coda.14 In
the case of Strophes, the coda itself is nearly a third of the esti-
mated duration of the work, even as its source material
accounts for only 1 of 16 “strophe” units. This is both a formal
Karlheinz Stockhausen in Salem (2014, 189–95). Boulez’s own published
writings on Pli selon pli and his Troisième sonate also speak openly of his
fascination with the poet.
11 The idea for the work is reported by Richard Bennett and reiterated by
Joan Peyser (1976, 134). Griffiths (1978, 49) also mentions a work for
flute and ensemble. In a letter dated 26 May 1957, Steinecke reports his
anticipation for a performance of Strophes for flute and twelve instruments
for 28 July of that year; I thank Peter O’Hagan for graciously providing
this reference.
12 These pages include a complete but unused bloc sonore pitch matrix—a
rare and labor-intensive occurrence in Boulez’s sketches—as well as a sin-
gle page of carefully orchestrated material (PSS, BS/G, 1c, 2c and G, 2e,
respectively). Potential connections exist with later reuses of this material
in Don for orchestra. It may also be significant that Boulez’s instrumenta-
tion appears to reference three harps and three pianos—a striking combi-
nation that appears decades later in sur Incises.
13 A virtually complete draft in Boulez’s private “small” hand is seven pages
(PSS, BS/G, 2c); a later draft, written in Boulez’s public “facsimile” hand,
is twelve pages (PSS, BS/G, 2d). The later draft replaces the coda with a
signe that almost certainly refers to the same sign found in the earlier,
more complete draft. Copying this final section would likely have ex-
tended the length of the “facsimile” copy to nearly twenty pages.
14 Similar examples of end-weighted forms include Rituel: In Memoriam
Bruno Maderna (1975), sur Incise (r.1998), and Derive 2 (r.2006), all of
which hint at the growing tendency of Boulez to embrace this formal de-
sign over time. Earlier works such as the Sonatine and the First Piano
Sonata foreshadow this as well, although the resultant forms are not as de-
liberately structured, especially after their subsequent revision. See
Piencikowski (2016), which highlights various aesthetic and pragmatic
reasons for this shift is Boulez’s compositional designs.
significance and a procedural one, since the work relies in-
creasingly on the “sonnet” material toward its close.
Example 2 provides a schematic outline of Strophes based
on alphanumeric labels derived from L’Orestie; this table also
includes a schematic outline of yet another work, “Don” for pi-
ano, relative to these same sources. The abbreviations provide
a clear, bird’s eye view of Strophes, including the cyclic permu-
tations of its first fifteen sections (beginning with strophe 1a),
as well as the different permutations of the extended coda (be-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
ginning with strophe 1h). The boxed section of the example
refers to the application of a specific, expansive serial process
implemented later in the work—it is significant that the shift
in permutations is not perfectly aligned with the start of the
coda. The outline already suggests that Boulez developed the
process in medias res; further analysis highlights how Boulez
seems to have stumbled upon the process before formalizing it
as the serial basis of the coda.
In fact, the generative procedures used in each strophe vary,
from literal transcriptions of L’Orestie in earlier sections, to a
finale that expands just one of these phrases into as many as
seven related cycles. Significantly, this shift in how the music
is transcribed parallels the use of the term “sonnet”: the label
appears to have been attached to the results after the fact, as if
the process developed as a matter of degree until reaching a
point of categorical distinction. Nearby, Boulez also noted the
reuse of three specific sonnets in the Improvisations, again tying
the process back to Mallarme (and to yet another composition).
While convoluted, these details provide clear evidence of just
how multi-textual, indeed, poetic, the ties between L’Orestie,
Strophes, and the Improvisations are, as well as how difficult it is
to untangle the resultant chronology as Boulez transcribed, al-
tered, labeled, repurposed, and relabeled the material from work
to work in ways that defy creative premeditation.
Clarifying the process of conversion from one work to the
next requires stepping further back in time. Sitting squarely in
the mid-1950s, L’Orestie occupies nearly a year of Boulez’s life
between 1954 and 1955, alongside Le Marteau sans maı̂tre and
immediately predating the start of works such as Structures,
Book II (1956–62) and the Troisième sonate (1955–63). It is
also arguably larger than any of those works, reaching “almost
operatic proportions.”15 Thus, while rarely discussed as a with-
drawn and unpublished work, it is the crux of Boulez’s most
formative decade.16
Boulez composed L’Orestie on commission from Barrault’s
company, where he served as the music director for the theater
group in Paris and during its numerous international tours for
nearly a decade (1946–55, plus a few subsequent appearances).
It was during the return from one of these tours, in August
1954, that Barrault first mentioned the idea of L’Orestie to
Boulez. In the following months, both director and composer
15 O’Hagan (2007, 45).
16 While generally neglected in earlier writings on Boulez due to its with-
drawn status, L’Orestie has received notable recent attention. See
Steinegger (2012), Zenck (2002, 2003), and O’Hagan (2007).
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
example 2. An outline of the “ strophe” segments in Strophes and their relation to similar segments in L’Orestie and “ Don” for piano
worked hard to finalize the production by the following sum-
mer. While not remarkably successful (the piece received only
a handful of performances), it remains Boulez’s only attempt
at a substantial dramatic work for the stage.17
L’Orestie is significant to my investigation for two reasons:
first, a small portion of it forms the basis of Strophes and other
subsequent works; and second, it features a host of composi-
tional methods that challenge the very limits of how we define
Boulez’s brand of serialism.18 It is also significant that
17 An incomplete version of the play was premiered at the Sixth Bordeaux
Festival, 26–28 May 1955. A complete version was performed in Paris on
5 October 1955, and once again for a Paris revival (4 January 1962). See
Steinegger (2012, 147) and O’Hagan (2007). Campbell (2016) and Salem
(2014, 2018) also provide biographical context leading to the composition
of L’Orestie based on Boulez’s travels and correspondence.
18 “Serialism” remains difficult to define in the abstract or in relation to
Boulez’s long and varied oeuvre. Whittall (2008) provides both a pithy ab-
stract definition and a subsequent book of specific examples. Longer con-
siderations relevant to this period include Grant (2001) and Iddon (2013).
247
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
L’Orestie stems from his experience at the theater, including
the need to adjust his usual compositional methods to accom-
modate the demands of changing rehearsal schedules, dramatic
cuts and additions, and the abilities of various singers. Boulez’s
sensitivity to these concerns undoubtedly expanded his reper-
toire of compositional processes to include a variety of new
sketch procedures. Chief among these are the use of vocal par-
ticelle, block harmonizations, a shift from dodecaphonic to
smaller pitch-class sets, and the beginnings of recurring me-
lodic signals.19 Indeed, Boulez even seems to have invented an
entirely new form of pitch matrix to allow for the easy distilla-
tion of non-dodecaphonic rows and sets, including the blocs
sonores (or chord-like stacks of pitches) used throughout the
work.
19 I provide details of these in Salem (2014, 2015); similar topics related to
this specific repertoire include O’Hagan (2007), Guldbrandsen (2016),
and Piencikowski (1993).
 248 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)
example 3. A row matrix for L’Orestie (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 1b, 1 with my annotations)
Example 3 is a transcription of one of these matrixes.20 My
annotations highlight a few basic features of this matrix: (1) it is
not dodecaphonic in the traditional sense; (2) it features overt
pitch duplications; (3) it is divided into five vertical columns;
and 4) the bottom row is actually a repeat of the first, further
complicating its relationship to typical (dodecaphonic) matrixes.
The significance of this matrix in Boulez’s musical develop-
ment cannot be overstated. When perusing the Boulez
Collection at the PSS from beginning to end, it represents a
clear shift from the “true” dodecaphonic rows used in virtually
every earlier work published by Boulez, including his Sonatine,
his early cantatas (Le Soleil des eaux, Le Visage nuptial),
Polyphonie X, Structures, and even the advanced blocs sonores
20 The original sketch appears in BS/G,1b,1 and has been transcribed in var-
ious publications, beginning with Piencikowski (1993). Boulez used other
pitch matrixes in L’Orestie, including one likely borrowed from an earlier
“lost” work (Symphonie mecanique, 1954) that probably became the basis
for another later work (the Troisième sonate). Piencikowski (2016, 107)
also suggests that the lost Symphonie concertante (1947) may have been an
additional source for these works and Doubles.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
matrix used in Le Marteau sans maı̂tre. In this new style of ma-
trix, the above features distort some of the traditional values of
dodecaphonic composition, including the implicit goal of equal
pitch-class representation throughout the matrix. For example,
while the matrix is driven by basic transposition, Boulez does
not transpose the row based on the first note of each series,
but by one of two other possible operations. One could shift
the second note up and over to the next row’s first note, result-
ing in many of the rows actually starting on the same note
(three start on A[ or G], three on F\, two on B[). If one in-
stead shifts the last note up and over to the next penultimate
note, one can trace a Boulezian diagonal from the upper right
corner downward, this time with no chromatic duplications in
the operation (making this the more likely source operation,
even if the results are identical).21 Meanwhile, random col-
umns are used to create vertical stacks of tones (blocs sonores),
21 Piencikowski favors tracking the last note diagonally. In other works, such
as Poesie pour pouvoir (1958) Boulez uses transpositional schemes based
on rotating intermediate notes, such as the second note of a series, which
creates similar diagonal relationships; this makes both readings tenable.
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
example 4(a). A “ strophe” from L’Orestie (partial diplomatic transcription of PPS, BS/G, 1c, 2c)
such as those found in the box crossing rows I, J, K, and A in
the bottom right corner of the matrix. Readers familiar with
Boulez’s “multiplication” method—such as the one used for
the composition of Marteau—will recognize how immensely
simplified this procedure is in the L’Orestie matrix for generat-
ing similar chord-like structures.22 Piencikowski has previously
demonstrated how these blocs sonores were used for a handful
of primarily harmonic moments in L’Orestie, as well as in

Strophes, “Don” for piano (1960) and Eclat (1965).23 Here, I
explain how similarly sourced material was used as melodic fod-
der in L’Orestie and Strophes, “ Don” for piano, and the three
Improvisations sur Mallarme from Pli selon pli, all with an ap-
propriate emphasis on how this relates to Boulez’s developing
lyricism at this time.
GENETIC ENGINEERING
A few specific passages from L’Orestie provide ample evidence
of how Boulez reuses musical material among these formative
projects, although it is important to remember that because
Boulez used multiple and varied forms of borrowing between
these works, these passages represent examples, not archetypes.
Examples 4(a–d) compare L’Orestie, Les Choephores 4 (Choir
C), and Strophes to demonstrate how the above matrix is first
converted into counterpoint for winds in L’Orestie before being
revised into melodic writing for solo flute in Strophes.24
Example 4(a) includes writing for flute, cor anglais, and
harp from L’Orestie, while Example 4(b) displays the
O’Hagan highlights yet another function of these types of transpositional
schemes in relation to “spirals” in the piano sonatas (2017, 54–55).
22 The terms blocs sonores and “multiplication” come from Boulez and first
appear in his writings in the early 1950s. Boulez’s multiplication method
and more typical blocs sonores matrixes have been explored recently by
Losada (2008, 2014), Scotto (2014), and Salem (2018).
23 Piencikowski (1993). In addition, Losada has begun investigating the use

of blocs sonores in Eclat as well (SMT Vancouver paper, 4 November
2016).
24 I follow O’Hagan (2007) in my titles for this work.
249
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
beginning of strophe 1a from Strophes. The shared gestures
correspond to individual cells of row A of the matrix in
Example 3. There is no mistaking the duplicated pitch ma-
terial, although it is also quite clear that Boulez reworks the
material into new, unique gestures that highlight the techni-
cal, registral, and dynamic strengths of the flute. Examples
4(c–d) highlight similar relationships between L’Orestie and
strophe 1b. As above, Boulez continued to (mostly) respect
the original contour of the gestures, but here he changed the
order of their appearance. Any such examination of the
rhythms, gestural contour, and register of the two works, no
matter how superficial, will likely support that these revi-
sions resulted from a direct conversion from one score to
the other, without any need to reference the original pitch
matrix.25
Boulez varied the literalness of his transcriptions further as
he composed Strophes, making it increasingly difficult to ac-
count for borrowings from L’Orestie in later sections.
Furthermore, the borrowings change in a fundamental way be-
ginning with strophe 1g. With this strophe, Boulez seems to
have tired of using basic surface permutations, instigating the
search for a new process-based method. In place of the sponta-
neous transcriptions above, Boulez devised a new and distinct
combinatory process for the second half of the work.26
However, the resulting process is still firmly based on the
pitches and durations of the L’Orestie score rather than its or-
ganizational matrix.
Examples 5(a–c) demonstrate the “informal” formation of
this new process. First outlined by Boulez in 1963 and later
described in relation to Strophes by Erling Guldbrandsen, the
process at work compresses the polyphonic instrumentation of
25 Although I prefer the word revision, Szendy (2008) provides an apt con-
ception of transcription and its ability to provide a window into how
others “hear” or “listen” to musical works that complements my descrip-
tion of Boulez’s efforts during the compositional process.
26 It is possible that Boulez used a loosely standardized mode of transcription
based on the nomenclature/instrumentation of each strophe (1,2,3 versus
a,b,c). My point is to highlight that changes to register, dynamics, and
contour do not appear to have been preplanned or serialized.
 250 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 4(b). Example 4(a) repurposed as “ strophe 1a” in Strophes (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 2c)

example 4(c). Another “ strophe” from L’Orestie, Les Choephores 4 (Choir C) (partial diplomatic transcription of PPS, BS/G, 1c, 2c)

example 4(d). Example 4(c) repurposed as “ strophe 1b” in Strophes (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 2c)

L’Orestie into a single line of music.27 In short, this process
uses the original durations of individual, polyphonic notes in
27 See Boulez (1963 French, 1971 English), Examples 55–57, and
Guldbrandsen (1997b, 2011, 2016).
L’Orestie to guide a new distribution of the same pitch classes
as recurring notes in a single melodic line. This is easiest to see
in the hard-edged rectangular boxes of Example 5: a retro-
grade reading of the pitch classes in Example 5(a) corresponds
to the pitch material in the Example 5(b), but the order, note
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics 251

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 5(a). L’Orestie, Les Choephores 4 (Choir C), rehearsal 14 (partial diplomatic transcription of flute, cor anglais, and harp
parts only of PSS, BS/G, 1c, 2c)

values, and attacks change from one to the next. Example 5(c)
highlights how these rewrites were then used for the ornamen-
tal inserts in strophe 1g (the squared boxes relate to
Example 5[b] box F while the round corners relate to box E).
In effect, Boulez turns the three-voice texture of L’Orestie, re-
hearsal 14, into a series of melodic gestures. Since the details of
this process are quite complex and have been elaborated on else-
where, I will not dwell on them here; suffice it to say, the con-
version from polyphony to melody follows a rule-based serial
system. Nonetheless, other non-trivial aspects of the notation
that affect musical gestures, such as dynamics, grouping, slurs,
and register, were adjusted by the composer after the fact.28
Despite previous research into this process, Examples
5(a–c) are diplomatic transcriptions all of which are shown
here for the first time (to my knowledge). They highlight the
28 See Guldbrandsen (1997b, 2011, 2016).
role of what I call Boulez’s first “unnamed sonnet,” which
appears as a side sketch in the early generative materials for
Strophes and is the first result of the serial process described
above.29 Boulez converted just one more unnamed sonnet in a
similar fashion before formalizing this procedure to create the
four labeled sonnets.30 Example 3 places each of these by
name among the completed Strophes score as unnamed sonnets
1 and 2, and “named” sonnets AB, BC, AC, and ABC, which
are the same labels used by Boulez and others for these previ-
ously acknowledged and specifically “named” sketches.
29 The sketch is catalogued as PSS BS/G, 2a. It is not labeled and is situated
among other side sketches.
30 The named sonnets appear in folder G, 2b, 1–3; it is likely that the con-
version of the second “unnamed sonnet” was undertaken directly in the
score without a separate side sketch, probably because the original score
features homophonic simultaneities that were easier to convert due to their
durational equivalences.
 252 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)
example 5(b). Example 5(a) adapted into “ unnamed strophe 1” as a marginal sketch (partial diplomatic transcription of BS/G, 2a)
Sonnets AB–ABC are named for how they combine and per-
mute different parts of the same three-voice texture. For exam-
ple, when Boulez formalized the sonnet-making process, he
selected a new passage of three-voice music (now L’Orestie, re-
hearsal 16), but opted to label the three staves as A (flute), B
(cor anglais), and C (harp); he then combined these using the
polyphony-to-melody process above, first using only flute and
cor anglais, then cor anglais and harp, and so on, to create son-
nets AB, BC, AC, and ABC. Boulez even included a neat lit-
tle graphic in the score of L’Orestie, reproduced here as
Example 6—no doubt a thoughtful consideration for archiv-
ists, allowing us to imagine and confirm the network of musi-
cal connections.31 The named sonnets are also the only ones
with added annotations for the movements of Pli selon pli
(discussed below).32
The formalizing of the process is a genuinely astounding
fact. It implies that Boulez actually shifted from putting notes
on a score backward to formalizing a new serial process while
in the process of composing; and that he accomplished this while
still achieving the prescribed goal of creating a specific serialized
outcome that would result in the desired endpoint for a work
that was already mostly notated. This order of events is contra-
dictory to the usual impressions of Boulez’s compositional pro-
cess, including that his formal designs were mostly
31 Graphics like this pop up in various places in ways that immediately direct
the attention of the scholar to see certain possibilities over others, with
two notable ones appearing in a later number for L’Orestie and in the early
materials for Don for orchestra. I critique this aspect of sketch studies in
Salem (2016).
32 I provide transcriptions of all the sonnets and the original passages from
L’Orestie in Salem (2014).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
premeditated, that his serial designs organically integrate local
and large-scale formal attributes prior to notating the work, and
that the serial organization of his works often left him with little
control over the notated results of those same serial processes.
Looking more closely at Example 3 helps to put the various
“sonnets” in relief against the composition of Strophes more
broadly. I mentioned that Strophes was commissioned, that it
reused recently composed material, and that it remains incom-
plete: while the flute part exists as a performance score, the
original idea of the work was likely more in the style of the
later Domaines (for clarinet and ensemble). That time pressures
also played a role in these outcomes is supported by the fact
that—although Boulez often began the composition of his
works with prose outlines that list the musical features or tech-
niques to be exploited, the number of sections or parts in the
form, and/or other details related to dynamics, register, etc.—
no clear prose outlines appear in the early sketches for
Strophes.33 Similarly, Strophes has no row sheets not shared
with L’Orestie: while there is an elaborate matrix of blocs
sonores, I find no obvious relation between this sheet and the
solo flute part.34 Together, these details suggest a change in
behavior for the composer. I speculate that Boulez rushed to
complete the work after abandoning the overly complicated
idea of drafting ensemble parts, even to the point of skipping
the steps related to planning and organizing the (alternative)
work for solo flute. Then, he borrowed materials to provide
33 Comparatively rough sketches exist for potential movements and instru-
mentation for the hypothetical ensemble work, but these have little rela-
tion to the work for solo flute.
34 This sheet could resemble an attempt at starting the ensemble parts for
Strophes; see note 12 above.
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
example 5(c). Strophe 1g from Strophes, where the bracketed ellipsis reflects my omission of material (incomplete diplomatic transcription
from PSS, BS/G, 2c)
the pitch and phrase structure of the work. Ultimately, he har-
nessed a new serial process only when inspiration finally hit
midway through the project; he then used this new method as
the basis for an expansive coda and, ultimately, a new set of
works based on the conceptual cross-domain mapping of his
“sonnets” to his Mallarme Improvisations.35
This reading is supported by an additional fact: Boulez ear-
marked the structure for Strophes in the actual manuscript for
L’Orestie, treating the theatrical score itself as the basis of the
new design. Indeed, one version of the L’Orestie score contains
annotations that obviously refer to the “strophes” nomencla-
ture.36 These annotations change between strophe 2d and 3d,
just as Boulez begins to incorporate the new serial process used
in the later strophes and coda. Presenting the material in this
35 Piencikowski (2016) outlines specific social circumstances and their rela-
tion to Boulez’s compositional choices and practices connected to chang-
ing rehearsal practices with large orchestral groups during later decades.
36 As suggested by Example 3, these annotations were determined as much
by the phrasing of the score as by changes in instrumentation; similarly,
new tempo markings correspond to the strophe assignments.
253
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
way prompts speculation on a slow, deepening focus on serial
procedures. Perhaps it was only after Boulez became increas-
ingly absorbed in the new work for flute that he became more
motivated to create an original serial process for this work,
resulting in a rather unique and disproportionate coda. These
speculations on the gestation of Strophes highlight a distinct
and important trajectory for the work: that of a through-
composed piece, in which aspects of the actual compositional
process acted as feedback to influence the design, structure,
and execution of the final product (this being in contrast to a
more linear, spatial, or “organic” design). While these types of
speculations may seem intuitive to any working composer,
having evidence of how such a feedback mechanism may have
functioned in Boulez’s working process provides unique
insights into his creative method, some of which may contra-
dict the “rhetoric of autonomy” harnessed by Boulez and so
many other contemporary composers.37
37 Wilson (2004) is now the classic argument for a skeptical approach to
how composers shape their own narratives over time, including elements
 254 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)

[red]
[green]

abc
A
A b
B

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

B B abc
a {C
[blue]
A
{A
B
c {B
C
C ab
ac
abc
bc
example 6. Transcription of the permutation scheme from the margins of the PSS L’Orestie score, originally in green, blue, and red

In sum, changes in the conversion of material from
L’Orestie to Strophes highlight changes to Boulez’s composi-
tional process more broadly. These are in contrast to the deep,
thoroughly hierarchical organization that appears in the first
movement of Structures, Book II (finished in 1956) and the
Troisième sonate, both of which occupied Boulez around the
same time. Individual movements from both works have been
extensively and convincingly analyzed by scholars to demon-
strate the abundance of macro- to micro-organizational con-
nections.38 My sense, however, is that this type of deep,
meticulous serial planning of large-scale structures was taken
to its limits during the late 1950s. Later works still feature
deep points of structural interconnection between micro- and
macro-structural organization, but the ways and methods these
relationships are executed appear to become more modular and
less hierarchical than in these earlier works—changes that ap-
pear in large part indebted to the procedures used in
Strophes.39
of their compositional processes. Boulez had a particular talent in this
area.
38 See Losada (2008, 2014), O’Hagan (1997, 2006a, b, 2017), and Salem
(2014).
39 Later works undoubtedly feature deep points of structural interconnection
between micro- and macro-structural organization, but the ways that these
For example, simpler, additive formal designs provided
Boulez with the ability to expand from within or without by
making passages longer or by adding successive movements
without having to rewrite or reconceive the serial organization
of his form. Altering the structural coherence of Structures,
Book 2, Chapter 1, while maintaining its “organic” structural
properties, seems like it would be a challenge after reading
Losada’s excellent work on the subject.40 It also seems like a
wholly different kind of project than Boulez’s later expansions
of Derive or Repons, or his other works based on the “Sacher”
or Originel series (or even his Structures, Book 2, Chapter 2,
composed roughly five years after the first movement and fea-
turing a modular construction).41 Note also how Boulez has
expanded, contracted, and rewritten select parts, movements,
relationships are executed appear to be more modular and flexible than in
earlier works. Even later approaches to earlier works, such as the orches-
trated Notations and revisions to . . . demonstrate a retroactive application
of this kind of formal thinking in which works are published and per-
formed in part rather than whole, and are expanded at liberty without
concern for their formal integrity as “wholes.” See Tissier (2012), Dal
Molin (2008, 2016), Goldman (2001, 2011), and Piencikowski (2016) for
summaries on how Boulez’s approach to form developed at this time.
40 Losada (2014).
41 Goldman (2011) offers the clearest discussion of the pervasiveness of the
“Sacher” and “Originel” series in Boulez’s later works. I discuss important
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
and refrains between the original Explosante-fixe (1972) and
the much later . . . explosante-fixe . . . (1991–93).42 The list
goes on. What all of these examples have in common is a per-
ceived value in combining serial materials with modular or ad-
ditive forms, allowing Boulez to quickly draft, permute, and
rework old, new, borrowed, or revised musical materials into
new or expanded musical works. They also share another fea-
ture: the general abandonment of creating brand new matrixes
for each new work.43 In short, like the conversion from
L’Orestie to Strophes, Boulez seemed increasingly interested in
creating serial processes that focus on basic permutation, or
the exhaustion of a single pitch set, rather than devising
completely new, elaborately detailed serial plans that exhaus-
tively pre-organize every feature of a hierarchical, “organic,”
and “closed” musical structure.
FOLLOWING A SINGLE STRAND: STROPHE 1H
Moving forward in time adds even more richness to Boulez’s
creative process. The starting place is now the coda of Strophes,
beginning at strophe 1h. Example 7 is a transcription of the
wind parts from L’Orestie, Les Choephores 4 (Choir C), re-
hearsal 16, which forms the basis of this section. This music
was composed using the pitch matrix in Example 3 and was
the only source for sonnets AB–ABC, as well as for strophe
1h in its completed form. Example 8 is a corresponding tran-
scription of the beginning of the coda, strophe 1h, cycle 1, for
comparison.
Example 8 contains a few striking features. First, unlike
previous strophes that present elaborate, even ornamental ar-
ticulation and dynamic markings, strophe 1h forgoes this level
of musical detail (one assumes due to time constraints).44
Second, Boulez uses brackets to offset the ornamental small
notes from the structural large ones. Third, the relationship
between the large and small notes relates to a form of “implied
polyphony,” such that longer notes are visually and aurally off-
set from smaller ornaments by the speed of their articulation
and by the range and disjunct nature of their registral profiles.
All of these features contrast with the musical function of sim-
ilar ornaments found in strophe 1g, shown in Example 5(c):
here, the use of “unnamed sonnet 1” was less formalized, and
the ornaments—new to that section—were used as inserts or
musical “breaths” confined to the space between melodic ges-
tures, rather than in counterpoint with them. Even so,
differences between the two Structures, Book 2 chapters in Salem (2014,
2016).
42 See Dal Molin (2008, 2016).
43 Organizational sheets such as Boulez’s “stack matrixes” are often found at
the start of my various “families” of works precisely because they were so
easy for Boulez to reuse as generic sources for pitch fodder. Eventually, as
Goldman (2011) makes clear, Boulez even resorted to overt thematic
cross-pollination.
44 As noted above, the “fair copy” score uses a signe to refer to the first draft,
which means that even the performance copy of the coda lacks articulation
marks.
255
comparing Example 7 with Example 8 reveals the transparent
relationship between the singular flute part in L’Orestie (re-
hearsal 16) and the large, structural notes in strophe 1h. The
correspondences highlight that, even after formalizing his new
serial process, Boulez did not hesitate to reuse unadulterated
material as the melodic basis for Strophes, just as he did at the
start of the piece. Things get more complicated as Boulez
shifts to additional reuses of this material. The relationships
between L’Orestie and Strophes demonstrate how, in virtually
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
every case, reusing notated material functions as a catalyst for
greater melodic and gestural nuance. This pattern continues as
Boulez repurposes this material yet again years later. Examples
9(a–d) juxtapose excerpts from cahiers 2 and 3 from “Don” for
piano with strophes 3d and 1h from Strophes. Changes to the
material—its gestural shape, its distribution in time and regis-
tral space, its articulation—are now more extreme than before
due to the progression from polyphony to flute to piano.
While it is noteworthy that Boulez transcribes much of the
pitch-class material verbatim from Strophes to “Don” for piano,
it is also true that his changes to the material—especially when
adjusting register, duration, and, as a result, gestural contour—
demonstrate an even greater sensitivity to instrumentation
than his original revisions to solo flute. For example, Boulez
reinterprets the trills on the flute as dramatic fermatas on the
piano, and he uses sostenuto pedal frequently to expand the
musical fabric down into the lowest octaves to emphasize the
harmonic content of his original pitch-class sets. He also con-
verts various linear gestures (back) into harmonic ones, return-
ing (perhaps somewhat ironically) to the polyphonic writing of
L’Orestie, even though the source of the music is clearly (now)
the work for solo flute. The abundance of slurs and the regis-
tral stratification also help to nuance the gestures even further:
pianists will find that the spacing and slurs convey a new sense
of time, breath, and shape to each gesture, especially as the use
of pedal, the lack of bar lines, and the freer disposition of the
passagework suggest more opportunities for savoring the con-
tour of each figure at the expense of metronomic time.45
Altogether, these examples trace the reuse of a select group
of gestures across at least three different works. The unpredict-
able result is that Boulez forms a new serial process in the
midst of these borrowings, but he does not allow this result to
control or determine the reuse of this material in “Don,” nor
does he seem to revert to his organizational outlines: rather, he
uses the borrowings to shift his attention increasingly toward
non-pitch parameters that exploit the piano as much as possi-
ble. In what follows, I highlight a series of strong but
45 A robust literature now exists relating Boulez’s theorization of time in mu-
sic to various performance practices and philosophical and aesthetic posi-
tions. See Goldman (2011), Campbell (2010, 2013) Nattiez (2004), and
Scherzinger (2008) for a few representative discussions. Virtually all of
these focus on two types of “time” in Boulez’s music, one more closely
aligned with traditional beats, the other more free and amorphous.
However, the sense of time I refer to above is meant to evoke more tradi-
tional concerns of performance practice, such as how “metronomic” versus
how “freely” to interpret metered beats.
256 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 7. L’Orestie, Les Choephores 4 (Choir C), rehearsal 16 (partial diplomatic transcription of flute, cor anglais, and harp parts
only, PSS, BS, G, 1c, 2c)

increasingly cryptic revisions that connect sonnets AB–ABC analyses of his works. Nonetheless, several recent studies have
to Boulez’s three Improvisations sur Mallarme from Pli selon examined its sketches, revealing layers of analytical detail about
pli, adding yet more evidence as to how borrowings shaped the its construction and Boulez’s corresponding compositional
creative preoccupations of the composer. process.46 The discussion that follows shares many

“IMPROVISATION” AS TITLE, DESCRIPTION, AND METHOD

46 See Albera (2003), Guldbrandsen (1997a, b, 2016), Piencikowski (2010a)
and Adamowicz (2015). For a recent evaluation of Pli selon pli that is less
Despite being oft cited as Boulez’s “masterpiece,” Pli selon pli focused on sketch materials, see Whittall (2004). Werner Stinz is also pre-
is still underrepresented among dedicated, comprehensive paring a large-scale sketch study of the work.
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics 257

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 8. Strophe 1h from Strophes (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 2c)

example 9(a). Excerpt from Strophes, strophe 3d (partial diplomatic transcription from PSS, BS/G, 2c)

example 9(b). Excerpt from “ Don” for piano, cahier 1 (partial diplomatic transcription from PSS, BS/G, 4b, 6)
 258 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)
example 9(c). Excerpt from Strophes, strophe 1h, cycle 1 (partial diplomatic transcription from PSS, BS/G, 2c)
example 9(d). Another excerpt from “ Don” for piano, cahier 2 (partial diplomatic transcription from PSS, BS/G, 4b, 6)
observations with these studies, although the analytical detail
is based upon my own investigation of the primary sources.
Boulez often made clear notes in the margins of his
sketches. This may be the most surprising and enlightening as-
pect of looking at his manuscripts: many cues are provided for
the observer, from how one serial process relates to another, to
exactly what pre-composed sources he planned on using for
various parts of his Improvisations.47 Other scholars have dis-
cussed these relationships in part, with Guldbrandsen’s studies
providing a clear argument regarding the source of the me-
lodic/vocal content of the Improvisations and how it relates to
certain trial-and-error revisions used to reorganize this material
between Strophes and the Improvisations.48 Below, I outline
how Boulez’s procedures for reusing such materials changed
and developed across the Improvisations, from an embrace of
reusing vocal materials borrowed from the “sonnets,” to new,
more elaborate reuses of other compositional materials in the
instrumental parts of these works.
In the first Improvisation (composed during 1957, the same
year as Strophes), Boulez used his most basic “improvisatory”
methods by creating a serialized reading of sonnet BC. He
employed prime and retrograde readings that usually begin at
intermediate points within the sonnet, but otherwise faithfully
follow the original pitch order. Examples 10(a–d) provide two
of the more obvious uses of such pitch derivations. In both
47 PSS Sammlung Boulez also includes many published and unpublished
relationships among his pieces, thanks to the meticulous efforts of the
archive’s staff.
48 Guldbrandsen (1997b, 2016).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
cases, Boulez uses the sonnet for pitch material, while the
rhythmic material is tied to the declamation of the text.
In these examples, it is easy to see the literal, unadulterated
use of the sonnet material. Similarly, numerous commentators
have also pointed out the use of Boulez’s 1945 Notations (for
piano) in Improvisation I sur Mallarme, “Le vièrge, le vivace et
bel aujourd’hui,” although rarely with specific comparisons.49
Indeed, they resemble the type of clear visual correspondences
found between Strophes and “Don” for piano, with a similar
dedication to accurate pitch duplication, even when pitch
names and accidentals are switched between the two works
(from, say, a G] to an A[). Note, for example, the correspond-
ences between Examples 11(a–b): these types of transcriptions
account for almost all of the four sections of the Improvisation
(not including the unpitched percussion parts that were added
during later revisions). Together, these examples highlight that
Boulez used the same combination of transcription and revi-
sion found in Strophes—that is, transcription from one instru-
ment to another with little attempt to obfuscate the
unpublished source—to compose the vast majority of his first
Improvisation, even as he combined these methods with more
elaborate forms of serial derivation in the vocal part.
Borrowings in Improvisation II sur Mallarme, “Une dentelle
s’abolit,” are less transparent than in Improvisation I.
Guldbrandsen highlights how Boulez used a specific sonnet
from Strophes (here, sonnet AB) to provide the basic melodic
49 Goldman (2011, 33) illustrates one such correlation. Tissier (2012) is very
transparent when discussing these connections, whereas Jameux (1991)
epitomizes more typical approaches.
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics 259

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 10(a). Section F from Improvisation I (vocal part only)

example 10(b). Excerpt from sonnet BC, where a retrograde reading starting on F] provides the pitch material for the vocal part above
(partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BC/G, 2b, 1–3)

example 10(c). Section O from Improvisation I (vocal part only)

material for the Improvisation; however, the use of the sonnet such instance of this borrowing. Here, the theatrical source
is both less consistent and more oblique in this case.50 What contains color-coded labels referring to each “row,” as well as
has been less discussed is that Boulez also felt compelled to yet pencil additions citing various instruments from the
again borrow instrumental parts for the Improvisation: in this Improvisation (vibe, piano, cloches, and harp all appear in the
instance, he used an excerpt from L’Orestie, Agamemnon 3 transcription).51 Ultimately, Boulez changed his mind as to
(Choir A) as the basic material. Examples 12(a–b) provide one
51 The use of such labels corresponds to the similar annotations made for the
50 Guldbrandsen (1997b, 2016). Strophes borrowings.
260 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 10(d). Another excerpt from sonnet BC, now read in prime form

example 11(a). Excerpt from Notation 9

example 11(b). Excerpt of instrumental section C from Improvisation I

what rows would be used for what instruments (in
Example 12[b], Ax1 ¼ piano, Bx1 ¼ vibes, Ax2 ¼ chimes, and
Cx1 ¼ celesta), but the basic underlying process remains faith-
ful to his sketch: each row provides clearly defined pitch mate-
rial and phrasal limits for the polyphony of the Improvisation.
In fact, the polyphony was rich enough to be expanded twice:
first in this revision and again, just a few years later, when
Boulez expanded the orchestration to “balance” the perfor-
mance of this movement against the massive forces of
Improvisation III. Once more, Boulez capitalized on the reuse
of previously scored material to facilitate a greater focus on
shape, color, and texture, resulting in the sumptuous and ex-
quisitely refined orchestration of the second Improvisation.
The gulf separating the effects of this orchestration from
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics 261

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 12(a). Excerpt from L’Orestie, Agamemnon 3 (Choir A) (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 1c, 1a)

example 12(b). Excerpt from Improvisation II (mm. 48–52, without cymbal)

 262 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)

Improvisation I reiterate how the revision of previously com-

posed material shifted Boulez’s focus from serial processes to
gestural and instrumental concerns.
Boulez’s Improvisation III sur Mallarme, “A  la nue acca-
blante tu,” is perhaps his greatest individual achievement in
synthesizing various serial techniques, drawing as it does on a
host of different pre-organized and pre-composed materials
while also incorporating an “open” compositional format with
flexible performance indications. (Later revisions to this move-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

ment largely removed the “open” aspects of its initial design,
making it difficult to appreciate the original concept and requi-
site planning in his sketches when listening to the work with a
modern score.) As a result, this movement is the most pro-
found synthesis of Boulez’s polyvalent maturation as a com-
poser among the varying trends of the late 1950s.
Due to its initial “open” design, the Improvisation remains a
heterophonic combination of a number of individual sub-
movements.52 The sketches for the work articulate each of
these utterances in a multitude of ways, using both large-scale
schematics of the movement and unique plans for each sub-
movement. More specifically, each sub-movement has its own
conceptual sketch, its own subheading, and—significantly—its
own specific relation (or reference) to a movement in L’Orestie.
Boulez usually indicated these details on the conceptual
(graphic) sketches for the sub-movements. One of these is
reproduced in Example 13, for the sub-movement
“Enchaı̂nements multiples” (for guitar).
This conceptual sketch merits its own digression. The “m”
insignia in the top left corner is found throughout the sketches
for Improvisation III, but the Roman numeral “I” refers to
the fact that this is the first of six such conceptual sketches,
each written on thin, white typing paper with a four-color
pen (supposedly a new favorite tool of Boulez and
Karlheinz Stockhausen around this time).53 When viewing
the originals, I could clearly see that some of these sketches
shared the physical pen impressions of others, indicating
that Boulez created each “fair copy” conceptual sketch one
after the other on stacked pages based on previously con-
ceived outlines. The process suggests these were second or
third drafts that stand as artistic, refined visual representa-
tions that exceed the actual needs of the compositional pro-
cess.54 This approach also indicates that the sub-
movements were conceived together as part of a master
plan, and not in an additive or through-composed manner.
The conceptual sketches vary significantly in design, with
52 Unless otherwise indicated, Improvisation III in this section refers to the
original version of the work.
53 I thank Robert Piencikowski for sharing his knowledge of Boulez’s and
Stockhausen’s fascination with the cheap four-in-one retractable pen.
This explains the preponderance of black, blue, green, and red ink at the
expense of all other colors in the sketches from this period, and differs
from Boulez’s use of more exotic inks in his scores.
54 Indeed, miniature versions of each graphic exist on a single sheet with
prose descriptions of each sub-movement (see especially PSS BS/G,3d,1
and G,3e,1b).
example 13. Conceptual outline for “ Enchaı̂nements multiples”
(diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 3e, 2a)
each capitalizing on a different mode of graphic/spatial repre-
sentation of musical form (in this case, a hierarchy of vertical
and horizontal lines; in others, floating bubbles, non-linear
layers of mobile parts, linear timelines, interrupted timelines
with inserted polygons of spatial activity, and so on).55
Several precise correspondences exist between these sub-
movements and the cited borrowings; however, I have not
confirmed every use or citation. The most obvious correlations
exist in “Heterophonies” (the xylophone parts, pp. 19–29 in
the revised 1983 score) and “Bulles” (the harp parts, pp. 8–31
in the revised score), both of which use rather basic transposi-
tion and reorganization techniques to revise and repurpose the
material from L’Orestie for new instruments.56

“Echiquiers” (which covers some of the vocal parts) also
uses borrowed material, but here the relationship between old
and new prompts a more complex serial process. As in the
other Improvisations, these vocal parts are derived from one of
the Strophes “sonnets” (here, sonnet AC). Examples 14(a–b)
reproduce part of one of the sketches used for the voice. Here,
Boulez breaks the “sonnet” into a number of sub-phrases or
fragments. He then transposes these fragments according to
various serial schemes (by interval, by direction/vector, and by
the total number of fragments per phrase unit), creating an
ever-expanding re-serialization of sonnet AC. These various
streams of pitches are then organized into vocal phrases. As
55 I transcribe all of these sketches in Salem (2014). While I note the inden-
tations found in the paper of these sketches, they are actually archived in
separate folders, each with its constituent sub-movement.
56 See Salem (2014, 408–23).
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
example 14(a). Partial diplomatic transcription of serial revision to sonnet AC for use in Improvisation III, “ Echiquiers” (from PSS,
BS/G, 3e, 6b)
usual, Boulez prepares far more material than he could possibly
exploit in the movement as it exists, reminding us that the
original (unrealized) plans for Improvisation III actually
stretched far beyond its current length.57 Coincidentally, this
conversion process occurs in a later sub-movement (V of VI)
of the final Improvisation. Thus, like the first two
Improvisations, it also involves a “sonnet,” but like the coda to
Strophes, its execution suggests an in medias res development.
57 In fact, Boulez began his prose outline with six sections; he then expanded
this to ten sections. Ultimately, he seems to have used only one of these
ten sections (the first and shortest of them all) for the 1959 sub-move-
ment, although it is entirely possible that other material was reworked
into other sections of the movement.
263
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
In Improvisation III, Boulez incorporates his most elaborate
procedures of the set to “improvise” the gestural contour of the
vocal line based on “improvised” transpositions and fragmenta-
tions of material. These materials are themselves “improvised”
riffs taken from a Strophes “sonnet,” which is itself a reduced
“improvisation” based on a tune from L’Orestie. In each case,
“improvisation” here refers to a creative rethinking of material
based on preconceived music that is inherently limited by cer-
tain restrictions or stylistic guidelines—a definition that could
apply as easily to a jazz number as to a rock solo. Put another
way, these are conceptual revisions of musical ideas and potenti-
alities, not mere material revisions of scored work.
Boulez’s reuse of instrumental material is similarly reveal-
ing. The sub-movement “Bulles” provides a good example.
264 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 14(b). Incomplete diplomatic transcription of a trial-and-error realization of Improvisation III, “ A” vocal part, p. 3, original
1959 score (from PSS BS/G, 3e, 6b)
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
example 15(a). A numerical pattern from an early, prose-based outline for Improvisation III, “ Bulles de temps,” itself borrowed from the
margins of a sketch for Les Eumenides 19 (Finale) (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 3e, 3b)
Here, Boulez uses marginalia from a sketch for L’Orestie to
new and intriguing ends, as shown in Example 15(a). In
L’Orestie, this numeric pattern helped rearrange harmonies
(themselves likely borrowed from Symphonie mecanique of
1955) across a polyphonic introduction.58 Boulez then tran-
scribed the pattern to create a new, four-color sketch with
added annotations in order to apply the pattern to “Bulles.”
Example 15(b) shows the conversion of this raw pattern into a
linear-spatial arrangement of harmonies, now labeled as series
according to a large matrix borrowed from the Troisième sonate.
In effect, these specific harmonies are now used in at least four
different works, each with different modes of accentuation and
articulation: not coincidentally, these same harmonies form the
basis of other, future works as well.59 This evidence empha-
sizes the pragmatism of Boulez’s revisions and self-borrowings,
as the materials in question come from a single, elaborate bloc
sonore matrix that provided the harmonic content for many
works.
Finally, Examples 16(a–b) illustrate the first and last parts
of a three-stage genesis of one of the bubbles. First, Boulez
converted the “series” label from Examples 15(a–b) into actual
pitch-class sets borrowed from earlier organizational sketches
for the Sonate (et al.). Example 16(a) also includes an arrange-
ment in the left margin that “spatializes” the content with col-
ors for the first, “open” score of Pli selon pli, although this
material is rendered irrelevant in the “fixed” 1983 revision.
Nonetheless, these colors are relevant to the final sketch of this
bubble, reproduced as Example 16(b), in which grouping
structures are defined by colored brackets to indicate the multi-
ple options for performance, each with its own gestural inflec-
tions. In between these sketches, Boulez created a large, dense
58 I discuss the deep connections of these sketches with L’Orestie and other
works in Salem (2014), especially in relation to Examples 6.4–12.
59 A single matrix, usually associated with the Troisième sonate, also appears
to be the basis for Figures-Doubles-Prismes (r.1968), Domaines (r.1968),
and, by extension, Dialogue de l’ombre double (1985). See Tissier (2012)
and Salem (2014), especially my “Troisième sonate Stack Genus.”
265
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
“side sketch,” testing the pitch material in different forms and
combinations. As with the vocal parts, certain grace-note pitch
content appears “ad lib”—whether or not it has been serially
derived from some other place, these notes are not consistent
from one option to the next (despite the consistency of other
pitch content). Remarkably, all of this content is derived from
the six pitches in Example 16(a) in a virtuosic expansion that
exhausts the concept of “improvisation” at the heart of his
Mallarme project.
While evidence of this type is known to most scholars of
Boulez’s sketches, only scholars who look across Boulez’s oeu-
vre discover these reiterative gems and, even then, one must be
willing to challenge the composer’s meticulous sketches to ask
what happens in between, or even conceptually before, his or-
ganizational processes take hold. Each of Boulez’s
Improvisations “improvise” on borrowed material—not only
borrowed series and matrixes, but actual, pre-composed mate-
rial that is sometimes labeled in his sketches. His stylistic evo-
lution during this period, both as a serial composer and as a
melodist, was thus indebted to his reuse of notated material,
which served as a catalyst to liberate his thinking and to shift
his compositional efforts away from organizational sketches to
actual notes that could be manipulated into more idiomatic
musical gestures for new instruments and scores.
Accepting this argument necessitates a new hermeneutics
for these works. This is particularly significant given recent
scholarship on Boulez. Edward Campbell, in particular, stands
out as a lead investigator of how Deleuze’s philosophical dis-
position may relate to Boulez’s musical one, with an emphasis
on reiterations of “virtual” themes as a fundamental component
of a slightly more postmodernist, rather than rigidly structural-
ist, Boulez.60 Central to Campbell’s many observations is the
idea that Boulez often evokes his own form of “difference and
repetition” in his use of virtual themes and gestures, where
60 See Campbell (2010, 2013) and Scherzinger (2008). For a broader appli-
cation of Deleuze’s ideas to music, including a second contribution by
Scherzinger, see Hulse and Nesbitt (2010).
 266 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)
example 15(b). An early outline of the structure of “ Bulles de temps,” using series borrowed from other works and organized according to
the pattern in Example 15(a) (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, BS/G, 3e, 3b)
example 16(a). Side sketch realizing the pitch content of
Example 15(b) to support the composition of “ bulle 4” (partial
diplomatic transcription, PSS, BS/G, 3e, 3b)
“virtual” refers to the frequent reality that Boulez’s recognizable
or repeated musical gestures often appear in constant variation,
leaving listeners with an intuitive sense of what constitutes a
returning musical idea, while also leaving them searching for a
single, idealized form of the motive in its fundamental form.
Although hermeneutically different, Jonathan Goldman’s use
of “paradigmatic analysis” is an analytical complement to
Campbell’s work that systematically highlights how reitera-
tions of varied themes play an important role in Boulez’s
forms.61 Many of these ideas also resonate with the process of
borrowing from work to work, the replication of certain the-
matic ideas or harmonies across several works, and even the
use of titles to tie together families of works.62
However, Campbell’s ideas are not to be confused with my
discussion of revision in Boulez’s oeuvre. To reiterate, every
work above was composed in a rich historical context (cultural,
aesthetic, professional, and biographical), with the circumstan-
tial constant being the fulfillment of specific commissions un-
der pressure.63 I believe there is productive work to be done in
61 Goldman (2011). Donin and Goldman (2008) offer a broader discussion
of paradigmatic analysis that includes the study of Boulez’s Memoriale.
Significantly, one goal of their analytical interface is to specifically address
the idea of how the concept of a paradigmatic label allows for familial rela-
tionships that might avoid privileging one (or the first) occurrence of a
theme as iconic (paragraph 24).
62 In addition to Campbell’s fascinating work on this subject, Brian Kane
has suggested an alternate way of conceiving similar themes across multi-
ple works that provides productive friction with most Deleuzian perspec-
tives. While Kane has yet to apply these ideas to Boulez, I have found
discussions with him about the work of scholar Whitney Davis (specifi-
cally, Davis’s 1996 book Replications) to be particularly inspiring in this
regard.
63 Boulez’s correspondence with figures such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, John
Cage, Robert Craft, Igor Stravinsky, Henri Pousseur, and Lawrence
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
relating these two perspectives, not because I feel strongly
about the relationship between Deleuze and Boulez, but be-
cause I feel there is something profoundly inspiring at the in-
tersection of rigidly structural and paradigmatic analyses of
Boulez’s works, Campbell’s investigations of “virtual” themes
and the predominance of “repetition and difference,” and the
pragmatic revisions and accidents of human nature that bind
many works with one another in functional, conceptual, and
historical ways. Following this last conviction, my investigation
is less about reading meaning into individual gestures as musi-
cal expressions, and more about suggesting how expressive
codes may lie in the behavioral patterns of reuse and revision
that bind so many of Boulez’s projects together—patterns of
creativity that seem to play a role in a vast number of other
postwar musical genres.
There is much more to say about Boulez’s potential role in
reinvigorating serious discussions of how artistic “expression”
may be described, documented, and traced in modern music.
Stressing the conceptual use of revision relates it to contempo-
rary trends involving citation, self-citation, parody, pastiche,
and other “modern” and “postmodern” techniques for generat-
ing meaning, most of which focus on the overdetermined cul-
tural richness of reiteration and replication over the mechanics
of signs themselves. The absence of traditional narratives or
programs may hinder our discussion of cultural parallels be-
tween Boulez’s revisions and the turn to “franchise” products
in film and/or the record industry (the latter replete with its
own dependence on titular reissues, reboots, remixes, and an-
thologies, all of which exist in Boulez’s oeuvre and its corre-
sponding “rhetoric of autonomy”). Still, we should not let
Boulez’s own aversion to discussing musical meaning and ex-
pression be the limiting factor in our explorations of his works
as commentaries on greater cultural developments. Stravinsky
offers an excellent parallel, from his use of modernist forms of
musical expression to his own occasional hesitations—
Morton (among others) is revealing of the competing demands on his
time and the serious consideration he gave to the reception of his works
by his friends and colleagues. See also Crawford (1995), which provides
an engaging reception history of Boulez’s works in Los Angeles during
this period, and Piencikowski (2016), which highlights a number of
socio-economic factors affecting Boulez’s revisions in later years. I discuss
the effects of such private correspondence and influences on Polyphonie X
and Marteau sans maı̂tre in Salem (2017) and (2018), respectively.
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics 267

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020

example 16(b). Draft excerpt of “ bulle 4” from Improvisation III, “ Bulles de temps” (partial diplomatic transcription of PSS, B/G,
3e, 3e)

polemical or not—regarding the potential of music to “express”
anything beyond “sauceless” concepts or forms.64 And yet, the
ghost of Stravinsky has only encouraged our desire to search
and question the influence of a composer, his writings, and his
spokesperson over our own interpretation of his works. Why
not embrace the controversies surrounding Boulez in similar
ways?
Finally, Boulez’s recent passing is also a call not only to
reassess his contribution to modern music as an aesthetician,
64 I refer here to Stravinsky’s various writings on his Octet and what is de-
scribed as the beginnings of his turn to the “neoclassical” style, as summa-
rized in Taruskin and Gibbs (2013, 893–900).
polemicist, conductor, and overwhelming supporter of the
genre, but also to reiterate his assertion for the continued ne-
cessity of avant-garde composition across no less than sixty
years as an internationally respected musician. If there is one
thing I have learned in sorting through Boulez’s sketches, it is
that the term “serialism” was expanded by his changing com-
positional approach in ways that apply to many of the holdings
at the PSS, from Stockhausen and Ligeti to Reich and so
many others. Whether or not these composers actually assimi-
lated Boulez’s compositional methods is another question for
another day. There is certainly reason to believe, however, that
Boulez helped to reconceive the limitations of twelve-tone
composition by exploding those limits from within, and that
268 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)
he did this not through Structures 1a and declaring Schoenberg
dead, but through his careful, continuous, and labored revision
of his own ideas to create a unique, immediately identifiable
style from the most amebic of musical series.
works cited
Adamowicz, Emily J. 2015. “A Study of Form and Structure
in Pierre Boulez’s Pli selon pli.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Western Ontario.
Albera, Philippe, ed. 2003. Pli selon pli de Pierre Boulez:
Entretiens et etudes. Genève: Contrechamps.
Bennett, Gerald. 1986. “The Early Works.” In Boulez: A
Symposium. Ed. William Glock. 41–84. London: Ernst
Eulenberg.
Bonnet, Antoine. 1987. “Ecriture and Perception: On
Messagesquisse by Pierre Boulez.” Contemporary Music
Review 2 (1): 173–209.
Boulez, Pierre. 1963. Penser la musique aujourd’hui. Paris:
Gonthier.
———. 1971. Boulez on Music Today. Trans. Susan Bradshaw
and Richard Bennett. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
———. 1986. Orientations: Collected Writings. Ed. Jean-
Jacques Nattiez. Trans. Martin Cooper. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bradshaw, Susan. 1986. “The Instrumental and Vocal Music.”
In Boulez: A Symposium. Ed. William Glock. 127–229.
London: Ernst Eulenberg.
———. 1996. “Comparing Notes.” Musical Times 137 (1844):
5–12.
Breatnach, Mary. 1996. Boulez and Mallarme: A Study in
Poetic Influence. Aldershot: Scolar Press.
Campbell, Edward. 2010. Boulez, Music and Philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2013. Music after Deleuze. New York: Bloomsbury.
———. 2016. “Pierre Boulez: Composer, Traveller,
Correspondent.” In Pierre Boulez Studies. Ed. Campbell
Edward and Peter O’Hagan. 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Campbell, Edward and Peter O’Hagan, eds. 2016. Pierre
Boulez Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crawford, Dorothy. 1995. Evenings on and off the Roof:
Pioneering Concerts in Los Angeles, 1939–1971. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Dal Molin, Paolo. 2008. “Introduction a la famille d’oeuvres

. . . explosante-fixe . . . de Pierre Boulez. Etude philologique.”
Ph.D. diss., Universite de Nice-Sophia Antipolis.
———. 2016. “Composing an Improvisation at the Beginning
of the 1970s.” In Pierre Boulez Studies. Ed. Edward
Campbell and Peter O’Hagan. 270–300. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Davis, Whitney. 1996. Replications: Art History, Archeology,
Psychoanalysis. University Park: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Decroupet, Pascal. 1994. “Developpements et ramifications de
la pensee serielle Pierre Boulez, Henri Pousseur, Karlheinz
Stockhausen 1951–1958.” Ph.D. diss., Universite de Tours.
Donin, Nicolas and Jonathan Goldman. 2008. “Charting the
Score in a Multimedia Context: The Case of Paradigmatic
Analysis.” Music Theory Online 14 (4). http://www.mtosmt.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
org/issues/mto.08.14.4/mto.08.14.4.donin_goldman.html
Edwards, Allan. 1989. “Unpublished Bouleziana at the Paul
Sacher Foundation.” Tempo 169: 4–15.
———. 1993. “Boulez’s ‘Doubles’ and ‘Figures Doubles
Prismes’: A Preliminary Study.” Tempo 185: 6–17.

———. 2006. “Eclat/Multiples et le problème de la forme mu-
sicale dans les oeuvres serielles de Pierre Boulez.” In Pierre
Boulez: Techniques d’ecriture et enjeux esthetiques. Ed. Jean-
Louis Leleu and Pascal Decroupet. 159–75. Genève:

Editions Contrechamps.
Goldman, Jonathan. 2001. “Understanding Pierre Boulez’s
Anthèmes (1991): ‘Creating a Labyrinth out of Another
Labyrinth.’” Master’s thesis, Universite de Montreal.
———. 2010. “Structuralists Contra Serialists? Claude Levi-
Strauss and Pierre Boulez on Avant-Garde Music.”
Intersections 30 (1): 77–94.
———. 2011. The Musical Language of Pierre Boulez: Writings
and Compositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, M. J. 2001. Serial Music, Serial Aesthetics: Compositional
Theory in Post-War Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Griffiths, Paul. 1978. Boulez. London: Oxford University
Press.
Guldbrandsen, Erling E. 1997a. “ Tradisjon og tradisjonsbrudd:
En studie i Pierre Boulez Pli selon pli—Portrait de
Mallarme.” Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
———. 1997b. “New Light on Pierre Boulez and Postwar
Modernism: On the Composition of Improvisation I–III
sur Mallarme.” In In the Plural: Institutions, Pluralism, and
Critical Self-Awareness in Contemporary Music. Ed. Søren
M. Sørensen. 15–28. Copenhagen: Department of
Musicology, University of Copenhagen.
———. 2011. “Pierre Boulez in Interview (1996). II:
Serialism Revisited.” Tempo 65 (256): 18–24.
———. 2016. “Casting New Light on Boulezian Serialism:
Unpredictability and Free Choice in the Composition of
Pli selon pli – portrait de Mallarme.” In Pierre Boulez Studies.
Ed. Edward Campbell and Peter O’Hagan. 193–220.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann, Stephen. 1998. “Pitch-Class Set Multiplication
in Theory and Practice.” Music Theory Spectrum 20 (1):
72–96.
Hulse, Brian and Nick Nesbitt, eds. 2010. Sounding the
Virtual: Gilles Deleuze and the Theory and Philosophy of
Music. Farnham: Ashgate.
 teasing the ever-expanding sonnet from pierre boulez’s musical poetics
Iddon, Martin. 2013. New Music at Darmstadt: Nono,
Stockhausen, Cage, and Boulez. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Jameux, Dominique. 1991. Pierre Boulez. Translated by Susan
Bradshaw. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leleu, Jean-Louis and Pascal Decroupet, eds. 2006. Techniques

d’ecriture et enjeux esthetiques. Genève: Editions
Contrechamps.
Losada, Catherine. 2008. “Isography and Structure in the
Music of Boulez.” Journal of Mathematics and Music 2 (3):
135–55.
———. 2014. “Complex Multiplication, Structure, and
Process: Harmony and Form in Boulez’s Structures II.”
Music Theory Spectrum 36 (1): 86–120.
Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 2004. The Battle of Chronos and
Orpheus: Essays in Applied Musical Semiology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
O’Hagan, Peter. 1997. “Pierre Boulez: ‘Sonate, que me veux-
tu’: An Investigation of the Manuscript Sources in
Relation to the Third Sonata.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Surrey.
———. 2006a. “Boulez and the Foundation of IRCAM.” In
French Music since Berlioz. Ed. Richard Langham Smith
and Caroline Potter. 303–30. Aldershot: Ashgate.
———. 2006b. “‘Antiphonie’: Une etude du processus de
composition.” In Pierre Boulez: Techniques d’ecriture et
enjeux esthetiques. Ed. Jean-Louis Leleu and Pascal

Decroupet. 109–131. Genève: Editions Contrechamps.
———. 2007. “Pierre Boulez and the Project of ‘L’Orestie.’”
Tempo 61 (241): 34–52.
———. 2017. Pierre Boulez and the Piano: A Study in Style
and Technique. New York: Routledge.
Peyser, Joan. 1976. Boulez. New York: Schirmer Books.
Piencikowski, Robert T. 1985. “Nature morte avec guitare.” In
Pierre Boulez: Eine Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag am 26.
M€arz 1985. Ed. Josef H€ausler. 66–81. Wien: Universal
Edition.
———. 1991. “Introduction.” In Stocktakings from an
Apprenticeship. Collected and presented by Paule Thevenin.
Trans. Stephen Walsh. xiii–xxix. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1993. “‘Assez lent, suspendu, comme imprevisible’:
Quelques aperçus sur les travaux d’approche d’Eclat.”
Genesis 4: 51–67.
———. 2002. “. . . iacta est.” In Boulez/Cage Correspondance et
documents. Ed. Jean-Jacques Nattiez, new edition revised by
Robert Piencikowski. 41–60. Mainz: Schott Musik
International.
———, ed. 2010a. Pierre Boulez: Tombeau: Facsimiles of the
Draft Score and the First Fair Copy of the Full Score. A
Publication of the Paul Sacher Foundation. Vienna:
Universal Edition.
———. 2010b. “De-Ciphering Boulez?” Ex tempore 15 (1):
64–80. Originally published in La Pensee de Pierre Boulez a
269
travers ses ecrits. Ed. Jean-Jacques Nattiez, François Nicolas,
and Jonathan Goldman. 73–88. Paris: Delatour France.
———. 2013a. “Le franc-tireur et les moutons ou l’avant-
garde selon Boulez.” In Avant–gardes: Frontières,
Mouvements. Volume I: Delimitations, Historiographie.
259–84. Paris: Delatour France.
———. 2013b. “Structure, que me veux-tu?” In Theories de la
composition musicale au XXe siècle. Volume I. Ed. Nicolas
Donin and Laurent Feneyrou. 867–86. Lyon: Symetrie.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
———. 2016. “‘A Score Neither Begins Nor Ends; At Most
It Pretends To’: Fragmentary Reflections on the Boulezian
‘non finito’.” In Pierre Boulez Studies. Ed. Edward
Campbell and Peter O’Hagan. 93–107. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Salem, Joseph. 2014. “Boulez Revised: Compositional Process
as Aesthetic Critique in the Composer’s Formative Works.”
Ph.D. diss., Yale University.
———. 2015. “How Necessity Fueled Invention in Boulez’s
L’Orestie.” Mitteilungen der Paul Sacher Stiftung 28:
23–29.
———. 2016. “Serial Processes, Agency and Improvisation.”
In Boulez Studies. Ed. Edward Campbell and Peter
O’Hagan. 221–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
———. 2017. “The Integrity of Boulez’s Integral Serialism:
Polyphonie X and Musical Failure as Compositional
Success.” Contemporary Music Review 36 (5): 337–61.
———. 2018. “Boulez’s Künstlerroman: Using blocs sonores to
Overcome Anxieties and Influence in Le Marteau sans
maı̂tre.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 71 (1):
109–54.
Scherzinger, Martin. 2008. “Musical Modernism in the
Thought of Mille Plateaux, and Its Twofold Politics.”
Perspectives of New Music 46 (2): 130–58.
Scotto, Ciro. 2014. “Reexamining PC-Set Multiplication,
Complex Multiplication, and Transpositional Combination
to Determine Their Formal and Functional Equivalence.”
Perspectives of New Music 52 (1): 134–216.
Stacey, Peter F. 1987. Boulez and the Modern Concept.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Steinegger, Catherine. 2012. Pierre Boulez et le the^atre: De la
Compagnie Renaud-Barrault a Patrice Chereau. Belgium:

Editions Mardaga.
Strinz, Werner. 1999. “‘Que d’interferences a provoquer.’
Bemerkungen zur Kompositionstechnik in Pierre Boulez’
Polyphonie X pour 18 instruments.” Mitteilungen der Paul
Sacher Stiftung 12: 39–45.
———. 2003. Variations sur l’inquietude rythmique:
Untersuchugen zur morphologischen und satztechnischen
Funktion des Rhythmus bei Olivier Messiaen, Pierre Boulez
und Jean Barraque. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
———. 2006. “Quelques observations sur des ‘objets retro-
uves’ dans l’oeuvre de Pierre Boulez.” In Pierre Boulez:
270 music theory spectrum 41 (2019)
Techniques d’ecriture et enjeux esthetiques. Ed. Jean-Louis
Leleu and Pascal Decroupet. 45–93. Genève: Editions 
Contrechamps.
Szendy, Peter. 2008. Listen: A History of Our Ears. Trans.
Charlotte Mandell. New York: Fordham University Press.
Taruskin, Richard T. and Christopher H. Gibbs. 2013. The
Oxford History of Western Music College Edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Tissier, Brice. 2012. “Mutations esthetiques, mais continu-
ite technique dans l’oeuvre de Pierre Boulez.” Ph.D.
diss., Universite de Montreal and Universite de Paris-
Sorbonne.
Whittall, Arnold. 2004. “‘Unbounded Visions’: Boulez,
Mallarme and Modern Classicism.” Twentieth-Century
Music 1(1): 65–80.
———. 2008. The Cambridge Introduction to Serialism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Charles. 2004. “György Ligeti and the Rhetoric of
Autonomy.” Twentieth-Century Music. 1 (1): 5–28.
Zenck, Martin. 2002. “L’Orestie – Marges. Zu den frühen rit-
uellen musiktheatralen Projekten von Pierre Boulez.”
Mitteilungen der Paul Sacher Stiftung 15: 20–27.
———. 2003. “Pierre Boulez’ Orestie (1955–1995). Das
unveröffentlichte Manuskript der szenischen Musik zu
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mts/article/41/2/244/5522816 by University of North Texas user on 21 December 2020
Jean-Louis Barraults Inszenierung der Trilogie im The^atre
Marigny.” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 60 (4): 303–32.
Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 41, Issue 2, pp. 244–70, ISSN 0195-6167,
electronic ISSN 1533-8339. V C The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford
University Press on behalf of The Society for Music Theory. All rights
reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
DOI: 10.1093/mts/mtz011