Cox Clairvoyance NM1

CSF Freiburg SUN1% CSF3 % UM020222 - 0311 (13) » 26 - 1« Farbe: BLACK Seite: 1 Rev.-Dat.: 25.04.02 Ausg.-Dat.: 26.04.
Ausg.-Dat.: 26.04.02, 09:48:16 Uhr Höhe: 56,04 Setzer: GH
Frank Cox
“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin
It may seem paradoxical for a discourse concerning polyphony and complexity

to include a solo work. In fact, Clairvoyance (1989) is an ideal vehicle for this
theme, firstly because the restriction of means allows one to focus on the
primarily “virtual” nature of both complexity and polyphony; and secondly
because this work was from the start conceived polyphonically, this in the sense
of a radically pan-subjective 1 approach toward all main materials and aspects at
all levels.
The following discussion of the “virtual” polyphony of Clairvoyance will
focus on three primary domains: the rhythmic/metric web, the figural/textural
organization, and the pitch organization, which will be loosely coordinated with
three primary aspects of my pan-subjectivist approach: 1) the potential of
rationalized specification for facilitating the conscious shaping of—and, as an
ideal goal, the achievement of a degree of subjectivity for—musical aspects/
elements of musical organization that have traditionally been treated as “gi-
vens,” 2) the temporal unfolding of not only the self-definition and characteriza-
tion of multiple “types,” but also of the drama of their interactions and conflicts,
and 3) the conflict of multiple compositional levels. As all three of these aspects
are (to varying degrees) important factors in the development of all three
1 This is not “subjectivism” in the traditional philosophical sense, but rather an approach that treats
every element, every “parameter,” every aspect—and at every level—which has attained a basic
degree of self-definition as though it were potentially a “subjectivity.”
Several broad definitions are in order (it must be emphasized that many terms in this paper are
working definitions, making no claim to general validity):
By (musical) “identity” (”type”/”character”/”individual,” in successive degrees of clarity and
manifold of self-definition) is meant a complex of musical aspects/elements which has achieved a
degree of self-definition; as multiply defined, it can be developed.
By “subjectivity,” I mean any organized group of elements/aspects at any level that betrays
signs of volition: at the least, seeming to possess a degree of self-awareness (thus, it “desires” to
continue existing), able to set goals and remember them, to correct itself, etc; at the extreme,
striving to extend these to comprehend both itself and the totality of its relations to others in the
“world” of the piece.* Two essential aspects of any subjectivity are obviously the power of memory
and the potential for development, both involving a historicizing consciousness, whose analogues
in music are temporal logic/temporal unfolding.
”Individuation” is the process of moving to self-awareness and ramified self-definition; thus, it is
more a task than a state. The path to individuation is not a straight line, and the goal is not
guaranteed of success: in fact, even if a goal should be reached, this is only starting point for a new
process of individuation at a higher level.
* It is hoped that the analogical nature of these definitions is self-explanatory. I would not wish to
assert that the materials in my pieces are literally “self-aware;” it is enough if certain materials
behave in a manner resembling the behavior of subjectivities and individuals, which include, on
the negative side, fighting with others, becoming overloaded, suffering neuroses, breaking down,
etc.
Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

CSF Freiburg SUN1% CSF3 % UM020222 - 0312 (12) » 26 - 2« Farbe: BLACK Seite: 1 Rev.-Dat.: 25.04.02 Ausg.-Dat.: 26.04.02, 09:48:17 Uhr Höhe: 56,04 Setzer: GH
domains, there will necessarily be some degree of overlap in the following

discussions.
A. Rhythmic/Metric Web
Extensive work with the multi-leveled treatment of non-regular rhythms had led
me some 15 years ago to formulate the following imperative: each work that I
composed should attempt to achieve a non-regular rhythmic/metric hierarchy
which was both dynamic and analogically self-similar, founded upon a small
group of rhythmic taleas.2 The imperative of hierarchic non-regularity was
intended to reinforce and ramify that non-regularity which was (and is) one of
my primary aims, this all the more necessary in order to combat the tendencies
of middle/deeper metric levels to “flatten-out” non-regularities. The imperative
that this hierarchy be dynamic involves an implicit criticism of all static non-
regular hierarchies: a dynamic hierarchy involves firstly hierarchical disconti-
nuity,3 i. e., the acknowledgment that different levels of hierarchy function
differently and are different in nature, and secondly a dynamic relationship
between different levels, such that level shifts can be attained through the
fundamental transformation of entities, relationships between the same, con-
texts, and so on. One example might be useful in illuminating these notions.
Middle-ground metric organization (the macrobar, period, groups of periods,
etc.) is traditionally treated as a “given,” a relatively stable “ground” on the
basis of which one can measure changes on the musical surface. Over the last
ca. 15 years, the metric organization of each of my works has been thorough-
goingly non-regular, but with a different treatment of the same basic shapes at
each level. Starting with Clairvoyance, the drama of each piece begins to involve
the transformation of this complex “given:” the very “ground” upon which any
musical context/situation is based may at some point in the piece begin to lose
its solidity, its self-evidence; exposed as itself undergoing gradual directed
transformation (ideally aiming toward individuation), it may even rise to the
level of an “actor” in the drama (a process that may also go in the other
direction, but with far different effects).
The imperative of analogous self-similarity corresponds to the requirement
that an artwork be highly unified, but unification occurs here in an extreme form:
the basic elements seem to “sprout up” everywhere, not only organizing those
2 For a further explanation of the considerations which led to this imperative, see “Performer’s Guide
to Di-remption,” in Frank Cox, Di-remption, for solo percussion (Baltimore: Smith Publications,
1996).
3 See Leonard Meyer, Music, the Arts, and Ideas (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press, 1967), for trenchant criticisms of static hierarchical conceptions and numerous discussions
of hierarchical discontinuity.

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX
domains traditionally considered “rational” (such as pitch organization), but

also shaping the traditionally “irrational” domains (such as dynamics or tex-
tures) and/or those aspects usually accepted as largely resultants of other
processes (such as voice leading). This is not merely a matter of asserting the
same patterns everywhere, because the hierarchy must be dynamic; thus, the
functions, meanings, and even precise shapings of these patterned connections
must be constantly transformed.4
Clairvoyance was the first work I composed entirely derived from a single
talea: 6–4–7–3–5.5 The talea is based on a “smooth” spiral shape (i. e., 5–6–4–
7–3...) with the “longs” growing longer and the “shorts” shorter (this obviously
possessing developmental potentials),6 but it “warps” the “smooth” spiral in a
distinctive fashion.
The largest-scale mirroring in Clairvoyance occurs at the formal level: there
are five sections, whose speeds analogously reflect the proportions of the row
(for the following discussion, refer to Examples 1-5, containing excerpts from the
score, and Example 6, showing the metric structure of the first two sections):
Section A = “6” = MM84, Section B = “4” = MM126 (i. e., 6:4), and so on. This
correspondence is not a mechanical, “top-down” scheme such as those found in
total serialism; rather, the distinctions between sections were primarily realized
at the local- and middle-ground levels; thus, each aspect that I submitted to
conscious organization needed to be articulated and developed in a different
manner in each section.
The level that has the greatest impact on the dynamic hierarchization of
Clairvoyance is that of the metric structure and metric grouping (refer to Exam-
ple 6 throughout this paragraph). As discussed above, this domain was traditio-
nally the “solid ground” upon which middle-level transformations were played
out and upon which momentum was built. In Clairvoyance, the corresponding
“solid ground” is, throughout the first ca. 2/3 of the piece a 5-bar macrobar,
initially presented as an articulation of the talea measured in sixteenths (the “6”
is notated as a 3/8 [or 3/12] bar, the “4” as a 2/8 [or 2/12] bar). This is not merely
presented as a fait accompli, but is rather from the opening of the piece the goal
state whose accomplishment is the first task of the metric structuring: through a
simple additional process (3/8, 3/8 2/8, 3/8 2/8 7/16, and so on), the talea
macrobar is achieved by mm. 16–20.
4 Another imperative, closely-related to that of analogous self-similarity, is that of what I would call
“radical monadicism,” that is, each work should create a unique experiential world, “unique”
meant here in the strongest sense: absolutely one-of-a-kind, never having existed before and
never to be repeated.
5 It should be emphasized I do not consider talea as a mere abstract series of numbers, but rather a
specific energy shape; more precisely, it is a determinate and dynamic shaping of contrasting
energies.
6 These numbers can be interpreted in many different ways: the “6” and “7” are obviously the
longest values, but they could either be the slowest/sparsest/softest, etc., or their opposites.

Example 1: from Section A
B-oscillation A-portato (spiral figure) B

C-accented A
C B
B A
(A) A
(AD) B A
(C) C
D-glissando (DE)
Talea
B B F-SP C
B/D ED-diad A
13
B
A B A A
ED c
D D D
(F)
17
Talea-“4”
A A'
21

Example 2: from Section C

B B
5 regular bars E
C E D C
E
D
75
# Attacks: 7
_ 3 5 _3 _5 3 3
Duration: 7 3 5 5 6 4 7 3 +1
Talea macro-bar
E C C B
D E D D
(F)
78
# Attacks: 6_ 4 _7 3 5
Duration: 6 4 7 (4) 5 5 5 5
B C
C-6 C-4
D D
81
# Attacks: 6 4 7
Duration: 6 6 4 7
Following the accomplishment of this goal, an obvious tactic for continuation

would be to simply repeat all or part of this talea in order provide a solid ground
for the working-out of compositionally “privileged” developmental strands; but
here my pan-subjective approach forbids that the reduction of any organized
element/aspect (at any level, etc.) to the status of mere means be judged an
insignificant matter. Should any element/aspect without ground begin to simply
repeat itself, this could represent some sort of disturbance (egomania, a psy-
chosis, etc.); should it freely agree to degrade itself to the level of mere means,
this choice—i. e., a free choice to surrender one’s own subjectivity—would
leave a vacuum in its wake; should it be pressed into such a decision, then such
a successful exercise of raw force must eventually revenge itself upon other
aspects/levels of the work. In every case, subjectivity is taken as the norm, and
the suppression of or inability to live up to the demands of subjectivity must
bear consequences in the “world” of the piece.

Example 3: end of Section C, beginning of Section D
Section D
5 regular bars
(B)
C-3 C-5 (C-3) B'
E/D A E/D A
108
Db: 6 4 7
Note repetitions: C: 6 4 7
# Notes: 5
_ 3 5 3
_ 7 5 3
Slurs: 12 (=“6”) 8 (=“4”)
(slurred)
111
Db: 3 5 6 4 7 3 5 ...
Note repetitions: C: 3 5 6 4 7 3 5+
# Notes (slurred): 14 6 10 ...
Accented/repeated notes, mm. 109–115 I(A b){3–t}: C Db CB (=B) D A E b F E

O(A){3–t}: F E G b … etc.
What actually follows in mm. 21–41 is not only a partial intrusion of the formal
level onto the middle-level (the “foretaste” of the main section-tempos of the
piece; see above), but is also a logical development of the talea principle: the
durational proportions of the 5-bar talea macrobar are now self-replicated at
tempi (and therefore durations) proportional to the basic tempo/durations. Yet
this developmental path cannot–as yet–be continued, as further such self-
replication would quickly lead to absurdity; what is necessary is instead a
“grounding” of the non-regularity itself. Following a short transition (mm. 42–
52) into Section B (consisting of two 6:4 shifts in speed), this appears in the first
5-bar regular macrobar of the piece (mm. 53–57) marking the start of Section B.
Upon the succeeding appearance of a talea macrobar (mm. 58–62), the course
of this entire unfolding is retroactively “explained:” only by being confronted
with groups of regular bars can the talea metric pattern for the first time be
viscerally experienced as non-regular.
The contrast of regular and talea 5-bar macrobars now becomes the new
“ground,” carried through into Section D and there provided with figural reinfor-
cement (see mm. 75–79, Example 2). Such an alternation of macrobar types
would quickly descend into routine should another level of transformation not

Example 4: from Section E

F_-SP
_B-ascending tr. A
_B-slurred “arpeggio” D
*E _C-spiral seperate-note figure
D-gliss.
_C-single
E
accented
197 chord
* Underlined Types are part of 5-part polyregularity
ED-bowed trem./gliss. _EB _D

B
_C
E
ED
202
F_
_C
A _B
E
207
Begin new
talea macro-bar
_EC B
_D
211
appear; this is provided by the long-delayed and dramatic liquidation 7 of both

the beginning of the metric talea and eventually the macrobar itself: in Section
D, the talea is inexorably reduced to its last few “limbs” (7–3–5, later 3–5, then,
for a brief passage only 3–3–3), which simultaneously liquidates the 5-bar
macrobar pattern which had governed the piece up to this point. In Section E,
the elements of the talea are progressively re-assembled, but now the myth of
their perfect integration in a 5-bar macrobar has been conclusively broken.
What follows is a higher-level development of the metric elements of the talea
freed from the macrobar restriction, resulting in the metrically most dynamic
section of the piece (see Example 4). The result of these extreme developments
is a second and conclusive liquidation not only of the 5-ness of the talea, but the
7 This term is intended in the sense of Schoenbergian theory, although granted my pan-subjectivist
approach, its violent connotations are revealed with particular clarity.

Example 5: from Section E
EB
BD AC EB
238
+ 1⁄4-tone
1⁄4 (D){3 4 5 - - 6 7 8 9 t e}
1⁄4 I(B){3 4 5 6 7 8}
BD EB
AC
242
{B V}
1⁄4 O(C){4 5 6 {7} 8 9 t (e)} O(C){t e 0}
I(AB ){0 1 2 3 4 7 6}
{B b}
BD
245
Type BD: Starting notes of trills: O(C){0-t}, End-notes of trills: I(B b){0-t}
Example 6: metric Plan, mm. 1–74
Section A: “6” (mm. 1–52)

1. mm.
K 1-15
œr = 84: “6” speed
Accumulation to 5-bar macro-bar talea: Basic Pattern
3 3 2 3 2 7 3 2 7 3 3 2 7 3 5
8 8 8 8 8 16 8 8 16 16 8 8 16 16 16
5-bar macro-bars ➝
2. mm. 16–41: Self-replicated talea K K K
“6” speed “4” speed œr = 72: “7” speed œr = 84: “3” speed œr = 100.8: “5” speed
3 2 7 3 5 3 2 7 3 5 3 2 7 3 5 3 2 7 3 5 3 2 7 3 5 ( 4)
8 8 16 16 16 12 12 24 24 24 8 8 16 16 16 16 16 32 32 32 8 8 16 16 16 (16)
3. mm.
K 42-52: Transition
œr = 84: “6” speed “4” speed
3 2 7 3 5 3 2 7 3 5
8 8 16 16 16 12 12 24 24 24

Section B: “4” (mm. 53–68)

K
œr = 126: “42” speed
Regular Bars Basic Pattern Regular Bars
3 3 3 3 3 3 2 7 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 2
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 24 24 12 12 12 12 12 12
(5 + 1 bars)
Section C : “7” (mm. 69–109)

K
œr = 72: “7” speed
Basic Pattern Regular Bars
1 3 3 2 7 3 5
8 8 16 16 16 16
initial “limbs” of the talea as well, and even the durational differentiations of the
talea itself (see Example 5). At the end of the piece, the non-regular structure is
so pulverized that it can react only submissively to the deeper-level tempo/
structural designs, such as the raw assertion of a final 4/5 metric modulation in
mm. 245 and the liquidation of all metric “dissonances” into a single 4/16 metric
regularity.
In the beginning of the piece, the basic talea rarely appears directly on the
musical surface (although note the durational “mimicking” of the talea in m. 2),
but by Section B, the speeds of the bar unit-speeds heard on the surface
analogously reflect the shape of the talea,8 and in Section C, a complex system
of analogous mirrorings of the talea is heard on the surface, governing the
numbers of attacks in each figure and the durations of sub-groupings of the bar
unit-speeds (see Example 2). Note also the gradual change in the relationship of
the figures/textures on the surface and the bar/tuplet organization: in the
beginning, the five main types (marked “A” to “E,” see B. Figure/Texture for an
explanation) “float” against the metric structure, gradually aligning themselves
ever-more closely with it (although not always with that of the bar unit-speeds
[see footnote 8]), reinforcing and strengthening themselves in relationship to
other figures through this alignment. By Section B, the figural level has almost
completely been liquidated into streams of regularly-attacked notes and talea
bar unit-speed structure. When the five types return in altered form in Section C,
they have a far more complex and ramified relationship to the bar structure than
in Section A. In Section D, the figural level has again been largely liquidated by
the triumph of one figure (see Example 3), but at the same time one finds here
perhaps the most complex surface layering of the talea in the piece: it controls
8 An intermediate level of rhythmic organization (in Sections B and D rising closer to the surface, and
in Section E “surfacing” in a different manner, attached to figure-types) is that of the bar
unit-speeds, i. e., the main “counting units” for each bar (usually given by a bar-spanning tuplet).
Space does not permit a full discussion of its role and development; I will only mention that for the
first ca. 2/3 of the piece, within each 5-bar macrobar, the speed relationships of successive bar
unit-speeds in general analogously reflect the talea, such that the third bar (the “7”) has the
slowest bar unit-speed, and the fourth bar (”3”) the fastest speed, and so on.

not only the succession of bar unit-speeds and the numbers of attacks in each
bar (thus, the density of attacks), but also the number of notes in slurred groups
overlapping bars (marked by structural accented notes, which themselves des-
cribe the spiral segment of the basic series) and the repetitions of structural
notes.
B. Figure/Texture
Figural and textural domains tend to remain closer to the musical surface than
rhythmic and pitch structuring; this is all the more the case in Clairvoyance due
to the fact that no single element/aspect (or bundle of the same) succeeds in
attaining formal significance. That is, none manages to conclusively changing
the basic state of the figural and textural domains, which is one of a strife among
multiple “voices.” What seem to be exceptions—the dominance of one figure/
textural type 9 in Section B and another in Section D—serve only as the breeding
grounds for a new formation of this strife—and a deeper level of the conflict—in
the succeeding sections.
If the main protagonists in this scenario were nothing more than pawns to
be shoved about, there would be no substance to this conflict. It is therefore
crucial to the dramatic unfolding that the main figural/textural types in this
piece be not only differentiated but also clearly characterized. Given that this is
a solo work and that five different types are present throughout most of the
piece, no single type (excepting in Sections B and D) will in any one appearance
have enough “space” to achieve a differentiated characterization. Thus, each
type is primarily characterized by its developmental comportment and the
manner in which it interacts with the other types and its context: its character is
the temporal unfolding of its behavior.10
Example 1 shows the first 22 bars of Clairvoyance along with a labeling of
the primary types. The opening of the piece presents a small pool of these types
which gradually expands to five (labeled A-E in Figure 1 [with a sixth, more
timbral “SP” element labeled F—this type plays only a subsidiary role in the
opening of the piece]; to the first appearance of each type is appended an
approximate description). These types, although constantly developed and
transformed–often to extreme degrees–are in fact the only figural/textural
elements of the piece: every new local formation can, upon analysis and/or
9 The term “type” is a shorthand to describe the multiply-defined basic materials: each “type” is a
bundle of different aspects, such as figural/gestural shape, textural quality, etc. Thus, at the
beginning of the piece, Type C is comprised of Figure C (descending, descending/ascending, etc.)
and Quality C (accented).
10 The interactions between the types and of each type to its context will play only a subsidiary role in
the following discussion.
10

concentrated listening, be understood as a fusion of aspects of two or more of

these types and/or an extreme transformation of one type.
Three types (A–C) are clearly predominant in the opening passage (see
Example 1).11 The second type heard (Type A: portato/quasi-spiral figure) is
almost ubiquitous in the first two sections, and also has both the most varied
and the most clearly “characterized” comportment. For example, after domina-
ting the opening, it cedes some “space” in order to accommodate the other
types, then gradually, toward the end of Section A (especially in mm. 40–43)
succeeds in almost completely liquidating other types, thereafter dominating
the entire B section (mm. 53–68) before being forcefully “dethroned” in the C
section (mm. 69–109) by the return of the other elements in transformed guise.
The first type heard (Type B: oscillation, later in the piece quasi-mordent,
quasi-trill, trill, etc.) is barely noticeable in the welter of conflicting actions, and
remains sonically recessive throughout practically the entire piece, only slightly
expanding in “size” in Section E (mm. 145–269). Nevertheless, it provides the
most stable rhythmic “ground” of the piece, being the only regularly-recurring
rhythmic element: it recurs (with small exceptions) every six eighth-notes at
MM84 throughout the entire piece (thus “crossing-over” the consistently non-
regular metric structure), until slowing its recurrences along with the general
ritardando at the close of the piece. At the very end, although still recessive, it
(somewhat ironically) proves to be the only element capable of surviving the
battle (see Example 5, showing the alternation of the last two remaining types;
shortly thereafter Type AC drops out, leaving only Type BD).
The third type heard (Type C: accented descending figure) is of these three
types both the least-often heard and the most “marked” (i. e., sonically intru-
sive), and, unlike Types A and B—which are both more integrated into develo-
ping contrapuntal/harmonic and rhythmic/metric webs—tends at the start of
the piece to function more as a “sound object” stubbornly and aggressively
asserting its presence. It is in its transformation through time that it begins to
reveal its “character.”
Firstly, the shape of the accented C figure is slowly transformed from a
primarily descending figure at the beginning, to a descending/slightly rising
figure at the end of Section A, to a slightly descending/primarily rising figure
throughout Section C (see Example 2), to an rising figure in Section D and
Section E, at which latter point it surrenders its accented character, fusing its
rising shape with the steadily-recurring oscillation (now a trill) Type B (thus, a
rising trill, and at the end of the piece, a rising glissando trill—additionally
incorporating Type D—see Examples 4 and 5, in which this figure is marked BD).
However, the accented quality does not vanish at this point, but rather attaches
11 Types D (glissando) and E (dyad/chord, etc.)—more “liminal” elements in the opening, gradually
gaining more structural significance by fusing with other elements (especially in Section E) and
with the middle-ground metric/contrapuntal webs—will be only briefly mentioned in this paper.
11

itself to an transformed version of the spiral figure from Type A. This accented
spiral figure (Type AC, a fusion of Figure A and Quality C) is the next-to-last
survivor of the struggle, (along with the trill figure BD, as described above).
Secondly, at the beginning of the piece, Type C is—whatever its sonic
intrusiveness—both metrically and temporally recessive. Like Type B, it “cros-
ses over” (and is therefore not supported by) the metric web and occurs less
frequently than Type B (initially every ca. twelve eighth-notes at MM84). Howe-
ver, it soon begins to reduce the intervals of its recurrences, pressing so
unforgivingly onto the attention that it has by Section C has achieved a fore-
ground prominence, one ramified by its patterned recurrences in talea (i. e.,
6–4–7–3–5) intervals, which are, however measured in “real-time” units conflic-
ting with the rhythmic/metric web. Thus, Type C proves to be the most resistant
to inclusion in the “societal level” of the developing metric discourse, only
gradually being “subsumed” in Section D (mm. 110–144) and Section E. This
proves, however, to be a hollow victory: at the beginning of Section E, the
characterizing aspects of Type C are fragmented and fused with aspects of other
types (as described in the previous paragraph).
In Section E, one finds the most dynamic and extreme form of the strife
between the five main types. For the first time in the piece, aspects of different
types dramatically fuse into new combinations and the conflicts between the
types expand to the structural level. Each type begins to recur regularly in
“real-time” intervals (this representing an extreme development of both the
“real-time” conflicts with the meter of Figures B and C and the regular recurren-
ces of Figure B), which regularities not only dynamically conflict with the metric
structure (which is simultaneously undergoing its most extreme development:
see above and Example 4), but collide harshly against each other. They are
organized in an inexorable 5-part polyrhythm, in the proportions of whose
speeds one finds—yet again—the basic talea: 6 : 4 : 7 : 3 : 5. The issue of this
battle is the step by step “liquidation” of each type by the others, leaving only
two, then one survivor.
C. Pitch Organization
The third and last domain that will be discussed is the pitch organization, of
which only a few aspects will be mentioned. A primary concern in my solo works
the creation of a “virtual” polyphony, firstly, through the creation and develop-
ment of harmonic/(stratified) contrapuntal webs, secondly through a quasi-
polyphonic development of different aspects of the pitch structure (unfolding of
different aspects of the row at different levels and speeds, differentiation and
development of harmonic qualities, development of the conflict between har-
monic and linear focus, and so on). Both of these approaches to polyphony
inevitably lead to a focus upon a polyphony of levels.
12

Example 7a: All-interval spiral row:

G Gb Ab F A E Bb ...
Example 7b: Row and Row’ (= and switched)

#: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t e
O(B){0-e} B Db C G Gb Ab F Bb E (D Eb A) :R(B){e-0}
I(B){0-e} B A Bb Eb E D F C Gb (Ab G Db) :RI(B){e-0}
O’(B){0-6} B Db C G Ab Gb F ...
Example 7c: Important Row Segments

Set class [012378] as ordered:
O(B){1-6} Db C G Gb Ab F
O’(B){6,1-5} F Db C G Ab Gb
pitch content = O(D){6-e}, I(D){1-6}, I(B){6-e}
as unordered: OF[012378] (i. e., an [012378] hexachord class build upwards from the
note “F,” identical to IAb[012378])
[012356]
O(B){3-7,0} (B) G Gb Ab F Bb B = OF[012356]
[012367]
O(B){3-6,0,2}
(Or {2-6,0}) (B) (C) G Gb Ab F B C = OF[012367]
R(Gb){2-0,8-6} Gb Ab G C F B, etc.
Example 7d: 1/4-tone Row

1/4O(B){0-e} B C B e. A A e A e. Ab B e G e. (G e G Bb)
1/4I(B){0-e} B Bb B Db D e C e. D B e. D e. (E e Eb C)
The conventions for describing rows, row segments, set-classes, etc., are
shown in Example 7. The basic talea had, as could be expected, a substantial
influence on the pitch materials as well. The basic row is centered around a
spiral pattern (notes {3-8} of the row: see Example 7b), but, unlike the
“smooth” all-interval spiral row (Example 7a), it is, like the basic talea,
“warped,” and embedded in a larger pattern containing other shapes. The
basic row has two main forms (the second indicated with a single apostrophe,
thus: O’(x), etc.), the only difference being the exchange of notes {4} and {5}.
The complete original row is never heard on the surface, and longer segments
are heard closer to the surface only toward the end of the piece. The row is
rather used to generate favored ordered and unordered segments; several
such segments were derived by “circling around” to the beginning of segment
of the row, the clearest example being the derivation of set class [012378] (see
Example 7c). A further, 1/4-tone row is derived by simply halving all intervals
(Example 7d); this row is also only heard in short segments until the end of the
piece. What are not indicated in Example 7 are many hybrid forms derived by
mixing/overlaying/fusing aspects of the “normal” 12-tone ET rowand the
“halved” 1/4-tone row.
13

My general plan regarding the microtonality was to treat microtonal

pitches and intervals primarily inflectively in the beginning of the piece, then
gradually increase their structural importance such that the quarter-tones/
intervals would become functionally “real” 12 at the end of the piece. Thus, at
the opening quarter-tones are primarily used inflectively (”passing-tones,”
neighbor-notes, etc.) and as “warpings” of favored row segments and set-
classes (see Examples 7 and 8; apostrophes following set classes indicate
microtonal alterations of the set). What appears with increasing frequency as
the piece develops are “punning” inflections: the embedding of 24-tone ET row
segments within “normal” 12-tone ET row segments. The clearest early exam-
ple found mm. 21-22: the main 12-tone ET pitch motion over both measures can
be reduced to C Bb Db (a row segment which recurs often and attains an
almost motivic significance: see, for example, the beginning of Section D,
shown in Example 4 13), realized as an opposition of a quarter-tone measure (m.
21) and a succeeding “normal” measure. Although the quarter-tone row
segment 1/4I’(Bb){3-7,0} is not “pure,” having been slightly reordered, the
hexachord in m. 21 yet presents an exact “halved” version of the [012356]
hexachord (one of the main set-classes of the piece), and the similar contour at
the beginning of both measures clearly demands a more precise realization
and perception of the quarter-tones than found in the opening bars. Similarly,
certain quarter-tone row segments begin recurring often enough in a stable
form to achieve a quasi-motivic significance.
Throughout the piece, this tendency/”desire” of microtonality to rise above
its merely disturbing, “other” role and to attain a status as functionally “real” as
that of the 12-tone ET elements is remorseless, undercutting every momentary
stability established in the “normal” realm. At the same time, there is a similarly
remorseless tendency of the 12-tone ET row to imprint itself on type of material
and to appear successively in ever-larger “chunks,” above all on the musical
surface, where it has not yet appeared. At the end of the piece, the row at last
attains this goal, but, paradoxically, it can achieve this “victory” by surrendering
its 12-tone ET form almost completely. It fuses its contour and intervallic propor-
tions with the attainment by microtonality of its most “real” manifestation: thus,
one finally hears large stretches of the row on the surface, but in the 24-tone,
halved version of the 12-tone ET row (Type AC; see Figure 5).
12 The term “real” is here directly related to the function of the quarter-tone/interval in any context:
the more precise the placement/intervals of the quarter-tones must be in order to perceive
functional differentiations, and the more functionally important these distinctions are, the more
functionally “real” they are.
13 Note also in Example 4 that the manner of multi-layer unfolding of row segments found in Section D
is completely different than that found in the opening bars (see following discussion): short row
segments on the surface rotating around central tones, central and secondary tones repeating in
talea intervals, and accented notes slowly unfolding larger row segments.
14

Example 8a
Symmetrical spiral patterns:
G ... Eb ... B
G F U {G V}* F m A b G ... AB FV
Row segments, set classes: Set class: IA[012367]' (=O(D b){4,6,1–3})
(i.e., A A b (G V) G GB E b (D V) D
Extension of spiral pattern:
O(B){3-5}: G F m A b? O(D b){6,1–3}: content/order = R(G b){2–0, 8–7 . . . . . . .(6)}
O'(B){3-5}: G Ab Fm ? G Eb D ? pun on shape of O'(B){3–8},
OD/IF[012378]'
(i.e., D (D V) E b E B F A BB )
G E b {D} A ? also O'(B){3–6,0,2}: OF[012367]'
Content: O(A b){1–6}' (unordered)
1/4I'(A){3–5}:
B C B BB
mm. 1–2 m. 3 mm. 4–6 mm. 6–7 m. 7
& ˙ U œ b œ m œ(b)œ (D)œ ˙ b œ D œ œ D œ U œ ˙ b œ U œ B œ (œ)V œ m œ œ B œ B œ(n)œ V œ(n)œ B œ œ b œ D œ œ B œ œ

œ œ
O'(B){3–6, (7, 0, 2?}: G Ab Fm F (B B … B B V)
Type C Type C
OG/IB b[012378]'
O'(D b){6,1–5}'
… mm. 11–12
& ˙ Uœ bœ Vœ œ
œ bœ Vœ Bœ Bœ bœ
Type C
* (note names in curly braces = missing tones)
Example 8b
Middleground 1: mm. 1–20
Middle/Upper “voices”, mm. 1–11: Middle/Upper “voices”, mm. 14–20:
[012378] ([0156]) [012356] ([0156])
O'(F){6, 1–4 (5–6)}: I'(G){0–5} R(D b){e–8,6–5}
B G F m D b D (C B)
N
mm. 1–8 mm. 8–13 (m. 13) mm. 13–17 mm. 14–16
& ˙ b œ m œ (œ)( n) œ B œ ( n) œ V œ œ m œ b œ n œ (œ œ ) (œ œ œ) ˙ œ m œ ˙ b œ V œ ˙ œ m œ {œ} œ b œ

œ bœ bœ nœ
œ
O'(B){3–7,0 (2)}: G Ab Fm F BB B (BV) “Bass line”, mm. 11–13 (mm. 13–14)
R(C){5, 3–1 (0,7–8)}:
A A b D b D (C B F)
RI(C){2–0},OB{2–5}
mm. 14–20
& (n) ˙ b œ œ œ B œ b œ
Middleground 2: mm. 1–52

mm. 1–4 mm. 10-13 mm. 14– mm. 20– mm. 30– mm. 44– mm. 51–
Upper “voices”:
I'(Db){6,1–5}:
(mm. 5–9) (m.13) etc....
b˙
˙ b œ b ˙ œ ˙ n ˙ ˙ (n) ˙ m ˙{b œ} ˙( b ˙ )
˙ ˙
& ˙ bœ œ œ
( ˙ bœ bœ )
mm. 1–12 mm. 13– mm. 22–, 26–, 27– m. 51–
Lower “voices”:
O'(D b){6,1–5}: G E b D A Bb Ab
I'(E b){6,1–5}: A Db D ...
Connecting segment:
O(F)'{6,1–4}: B G Gb Db D (etc.)
It is not possible in this limited space to present more than a brief description of
the multi-leveled structuring and polyphonic development of the pitch organiza-
tion, and it is hoped that the diagrams presented in Example 8 are somewhat
self-explanatory. A brief analysis of the beginning of the Clairvoyance will suffice
15

to give a general idea of the sorts of formations and procedures found throug-
hout the piece, with the proviso that each section of the piece presents a
substantially different form of structuring and development.
Example 8a presents a detailed reduction of the opening bars of the piece,
and the reader is referred to this example throughout the following discussion
(also to Example 1). Even at the very beginning, several types and layers of
unfolding of the row are present. Firstly, there is an unfolding of the spiral
element of the row (notes {3–5}, {3–8}, etc.) at several levels:
a) several types of (either explicit of implied) 3-note symmetrical spiral patterns,
including an (incomplete) 1/4-tone spiral, a 1/2-tone spiral (mm. 1–2), a 3/4-tone
spiral (in m. 5), and a M3rd spiral (see Example 8a, “Symmetrical spiral pat-
terns”);
b1) a “dirtying” of these “smooth” spirals by quarter-tone inflections and the
“weighting” of either the higher of lower elements of successive spirals, ope-
ning the door to the possibility that
b2) the “space” in the opening bars—despite hints at symmetrical organizatio-
n—is not symmetrical apportioned, but is instead “warped,” and perhaps
organized according to some sort of serial or serial-type procedure, leading to
b3) ambiguity regarding the serial forms and regarding which notes belong to
which forms, forcing one to scan for connections resembling row segments
already heard and to search (at the opening, generally in vain) for consistent
continuations of these row segments;
c) upon the inability to attribute any local sequence unambiguously to any
single row form, one is thrown back upon non-contiguous connections and
recurring notes and structures that hint at an unfolding under the surface level.
In mm. 1–2, the ambiguity is fairly easily resolved in the direction of a deeper
G–Ab connection, whereas in mm. 4–6 and 6–7, multiple spiral-type segments
appear, problematizing any clear decision. However, a deeper-level G–F# con-
nection, leading to F in m. 7, seems the most convincing deeper-level connec-
tion. The combining these two connections results in the row segment O’(B)
{3–6}(see connecting beams under the staff, Example 8a), which provisionally
seems to make sense of the welter of conflicting local interpretations.
Before proceeding to possible middle-ground interpretations of this pas-
sage, attention must be drawn to a different kind of unfolding of another row
segment, this found in the appearances of Type C in mm. 3, 7, and 11–12 (”Fig. C”
in Example 8a). Here the pitch content of row segment O’(Db){6,1–5} (set class
[012378]: see Example 7c) is (by and large) retained throughout: instead of
similar pitch content being reinterpreted by different row forms, here one finds
the same underlying pitch content (G–Eb–D–A–Bb–Ab) “re-interpreted” and
“analyzed” by fragmentation, intervening microtones and temporal re-disposi-
tion. Thus, one could initially interpret the appearance of Type C in m. 3 either as
an altered version of the G–Eb–D–A segment (dotted beams under the staff), or
(the preferred interpretation) as an unfolding of the G–Eb–D segment (i. e., the
16

“real” [12-tone ET] notes of the row segment: see solid beams under the staff),
with the E 3/4-flat “punning” the “real” D, and the A appearing (as part of this
pun) before the “real” D (in addition, the [012367]’ set class appearing here does
not correspond to row segment {6,1-5}). This “punning” version appears again in
m. 7, here with the “proper” [012378]’ set class, but only in mm. 11-12 does the
properly ordered version of this segment appear (i. e., the “real” 12-tone ET
notes following each other in the proper order). Upon arriving at this goal, later
appearances of Type C can began to gradually begin (although initially more
slowly than the other types) to work their way into the developing contrapuntal/
harmonic web.
Three brief explanations can clarify some of the level conflicts (partially)
symbolized in Example 8b. Firstly, one can notice a gradual functional differen-
tiation of still-restricted registral range into “upper-voices” (the G4/B4 central
tones), “middle-voices” (for example, the G–Ab–F#–F row segment discussed
above; “middle-voices” are not visually distinguished from the other “voices” in
Middlegrounds 1 and 2), and “bass-voices.” These last deserve a more extensive
explanation: Type C provided the “bass-notes” for the opening bars, and the
unfolding of its O’(Db){6,1–5} row segment was completed with the Ab3 in m. 12.
However, in retrospect this is revealed to be a neighbor-note to the structural A3
(see Middleground 2), which is the primary bass-note for the first 12 bars.14 On
the level of Middleground 1, this A–Ab motion can be understood as part of a
mm. 11-13 bass-line A–Ab–Db–D row segment (set class [0156], mirroring [and
“punning” through its reordering] the identical set-class heard in the middle-
voice mm. 9-13, part of the descending row segment O’(F){1-4}), but upon further
unfolding of the bass-line progression (see Middleground 2), the D completing
the tetrachord motion is in retrospect revealed as a neighbor-note to the
primary bass-tone Db, which retains its structural role until ca. mm. 22.
Secondly, structural/interpretational conflicts also appear within same le-
vel, and sometimes even for the same notes. In Middleground 1, note the
conflicting “middle/upper voice” interpretations for the overlapping passages
mm. 9–13 and mm. 13-17: the former interpretation includes contiguous notes,
whereas the latter focuses initially upon sustained elements in the “middle
voice” (i. e., notes G–F–F#, mm. 13–15), later connecting-up to the “upper voice”
(B–Bb–B 1/4-sharp, mm. 15–17).15
Thirdly, all local conflicts are gradually (at least temporarily) resolved or
“swallowed-up” into the deeper-middleground progression presented in Midd-
leground 2: ascending bass- and upper-voice progressions of row segments
I’(Db, F){6,1–5}. This deeper-level progression is by no means mechanically
asserted as structurally important, but rather its structural significance is unco-
14 A more technically correct explanation is that the Ab3 in m. 12 neutralizes the structural A3,
opening the door for the Db4 to assume a structural role starting in m. 13.
15 Also note the conflicting interpretations in “Middleground 1” for mm. 14–16 and mm. 14–20.
17

vered by means of a dramatized temporal unfolding. For example, in the ope-

ning bars there is no appearance on the local level of this I’{6,1–5} form (one
finds the {6,1–5} segment only in its O’ form in Type C), and the other local
materials are dominated by the spiral ({3–8}, etc.) segments. Only with the
conflict between center tones G4 (ca. mm. 1–5) and B4 (ca. mm. 6–9), does the
“natural” center of G4 become problematized. A second layer of conflict is
revealed with the reassertion of the G4’s primacy in mm. 9-13: this seems to
result from the B4’s insufficient neutralization of G4, but in fact it the ease of this
victory in fact signals its hollowness. By m. 14, B4 has successfully reasserted
itself as a primary tone; from this point on G4 plays only a subsidiary role, and
the deeper-level unfolding of row segment I’æ6,1–5åin both the upper/middle
and bass “voices”—a “satisfying” return to the B4 starting in m. 14, “justified”
expansion to C5 starting ca. m. 20–21, and so on—faces ever-fewer hurdles it
must overcome.
Yet even the too-early appearances of B4 (ca. mm. 6–9) and (additionally
“out of order”) C5 (m. 13) (see, in Middleground 2, the dotted-slur connections
from the opening structural G4 to the subsidiary B4 and C5) demand some sort
of temporalized explanation. The first is largely provided by the descending
O’(F){6,1–4} connecting segment (i. e., B–G–Gb–Db–D), and the latter doubly
“explained” by middle- and bass-”voice” segments shown in Middleground 1
(mm. 9–13 and mm. 11–13/14).
However dryly technical this explanation here might seem, it must be
emphasized that as the “world” of this piece develops, every unfolding of a row
segment at middle and deeper levels must ever-more resemble the unfolding of
a subjective experience. Each must be made in a different fashion, and must
create a singular temporalization of experience. In this opening passage, each
new step of the unfolding must be felt out, grasped, secured; one (provisionally)
becomes accustomed to this new “ground,” but this is quickly erodes, driving
one on to the next step, and so on. The mere fact that multi-layered embedding
of rows and row-fragments can be found in a piece—and this goes as well for the
conscious structuring of any other aspect—says nothing about the experiential
significance of these formations, which may be absolutely nil (a common pro-
blem in total-serial music). If each new stage in the unfolding is not experienced
as something which could have been foreseen but is yet unexpected—as a fresh
discovery which in retrospect becomes intelligible as a logical consequence—t-
hen all this structuring will have served no purpose.
18

Cox Clairvoyance NM1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Cox Clairvoyance NM1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSF Freiburg SUN1% CSF3 % UM020222 - 0311 (13) » 26 - 1« Farbe: BLACK Seite: 1 Rev.-Dat.: 25.04.02 Ausg.-Dat.: 26.04.

Ausg.-Dat.: 26.04.02, 09:48:16 Uhr Höhe: 56,04 Setzer: GH

It may seem paradoxical for a discourse concerning polyphony and complexity

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

domains, there will necessarily be some degree of overlap in the following

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

domains traditionally considered “rational” (such as pitch organization), but

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

Example 1: from Section A

B-oscillation A-portato (spiral figure) B

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

Example 2: from Section C

Following the accomplishment of this goal, an obvious tactic for continuation

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

Example 3: end of Section C, beginning of Section D

Accented/repeated notes, mm. 109–115 I(A b){3–t}: C Db CB (=B) D A E b F E

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

Example 4: from Section E

* Underlined Types are part of 5-part polyregularity

ED-bowed trem./gliss. _EB _D

appear; this is provided by the long-delayed and dramatic liquidation 7 of both

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

Example 5: from Section E

Example 6: metric Plan, mm. 1–74

Section A: “6” (mm. 1–52)

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

Section B: “4” (mm. 53–68)

Section C : “7” (mm. 69–109)

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

concentrated listening, be understood as a fusion of aspects of two or more of

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

Example 7a: All-interval spiral row:

Example 7b: Row and Row’ (= and switched)

Example 7c: Important Row Segments

Example 7d: 1/4-tone Row

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

My general plan regarding the microtonality was to treat microtonal

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

& ˙ U œ b œ m œ(b)œ (D)œ ˙ b œ D œ œ D œ U œ ˙ b œ U œ B œ (œ)V œ m œ œ B œ B œ(n)œ V œ(n)œ B œ œ b œ D œ œ B œ œ

* (note names in curly braces = missing tones)

& ˙ b œ m œ (œ)( n) œ B œ ( n) œ V œ œ m œ b œ n œ (œ œ ) (œ œ œ) ˙ œ m œ ˙ b œ V œ ˙ œ m œ {œ} œ b œ

Middleground 2: mm. 1–52

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

“Virtual” Polyphony: Clairvoyance, for solo violin – F RANK C OX

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

vered by means of a dramatized temporal unfolding. For example, in the ope-

Mahnkopf: »Thesen zur Harmonik heute« 01.02

You might also like