Alea

Author(s): Pierre Boulez, David Noakes and Paul Jacobs

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn - Winter, 1964), pp. 42-53
Published by: Perspectives of New Music
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/832236 .
Accessed: 23/10/2012 16:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives
of New Music.

http://www.jstor.org
 ALEA
PIERRE BOULEZ

SEVERAL COMPOSERS of our generationshowcurrently a constant

preoccupation with chance-you might even say they are obsessedby
it. This is, at least as faras I know,the firsttimesuch a notionhas as-
sumed a place in Occidental music,and the factsurelydeservesto be
examined at length,forit is too importanta bifurcationin the idea of
compositionto be eitherunderestimatedor rejectedunconditionally.
Is it possible to trace this obsession to its origin?Outwardly,one
could suggestvariouscauses thatseem to have a certainsolidity,chang-
ing in accordance with the temperamentof the different creators.The
most elementaryformof the transmutationof chance would lie in the
adoption of a philosophytinged with Orientalismthat masksa basic
weaknessin compositionaltechnique; it would be a protectionagainst
the asphyxia of invention,the resort to a more subtle poison that
destroyseverylast embryoof craftsmanship;I would willinglycall this
experiment-if experimentit be, since the individual does not feel
responsiblefor his work, but merely throwshimselfby unadmitted
weakness,by confusion,and for temporaryassuagementinto puerile
magic-I would call thisexperimentchance throughinadvertence.In
other words,the resultcomes about any which way, uncontrolled(an
absence thatis voluntarythoughnot praiseworthy, throughimpotence),
butwithina certainnetworkof probable results,forchance musthave
at its disposal some kind of eventuality.Therefore,whychoosethe net-
work so meticulously,why not leave thisnetworkitselfup to inadver-
tence?That is somethingI have neverbeen able to clear up. The game
is played onlypartlyaboveboard,but at least no one pretendsotherwise,
which is creditable. It is a nicely laid out artificialparadise where,
I think,dreamsare neververymiraculous;thiskindofnarcoticindeed
constitutesprotectionagainst the goad inflictedupon you by all inven-
tiveness;it is to be observed that its action is exaggeratedlysoothing,
sometimesmirth-provoking, like what hashishfanciersdescribe.Peace
to theseangelic creatures;we can be sure theyrun absolutelyno riskof
stealing any thunder,since they wouldn't know what to do with it.
Inadvertenceis amusingat the beginning,but one getstiredofit very
quickly-all the more quicklybecause it is condemnedto neverrenew
itself.This being so, we incontestablyprefernatural inadvertence,
whichdoesn'trequireinstruments foritsexistence."Non-art,""anti-art"
. 42 *
 ALEA
still take as theirpoint of reference"art." And in the search we are
engaged in, what people agree to call by thisname is not at all thefocus
of our efforts. Some decades have passed since Beauty was foundto be
bitter.Let's put togetherwiththat enchantressA-Beauty,Anti-Beauty,
etc., and throwa fewshovelfulsof earth. Chance will do the rest!
However, thereexistsa more poisonous and more subtleformofin-
toxication.I have alreadyspokenofit on severaloccasions,forthisform
dies hard and arisesonce again everytime it seemsto have been over-
come. Compositionchoosesto approach as closelyas possiblethe most
perfect,smooth,untouchableobjectivity. And bywhatmeans?Schemati-
zation, quite simply, takes the place of invention; imagination-an
auxiliary-limits itselfto givingbirthto a complex mechanismwhich
takes care ofengenderingmicroscopicand macroscopicstructures until,
in the absence of any furtherpossiblecombinations,the piece comes to
an end. Admirable securityand a strongsignal of alarm! As forthe
imagination,it is carefulnot to interveneafterthingsare under way:
it would disturbwhat is absolute in the developmentprocess,introduc-
ing human errorinto such a perfectly deduced ensemble;a fetishism of
numbers,leading pureto and simple failure. We plunge into statistical
liststhat have no more value than otherlists.In its Omni-Objectivity,
the workrepresents-herewe are again-a fragmentof chance thatis
just as justifiable(or just as unjustifiable)as any otherfragment.The
differencebetween the formdescribed earlier and this new, equally
pernicioustemptationis evident:thereis more trickery in thisone, and
the spontaneousconfessionofweaknessis transformed intoa hopelessly
sterile search for combinative devices, into an aggressiverefusalof
arbitrariness,that new "diabolus in musica." Paradoxically,however,
the resultis thatthishated and repudiatedarbitrariness is,on the con-
trary, most often encountered when most shunned. Objectivityrecedes
at everyinstantin frontofyoureyes,likea kindofirritating and fragile
mirage that exhausts and dries up all vital energy;these slicesofchance
are unfitforconsumptionbecause, firstof all, one wonderswhythey
should be consumed!
Once this overt objectivityhad failed, they hurled themselveslike
madmen intoa searchforarbitrariness. They wentlookingforthe devil
and broughthim back with a suitable escort,imprisoned,bound by a
thousand nets,in a workthat he was supposed to vivifyby his omni-
presence.The devil will be there,shamefaced,or will not be anywhere.
Were therecomplaintsabout the lack of subjectivity? There'll be some
at each note,withineach structure;thisferociously dislocated,dismem-
bered,scatteredsubjectivity is going to forceyou to take a stand,hypo-
criticallistener,to be as subjectiveas thecomposer.As fortheinterpreter,
it is up to him to transmitto you the devil's attacks;he willcompromise

S43
 PERSPECTIVES OF NEW MUSIC

you-interpreter-medium whowillestablish himself as highpriestofthis

intellectual devilry.How so? Much less murkily than youare inclined
-hypocrite-to suppose. Notation will become butsubtly,
sufficiently,
imprecise in order to letpass between its grid-hypothetical diagram-
the instantaneous and changing,moire-like choiceof the interpreter.
You mayprolongthisrest,youmayholdthissound,youmayaccelerate,
youmay... at anymoment... ; in short,one has chosenhenceforth to
be meticulous in imprecision.
Do you see whatwe are gettingback to? Constantly to a refusal
of choice. The firstconceptionwas purelymechanistic, automatic,
fetishistic;thesecondis stillfetishistic, butone is freedfromchoicenot
by numbers butbytheinterpreter. One transfers one'schoiceto thein-
terpreter's. In this way one is protected, camouflaged; notverycleverly,
fornonetheless arbitrariness, or rathera kindoftip-of-the-finger arbi-
trariness, imposesits presence.What a relief!The hourof choiceis
once again put off:a superficial subjectivity has been graftedonto
an aggressive conception ofinitialobjectivity. No! Chanceis tooshame-
fulto be diabolical....
We mightnote,betweenbenignparentheses, that a certainkind
of analyticalprocedurehas taken the same blind alleys.A sortof
smuglystatistical reporthas replaceda moreintelligent and morehard-
hittingmethodofinvestigation. The brainis used likea photoelectric
cell thatpicksout the variouscomponents accordingto theirspecial
features: thanksto a formulation ofintervals or offigures, theviceis re-
cordedas equalingtheversa-which, it mustbe admitted, is a poorles-
son. As forthe composer'schoice,it is slurredoverwitha lack of
virtuosity thatis painfulto behold.How can analysisbe limitedtoan
ordinaryinventory, to a roughcadastralsurvey? In spiteofbestinten-
tionsand mostearnestattempts, I am unableto makeout theprecise
reasonforthisfearto approachthetrueproblemofcomposition. Per-
haps this phenomenon also is due to a kind of fetishism of numeral
selection-aposition thatis notonlyambiguous butcompletely unsound
whentheworkunderinvestigation structurally refuses these procedures,
whichare,afterall,excessively coarseand elementary.
Thus in additionto chanceby inadvertence, we finda chanceby
automatism, whether this automatism tries to be pureorisaccompanied
by a notion of controlled bifurcation. However, since theobsession with
whatmayhappentakestheplace ofwhatshould happen, it is notdue
only to the weakness of the compositional methods involved, due
nor
only to the desireto introducethe subjectivity of the interpreter or
ofthelistener withintheworkand thustocreateforthesetwoa constant
and obligatory instantaneous choice.It wouldbe possibleto givestill
otherapparentreasonswithquite as muchjustification.
And firstof all,

S44
 ALEA

as faras the structureof the workis concerned,thereis the refusalof a

preestablishedstructure,the legitimatedesire to constructa sort of
labyrinthwith several circuits;on the other hand, there is the wish
to create a moving,constantlyrenewedcomplexity,specifically charac-
teristicof played, interpretedmusic, as opposed to the fixed and not
renewable complexityof machines. Certainly,in a musical universe
fromwhichall notionof symmetry tendsto disappear,in whichan idea
of variable densityassumes an increasinglyprimordialplace on all
levels of construction-frommaterialsto structure-itis logical to look
for a formwhich does not become fixed,an evolvingformthat will
rebelliouslyrefuseto permitits own repetition;in short,a relative
formalvirtuality. We are gettingaround to thedetermining factorofthis
research which, in my opinion, can concentrateon the necessityof
destroyingany immanentstructure.
How has this need been able to become progressively explicit?For,
classically,compositionis the resultof a constantchoice.Haven't I said
so enough myself?It means, withincertain networksof probabilities,
being led-from one solutionto another-to refusing, to choosing.The
composer'sarbitrarinessintervenesto renderefficaciouscertainpropo-
sitions of structuresthat will remain formlessuntil, thanksto their
elaboration,theyacquire a stampof experiencednecessity.However,in
the course of this elaboration there arises once again, and always,
chance. Is such-and-sucha possibilitymore "profitable"than another?
Certainly,because you have thoughtit so at thatpointofyourdevelop-
ment. On the basis of my experience,it is impossibleto foreseeall the
meandersand all the virtualities containedin thematerialyou startout
with. However fullof genius one mightbe in thispremonitory vision,
in thisrapid effortto estimate-to appraise-it seemsto me, firstofall,
that the composerwould be deprived of his mostoutstandingquality:
surprise.It is easy to imagine the boredom of an omniscienceand an
omnipotencethat would have nothingto reveal to you along the way.
Composition ought to reserveat everymomentsurprisesand waysof
its own regardlessof all the rationalitythat must be imposed in other
respectsin orderto attain an unquestionablesolidity.I thusonce more
come, by anotherroute,to the irrational:so it is that,as a resultofask-
ing oneselfquestions,one getsback to thisobsessionwhichlurkseven in
the mostrigorousordinances.Despairinglyone triesto dominateone's
material by an arduous, sustained, vigilant effort,and despairingly
chance persists,slips in through a thousand unstoppable loopholes.
"And it's finethat way!" Nevertheless,wouldn't the composer'sulti-
mate ruse be to absorbthischance? Why not tame these potentialities
and forcethemto renderan account,to account forthemselves?
Introduce chance into composition?Isn't that madness or, at most,

S45
 PERSPECTIVES OF NEW MUSIC
a vain endeavor?Madness,perhaps,butit willbe a useful madness.In
to
any case, adopt chance throughweakness, as the easyway, to turn
oneselfoverto it,is a formofrenunciation thatcouldnotbe accepted
without denyingall theprerogatives and thehierarchies thata created
workimplies.In whatrespectthencan compositionand chancebe
reconciled?
Sincemusicaldevelopment is a function ofduration, ofthephysical
timeduringwhichit unfolds, it permitstheintroduction of"chances"
at severalstagesand at severallevelsofcomposition. Whenall is said
and done, the resultantof thiswould be a sequencebased on the
greatest probability ofchance-determined happenings withinthelimits
ofa certaindurationthatwouldalso be indeterminate. That mayseem
absurdin thecontextofour Occidentalmusic,but Hindu music,for
example,bycombining a kindofstructural "formant" withinstantane-
ousimprovisation, arrivesveryeasilyat thiskindofproblem andprovides
an everydaysolutionforit. Obviouslyit also requiresa completely
different wayoflistening and existsin an opencycle,whereaswe con-
ceiveoftheformulated workas a closedcycleofpossibilities.
Let us see,however, whether by surmounting certaincontradictions
it is notpossibleto absorbchance.
We beginat themostelementary level,theone at whichone gives
a certainfreedomto the performer. Let's make no mistake:if used
summarily, thiswillbe no more than a kind ofgeneralized some-
rubato,
whatmoreorganizedthanbefore(I meana rubatothatcan be applied
to dynamics,to registers, and to tempo,ofcourse).If theinterpreter
can modifythetextas he likes,thismodification mustbe impliedby
thetextand notmerely addedafterwards. The musicaltextshouldcon-
tain inherently this"chance"of the interpreter. If,forexample,in a
certainsuccession ofsounds,I inserta variablenumberofgracenotes,
it is perfectly evidentthat the tempoof thesesoundswill be made
constantly changingbytheintrusion ofthegracenotes,whichprovoke
each timean interruption, or moreexactly,a ruptureofdifferent ten-
sion.Theycan contribute to givingan impression ofnonhomogeneous
time.Similarly, in thecase ofa rapidsuccessionofnotesand chords
thatare ofequal rhythmical lengthbutthatrequireverypronounced
shiftings (registerseitherverycloseto one anotheror veryfarapart),
verydifferent densities(aggregates offromtwoto elevensounds),and
excessively differentiatedattacksand dynamics, ifI ask theperformer
to regulatehis tempoaccordingto the difficulty ofperformance, it is
clear thatthissuccessionwill not have a regularrhythmic pulsation,
but thattherhythm willbe physically tiedto themechanicaldiffer-
entiationthat I require of him. Anotherexample: I can ask the inter-
preternot to slow up or to accelerate, but to oscillate around a given

S46
 ALEA

tempo, within more or less strict limits. I can also make certain
caesuras depend rather freely on the dynamic level but without
defininga rigidlimitto the ad libitum. In thisway I introduceby means
of the text a necessityof chance in the interpretation-a directed
chance. A word of caution: thesewordsrubato,ad libitum are used here
only to facilitateexpression,since the notions thus introduced forthe
firsttime in compositionhave nothingto do withthe conceptionsthat
these terms generallyreferto-conceptions, that is, which are con-
nected simply with flexibilityof articulation (we may associate with
them the fermata and the pause, of which usage has completely
changed the meaning).I have takenhere the case ofa singleperformer,
but it is easy to surmisethe kaleidoscopeofferedto the imaginationby
several performers or several groups of performers. For then,one will
be free to utilize an interchangebetween the two dimensionsof the
text, one rigorous,the other interpreted.In so doing, one entersa
pragmatic realm that deservesexamination,since the performanceor
conductingof such pieces of music presentscompletelyunprecedented
problems (notation has its role also in what is implicated here); but
experience has already proved that scores conceived in this way are
practicable. We will come back to thissubject later,limitingourselves
forthe momentto the "theoretical"aspect of the question.
However, even though implied by the musical text,this"chance,"
let us repeat,occursat an elementarylevel. It alreadygivesappreciable
possibilitiesof aerating,ofliberating,the interpretation; it seemsto re-
solve the dilemma betweenstrictinterpretation and freeinterpretation.
Perhaps now the performer needs more boldnessthan beforeto "fitin"
withthe composer'sinvention,but-without excessiveoptimism-good
resultsfromthis more effectivecollaboration can be hoped for.How-
ever, let us rememberhow much this libertyneeds to be directed,
projected,forthe "instantaneous"imaginationis moresubjectto lapses
than to illuminations.Consequentlythislibertyis exercisednot,strictly
speaking,on the inventionitself,but on the pragmatismof the inven-
tion. I thinkeveryonewill admit the prudenceof thisposition.
At the level on whichthe structuresthemselvesare called into play,
I believe that one can firstabsorbchance by establishinga certain
automatism of relationshipamong various networksof probabilities
drawn up beforehand.But, someone will remindme, you are in con-
tradictionwithyourinitialstatement,in whichyou refusedthisautom-
atism, this objectivity,as a fetishismof numbers. I naturally expect
that thisautomatismshould not take in all creativethought,but that
it may play a role in such thoughtas a particularlyefficacious means at
such-and-sucha givenmomentduringthe elaborationofa work.There
is nothinglike it to give an impressionof nondirection,of weightless-
.
47"
 PERSPECTIVES OF NEW MUSIC

ness,to imposethesensation ofan undifferentiated universe. However,

dependingon whetherthisautomatism is moreor lesspreponderant,
one will have a moreor less temperedsolutionof chance.The pro-
liferation oftheseautomaticstructures willhave to be watchedover
withcare ifone does notwanta seemingly orderedanarchyto com-
pletelyeat away thecomposition and so to depriveit ofitsprivileges.
Dependingon thegreateror lesserstrictness assignedto thenetworks
of probabilities, one will obtain a single encounteror multiple
encounters at differentdegrees-thatis,a singleor a multiplechance.
In practice,how willwe translatethat?Let us supposethatI choose
seriesofdurationsand dynamicsand that,assumingthattheresultof
theencounter ofthesetwoseriesis fixed,I wantto applyit to a series
ofpitches.If I giveto theseriesofpitchesdefinite registers,it is clear
thattherewillbe onlyone solutionfora givennote-thatis tosay,this
notewillbe ineluctably fixedin itsregister (absolutefrequency), in its
dynamic, in itsduration: the unique chance of encounter of these three
organizations at this"point"ofsound.But,supposing thatwe keepthe
sameseriesofsoundswithout a
imposing register uponit,and thatthis
registeris leftto the of
improvisationwriting, we willimmediately have
a "line" ofregisters, ifI mayuse theexpression, thegeometrical meet-
ingplace ofall the"points"thatsatisfy thethreeothercharacteristics:
relative,genericfrequency; dynamics;duration.By assigning progres-
sivelytherelativity oftheregistration to duration, thento dynamics, I
willhaveobtaineda determined "plan," thena determined "volume,"
in whichmy "point" of sound will finditsjustification. If I have
adoptedthisgeometrical convention, it is simplyin orderto have a
termof comparisonand not in orderto referto an exactlysimilar
situation.For the different combinations ofcharacteristics, thereare
therefore fieldsofencounter in whichliesthechanceofthedefinitively
fixedmusicalevent.
Such a manipulation ofcombinations requiresa complete absenceof
choicein theexecution,althoughchoiceintrudesmoreand moreas
probabilities multiply.In thisway thefollowing phenomenon arises:
thelessone chooses,thegreater is thedependence oftheuniquechance
on thepurehazardoftheencounter ofobjects;themoreone chooses,
thegreateris thedependenceoftheeventon thecoefficient ofhazard
impliedby the composer's subjectivity. It is the varying degreeofinter-
change between the terms of this antinomy that will arouse interest in
a passageoftheworkso composed.
We havebeencarefulto pointoutthatthepreceding case concerned
themostelementary stage of automatism, not
purposely oriented. Ifwe
want to integratechance intothenotionofstructureitselfin an oriented
ensemble, we must call upon more subtle differentiations and intro-

S48
 ALEA
duce such notionsas thoseofdefinedor undefinedstructure, amorphous
or directionalstructure, divergentor convergentstructure. It is undeni-
able that this developmentof chance in compositionwill create a
universe decidedly more differentiated than beforeand will mark a
more acute developmentof a renewed perceptionof form.In a con-
ducted ensemble,thesevariousstructuresoughtto be obligatorilycon-
trolledby a general"phrasing,"oughtnecessarilyto have an initialand
a finalsign,oughtto call accessorilyupon kindsofplatforms ofbifurca-
tion-all this in order to avoid a complete loss of the global senseof
formas well as in orderto steerclear of an improvisation withno other
necessity than freechoice. For, as we said earlier,the liberty-or the
liberation-of the performerchanges absolutely nothing about the
notion of structure,since the problem is actually merelyput offuntil
a little later and since the solutionsstill remain to be found. I think
that a well-foundedobjectioncan be made here: doesn't such a form
carrywithit an enormousdanger of compartmentalization? Aren'twe
goingto be guiltyof one of the faultsthat have done the mostharmto
composition as it has been understood-the fault which consistsof
juxtaposing "sections," each with its own center? This argumentis
justifiableonlyin case one actuallydoes not thinkofa generalformbut
develops, if I may use the expression,step by step. In order to cover
up thisdisappearance of composition,one ought to have recourseto a
new notionofdevelopmentthat would be essentiallydiscontinuous, but
discontinuousin a predictableand foreseenway. And fromthiswould
followthe necessaryintroductionof the "formants"of a work and of
the "phrasing"that is indispensableto the interrelation ofstructuresof
variouskinds.
It would accordinglybe possiblein such a formto conceivejunction
points, platformsof bifurcation,kinds of mobile elementscapable of
adapting themselves(with certainmodificationsthat would be written
in as possibilities)to eligible fixedstructuresin an arbitraryway,but
withthe restriction that,in the "course" of the development,any given
happening could occur onlyonce. Finally,in orderto oppose the hori-
zontal and the vertical by means of an enlargementof this simple
notion,certainstructures would be juxtaposable or superposable,either
or
completely partially; that is to say, eitherbeginningat a givenjunc-
tion point or until one is reached-with the positive or negative
criterionthat the necessityor the absence of superpositionwill impose
upon the writtentext. We are therebyfaced once more with the de-
mands of writing:how indeed are the requirementsof thesestructures
going to manifestthemselvesin their actual realization? Obviously,
theywill be evidentfirstof all in the timbres,whichare themosteasily
perceptible phenomena; by referringto instrumentalgroups or, less

S49
 PERSPECTIVES OF NEW MUSIC

categorically, to certaininstrumental combinations, we willmakeout-

standingly clearto thelistener theintercrossing and multiplicity ofthe
developments;thiswillbe one ofthe mosteffective waysofmaking
themcome alive,ofhavingthemconstantly reachour senseunder-
standing. Butifonedoesnotwantto havetimbre as a principalbasis-
it mayhappenthata concernwithmonochromy is all-important-the
tempo, either fixed or changing, will be made to intervene as thepre-
dominantcharacteristic; it is,in effect, thespeedat whicha structure
unfolds(sometimes variable,sometimes lessso) thatcontributes most
notably toward characterizing it. I have in
just spoken, sum, two of
"enveloping"phenomena, namelytempoand timbre;thethird,simi-
larly"enveloping" phenomenon willbe thekindofwriting, bywhichI
meantheexternalaspectofthewriting itselfin itshorizontal, vertical,
or obliqueconception.Realized in thismanner,and limitedbythese
threeexternalcharacteristics, a structure oughtto correspond to the
nomenclature thatwe developedearlier.
We havespokenofdefinite and indefinite structures, ofdivergent and
convergent ones; these terms characterize two families that are
dialecticallyopposed to each other. Returning to the comparison we
made earlierin connection withtheprobabilities ofa musical"point,"
we can extendit to thestructure itself.One willmovefromtheindefi-
niteto thedefinite, fromthe amorphousto thedirectional, fromthe
divergent to theconvergent according to the greater or lesser
degreeof
automatism one leavesto thefactors ofdevelopment, depending on the
negations thatone opposes,in greateror lessernumber, tothelimitless
expansionoftheirpossibilities. One thusmovesfromcomplete freedom
to strictly
limitedchoice,whichis a classicalopposition thathas always
distinguished severestylefromfreestyle.If I have chosento use these
differentexpressions, it is in orderto underline theimportance I attach
notonlyto theinternalconstitution ofa structure, butalso to itspossi-
bilitiesofbeinglinkedto otherstructures, whether byisomorphism or
polymorphism or fromone unitofdevelopment to thenext.It is un-
deniablethattheseexpressions fitmusiconlyapproximately and that,
in the absenceof moredirectlyappropriateterms(it will be up to
musicology of thefutureto discoverthem),we mustmakedo witha
vocabularywhosescientific elementsruntheriskofbeingmisunder-
stoodbecausetheirmeaningwillnotbe transposed. Wemust,however,
accept thistemporary risk in order to clarify notions thatare stillin
theirinfancy. One sees,consequently, howthe"formants" ofcomposi-
tioncan linktogether in families thesedifferent types of structures more
intrinsically than the circumstantial "envelopants" of which I spoke
earlierare able to; one also seeshowa generalnotionofphrasing can
foreshadow, in a way,thedisposition and agogicsofthesestructures in
S50
 ALEA
the composed work. Beginning with an initial, principial sign and
ending with an exhaustive,conclusive sign, the compositionmanages
to involve what we were lookingforat the beginningof our investiga-
tion: a problematical"course," depending on time-a certainnumber
of aleatory happenings inscribed in a mobile period of time-but
having a logic of development,an over-allsense of direction-withthe
possibilityofcaesuras,eithersilentones or platforms ofsound-a course
going from a beginning to an end. We have respectedthe "finished"
aspect of the Occidental work, its closed cycle,but we have introduced
the "chance" of the Oriental work,its open development.
However,what we have just describedapplies, in a way, to a homo-
geneous sound-space of timbres,of time,of intervals.If we attemptto
achieve a total variabilityand relativityof the structure,we mustuse
a space that is not homogeneous,particularlywithregard to itstime
and its intervals.In its development,today's music provesthatit calls
increasinglyupon notions that are variable in their very principle,
obeyinghierarchiesin evolution.That is whywe have alreadyseen the
seriesof twelveequal soundsreplaced by seriesofsound-groups, always
of unequal density;that is why we have seen metricsreplaced by the
seriesof durationsand of rhythmicgroups(rhythmiccells or combina-
tions by superpositionof several durations); that is why, finally,we
have seen dynamicsand timbreno longerbe limitedto theirdecorative
and emotive qualities but acquire, in addition to these privileges,a
functionalimportance that reinforcestheir powers and their dimen-
sions. Thanks to electro-acousticalmeans, and even to various instru-
mental techniques,we can break the homogeneityof the sound-space
in the changingdistribution ofits frequencies, eitherby creatingvarious
formsof temperamentor by completelyexcludingtemperament.In the
same way, the continuityof the machine and the discontinuity result-
ing fromthe innerpulsation of the interpreterdestroyat itsverybase
the homogeneityof musical time. It is not our aim in this articleto
show how these nonhomogeneousspaces are arrived at; accordingly,
we shall do no more than call attentionto the factin order to make
apparent what repercussionsit can have on the notion of structure;it
imposes upon this notionin its principlea new "chance"-one thatis
certainlythe mostdiscrepant.
The danger of theseinvestigations, iftheyare turnedaside by weak-
ness or inadvertencefromtheir true goal, consistsin the composer's
runningaway fromhis own responsibility, in his shirkingthe choice in-
herentin any kind of creation.Even on a superiorlevel, the ossiacan-
not be the last word of invention.But, on the otherhand, the possibil-
ityof adapting to compositionthe notionof the seriesitself,by whichI
mean the possibilityof endowing the structurewith the more general
S51
 PERSPECTIVES OF NEW MUSIC

notionof permutation-apermutation withlimitsthat are strictly

definedby the restriction of the powersimposedupon it by its
self-determination-such a possibility is a completely justified,
logical
evolutionsincethesameorganizational principle rulesbothmorphology
and rhetoric.
Fromthe practicalpointofviewofperformance, whatdo theun-
usual dimensions of a workcreatedin suchan estheticand poetical
contextrequireoftheinterpreter? Is it evenpossibleto bringintoac-
cordtheworkand theinstrumentalist or theworkand theconductor
whois supposedto directit?Assuredly, yes;therearealreadyexamples
to proveso amongthoseworksthatusherin thisnewformofmusical
being.If thereis onlyone performer, thereis no difficulty,unlessitbe
thathe musthavemoreinitiative thanbefore, sincethisinitiative,
this
is
collaboration, requiredby the composer. A certainnumber ofsigns,
differenttypographical characteristics willserveas sureguidesto the
interpreterin thechoicesthathe willhave to make.(Let us notforget
thatthischoiceis notnecessarily a selection,but can be limitedto a
variablefreedom ofexecution.)
Whenthereare twoinstrumentalists, twopianos,forexample,the
problem remains the
practically same, with thesupplementary adop-
tionofsignalsand guidemarksin common.If,forexample,a fixed
tempoforone piano is superposedon a variabletempofortheother
(an accelerando, forinstance), it willbe enoughto indicatethemeeting
places-departure and arrival-of thetwostructures, pointswhoseco-
ordinatesthecomposerwillhave calculatedwiththegreateror lesser
amountofprecision he requires at thatparticular moment. It mayeven
happenthat,once thecomposerhas chosenappropriate the
registers,
twotimestructures maybe entirely independent, in whichcase he will
merelyindicatewithinwhatintervaloftimehe wishessuchsequences
to be played.Simplefamiliarization withtheseguidemarksand signals
quicklyeffaces theimpression one mayhaveofbeing"abandoned"by
one's partnerwhen one is no longerlinkedto him by a strictly
synchronous metric.
Finally,whenone directsa pieceofmusicconceivedin thisway,the
conductor'sroleconsists essentiallyin givingsignals,whicha convention
clearlyunderstood byhismusicians willseparateintospecialized signals
to indicatethedeparturefromtheprincipaltempo,thereturnto this
tempo,or theperiodicalcoincidencewithit. If themusiciansdeviate
individuallyfromthe generaltempo,the conductor "centralizes"the
so
indications, to speak. But when-withan orchestra-agroupof
musiciansis supposedto adopt a variabletempo,eithera first-chair
playeror an assistantconductorwill be called upon, and he willrelyon
the principal conductorforall fluctuations.These problemsof group

S52
 ALEA

performanceactually are not radically different fromthe difficulties

encounteredeveryday in the theater;theirsolutionis relativelysimple.
The only obstacleto be overcome,fromthe verybeginning,is seeingto
it that the musicians feelfreewith regard to the conductorand not
"abandoned" by him; it is essential,therefore, to make themaware of
theirindividualtempoin relationto the individualtempoofeach ofthe
others. When this is accomplished, the divergences blend into a
balanced whole.
It is certain that one cannot go "toward this supremeconjuncture
withprobability"withan unalienable sense of security.In thisconnec-
tion people will not fail to put us on trialonce more for"dehumaniza-
tion"; the high-flown ineptitudesthat are passed around on thissubject
are inexhaustiblymonotonous;theycan all be reducedto a signallylow
conceptionof what is meant by "human." A lazy nostalgia,a predilec-
tion forpots-pourris (verypourris)that are sometimescalled syntheses,
such are the "heartfelt"longingsof these vigilantdisparagers.We can
answer,on the mostelementarylevel, that farfromdenyingor annihi-
lating him, we reopen the creativecircuitto the interpreter, who fora
numberofyearshas been asked merelyto play the textas "objectively"
as possible.Why,what we wind up withis actuallya glorification ofthe
interpreter! And not at all an of
interpreter-robot terrifying precision,
but an interpreter who is involvedin whathe is doingand is freeto make
his own choices.
As forthosewho mightbe worriedby thisdynamiteintroducedinto
the heart of the work,by this chance that resists"composition"-and
who would pointout to us thathuman poeticsand extra-humanchance
are inalienable,irreconcilableenemiesincapable ofprovidingany posi-
tive resultby being amalgamated-we will quote fortheirbenefitthis
paragraph fromIgitur:"In short,in an act involvingchance,it is always
chance that accomplishesits own Idea by assertingor denyingitself.
Negation and affirmation come to noughtin the faceofitsexistence.It
contains the Absurd-implies it, but in a latent state, and prevents
it fromexisting:and thismakes it possible forthe Infiniteto be." Per-
haps it is reckless-and insolent-to embarkupon thisvoyage,shrouded
in uncertainty,but isn't it the only way to trytofixtheInfinite?Such is
the unavowed pretensionof anyone who rejectspure and simplehedo-
nism,limitedcraftsmanship, in a creativeuniversethatis overwhelmed
with its burden of humble frauds.Any dilettantewill findhimselftorn
to pieces by a responsibility thatlies beyondtheseschemes,any toiler-
frightful notion-will be reduced to nothingby the inanity,the vacuity
ofhis labor. In the end, would thisnot be the onlyway to killtheArtist?

[Translatedby David Noakes and Paul Jacobs]

S53