Southern Illinois University CarbondaleOpenSIUC

Faculty Charts Charts

4-2014

Questions and a Few Answers in PerformingLuciano Berio’s Sequenza 1Douglas E. WorthenSouthern Illinois University Carbondale, worthen@siu.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/safmusiccharts_facultyThis article was first published in the Flute Journal in 2014.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Charts at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Charts by anauthorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact opensiuc@lib.siu.edu.

Recommended CitationWorthen, Douglas E. "Questions and a Few Answers in Performing Luciano Berio’s Sequenza 1." (Apr 2014).

DOUGLAS WORTHEN

Questions and a Few Answers in Performing Luciano Berio’s Sequenza I FluteJournal.com November 2014

Berio’s Sequenza I has been a part of themodern flutist’s cannon ever since it’spublicationin1958byZerboniinMilan.Thework was written in spatial rhythmicnotation, allowing the performer sometemporalfreedom.Bythelatenineteenfiftiesand after a long boutwithmore rigid serialtechniques, performers seemed to welcomethelooseningofacompositionalrigiditythathad recently usurped many expressivechoices from their purview. Despite thecomposition’s enormous challenges, someofthe most prestigious performers of thetwentieth century began to program thework, including Severino Gazzelloni, AurèleNicolet, and Jean-PierreRampal.However ina caustic 1981 Intervista sulla musicainterview1,Beriodescribedtheseperformancesas“excessive” and “unethical”, questioning theperformingartists’musicalintegrity.Perhapsfor this reason, the subsequent 1992Universal Edition revision of Sequenza I wasnot well received. Back to traditionalrhythmic notation but without bars, itincluded new but rigid rhythmic details,some moments having little relationship totheoriginal1958publication.The effort required to perform Sequenza Ihasalwaysbeenconsiderable.Somepassagesarejustchallenging;othersareunplayable.At

aculminatingmomentabouthalfwayintothepiece, an indication of four articulations perpitch class requires fivepitches at a quarternote equals 70 MM. This requires playingtwenty notes in less than a second. It isnotable that thepassagewasnotchanged inthe new version. (See Fig. 7)2 With suchexhilarating demands, composers oftenattempt to make the impossible the newnormal. Hearing Berio’s contemptuouswords,howeverdoesnothingtoinspire,andmany of today’s performers prefer the firstedition. 3 But, after suspending judgmentbased on ego and expediency, is there stillsomething to be gained from this newedition?Inorderto thoroughlyunderstandBerio’sperformance expectations, a rhythmicanalysisandcomparisonof thetwoversionsis required. To do this, it is necessary tocreate an overlay of the first and secondeditions. Though a very few pitch classeshave been altered in the new edition, theprimary changes are in the rhythm anddynamics. The rhythms are specified intraditional notation in the new edition andthe meter is indicated as a quarter noteequals 70 MM. This alone is clear evidencethat all “measures” are exactly the samelength, and explains the meaning of his

2

groupings of triplets, quintuplets andsextuplets inthenewedition. Theindicationcorresponds to the first edition’s symbol of“measure”utilizingsmallticksonthestaff.Byadding those indications to the secondedition as measures, we can begin to seeBerio’sdesireforagreatlyvariablerhythmicsubdivision of each measure. The followinganalysis will refer to these superimposedmeasures.Thesystemsoneachpagemustbenumbered, and the measures numbered foreach system.All systems and numbers referto the second, 1992 edition. Some of themeasuring is ambiguous, but this process ofaddingbar lineswillhelpavoidconfusionastotheexactmeasuringofeachsystem. Insystemone, the first threemeasuresaredivided into five sixteenths. The fourthmeasure is divided into six sixteenths,making a simple transition to the fifththrough seventh measures, each beingdivided into three eighth note triplets.Though not obvious by any means, systemtwo initiates four sixteenths to the bar fortwo measures, followed by two bars of fivesixteenths, an eighth triplet bar, foursixteenths,ameasureofeighthtripletsagain,and then an anticipated fermata. Thoughthere are different numbers of sixteenths,each bar is a quarter note equals MM. 70.Otherwise,Berioneednothaveindicatedthegrouping brackets of five or three notes asseenbelow:

Figure1.(1992)

The last note E4 of system two is the firstfermata that is encountered. In the newedition, All the fermatas are given specifictimings in seconds, so rather than asuspension of the beat, one has theimpressionthatthemetercontinuesthroughthefermata.

Figure2.(1992)This,alongwiththelackofnotatedmeasuresand miniscule subdivisions adds to thetension reported by performers whenworkingwiththenewedition.45

Figure3.(1958)

Figures4AandB(1992)The lastbarofsystemfour(Figures3,4.Aand B) is an example of where only thesecondeditioncouldrevealBerio’srhythmicintentions6. Here, the first edition has noclear indication of the measure’s meter, sothere would be no way that a performercould have anticipated a 5/16 metricsubdivision. The first edition all but insiststhat the subsequent Ab grace note occur onthe beginning of the next measure, yet thenew edition requires the player to delay itsexecution (See Figs. 3 and 4). Performerswhohavelegitimatelyinterpretedthespatialnotationbasedon the first versionmay findsuchmomentsvexing.Still, the new version gives us a definitiveinterpretation directly from the composer.System five presents the first realdiscrepancywhereno clear reconciliationofthe twoversions is apparent. TheEbat theendofthesecondmeasureistiedtoanothereighth. Inthefirstversion,thereisonlyonemeasure of time indicated between that Eb

3

andtheBnaturalfournoteshence.Uptothispoint, note valuesmake sense, however theonly logical conclusion is that the extensionof the Eb is an error, based on the firstversion of the piece (Figure 6). SpeculatingonBerio’s intentionbasedon the spacingofthe first version, perhaps the Eb should betiedtoasixteenthratherthananeighth.

Figure5.(1992)

Figure6.(1958)The next discrepancy is the first note ofpage2.Intheoriginaledition,thisGisclearlybefore the following measure, however thenew version clearly places it on thedownbeat. Placing the G6 on the next beatlinesuppitch class andmeter; probablynotwhatBeriowanted.Therefore, theG4 in thefirstmeasureshouldbeaheadofthebeat.Ambiguities seem to arise before or afterfermatas. The new edition has a number ofadditionalfermatas,makingitunclearwheremeter resumes. The first edition seemsclearer,becausethemetercontinuesthroughthese long notes, most of which are notwritten as fermatas. Page two system sixmeasure four provides a break in the rapidtriplet passage, allowing for a phrase breakand breath before the two thirty-secondnotes. System seven’s third measure is ofcourse unplayable at the tempo indicated,asking for twenty-four articulations in lessthan a second. Much has been said aboutBerio’s irritation that performers werestretching or compressing the meter,

howeveritisdifficulttoseehowthispassagecould be played otherwise. Though mostperformerssimplydouble-tongueeachpitch,requiring only twelve articulations ratherthan twenty-four, there is still noperformance that manages this passagewithout altering it. The phrase in the neweditionnotablyendswithanewstyleterm,ilmassimo, replacing the original moltoindication, and the flutter-tongue allows thetempotopressahead.

Figure7.(1992)

As we proceed to system eight measurefour,Beriobeginstoaddgracenotesthatareclearly “over the bar line” when we look atthem in the first edition.Theperformerwillhave to choose whether to perform thesegraceswithsomereferencetothebarsinthefirst editionornot. In this and indeedotherrespects,thebarlinesofthefirsteditionareindeed audible in performance. In the lastsystem, the very short D in measure fourlackssuchanindicationinthefirstedition.Itis however clearly motivic, being similar tomany phrases that end with an abrupt andloudattack.Thefinalmeasureofthefirstsystemofpagethree has a number of changes from theoriginalandmaybethebiggestalteration inthenewedition,groupingtheflutterednotesineightandsixratherthanfive,sixandthenthree. The Density 21.5 Varese quotation atthe end of the figure has much lessprominenceifitisburiedwithinthemeasure,asitseemstobeinthenewedition,occurringin the second half of the beat as a triplet,rather than the beginning of themeasure in

4

the first edition (measure one, system two.(SeeFigure8,beginningofsystem2.)

Figure8.(1992)

Aswithsomeoftheslowersectionsearlierinthe piece, the rhythmically notated sectionsseemroughandlesslyricalthantheyappearin the first edition. This is apparent in thesecond half of system two through systemfour,pagethree.Measuresixofsystemsevenisnotatedwithonly fourgracenotes, ratherthan the twelve in the first version. Insystems nine and ten, the rhythmicallynotated version appears more uneven,includinganumberoftiednotesthatseemtoavoiddownbeatsoncethemeasuremarkingsare inplace.Theeffect seems to impede theforwardmotionofthisphrasethatissooftenheard in performance. This erratic rhythmadds to a greater rhythmic variety than theoriginaleditionwouldimply.(SeeFigure9.)

Figure9.(1992)

The fourth page of the new version ismarkedly lessalteredthantheearlierpages,however the fermatas seem much longerwhentheyaretiedtolongnotes,asinsystemthreewiththeheldBb.

Figure10.(1992)

Mensural ambiguities begin in system five,where the third pitch, F#, seems to beextended.

Figure11.(1992)

By this point in the piece, the “upbeat” ofthree sixteenths to the beginning of ameasurehasbecomea recognizablegesture,(see system five page two and the end ofsystem four, page three), so that rhythmicsolutionseemsappropriateforthebeginningofthepppsemprephraseofsystemfivepagefour.The metric placement of the graces insystemsevendiffersfromthefirstversion,aswell as the phrase ending before the rest insystem eight. In the new version, the finalsuffixofthephrase(FandG)makessenseashis abrupt but well-established cadentialgesture, and allows the next grace-notecollection more space to initiate thepenultimatephrase.

Figure12.(1992)

Dynamic discrepancies between theversions are subtle. The original versionbeginsmoreaggressively,markedsffzratherthan the ff sempre as marked in the newversion. Again in the second system, thirdmeasure, thehighG ismarked ffratherthantheoriginalsffz,andthelastEnatural inthe

5

system begins louder (p) instead of theoriginalpp.The second page, system two measurethree, theEnatural is kept atpp in thenewversion, rather than the diminuendo from pin the original version. In system nine, weagainhavea ff insteadof the sffz in the firstedition. One could interpret this change ashaving been intentional, having occurred athird time in the new score. Page threesystemnineopenswithasffzff,differingfromthe first version in that it places moreemphasisontheDnatural.Thepaginationinthe new version seems to emphasize thedelicacy and predominant ppp sweetness ofthe end of the piece, in that we see itthroughoutthefourthpage.By incorporating the new rhythmic anddynamic information into the metricstructureofthefirstedition,wehaveamuchmore clearly defined idea of Berio’s issueswith previous performances. Instead ofblindly creating rhythmic analogy andgesture in performance as had beennecessary in the first edition, Berio hascontributed more specific information andinterpretation tohis score.What is revealedin the Brinkman-Folio interviews is thattoday’s performers are protective of theirinterpretations of the first version. Thoughtheimplicationoftheiressayisthatwemightdocumentacomparisonoftheperformancesof the twoversions, thenewversiondoesn’tstand a chance, having been used by SophieCherrier alone.7Mosthavebeenpraised fortheir creativity and dexterity in theseinterpretations, and are unwilling to detachthemselvesfromtheseperformances,eveninthe face of new information from thecomposer himself. Isn’t this yet furtherevidence that we live in a surprisinglyconservativemusicalworld?Theneweditionmaynotbepopularwithtoday’sperformers,butBerio thought itwas improvement.Thatshould be reason enough to establish its

value for flutistswhohavenot yet rigidifiedtheirinterpretations.1RossanaDalmonte,LucianoBerio;acuradiRossanaDal.ote,IntervistasullamusicaRoma:BariLaterza,1981.2LucianoBerio,SequenzaI(2ndversion)Wein,UniversalEd.1957,1992,p.2system6,7.3NinaPerlove,Transmission,Interpretation,Collaboration-APerformer’sPerspectiveontheLanguageofContemporaryMusic:AnInterviewwithSophieCherrier,PerspectivesinNewMusic,Vol.36,No.1(Winter,1998),pp43-58.5CynthiaFolio,AlexanderBrinkman.RhythmandTimingintheTwoVersionsofBerio’sSequenzaIforFluteSolo:PsychologicalandMusicalDifferencesinPerformance,fromBerio’sSequenzas:EssaysonPerformance,Composition,andAnalysis,Ed.ByJanetK.Halfyard.Ppxvi+306.(Ashgate,Aldershot:Burlington,VT)2007.6Ibid.7CynthiaFolio,(RhythmandTiming),2007.*AllmusicalexamplesbypermissionofEdizioniSuviniZerboni,Milano.Douglas Worthen received his M. M. degree at the New England Conservatory and his D.M.A., at the Hartt School of Music. He is Associate Professor of Flute and Music History, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.. He concertizes extensively throughout the USA and overseas, and his commercial recordings have received critical acclaim. Dr. Worthen was previously coeditor for Falls House Press, a music publishing company and affiliate of Theodore Presser. See: http://cola.siu.edu/music/faculty-staff/faculty/by-area/woodwind/worthen.php

6