Composers Forum is a daily web log that allows invited contemporary composers to share their thoughts and ideas on any topic that interests them--from the ethereal, like how new music gets created, music history, theory, performance, other composers, alive or dead, to the mundane, like getting works played and recorded and the joys of teaching. If you're a professional composer and would like to participate, send us an e-mail.
Record companies, artists and publicists are invited to submit CDs to be considered for review. Send to: Jerry Bowles, Editor, Sequenza 21, 340 W. 57th Street, 12B, New York, NY 10019
The first 3 paragraphs of the score posted at Other Minds:
All performers play from the same page of 53 melodic patterns played in sequence.
Any number of any kind of instruments can play. A group of about 35 is desired if possible but smaller or larger groups will work. If vocalist(s) join in they can use any vowel and consonant sounds they like.
Patterns are to be played consecutively with each performer having the freedom to determine how many times he or she will repeat each pattern before moving on to the next. There is no fixed rule as to the number of repetitions a pattern may have, however, since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an hour and a half, it can be assumed that one would repeat each pattern from somewhere between 45 seconds and a minute and a half or longer.
The first 4 lines of the score as it appears in the 2nd edition of Ralph Turek's Analytical Anthology of Music:
All performers play from the same part.
There are 53 repeating figures, played in sequence.
They are to be taken consecutively with each performer determinig the number of times he repeats each figure before going on to the next.
The pulse is traditionally played by a beautiful girl on the top two octaves of a grand piano. She must play loudly and keep strict tempo for the entire ensemble to follow.
Another notable deviation between these two versions of the scores is that in the OM version, he explicitly indicates how the piece should end. In the Turek version, he does not. In general, the Turek version is much more open and poetic, much more 1964 than the OM version, which is a little more clinical and PC.
It would be interesting to know the history of this revision to the score.
