In C and beyond An analysis of four 21st century interpretations of ’s In C (1964)

Master Thesis Arts and Culture: Musicology Nora Kim Braams Student number: 6126170 Thursday July 19, 2018

Supervisor: Dr. M. Beirens University of Amsterdam Index

Introduction 4

Chapter 1. - A brief history of 8

1.1. Musical minimalism 8

1.2. European and indeterminacy 8

1.2.1. and John Cage 9

1.2.2. Fluxus 9

1.3. Young, Riley, Reich and Glass 10

1.3.1. 10

1.3.2. 10

1.3.3. 11

1.4. Towards 11

Chapter 2. - The life and music of Terry Riley 12

2.1. Early life and education 12

2.2. After San Francisco State University: 1958 – 1959 12

2.2.1. Young and Riley 13

2.3. Early works, tape music and looping techniques: 1960 – 1961 13

2.3.1. Envelope 13

2.3.2. String Trio 14

2.3.3. Mescalin Mix 14

2.4. Drugs, jazz and Europe 15

2.5. Last works before In C 15

2.5.1. Music of The Gift 15

2.5.2. Coule 16

2.6. Return to San Francisco: In C 16

2.6.1. The premiere of In C 17

2.7. After In C 18

Chapter 3. - Analysis: In C – the score and the guidelines 20

3.1. The score 20

3.2. The guidelines 20

2

3.3. Rhythmic vocabulary 22

3.4. Motivic transformations and rhythmic displacement 23

3.5. Harmonic analysis 24

3.6. Module 35 26

Chapter 4. - Analysis: recordings of In C 27

4.1. Introduction 27

4.2. The analysis method 28

4.3. The original recording: Columbia Records, 1968 29

4.4. The recordings 30

4.4.1. Recording 1: In C Mali – Africa Express 30

4.4.2. Recording 2: In C – Terry Riley + Stargaze 36

4.4.3. Recording 3: In C Remixed – GVSU New Music Ensemble 43

4.4.3.1. Remix 1: In C Semi-Detached – 43

4.4.3.2. Remix 2: In C with Canons and Bass – Nico Muhly 46

4.4 Then and now: comparison between the recordings 49

Conclusion 51

Bibliography 54

Addendum 1: Guidelines checklist – Africa Express 60

Addendum 2: Guidelines checklist – Terry Riley + Stargaze 62

Addendum 3: Guidelines checklist – Jack Dangers 64

Addendum 4: Guidelines checklist – Nico Muhly 66

3

Introduction

That the bus ride to his work at the Gold Street Saloon in San Francisco would have so much influence on the rest of his musical life, Terry Riley could not have known. It was here, in 1964, that the 28-year-old envisioned the music of his composition In C. Riley’s “most famous work, and variously heralded as the first masterpiece of minimalism” and “the work that ushered in a new musical era, after which the world was never quite the same.”1 Big words, written by Tom Service in The Guardian. There hovers however, undoubtedly, an almost mystical awe around In C. For many, the piece and its 1968 recording were indeed their first introduction to musical minimalism. The work seems to embody the hippy, carefree vibe of the 1960s American West Coast.

In C’s score consists of 53 modules, short musical melodies, ranging from a single note to a short passage. The single page score (see figure 1.1) comes with a set of instructions or ‘guidelines’ on how to best keep the ensemble together during the performance. The modules can be played in sequence, or not. Players can decide individually to omit modules, as well as pick up the tempo or volume, or to slow down. In C presents the performing musicians with a lot of freedom in choosing the circumstances surrounding the performance (instruments, size of the ensemble, tempo etc.).

“The work mutates to suit the players”,2 as Justin Davidson writes. In C has numerous performances each year as well as multiple recordings since 1968. In contrast to most classical works, In C has inspired not only classical musicians, but a broad spectrum of performers from different musical genres. From a recording by The Shanghai Film Orchestra, by New York’s Bang on a Can,3 to a version by the psychedelic-rock band Acid Mothers Temple.4 It seems clear that In C, with its still growing popularity and ongoing performance practice, securely procured its place in the classical canon.

In 2015, Terry Riley celebrated his eightieth birthday. The Amsterdam based concert hall Muziekgebouw aan ‘t IJ joined the celebrations by dedicating their fourth biennial World Minimal Music Festival to Riley’s music. The “godfather of minimal music”5 was present himself, and joined the young collective Stargaze on stage for a performance of In C. For myself, working in the Muziekgebouw at the time, this festival was the first introduction to Riley’s In C. Leading up to the festival, I got to know the 1968 recording, and simultaneously, the 2014 recording by Africa Express. Both recordings differed so immensely in sound, atmosphere, instrumentation and rhythm but yet still managed to portray, clearly, the same composition. How could this be the same piece? This question became the starting point for this thesis.

“From the heady days of the 60s to the fastpaced 21st century lifestyle, what has changed in the last 45 years?”6 These are the words of Bill Ryan, founder of In C Remixed. The 18 remixes on this recording, of which two will be discussed in chapter 4, are radical translations of In C in the 21st century. Ryan’s words however, sum up the question with which this research started. What has changed in the performance practice of In C? This thesis centers around this subject. How do current performances and recordings of In C relate to the original ideas behind In C, as portrayed in the score and the guidelines accompanying the score? Despite the different circumstances surrounding the

1 Service 2013 [online] 2 Davidson 2009 [online] 3 Ibid. 4 Richard-San 2002 [online] 5 Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ 2015, p. 2 6 Soundcloud, “In C Remixed. GVSU New Music Ensemble.” [online] 4 diverse performances, In C seems to retain its ‘core character’, even when performed by musicians from a different musical genre.

Often, to explore a new musical work is to start at the score. The score, one could argue, is the closest a musician can get to knowing what the composer wants, especially in . With In C, this seems no different. The score, seemingly simple in structure, can tell us something about the rhythmic and harmonic structure. The accompanying guidelines explain that what the score itself refrains from mentioning: suggestions about instrumentation, speed, volume and time management. However, these guidelines are mere suggestions and because of the score’s structure and its reliance on musicians to add intuitive decisions during the performance, the score itself would not say all there is to say about In C.

Thus, to analyse performances and recordings of In C we have to look at these two variables: the score on the one hand and the guidelines on the other. How the musicians interpret and combine the two defines the resulting performance. There is, however, a third variable we need to take into account: the ‘idea’ behind In C and its legacy. The story behind the piece, how it came into being and the time in which it was written, but also the idea of flexibility of musical choices, must have their influence on musicians performing the work nowadays. This thesis will look at the balance - or perhaps, the hierarchy - between these three variables in four current performances of In C, and how these relations determine the final sound of those performances. Is it possible for musicians, by interpreting one or two of the variables more freely, to still create a version of In C that sounds like the familiar representation of the work?

In this digital age, it seems unlikely that any musicians would only use the score as reference when studying a piece. Recordings are everywhere and are easily reachable. It seems fair to say that most of the current musicians have encountered In C though a recording or a performance. They probably also have listened to the first 1968 recording of In C by Columbia Records. With Riley himself playing and orchestrating this LP, the recording seems to come closer to the composer’s original intention than the score does. To analyse the current performance practice of In C we must not forgot to look at the influential status of this 1968 recording as well.

During this research, I relied heavily on the book Terry Riley’s In C by Robert Carl.7 His intensive study of In C and his overview of recordings through the years, has been an immense source of information and inspiration. It was his work that inspired the analysis of the four recordings. It is one of the aims of this thesis to build upon and to extend Carl’s approach into some of the most recent interpretations of In C. The structure of this thesis was also inspired by his book.

Keith Potter’s Four Musical Minimalists8 gave extra insight in the life of Riley and his three famous colleagues (Young, Reich and Glass). The interviews with Riley in Edward Strickland’s American . Dialogues on Contemporary Music9 and in David Bernstein’s The San Francisco Tape Music Center,10 shaped a better view of Riley’s own thoughts of In C. Youtube proved an important source for live interviews with and music of the composer. For information about the musical genre of minimalism, I turned to K. Robert Schwarz’s Minimalists,11 Strickland’s Minimalism: Origins12 and The Ashgate Research Companion to Minimalist and Postminimalist Music13 by Potter, Gann and ap

7 Carl 2010 8 Potter 2000 9 Strickland 1987 10 Bernstein 2008 11 Schwarz 1996 12 Strickland 1993 13 Potter, Gann and ap Siôn 2013 5

Siôn. The internet proved very useful in finding articles and reviews about the several performances of In C and the Grove Music Online provided me with information on almost anything music-related. Alex Ross’s The Rest is Noise14 got me interested in the subject, being the first book I read concerning musical minimalism and In C.

The first chapter will contain a short overview of minimalism in music. How did the genre originate, what influenced the music and who are the key players. It also shortly describes minimalist evolution into, what some call, postminimalism. Chapter 2 will look more thoroughly at the life and works of Riley. It will describe his personal and musical growth towards the premiere of In C. The premiere of In C will be described, and we will take a short look at Riley’s life and work after the premiere. The third chapter is an in-depth analysis of the score of In C. The analysis will look at the rhythmic vocabulary, motivic transformation and the harmonic flow of the music. The last chapter brings four analyses on different recordings of In C. A short look at the original 1968 recording leads the way to analyses of two ‘regular’ In C recordings and two remixes of In C. The analyses focus on how the musicians interpreted the score and the guidelines, the decisions they made in highlighting certain passages, the instrumentation etc. To emphasize the diversity of In C, two remixes will be analysed. The idea of a remix, the reusing and shuffling of musical material, seems to have some link with the idea behind In C. With all four recordings being made in the 2010s, the analysis will hopefully shine light on the perception of In C by a new generation of musicians. It will also continue there were Carl’s research ended.15 The chapter ends with a short comparison of the four analysed recordings with the original 1968 recording.

14 Ross 2007 15 Carl 2010, p. 122. The last recording analysed by Carl is a recording by the American Festival of Microtonal Music Ensemble from 2007. The recordings analysed in this thesis are made after 2010. 6

Figure 1.1 Score of In C16

16 Carl 2009, p. 2 7

Chapter 1. - A brief history of minimal music

1.1. Musical minimalism

Few twentieth-century musical styles have provoked as much controversy as musical minimalism did, and perhaps still does.17 “A term borrowed from the visual arts to describe a style of composition characterized by an intentionally simplified rhythmic, melodic and harmonic vocabulary”,18 according to Keith Potter, who emphasizes the simplified musical means of the compositions. For many, however, the genre is linked to the early works of four specific composers. As Steven Wright writes: “[…] the term ‘minimal music’ is generally used to describe a style of music that developed in America in the late 1960s and 1970s, and that was initially connected with the composers La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass.”19 This makes minimal music one of the few musical genres by which composers are an integral part of its definition.

Minimal music is mostly seen as an opposition against modernism in music, represented by serialism and indeterminacy. “Openly seeking greater accessibility, it is tonal or modal where Modernism is atonal, rhythmically regular and continuous where Modernism is aperiodic and fragmented, structurally and texturally simple where Modernism is complex.”20 The genre incorporates not only the repetitive music of Reich and Glass, but also the drone improvisations of Young,21 composers associated with the English Experimental School such as Gavin Bryars, the ‘holy minimalism’ of Arvo Pärt and Henryk Górecki,22 and the European minimalism of Karel Goeyvaerts and in the 1970-1980s,23 amongst others.

1.2. European serialism and indeterminacy

Minimalism’s chronology is not a clear one. Some name La Monte Young’s (1958) the first minimalist work, others the earlier works by Goeyvaerts (1950s) or the music of John Cage (1940s).24 Also Terry Riley’s In C is often recognized as the first more widely received minimal work. Clearly, there is not an overall consensus on the beginning of minimalism. What we do know, is that minimalism originated in the United States, on the West and East Coast, in a time in which technology, the horrors of World War II, the breaking with European musical tradition and interests in non-Western music and jazz all played crucial roles in the evolution of classical music.

Classical music in post-war Europe had evolved itself into the heavy serialism of the Second Viennese School and the Darmstadter composers. Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez and others were strict followers of the twelve-tone technique. Even established composers, like Stravinsky, began to use serial techniques.25 Making serialist music the highest achievable goal for a composer around that time. The results were atonal, complex compositions, only accessible for the in-crowd and not the

17 Schwarz 1996, p. 8 18 Potter 2001 [online] 19 Wright 2002, p. 361 20 Potter 2001 [online] 21 Potter, Gann and ap Siôn 2013, p. 3 22 Potter 2001 [online] 23 Beirens 2013, p. 63 24 Potter, Gann and ap Siôn 2013, p. 1 25 Griffiths 2001 [online] 8 general public. Or as Boulez once claimed, according to Morton Feldman: “[…] he is not interested in how a piece sounds, only in how it is made.”26

1.2.1. Morton Feldman and John Cage

Two composers who influenced the development of minimalism, were Feldman and John Cage.27 Feldman’s compositions, characterized by vast spaces of sound, can be seen as a bridge between the Darmstadter serialism and the future minimalist works of Young. His later works had a tendency “to lock sounds into clearly audible, repeating metrical patterns”,28 resembling patterns in the music of Reich and Glass.29 Feldman was no minimalist in the way minimalism later came to be understood. His music is minimalistic in that there is a minimum of material notated on the score. He however, formed a crucial step in the evolution of minimalism in music.

From the 1950s and on, Cage avoided tonality and repetition in his compositions and preached a music that would unfold moment by moment by itself, instead of following a pre-designed harmonic structure. In contrast to serialism, the composer should not be bound to values and rules. Cage proposed an acceptance of all sounds and investigated ways of opening up his music, a process he called ‘indeterminacy’. Indeterminacy in music means that music does not have to sound like conventional music to be recognized as such. His compositions took on the character of processes, instead of being fixed objects.30 Thus emphasizing “the ability of a piece to be performed in substantially different ways.”31 Even though Cage has always been critical of minimal music, his earlier works show proto-minimalist characteristics. For instance, Cage worked towards a music that was more based on rhythm than on pitch. Also, Cage used a lot of influences of non-Western music in his own work.32

1.2.2. Fluxus

The 1960s saw the emergence of the Fluxus collective, an international coalition of experimental writers, performers and musicians.33 Fluxus saw itself as an alternative to the heavily structured academic arts of the time.34 Influenced by Cage, chance played a vital role in the creation of their art. Artists used a ‘do it yourself’35 attitude to create their art, using different media’s and often creating random performances in unusual places.

At the end of the 1960s, European serialism was at the height of its influence. Young composers preferring tonal music had a hard time at the academia and started to rebel. While these neo- Romantics and the established serial composers fought their battles ‘uptown’, in the ‘downtown’ scene of New York the indeterminacy of Cage and Feldman was going strong.36 On the West Coast,

26 Bernard 2002, p. 178 27 Johnson and Mattis 2001 [online]. John Cage and Morton Feldman were good friends. During the early 1950s, they founded the New York School, a term used to describe the collaboration between themselves and composers Earle Brown, Christian Wolff and David Tudor. 28 Potter 2000, p. 6 29 Ibid. 30 Pritchett, Kuhn and Hiroshi Garrett 2012 [online] 31 Pritchett 1993, p. 108 32 Potter 2000, p. 4 33 Moore and Cowger 2013 [online] 34 Tate Modern “Art Term: Fluxus” [online] 35 Ibid. 36 Gann “Breaking the Chain Letter: An Essay on Downtown Music” [online] 9 the ‘downtown’ scene was centered in San Francisco. Here, in the early 1960s, the San Francisco Tape Music Center was founded, which hosted the 1964 premiere of Terry Riley’s In C.37

1.3. Young, Riley, Reich and Glass

La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass (all born between 1935 – 7) are widely seen as key figures in the evolution of minimal music. All four belonged to environments that proved fruitful for the development of minimal music and the rejection of serialism and the academic scene: the California counterculture of the 1960s to which Riley, and for a while, Young and Reich belonged, and the Manhattan ‘downtown’ scene, in which Reich, Glass, Young, and for a while, Riley thrived. Both scenes “emphasized the breaking down of barriers, not only between different kinds of music but also between different art forms.”38

1.3.1. La Monte Young

The term minimal music was first used in a review by Michael Nyman in 1968.39 Ten years prior, La Monte Young composed his Trio for Strings. The trio is mostly known for its reliance on long sustained tones. Young himself, whose music is most famous for its drone-like feel, recognized the importance of the trio: “[…] I feel it actually influenced the history of music since no one had ever before made a work that was composed completely of sustained tones.”40 Young, after moving to New York, became involved in Fluxus during the 1960s and founded his in 1962.41 His intensive studies of Indian music inspired Young to perform long improvisations in just intonation.42 Young’s focus on sustained tones instead of pulsing repetition, separates him from Riley, Reich and Glass. His music advocates intense exploration of sounds, time and space, of long tones and long rests.43

1.3.2. Steve Reich

Terry Riley’s life is described in detail in chapter 2. His In C was an enormous success and it was Riley who reintroduced tonality into his works and who first worked with tape-loops and modular repetition. Joining Riley in the premiere performance of In C was Steve Reich. Where Riley was free- spirited, Reich preferred an ordered structure in his music. Intrigued by tape-loops and phasing, Reich wanted to transpose the tape technique to a live performance. Where Young and Riley turned to Indian and Arabic music, Reich studied African drumming rhythms, resulting in Drumming (1971), “perhaps minimalism’s first real public success”,44 with a recording by Deutsche Grammophon. Music for 18 Musicians (1976) was another success, and Reich has since been one of the most famous composers of the twentieth century.

1.3.3. Philip Glass

Philip Glass thrived in the Manhattan ‘downtown’ scene, where he had his own ensemble (just as Reich did). Glass’ musical style is characterized by clear and recognizable melodies, with a trademark

37 Bernstein 2008, p. 1 – 2 38 Potter 2001 [online] 39 Potter 2000, p. 3 40 Ibid., p. 34. From a version of the composer’s own programme note for Trio for Strings. 41 Terry Riley joined Young for a while in his Theatre of Eternal Music. Other members of the Theatre were (founder of the Velvet Underground) and visual artist Marian Zazeela (his later wife), amongst others. 42 Grimshaw 2012 [online] 43 Potter 2001 [online] 44 Gann 1997, p. 200 10 of “repeating four- to six-note arpeggio’s, used to articulate chromatically related triads.”45 During his studies in Paris with Nadia Boulanger, Glass came into contact with the music of Ravi Shankar. Inspired by the principles of Indian rhythmic structure, Glass began to use repetitions of small rhythmic patterns. The opera Einstein on the Beach (1976) meant Glass’ breakthrough.46

1.4. Towards postminimalism

One of minimalism’s traits is its quality to merge with other musical genres. The American music scene between 1945s – 1965s burst with new popular music genres. Rock ‘n roll, blues, soul, funk and, most importantly, the bebop of the post war jazz-scene, all presented themselves to the young composers. Not coincidently, Young, Riley, Reich and Glass were all big jazz-fans and avid jazz players.47

After the ‘rise’ of minimalism, and the successes of In C, Music for 18 Musicians and Einstein on the Beach, the genre evolved. Musicians and composers started looking into other musical genres for inspiration, resulting in cross-overs. British rockers and worked with Glass, and Frank Zappa found inspiration by Anton Webern and Feldman. New York’s The Kitchen, a “mecca of conceptualist and minimalist music”,48 started programming experimental rock bands.49

The use of electronics in music blossomed during the twentieth century. With the rapid development of electronic devices and techniques during the twentieth century, it is no surprise that almost every composer nowadays uses electronics in their music. Musical minimalism would not have existed without the possibilities of tape-loops and phasing.50 From the San Francisco Tape Music Center where In C premiered, to the ambient tape-loops of Brian Eno’s Music for Airports (1978),51 and eventually to the subgenre ‘minimal techno’ of the current electronic dance scene.52 The use of repetition in music grew with the possibilities new electronics brought.

What could come after minimalism? The tonal, pattern-repetitive style of the 1960s evolved and a new generation of composers entered the 1980s with new ideas. Borrowing from minimalist strategies - but meanwhile adding their own - a new musical language was born.53 Postminimalism is a term often used by scholars to describe the compositions following the footsteps of the minimalist works of the 1960s – 1970s. Clearly descending from minimalism, the works are yet so different that the music calls for a new term.54

Minimalism grew into multiple branches of music that got inspired by and could never have developed without the minimalist works of the 1960s – 1970s. Or, as wrote: “One could imagine that some future history of music will describe the period starting in the late 20th century as follows: ‘Our current musical language arose in the 1960s and '70s. In its nascent, simplistic state, it was at first mistaken for a full-blown style in itself, and was termed 'Minimalism'....’.”55

45 Ibid., p. 203 46 Ibid., p. 199 – 206 47 Ross 2007, p. 518 48 Gann 1997, p. 294 49 Ibid., p. 291 – 294 50 Ibid., p. 253 – 254 51 Liner Notes “Music for Airports liner notes” [online] 52 Chamberlin 2003 [online] 53 Gann 1998 [online] 54 Potter, Gann and ap Siôn 2013, p. 3 55 Gann 1998 [online] 11

Chapter 2. – The life and music of Terry Riley

2.1. Early life and education

Terry Riley (Colfax, California 1935) grew up listening mostly to popular music. It was not until high school that Riley, with the help of his piano teacher Duane Hampton, got interested in classical music.56 His first compositions were based on the music he learned at the piano and showed a strong influence of Fauré and Poulenc.57 Riley played in local dance bands and developed an interest in bebop.58 Without proper music education in high school, it was pure luck and with the guidance of his piano teacher that Riley could develop his musical talent.59

In 1955, Riley enrolled at the San Francisco State University to study piano with Wendell Otey. Due to the high skill level of his fellow piano students, and his inability to compete, Riley changed to composition instead. His new mentor, composer Robert Erickson, would prove to be a major influence on Riley’s studies and further career.60 In 1957, Riley graduated from the San Francisco State University, and it was during this time that he wrote the first work on his current worklist: Trio for violin, clarinet and piano.61 At SFSU, Riley met Pauline Oliveros and Loren Rush, two likeminded students who would become lifelong friends and collaborators in many of his musical projects.

2.2. After San Francisco State University: 1958 - 1959

After SFSU, Riley started an improvisation trio with Oliveros and Rush. With Riley on the piano, Oliveros on French horn and Rush on percussion, the trio’s main work was an atonal soundtrack for a film by Claire Falkenstein: Polyester Moon (1958).62 Free improvisations in a music style other than jazz was a practice still rare at that time.63 The trio, according to Pauline Oliveros, would record short five-minute improvisations and then discuss the results. “That was the method. Play, record, listen back, and then discuss it.”64 For Riley, the experience of Polyester Moon was important in suggesting to him that improvisation, distinct from any jazz idiom, could indeed be his natural mode of expression, and was worth of exploration.65 The method of ‘play first, discuss later’ also seemed to inspire Riley. As we will learn, Riley applied the same rehearsal practice with In C.

During the same period, Riley took private composition lessons with Robert Erickson (1917 - 1997) at the San Francisco Conservatory until he enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley in 1959.66

Erickson, an influential West Coast avant-garde composer67, had a major influence on Riley. His interest in improvisation and forms of ‘openness’ in music, and his experiments with electronics and

56 Schwarz 1996, p. 25 57 Carl 2009, p. 13. Terry Riley interviewed by Robert Carl. 58 Schwarz 1996, p. 26 59 Carl 2009, p. 14 60 Ibid., p. 14 – 15. Terry Riley interviewed by Robert Carl. 61 Potter 2000, p. 95 62 Doran Eaton 2013, p. 184 63 Potter 2000, p. 95 64 Carl 2009, p. 17. Pauline Oliveros interviewed by Robert Carl. 65 Potter 2000, p. 96 66 Carl 2009, p. 15 67 Rockwell 2008, p. viii and Shere 2013 [online]. Pauline Oliveros, Paul Dresher and Morton Subotnick all studied with Robert Erickson. Erickson was also involved in the San Francisco Tape Music Center. 12 tape music left their mark on Riley’s later work.68 This is visible in one of the first works Riley wrote: Spectra (1959). Spectra is a good example of Riley’s first attempts to create independence amongst players by creating a fluid-like rhythmic structure. According to Carl, Spectra shows two aspects that would turn out to be exemplary for Riley’s composition style: periodic sustained tones and extensive rhythmic freedom.69

2.2.1. Young and Riley

In 1958, La Monte Young enrolled at UC Berkeley. With his distinguished sense of style and his radical ideas of music, Young intrigued Riley instantly. He introduced Riley to the early music of John Coltrane, to gagaku (Japanese court music) and to Indian music, and in doing so, changed Riley’s way of looking at composing and at music in general.70

Young introduced Riley to Anna Halprin, who had her own dance company linked to the Tape Music Center71. Young and Riley would compose and perform music for the company. For Riley, this was his first experience with anything theatrical.72 Inspired by Cage, Young and Riley wanted to create sound- orientated music out of unrelated and undetermined elements. Any shared intention between the dance and the music was deliberately avoided.73 One of the few remaining works of this period in Riley’s life is the Concert for Two Pianos and Five Tape Recorders (1960). This work exists of improvisations by Riley and Young for Halprin’s dance sessions, organized on tapes by Riley.74

Most influenced by Young is, according to Riley, his String Quartet from May 1960.75 The quartet shows influences of the sustained sounds of La Monte Young’s Trio for Strings (1958).76 When asked about the quartet Riley said: “It’s funny… it’s in C too, but it’s all long tones. Some of the motives which later turn up in In C are in that quartet.”77 Another In C preview could be his use of modal centers in the Quartet. “[It] actually is fairly chromatic, but it uses a lot of modal centers which make it feel like it has tonal centers. It uses a lot of fourths and fifths and sustained intervals which sound very consonant.”78 As we will see in later chapters, In C seems to be composed around modal centers instead of tonal ones.

2.3. Early works, tape music and looping techniques: 1960 – 1961

2.3.1. Envelope

Another work that shows similarities with In C is Envelope (1960), a work that consists of “a combination of written pitches and graphic symbols that could be freely interpreted”79 according to Riley. The work consists of four parts of the same duration, divided in sections (every four measures).

68 Carl 2009, p. 15 69 Ibid., p. 15 – 16 70 Bernstein and Payne 2008, p. 2 11 71 Bernstein 2008, p. 225. The dance company was called the San Francisco Dancers’ Workshop. 72 Carl 2009, p. 126 73 Ibid., p. 19 – 20 74 Bernstein and Payne 2008, p. 213 75 Strickland 1987, p. 111 76 Potter 2000, p. 97 77 Strickland 1987, p. 111. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 78 Alburger 1997, p. 2. Quoted in Carl 2009, p. 25 79 Carl 2009, p. 21 13

The performers can enter at the section of their choosing, playing the work from there until they return to their starting point. The notation system of Envelope shows clear similarities with In C.80

2.3.2. String Trio

Riley graduated at UC Berkeley in 1961 with a String Trio.81 According to both Carl and Potter, the Trio was the first showcase of what later would become Riley’s own minimalist approach: the use of modal pitch domain and regular rhythmic repetition. 8283 The Trio has the “beginnings of little repetitive cells, which is the first use of that in my [Riley’s] music… The opening is like a pulse.”84 The work is not completely repetitive and does not have a consistent rhythm. But the overall feeling of the piece, according to Carl, is far more pulsating then any of his previous works. The musical material is more consonant and the harmonic nature of the work tends to be constructed of layers of thirds, with added dissonant tones. This results in a musical landscape that sounds consonant yet is not tonal in a traditional way.85

2.3.3. Mescalin Mix

During 1960 – 1961, Riley started experimenting with tape technology. He owned a Wollensack tape recorder, a simple device that records multiple layers of sound on one single track.86 He combined this ‘sound on sound’ technique with a looping technique, creating a soundscape of dense layers, more noise than music. Riley would, after recording various sounds of different durations, cut the tape in pieces and form the tape into a loop. The loop would be strung through his window, out into the garden, around a group of bottles, and return through the window into the studio.87 The recording was brought to the San Francisco Tape Music Center (which was called Sonics at this time) to use the Echoplex, a device that allowed a sound to be repeated on itself in an ever-accumulating counterpoint. This way Riley could create an effect that is somewhat similar to digital delay.88 One of Riley’s first compositions with tape technique was Mescalin Mix (formerly known as M…Mix), a work that evolved from tapes Riley had made for Halprin.89 While some of the sounds on the tapes can still be identified, much of work is so distorted that it is hard to recognize, according to Potter.90 Mescalin Mix sounds, as the name implies, very drugs-influenced and Riley himself admitted that the work “sounded just like an acid trip”.91

Through his compositions in 1960 – 1961, Riley discovered that repetition itself could be the centre of his musical organization. Both Mescalin Mix and his String Trio focus on repetition, the first in sense of tape loops, the second of rhythmic repetition.

80 Potter 2000, p. 97 81 Ibid., p. 99 82 Carl 2009, p. 28 83 Potter 2000, p. 99 84 Alburger 1997, p. 3. Quoted in Carl 2009, p. 28 85 Carl 2009, p. 28 86 Potter 2000, p. 98 87 Gagne 1993, p. 238. Mentioned in Potter 2000, p. 98 88 Bernstein and Payne 2008, p. 214 – 215 89 Potter 2000, p. 98. The tapes were called subsequently Three-Legged Stool, The Four-Legged Stool and The Five-Legged Stool. 90 Ibid., p. 98 – 99 91 Strickland 1987, p. 112. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 14

2.4. Drugs, jazz and Europe

The title of Mescalin Mix was not an ironic one. Riley has always been very open about his drug use during the 1960s. Young introduced Riley to marihuana and peyote.92 Riley immediately saw the potential of these drugs for his own artistic growth, as the drugs changed his perception of time and life.93 “I was never concerned with minimalism [per se], but I was very concerned with psychedelia and the psychedelic movement of the sixties as an opening toward consciousness. […] So I think what I was experiencing in music at that time was another world. […] I believe music, shamanism, and magic are all connected, and when it’s used that way it creates the most beautiful use of music.”94

In February 1962, Riley and his family moved to Paris.95 Riley was well trained as a ragtime-pianist by this time, having worked as one in the Gold Street Saloon in San Francisco. In Paris, he continued this line of work and played at Fred Payne’s Artists Bar in Pigalle. By playing at officers’ clubs at American military bases throughout Europe, he was able to travel a lot.96 Riley’s stay in Europe enabled him to further develop two interests: his love for jazz and his skills as a jazz pianist, and his exploration of non-Western music. His love for jazz began at Berkeley with the discovery of John Coltrane’s music.97 Coltrane’s hit during the 1960 – 196598 became more and more influenced by modes, both of the Western church (Gregorian modes) as of Middle-Eastern music (maqam system).99 His modal, and later free-jazz innovations, were a big influence for Riley at the time.

During spring 1962, Riley moved to Algeciras, in the south of Spain, where he was first introduced to Moroccan music.100 Over the radio, Riley heard the call for prayer and the maquamat. The way the music keeps on repeating small musical particles for a long time while keeping the music interesting with melodic improvisation, intrigued him. Again, it was the combination of modal music combined with a repetitive nature that left an impression on the young composer.101 An interest that eventually resulted in In C.

2.5. Last works before In C: Music of The Gift and Coule

2.5.1. Music of the Gift

Two other important works that precede In C are Music of the Gift (1963) and Coule. The first was written by Riley in Paris for The Gift, a play by Ken Dewey, a Bay-Area director. For Music for The Gift, Riley recorded Chet Baker’s quartet playing So What, Miles Davis’s classic from his 1959 album Kind of Blue. He then ran this recording through his ‘time-lag accumulator’, a device Riley designed with the help of the French National Radio: “I described the effect to the French engineer, a very straight guy in a white coat, who fooled around and ended up hooking two tape recorders together.”102 What followed was exactly the sound Riley had wanted: an echo effect. By connecting the two tape recorders he could let the first one play back, and record with the second one. While recording, the

92 The drug mescalin is made from the peyote cactus. 93 Potter 2000, p. 103 – 105 94 Duckworth 1995, p. 169. Quoted in Carl 2009, p. 23 95 Potter 2000, p. 101 96 Schwarz 1996, p. 36 97 Strickland 1987, p. 115 98 My Favorite Things (1961), Impressions (1961-3) and Ascension (1965) 99 Potter 2000, p. 102 – 103 100 Ibid., p. 101 101 Ibid., p. 102 – 103 102 Strickland 1987, p. 112. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 15 second recorder feeds back to the first machine, who plays back what is added.103 Riley named this device a ‘time-lag accumulator’ and would continue using this repetitive technique for a long time during solo performances.104

Music for The Gift marks the point where Riley started to understand what repetition could do for his music. According to Potter, Music for The Gift paved the way for instrumental works like In C. It showed to Riley that it was possible to make proper compositions while applying the principles of delay and accumulation to both pitched material, speech and other non-musical sounds.105 “It’s probably my first orchestral piece but I made it all out of tape. That piece, Music for The Gift, was when I really started understanding what repetition could do for musical form. That’s the forerunner of In C.” 106

2.5.2. Coule

Coule (later renamed Keyboard Studies No. 1), a work for piano solo, had its premiere at the same concert as In C, but was written during Riley’s stay in Europe. The work shows many similarities with In C, especially the notation: Coule consists of 16 melodic modules. The performer must take a ‘continuum figure’ (modules 1, 7 and 11) and combine these with the successive modules, until moving on to the next continuum figure. So, module 1 can be combined with modules 2 – 6, before moving on to module 7, which in turn can be combined with modules 8 – 10, and so on.

The open-form structure of Coule precedes In C. It leaves the performer free to choose the way to organise his or her performance: how to combine the modules, or to not use the successive modules between the continuum figures at all. Just like In C, this work “creates the idea of a piece as a network of events rather than a mere succession”, as Carl puts it.107

2.6. Return to San Francisco: In C

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought Riley back to the United States.108 Back in San Francisco, Riley and his family moved into a house at 215 Bocana Street, just south of Potrero Hill.109 His return to San Francisco came at a fortunate moment: his old friends and colleagues at the San Francisco Tape Music Center were dedicating the 1964-1965 season to local composers. Morton Subotnick contacted Riley to ask whether he wanted to do a concert as well.110 It was this concert that would host the premiere of In C.

Riley composed In C in March 1964, shortly after returning to San Francisco. The music came to him at night: “Then one night, riding the bus down to work at Gold Street, I just heard it – I heard the ideas, every motive.”111 “[…] I didn’t hear every one [module], but I heard the whole beginning with the modulation …”112 The piece was apparently written in less than 24 hours and has had its current form of 53 modules from the beginning. Multiple factors laid the groundwork for In C. The looping

103 Strickland 1987, p. 112 104 Carl 2009, p. 36 105 Potter 2000, p. 107 106 Strickland 1987, p. 113. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 107 Carl 2009, p. 35 108 Strickland 1987, p. 109. All U.S. Army clubs around Europe closed their entertainment programs as a gesture towards the presidential family. Without this major source of income, Riley was left no choice but to move back home. 109 Carl 2009, p. 39 110 Ibid. Morton Subotnick interviewed by Robert Carl. 111 Strickland 1987, p. 113. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 112 Ibid. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 16 principle in his tape pieces and the experiments with his time-lag accumulator made Riley want to transcribe this kind of music to a performance by real instruments.

2.6.1. The premiere of In C

On November 4th, 1964, In C premiered at the San Francisco Tape Music Center. The concert was repeated on 6 November. Both concerts were dedicated to, and compiled by, Riley himself. ‘An Evening of Music By Terry Riley’ commenced at 20:30 hours and the audience, around 120 people113, were sitting around the musicians on folding chairs. Instead of arranging the seats beforehand, the seating was deliberately informal. Riley would play his Music for the Gift while the audience entered the hall.114 The concert was divided into two halves, with a break in between. The first half consisted of three tape pieces, I, Shoeshine and In B♭ Or Is It A♭, and one keyboard work, Coule, performed by Riley. After the break, In C was performed by Riley and his ensemble.

The ensemble consisted of 13 musicians, all drawn from Riley’s own pool of close friends: Pauline Oliveros (accordion), Morton Subotnick (clarinet), Ramon Sender (Chamberlin organ), Jon Gibson (soprano saxophone), Stan Shaff & Phil Winsor (trumpet), Mel Weitsman (sopranino recorder), Warner Jepson (piano), Sonny Lewis (tenor saxophone), James Lowe (piano), Jeanie Brechan (keyboard) and Steve Reich (Wurlitzer electric piano).115116

The performance hall of the Tape Music Center was around 37 meters long with a small stage at the far end of the room.117 Carl collected the known information about the stage set-up: the two grand pianos, the Wurlitzer electric piano and several other performers were on the ground level with the audience. The musicians were randomly situated over the performance space, but all were able to see each other and communicate the cues. The Wurlitzer and the Chamberlin organ were amplified. The organ was situated in a studio upstairs and was heard through loudspeakers in the concert hall. The concert also involved a real-time visual performance by Antony Martin. Martin “projected ‘a rhythmic/melodic light composition’ of various shapes and colours simultaneously with the music.”118 According to Carl, it is important to realize that In C, from the earliest performance, had an electronic aspect, and thus pioneered a mix of live performed electronic and acoustic instruments.119

It is unknown how many rehearsals the group had before the premiere, even Riley himself doesn’t remember fully. “I think we had one rehearsal with just about everybody, but I don’t think we ever had one with everybody, I’m almost positive of that”.120 One thing that did came up during the rehearsals, was the difficulty to keep a common tempo throughout the work. Reich, being a percussionist himself, suggested to add a rhythmic element to keep the group together. It was decided that Brechan would play high C’s on the piano. This seemed to work and so the pulse was born.121

The participating musicians still think fondly of the premiere. Reich: “I think it [the interaction] was excellent. I’ve always been a chamber music type of composer and player, and In C brings the best of

113 Carl 2009, p. 45 114 Ibid., p. 46 115 Ibid., p. 43 116 Potter 2000, p. 108 – 109 117 Carl 2009, p. 45. Mentioned in the text as “40 yards long, 25 wide and 25 high”. 118 Potter 2000, p. 109 119 Carl 2009, p. 46 120 Ibid., p. 44. Terry Riley interviewed by Robert Carl. 121 Potter 2000, p. 109 17 that out in people.”122 Oliveros remembers that there were a couple of “rocky stretches”123. It seemed that even with these experienced musicians who knew the piece quite well, it sometimes was difficult to keep the music’s thread. Oliveros remembers that the tempo of the premiere was much lower than that of the later recording. She claims the tempo was around ♩= 69.124 Carl argues that In C’s success after its premiere was due to the number of composers joining in the premiere performance. Inspired by the premiere, they incorporated qualities of In C into their own music. Carl thinks it likely that these performers were crucial to the survival and ongoing appreciation of the work.125

Alfred Frankenstein, classical music critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote a very positive review of the second concert on November 6th. The review was printed on November 8, 1964 and had the title ‘Music Like None Other on Earth’.126 For a bohemian, experimentalist composer to receive such a praising review was extraordinary. Classical music, at that moment, was mostly concentrated on the serialist movement. It was “the first critical document to identify this new musical language and to be aware of that originality” according to Carl.127

2.7. After In C

After the premiere, Riley did not, as one would expect, chase its success. Instead, he moved to New York in 1965 and sang in La Monte Young’s Theatre of Eternal Music for a couple of years.128 In 1968, Columbia Records approached Riley for a recording of In C. The recording, which will be discussed in chapter 4.2, was an enormous success and meant the continued fame of In C and its composer.

In 1969, Riley recorded a second album with Columbia Records which included two works: Poppy Nogood and His Phantom Band (an elaboration of Dorian Reeds129), a piece that showed his evolved work with tape experiments, and , a work that anticipated the keyboard compositions Riley would devote most of his time on over the next decade.130 A Rainbow in Curved Air inspired many (rock)musicians, like The Soft Machine and The Who. Pete Townshend’s organ parts in The Who’s Baba O’Riley were inspired by Riley’s work.131

In 1970, Riley met the North Indian raga vocalist, Pandit and became his disciple for 26 years. He devoted the following decade to studying Indian music, resulting in accompanying Pandit Pran Nath during concerts as a tanpura, and vocal accompanist.132 During this time, Riley disappeared from the public eye and largely gave up on notated composition.133 From 1971-81, Riley taught Indian music at Mills College in Oakland. His compositions during the ‘70s were mostly electric-organ and keyboard improvisations, incorporating in his compositions influences of ragtime, non-Western modes and cyclic processes.134 As a solo keyboard performer, Riley frequently toured

122 Carl 2009, p. 49 – 50. Steve Reich interviewed by Robert Carl. 123 Ibid., p. 50. Pauline Oliveros interviewed by Robert Carl. 124 Ibid. 125 Ibid., p. 51 126 Ibid., p. 53 127 Ibid., p. 54 128 Strickland 1987, p. 106 129 Strickland 2001 [online] 130 Strickland 1987, p. 106 131 Service 2013 [online] 132 Official website of Terry Riley, “Biography.” [online] 133 Schwarz 1990 [online] 134 Strickland 2001 [online] 18

Europe.135 Recordings were made of Persian Surgery Dervishes (1971), Descending Moonshine Dervishes (1976) and Shri Camel (1977).136

At the end of the ‘70s, Riley met with David Harrington of the Kronos Quartet, who inspired him to start composing for string quartet.137 The collaboration turned out to be a fruitful one, Riley has so far composed 13 string quartets, amongst which Salome Dances for Peace, and many other well- known works, like Cadenza on the Night Plain and Crows Rosary for the Kronos Quartet.138 Riley’s compositions after his compositional ‘break’ retained an improvisational feel, but did not sound anything like In C.139

Riley left Mills College at the beginning of the ‘80s. From 1989 – 1993, Riley led his own ensemble Khayal, an improvising performance group. With Jade Palace, a Carnegie Hall commission, he composed his first orchestral work.140 During recent years, Riley has been performing with multiple different ensembles and musicians, among which his son, guitarist Gyan Riley. He regularly performs solo piano concerts of his own work.141 For his eightieth birthday, Nonesuch label released a box set of his opuses, played by the Kronos Quartet.142 Riley continues to inspire a new generation of composers, musicians and electronic producers with his old and new compositions.143

135 Ibid. 136 Strickland 1987, p. 106 – 107 137 Ibid., p. 108 138 Official website of Terry Riley, “Biography.” [online] 139 Schwarz 1990 [online] 140 Ibid. 141 Official website of Terry Riley, “Biography.” [online] 142 Colter Walls 2015 [online] 143 Mastenbroek 2015, p. 13 19

Chapter 3. – Analysis: In C – the score and the guidelines

3.1. The score

The first LP version of In C, issued by Columbia in 1968, presented the score on the sleeve of the disc. The single page of notated music was printed to give the listener a better understanding of the music. Ever since, the score of In C has been widely reproduced. It makes In C one of the more easily accessible scores, more readily available via copies than through its original source.144 This chapter will present an in-depth look at the score of In C.

In C is above all a musical work that depends on the performers’ interpretation of the work. Because of its musical concept, the work is highly changeable, meaning no performance will ever sound the same. “[…] because of the open elements of In C’s inherent structure, different performances will reveal different aspects of the work.”145 By studying both the score and some recordings of In C (chapter 4), I will try to get a better understanding of the multiplicity of the work.

The score of In C consists of one single page with 53 modules (figure 1.1). These modules differ in length, ranging from only an eighth beat long (module 10) to thirty beats long (module 35). Each module can be repeated by the musicians ad libitum. All the musicians will move gradually from module 1 to 53. When everyone has reached module 53, the work ends.146

The rhythmic vocabulary of the work consists of even subdivisions. The work is made up of sixteenths, eighths, quarters, halves and wholes. Through the work the pulse plays an important role. Originated as a practical necessity during the premiere, the pulse turned out to be one of the most defining and important features of the work.147 The pulse provides a rhythmic anchor, a clear steady rhythm consisting of eighth notes played in the same tempo during the entire piece. In addition to its rhythmic component, the pulse guarantees there is always a C included in the harmonic content of the work.148 Even though the pulse has become accepted as a necessity, it is not required and there are a few performances under the direction of the composer himself, that have managed to do without it.149 One of these performances will return in chapter 4.

3.2. The guidelines

As opposed to the first score, the current version has a set of written instructions or ‘guidelines’ (figure 3.1). Over the years, after hearing and participating in many performances of the work, Riley made a list of suggestions on how best to play In C. Riley himself has tried to convince musicians and audience that the performances of In C can better be seen as contributions to an ongoing exploration of the possibilities of the piece, rather than a mere reproduction of the score.150 This view on his work is also visible in the choice of words of the guidelines: Riley leaves room for the musician’s own interpretation.151

144 Potter 2000, p. 109 145 Carl 2009, p. 57 146 Schwarz 1996, p. 44 147 Potter 2000, p. 109 148 Carl 2009, p. 58 149 Potter 2000, p. 111 150 Ibid., p. 109 151 Carl 2009, p. 60 20

The latest (2005) edition of the score of In C contains the following guidelines:

All performers play from the same page of 53 melodic patterns played in sequence. A group of about 35 creates a rich full overlay but interesting performances have been created with many more or many less. 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 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 somewhere between 45 seconds and a minute and ½ or longer. It is very important that performers listen very carefully to one another and this means to occasionally drop out and listen. As an ensemble, it is desirable to vary dynamics as well as create group crescendos and diminuendos. Each pattern can be played in unison or canonically in any alignment with itself or its neighboring patterns. One of the joys of playing IN C is the interaction of the players in polyrhythmic combinations that spontaneously arise among patterns. Some quite fantastic shapes will arise and disintegrate as the ensemble progresses through the piece. It is important not to hurry from pattern to pattern but to stay on a pattern long enough to interlock with other patterns. As the performance progresses, performers should stay within 2 or 3 patterns of each other. It is important not to race too far ahead or lag too far behind the main patterns sounding. The ensemble can be aided by the means of an 1/8th note pulse played on the high C’s of a piano or mallet instrument. It is also allowed to use instead or with the pulse, improvised percussion to keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise. Care must be taken however that the percussion does not overwhelm the ensemble. Players must take care to play each pattern precisely. The first rehearsal should have everyone playing a repetition of each pattern in unison before going on to rehearse sections of the piece. The tempo is left to the discretion of the performers. Extremely fast is discouraged. When a performer is not playing, she should be conscious of the larger periodic composite accents that are sounding. When she re-enters she must be aware of what affect [sic] the entrance will have on the overall flow. The ensemble should aim to merge into a unison at least once, but preferable [sic] often during the course of a performance. If all patterns seemed to be played too much in unison a player should try to offset his pattern by and [sic] 1/8th note or other value so as to create a feeling of shifting alignments. It is OK to transpose patterns. Take care when transposing, especially with patterns in running 16th notes. This can create a very muddy sound. Also all instruments should aim at a blend at [sic] no one instrument should stick out except momentarily. Rhythmic augmentation of patterns can be effective. Players may omit patterns that are too difficult or unsuitable for their instrument. Amplification of instruments is allowed to help achieve a balanced dynamics [sic]. Electronic instruments are also welcome. IN C usually ends this way: When each performer arrives at figure #53, he or she stays on it until the entire ensemble has arrived there. The group then makes a large crescendo and diminuendo a few times and then each player drops out when he or she wishes.

Figure 3.1 Guidelines accompanying the score of Terry Riley’s In C, edition 2005152

The guidelines state, for example, the ideal number of players to be used in a performance. While Riley himself suggests a group of 35, Keith Potter argues that the best performances known to date have used between ten and twenty musicians. “Anything much larger risks degenerating into a free- for-all, discouraging the performers from attempting the kinds of close counterpoint characterizing the most successful versions.”153 The four recordings analysed in chapter 4 are all played by ensembles consisting of 12 - 17 performers.

Instrumentation remains unspecified. Riley allows the use of electronic instruments and amplification, he even allows some “improvised percussion to keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise”.154 He encourages the use of singing. Arguably, because of Riley’s intensive study and practice of Indian vocal traditions. It is furthermore allowed to use transposition at the octave, making In C accessible for almost all instruments. Players are allowed to use augmentation or diminution, making the faster modules available for bass-register instruments.155

152 Ibid., p. 58 – 59 153 Potter 2000, p. 111 154 See figure 3.1 155 Ibid. 21

Keith Potter mentions, notably, that although In C is widely labeled as a hippie composition - that embraces the idea of the more the merrier and encourages musicians to do their own thing - Riley’s one rule is for the musicians to work closely together. He encourages close listening and discourages musicians to draw too much attention to themselves or their instrument, for it would ruin the structure of the work.156

3.3. Rhythmic vocabulary

Let us take a closer look at the score itself (see figure 1.1). When we look at the rhythmic vocabulary of In C, the first thing to notice is the difference in length of the separate modules. Following Robert Carl’s example157, I have counted the beats in quarter notes per module and presented this in the following chart (see figure 3.2).

Duration of modules of In C (beats in quarter notes per module) 30

25

20

15

10

5

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53

Duration of modules of In C (beats in quarter notes per module)

Figure 3.2 Duration of modules of In C

The chart shows clearly the difference in length per module. We could speculate that Riley created premeditated wave-like patterns in the score. From module 1 – 15, the modules show a slow build- up in duration, before dropping off quickly. During modules 16 – 34, the durations seem to rise and fall in a generally symmetric pattern. Through modules 35 till the end, the durations per module alternate between short and longer modules. It seems that Riley paid careful attention to the shaping of time-flow and phrasing in the separate modules. Longer modules are interspersed with short modules, see for example modules 6, 7 and 8.158

Another rhythmical aspect to consider is the rhythmic vocabulary of the modules. Carl catalogued the combination of rhythmic content per module. His research159 shows a gradual variation in the

156 Ibid., p. 112 – 113 157 Carl 2009, p. 63. Figure 3.2 is inspired by Robert Carl’s example. His chart however, presented on page 63 of his book Terry Riley’s In C, turned out to contain some errors: the durations of modules 12, 39 and 42 are not presented correctly there. 158 Ibid. 159 Ibid., p. 62. Figure 4.2. 22 rhythmic content of the modules. In C starts with eighths and quarter notes, gradually introducing longer notes and sixteenths. At module 22, the work has showcased its full range of rhythmic values. Modules 22 – 26 are worth an extra look. Consisting of eighths in the original score, the modules are nowadays printed as dotted quarters instead.160 Since the sounding pulse is an eighth note, the figures in modules 22 – 26 have longer-held tones, creating a sort of resting point between the rhythmically more active modules before and after.161 Also, because of the dotted notes, there is a slight “shaving of lengths”162, creating a sense of acceleration. This will be visible in the recordings in chapter 4. Modules 27 – 34 have - just like the starting modules - a wide range of rhythmic figures, leading up to module 35, the single real melody of the work and the module with the maximum harmonic conflict.163 Module 35 combines almost every rhythmic value of the piece in one single module. The remaining modules of the piece reaffirm the sixteenth note as the most dominant value in the work. Hereby reversing the rhythmical process of modules 1 – 21.164

When looking at the rhythmic units and the durations of the modules, we can see that the work seems to have two musical peaks: module 22 and module 35. The piece gradually rises to module 22 - where the texture shifts in many ways -, remains on a plateau until module 35 - which displays the melodic peak of the work - and from there resolves into the remaining modules. This is underlined by the number of different pitch classes per module in In C, or the work’s “harmonic density”.165 This harmonic density is limited per module. Gradually, Riley introduces new pitch classes into the harmonic language of In C. Starting with a C and E in module 1, he introduces F in module 2, G in module 4 etc. Not surprisingly, modules 22 – 26 and module 35 are the modules with the most comprehensive set of pitch classes. Modules 22 – 26 consisting each of five pitch classes, module 35 has nine.

On a side note, the above mentioned is all based on the score alone. In a performance, each module would be combined with the surrounding modules, making the total amount of pitch classes at any given moment possibly even higher.

3.4. Motivic transformation and rhythmic displacement

Before we turn to In C’s harmonic features, it is worthwhile to take a look at the motivic transformations Riley applies in the work. When looking at the beginning of In C, modules 1 – 5 seem to showcase Riley’s technique. We have seen that the pitch class grows from two to four (module 1 starts with C/E, F/G are added in modules 2 – 5). Module 1 starts with a repeated quarter note, preceded by a grace-note upbeat. At the same time the pulse (a continuous eighth note) starts playing. Module 2 changes the rhythmic vocabulary to eighth and quarter notes, module 3 – 5 contain only eighth notes. Considering the performance context, the slow shifting of the pitch class makes the listener hear the same modal content even though different players might be playing different modules at the same time.

But Riley also plays with rhythmic displacement. He transforms the rhythmic profile of module 2 into that of module 3 by changing module 2’s quarter note to an eighth note in module 3. Module 3 starts with the same note (an E), but this time the eighth note is preceded by a rest. In the following

160 Potter 2000, p. 114. The dotted quarters are apparently easier to play for most instruments. 161 Carl 2009, p. 62 162 Ibid., p. 63 163 Potter 2000, p. 114 164 Carl 2009, p. 63 165 Ibid., p. 61 23 modules 4 and 5, Riley replaces the rest, creating with module 5 a rhythmical palindrome of module 4. Riley uses a similar technique for modules 9 – 13, 31 – 34, 36 – 41 and 49 – 53. Because of the displacement, the rhythm seems to change directions, thus demanding the listeners’ and the musicians’ attention. It creates a balancing act, a sense of change that is perceptible but difficult discern.166

Modules 22 – 26 show an even more rigorous form of displacement. Throughout the modules, Riley shifts the rhythmic weight and creates a form of rhythmic rotation. Each module is a rising scale based on E Aeolian (E/F sharp/G/A/B). Module 22 emphasizes the E by repeating it five times. The module ends on an eighth note (B). Module 23 starts with an eighth note (E), followed by a five-times repeated F sharp. Module 24 starts with two eighth notes (the E and F sharp) and repeats the following G five times. Etcetera. Thus, the five modules all start with the follow-up pitch class, but also with a follow-up in number of eighth notes (from 0 until 4 eighth notes in module 26). The progression serves a harmonic function. Each note of the scale gets the utmost attention. The music works itself slowly up, until it reaches its peak: the B in module 26. This B serves an important voice- leading function. Arguably, the B could still be sounding when the first musicians arrive at module 29 (a C triad), modifying the B into a leading tone towards C.167

One last remarkable thing to notice is Riley´s use of identical modules during the work. There are three modules that appear twice in In C. Modules 10, 11 and 18 are the same as modules 41, 36 and 28. The modules are not exact palindromes when it comes to their position in the work, but their placing does seem to highlight modal changes. Modules 10 & 41 and 11 & 36 both seem to define a modulation towards G. Modules 18 & 28 enclose the passage of modules 22 – 26.168

3.5. Harmonic analysis

But, if module 10 seems to define a modulation towards G, is In C really in C? There is no doubt in the first modules: In C at least starts in C. The first note played is the pulse (a C eighth note) and the first note of the first module is also a C. However, here Riley already slowly shifts the harmonic weight a little. The played C is a grace note to an E. Modules 2 – 4 fill the rest of the melodic scale by adding F and G. Modules 6 – 7 emphasize the C. Module 8 emphasized the F – G motive. The D does not occur, creating a “gap-step”169 effect as with a pentatonic scale.

Carl argues that the first modules of In C are not in C Major, but in C Ionian. There seems to be no strong dominant throughout this passage. He also argues that the harmonic flow of In C does not consist of tonal centers, but rather of modal ones.170 Modulation does happen throughout the work, but it is “effected by the careful shifting of weight assigned to the function of individual pitches within a given module.”171 This is accomplished by the context and the placement of the different pitches in the various modules of the work.

We must, however, not forget the unpredictable character of In C: since the performer can choose how often to repeat a module, changes between In C’s modal centers can be blurred. This gives performers the opportunity to control these modulations and play with them. The shifts from one

166 Ibid., p. 64 167 Ibid., p. 65 168 Ibid., p. 66 169 Ibid., p. 68 170 Ibid. 171 Ibid. 24 modal region to another happen gradually over time. It is rather a slow moving than a dramatic change as used in conventional classical modulation.172 For example, Riley introduces F sharp in module 14. By changing module 13’s F into a F sharp, Riley reinforces its role as a leading tone towards G. Which makes the work seem to move from C to G, according to Carl.173 Potter however, argues that module 14 – 17 suggest the Lydian mode on C. He says the inclusion of F sharp in a C- centered modality is often used in jazz (for example in the theories of George Russell on Lydian modes174).

Module 18 shows a progression to E minor with the appearance of E (according to Potter),175 although Carl described module 18 – 28 as E Aeolian.176 Both agree that the music moves away from E in modules 29 – 30 and returns to C major. Modules 31 – 34 divide the two again: the return of F in module 31 is according to Potter a return to C major’s dominant seventh,177 whereas Carl attributes it to a change to G Mixolydian.178 Module 35 will be discussed more thoroughly in the next subchapter.

Carl argues that the work balances in modules 36 – 41 between G and C, moving around the tetrachord: F, G, B, C. With module 42, A enters the work again, and with a high F in modules 43 - 44 and the low G in modules 45 – 46 the work seems to indicate towards G. Module 48 confirms G as the tonic, according to Carl. Because of the repetitive character of the work, the last note of module 48, an F, will always lead back to G. Module 49 brings one last surprise: Riley replaces the B with a B flat, thus changing the modality from G major to G Dorian. Incidentally being one of Riley’s favorite modes.179

Potter however, expects a return to an Ionian C major via its dominant seventh after module 35. He acknowledges the arrival of the pitches of the G7 chord but argues that the return to C is more ambiguous: module 39 suggests C, but module 42 – 44 confirm the C (although he argues the presence of A in module 42 suggests a relative minor). Module 45 – 48 show a shift to a dominant focus (to G). However, at the point where Potter expects a “gloriously unambiguous return to C”, Riley brings up a B flat, “leaving In C hanging deliciously in the air: not even on a C7 chord, consistent with the B flat, but on a G7 chord in which the third has been flattened […].”180 The combination of this chord with the C, D or E in the preceding modules 43 – 47 suggest, according to Potter, that the pitches of the closing modules lean to a modality of C Mixolydian.181

Carl however, sees the last modules of In C end in a different direction. Modules 52 & 53 consist of G – B flat. The listener hears a G – B flat ostinato, with the pulse (C) in the background. The work ends with the C in the pulse but does not resolve from G to C. Carl argues that the G has been weakened too much to serve the purpose of modulating through a cadence to C. He argues that Riley’s refusal to end the work with a clear structural cadence is “yet another trope of the timelessness that the

172 Potter 2000, p. 114 – 115 173 Carl 2009, p. 69 174 Potter 2000, p. 114. Potter refers to George Russell’s work The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization for Improvisation from 1959. 175 Ibid. 176 Carl 2009, p. 69 177 Potter 2000, p. 114 178 Carl 2009, p. 69 179 Ibid. 180 Potter 2000, p. 114 181 Ibid. 25 piece embodies”.182 “[…] the music trails off because it’s moved to a point where it can go no further without starting on yet another course […]”.183

Composer Ingram Marshall pointed out the significance of the first (C/E) and last two pitches (G/B flat) of In C. Three of the mentioned four pitches are the same as the harmonic areas of the work (C, G and E). Furthermore, the four pitches equal the first pitches from the C overtone series (C/E/G/B flat). Lastly, the four together form a C dominant seventh chord.184

We will see in chapter 4 that it is not so simply to determine the harmonic flow of the In C recordings. Due to the structure and the philosophy behind In C, the harmonic flow seems to differ slightly per recording. The musician’s choices when and how often to play each module, and how to combine the different modules, creates more control over these modulations then the musicians would have in a more conventional classical composition. Roughly said, the harmonic course of In C flows from C to G to E to C to G. But chapter 4 will show that many variations in between these five modulations are possible.

3.6. Module 35

As mentioned before, we need to take a closer look at module 35. The module has a distinctive character: not only is it the longest module, its rhythmic vocabulary is by far the most diverse. Therefore, according to Carl, it is the only module that has a thematic or melodic character, instead of just a motivic character like the other modules. The module includes nine pitch classes, more than any other module. The module includes two cross-relations, B/B flat and F/F sharp. The chromatic shifts resulting from these cross-relations is critical for the harmonic movements in the work. Therefore, module 35 is the only chromatic module of In C.185

The module switches between a sixteenth note-passage on the C dominant seventh in the beginning of the module, and a melodic passage. This melody incorporates the two cross-relations. According to Potter, the use of these cross-relations is characteristic for the ‘Lydian dominant’, as known by jazz players.186 Riley’s use of both the natural and the flattened seventh, as well as the natural and the sharpened fourth, makes for the “most ambiguous modal moment in the entire work”.187

Another significant aspect about module 35 is its placement in the work. When looking at the score, module 35 seems to be placed at roughly two-thirds of the piece. According to both Carl and Potter, Riley designed module 35’s placement thus, that it fits the golden ratio of the work. Seen from this perspective, module 22, the first major transformation in the work, is positioned at roughly one-third of the total module sequence.188 Consequently, based on the score, the two major turning points appear to be deliberately placed at significant points in the score, perhaps to create structure throughout the work. However, we must not forget that In C’s score is just the point of departure. As we will see in chapter 4, not every ensemble decides to introduce module 22 at one-third or module 35 at two-third of the performance.

182 Carl 2009, p. 70 183 Ibid. 184 Ibid., p. 132 185 Ibid., p. 66 186 Potter 2000, p. 114 187 Ibid. 188 Carl 2009, p. 67 26

Chapter 4. – Analysis: recordings of In C

4.1. Introduction

“[In C] is a piece that relies on the continued imagination and reinvention of its performers to survive [...].”189 It is perhaps In C’s greatest quality: the ability to make every performance feel like a premiere. In C allows its performers to add a little more to the music, than simply following the score. And it challenges them to perform the piece in a way, it has not been played before. However, in spite of every new performance or recording, no matter how diverse the ensemble, In C seems to keep its “core character”190. What makes this work so recognizable, despite the changing circumstances surrounding its performance?

Kyle Gann attributes this to the fact that the score of In C can be seen as a recipe.191 Without a conductor and without any notated dynamics or phrasing, the score seems to tell the musicians what it needs. The work focusses around the idea of listening to each other. Musicologist David Bernstein thinks that this democratic aspect is one of the revolutionary qualities of In C. The work seems to eliminate any hierarchy between performer and conductor, and between improvisation and notated music.192

The work deals with the blurring of boundaries, between Western and non-Western music, between classical music and other genres, between notated music versus improvisation. And it challenges musicians to think outside of their comfort zone.193 Bernstein attributes the significance of the work also to its link towards the traditional standards that are associated with the classical canon. Riley did not reject the classical canon by writing In C. He was, as we have seen in earlier chapters, intrigued by the music of Schoenberg and others.194 Bernstein sees In C as an “affirmative piece”,195 conditioned by Riley’s experiences with tape music.

Bernstein also emphasizes that the work did not earn its popularity merely by being revolutionary in its design, it is also artistically of a very high level.196 “[…] the seeming simplicity of the work is in fact underpinned by a precise set of aural choices in materials that makes it particularly adaptable and memorable over successive performances […].”197 But, as Robert Black (member of Bang On a Can All-Stars) mentions, that also makes the piece rather difficult to perform on a high artistic level. The work asks for very disciplined players, who realize that every individual decision during the performance affects the entire group. Performing In C centres around listening and anticipating.198

When Bernstein looks at In C’s role in the evolution of music since its premiere, he argues that In C stands at the beginning of a new musical development. With the fading of boundaries between musical genres, he sees a flowering of improvised music. Musicians and composers borrow elements from other musical genres as they see fit. Bernstein argues that “Terry’s work is at the early stages of

189 Ibid., p. 97 190 Ibid. 191 Ibid., p. 101. Kyle Gann interviewed by Robert Carl. 192 Ibid., p. 104. David Bernstein interviewed by Robert Carl. 193 Ibid., p. 102. Ingram Marshall interviewed by Robert Carl. 194 Bernstein and Payne 2008, p. 207 195 Carl 2009, p. 104. David Bernstein interviewed by Robert Carl. 196 Ibid., p. 105. David Bernstein interviewed by Robert Carl. 197 Ibid., p. 104 198 Ibid., p. 103. Robert Black interviewed by Robert Carl. 27 that development…trying to eliminate the distinction between composition and improvisation.”199 Although Riley does not recommend improvisation in his guidelines, he does also not object to it. Newer recordings of In C do encompass some improvisation. Two of these recordings will be analysed in this chapter, one of them even has Riley himself joining in the improvisation.

4.2. The analysis method

In this chapter, I will look at and analyse a couple of In C recordings from the last years. Just like Carl did in his book Terry Riley’s In C, I will analyse these recordings to create a better understanding of the performance practice. Carl explains: “[…] I hope the results will be the creation of a framework for a deeper understanding of both the richness and unity of In C”.200 The recordings presented in this chapter are all made after Carl wrote his book.201 My analysis of them may be taken as an addition to his research, but it will also, hopefully, shed new light on the current recordings of In C and the perception of the work by a new generation of musicians.

For the analyses, I chose four diverse interpretations of In C: one recording, one live performance and two remixes of In C. The recording and the live performance both encompass the whole of In C as a composition. Here, the musicians stayed mostly true to the concept of the work. The two remixes were made by young producers and show their vision on In C. The analysis of these two remixes can be seen as a follow-up to the tradition of In C – In C as seen by a new generation and altered to fit a different genre. In subchapter 4.5., these four analyses will be compared with each other and with the original recording of In C from 1968.

The analyses will look at the distinctive characters of the recordings and will focus around the various choices made by the performers which led to these recordings being so different from one another. For one could argue that, even though there are different instruments or performers, the work itself remains the same. No matter how diverse the recordings are, all of them are distinctly In C. For the analyses, I listened to the recordings many times. This resulted in graphics portraying the number of modules being played simultaneously. The chart below these graphics, shows which particular modules are being played together, which modules enter or exit the music, and it indicates when certain prominent or remarkable features emerge. The whole set-up of In C makes it sometimes hard to define specifically when a module enters or leaves the music. Some modules are so similar, that it is difficult to notice their exact entrance and exit within the overall texture – especially when a module contains one or several rests. The larger the ensemble, the denser the musical texture becomes, making it at times difficult to decipher which modules are played. The liberty for musicians to stop, take a step back to listen, and then enter again, also occasionally creates some confusion. When this was particularly hard, I have notated so in the remark-section of the chart supporting the graphic.

199 Ibid., p. 105. David Bernstein interviewed by Robert Carl. 200 Ibid., p. 106 201 The four recordings were made between 2010 and 2015. 28

4.3. The original recording: Columbia Records, 1968

Recording: CBS Records Inc. Year: 1971 (CD, the original vinyl version was released in 1968) Performers: Terry Riley & members of the Center of the Creative and Performing Arts in the State University of New York at Buffalo Instrumentation: Terry Riley (leader + saxophone), Margaret Hassell (the pulse), Lawrence Singer (oboe), Darlene Reynard (bassoon), (trumpet), Jerry Kirkbridge (clarinet), David Shostac (flute), David Rosenboom (viola), Stuart Dempster (trombone), Edward Burnham (), Jan Williams (marimbaphone) Duration: 42:10 minutes Tempo: around ♩ = 132

The first recording of In C was commissioned by Columbia Records and was recorded in March 1968.202 Together with members of the Center of the Creative and Performing Arts in the State University of New York at Buffalo, Riley recorded the LP in two days. The group had a period of six months preparation time before the recording took place. With no amateurs among the group, and their extensive rehearsal time, the group was perhaps better prepared for the performance than the group who performed the premiere in San Francisco.203

According to the musicians performing with Riley, the rehearsal process evolved mostly around playing and listening to each other. Well-considered decisions were made about larger issues, like how far behind or ahead each musician could stray. The group stays within a range of three to five modules of each other. They made choices about the most interesting entrances and exits of each performer during the music.204 The rhythm was kept tight, the pulse kept the musicians in tempo.205 Possibly as a result of his tape-delay work, Riley wanted to create a thick musical texture and decided the recording should be multitracked.206 The duration of the recording was dependent on the total length of an LP, which was - with the two sides combined - only 45 minutes. How to make sure the piece would not last longer? The producer, David Behrman, proved to be the solution. He would show the number of a module that the group should be in the proximity of during the recording.207 Behrman could almost be considered as the first ever In C conductor.

Even though the recording proved to be a vital, if not crucial, way for the survival and the popularity of In C, the recording was also in a way its downfall. The LP seemed to define for millions of listeners how the piece ‘should’ sound. Especially, since Riley himself orchestrated and participated in the recording. The revolutionary, “open”208 nature of In C got restricted by its own success. Carl conducted a thorough analysis of the first recording of In C in his book.209 Since my analyses of four other performances of In C will later be compared to this first recording, below will be a short summary of Carl’s work. He points out the differences between the recording and the premiere,

202 Ibid., p. 77 – 80 203 Ibid., p. 80. See chapter 2 of this thesis for more information on the premiere of In C in San Francisco. 204 Ibid., p. 80 – 81. David Rosenboom interviewed by Robert Carl. 205 Ibid., p. 81. Jan Williams interviewed by Robert Carl. 206 Ibid., p. 82 207 Ibid. Stuart Dempster interviewed by Robert Carl. 208 Ibid., p. 88 209 Ibid., p. 87 – 96. See Carl’s chapter 5 The Columbia Recording: a “Second Premiere” for more information. 29 based on the stories of the participants. One of the biggest changes was the tempo. With a tempo of ♩=132 the recording is almost twice as fast as the original ♩= 69 of the premiere. What the reason for this speed-up was, is not known. Result was, that In C became world famous in a much faster tempo than its first performance.210

The recording is a child of its time in two ways: the instrumentation and its actual sound. Riley’s choice for mostly wind instruments and percussion might have been a result of his preference of a dense sound. Carl compares the sound of the recording to East Asian music (like gamelan), but also to 1960’s psychedelic rock (like for example The Beatles’ Magical Mystery Tour). The dense texture of the recording is a result of the multitracking, making eleven players sound like twenty-eight. 211

Carl points out that, when looking at the progression of modules over time in the recording, most modules are played from at least one up to five full minutes.212 The pulse is strong and present at all times, and together with the controlled pacing from one module to the next, it creates a stable version of In C, where the transitions from one harmonic movement to the next are carefully planned.213

4.4. The recordings

4.4.1. Recording 1: In C Mali – Africa Express

Recording: Transgressive Records Ltd. Year: 2014 Performers: Africa Express, led by André de Ridder Instrumentation: Adame Koita (kamel n’goni), Kalifa Koné & Mémé Koné (), Alou Coulibaly (calabash), Andi Toma (additional percussion, kalimba), André de Ridder (violin, baritone-guitar, kalimba), Badou Mbaye (, percussion), Brian Eno, Bijou & Olugbenga (vocals), Cheick Diallo (flutes), (melodica), Djelifily Sako & Modibo Diawara (kora), Guindo Sala (imzad), Nick Zinner & Jeff Wootton (guitar) Duration: 40:45 minutes Tempo: ♩ = 128

This recording is a result of the collaboration between André de Ridder, founder of Stargaze, and Damon Albarn´s Africa Express project.214 In C Mali was recorded in Bamako, Mali during 2014. Albarn and De Ridder invited fifteen musicians, all major names in the world of Malinese music or top musicians of the Western rock music scene. De Ridder is very familiar with In C - in 2013, Stargaze started a series of re-interpretations of In C215 - and it was at his initiative that this project commenced. The combination of Malinese intruments and rhythms combined with the minimalism of In C is not the strangest combination. African rhythms have proven to be a great influence on

210 Ibid., p. 88 211 Ibid., p. 89 212 Ibid., p. 90 – 92 213 Ibid., p. 89 – 93 214 Fox 2012 [online] 215 Official website of Stargaze, “About us.” [online] 30 minimalist composers, like Steve Reich.216 De Ridder brought a copy of In C’s score to Bamako, finding out soon enough that straight repetition - as requested by the score - was something the Malian musicians were not used to. Instead, they ended up with De Ridder playing the phrases on violin, while the Malian musicians jammed.217 This might explain why the recording seems more orchestrated than other recordings of In C. One of the biggest changes De Ridder added to this version of In C is his interpretation of Riley’s guidelines and how he altered those to suit the capabilities of the musicians and the character of their music. Perhaps he sensed that a conventional recording, strictly following the guidelines, would not work with this group of musicians. I have put Riley’s guidelines next to In C Mali, which resulted in addendum 1.

The instrumentation is very diverse: with traditional Malinese instruments - like the balafon, kamel n’goni and the kora - and (electric) guitar, violin and even a melodica played by the Western musicians. It creates a diverse cross-over between cultures. The musicians do not shy away from adding improvisations. A thick layer of percussion fulfils the role of the pulse. The recording starts with the pulse played on a balafon. Module 1 enters on balafon and later kalimba. Percussion makes its appearance after about a minute, eventually taking over the pulse from the balafon. After only four minutes into the recording we notice that not every instrument starts with module 1, but that new instruments enter with the follow-up modules. The result is that around 01:20 minutes into the recording, we have already heard the first 4 modules.

The maximum number of modules played at the same time is five. The minimum is only one module, which happens with modules 1, 27, 29, 31 and 53. This does not mean that we only hear that one particular module at those moments: there is always some accompanying percussion. Figure 4.1 shows the number of modules being played simultaneously throughout In C Mali. Exactly halfway during the recording, at 20:21 minutes, the musicians arrive at module 29. Just like the first recording of Riley himself, the return to C in module 29 is placed exactly halfway the recording. Africa Express uses this particular moment in the work to create a moment of stillness. All the other modules, the percussion and even the pulse fall away, leaving only module 29 played by several instruments (electric guitar, kora, violin and flute). We hear some improvisation in flute, kora and singers, while a man’s voice speaks about the first time he played the kora.218 The whole passage lasts around four minutes.

The arrival at module 29 halfway through the recording is clearly visible in figure 4.1. The passage, starting around 20:21 minutes, has already been introduced by a reduction of the played modules in the minutes before. This phenomenon happens three times in In C Mali, all visible in figure 4.1. There are three moments when the number of played modules reduces to just one, which creates a wavelike effect throughout the recording. This happens at 10:15, at 19:27 and at the end, around 40:30 minutes. Three moments, introducing three new ‘chapters’ in the recoding. The first wave ends at 10:15 minutes, with the introduction of module 16. The moment is a breaking point: we will not hear any of the modules 1 – 13 again. There is a diminuendo towards module 16, leaving the listener no doubt that, with the arrival of module 17, we’ve entered into new territory.

The second wave ends with the passage around module 29. The third wave ends with module 53. In figure 4.1, we see that each wave slowly builds up to a maximum of five modules being played simultaneously, before reducing till only one module remains. However, the chart does not show the thick layer of percussion that accompanies the modules at (almost) all times. Also, the various

216 Potter 2000, p. 204 217 Oltermann 2014 [online] 218 Ibid. 31 improvisations by separate musicians are not visible in the chart. For these details, figure 4.2 gives more insight.

Figure 4.2 shows us a couple of salient details. Module 14 is initially skipped and only gets introduced after module 18 has sounded. Module 29 makes a reappearance around 33:53 minutes, together with modules 43 – 45. Also, module 14 reappears, around 16:43 minutes, when the module gets repeated together with modules 23 – 25. Module 15 and 40 do not seem to be played at all. Overall, the original sequence of the modules is largely followed. But often subsequent modules are skipped for a while, to be played a while later. For example, module 35 sounds before 33 and 34.

If we look at the playing time of the individual modules, we see a great diversity there. Playing time of modules differs from only 20 seconds (module 50) up to more than 6 minutes (module 5). Three modules are sung: modules 8, 14 and 48. These modules all three consist of long tones and are all played for a considerable time (between 3 and 4 minutes). The module we hear the longest, is module 29, which is played around 7,5 minutes in total (around 4 minutes together with modules 27 – 30 and around 3,5 minutes with modules 43 – 48).

When we look at modules 22 – 26 and module 35, we see that they are approached very differently than in the original recording of 1968. Module 22 enters the recording around 12:49 minutes. The whole passage of module 22 – 26 lasts around 7 minutes, with module 27 entering the work at 19:00 minutes. Just like with module 29, the musicians assign the passage of 22 – 26 a different atmosphere than the modules before. There is a diminuendo in percussion at the beginning of the sequence, creating a clearer focus on the played modules. During the sequence we hear some improvisation by kora and later by a bowed string instrument. The passage does not have such a radical different atmosphere than the module 29- passage has, but it certainly depicts a different chapter in the whole recording. What is interesting, is that the musicians chose to retake module 14 at the end of the passage. Making the module (and its F sharp) a significant part of the passage. The passage takes place roughly at one-third of the recording. One-third of the recording would be around 13:30 minutes, meaning that Carl’s theory - of modules 22 – 26 falling at one-third of In C - could indeed be applied to In C Mali.

Module 35 arrives at 25:49 minutes into the recording. The module is being played three times by Damon Albarn on the melodica. In contrast to the other two salient points (modules 22 – 26 and module 29), it seems the musicians did not know what to do with module 35. There is no diminuendo in percussion or any other instrument to put extra focus on module 35. The module does roughly fall on two-thirds of the work, which is around 27:00 minutes, but does not appear to function as a significant marker in the course of the piece.

32

In C Mali - number of modules being played simultaneously

0:08 min 1 0:30 min 2 0:41 min 3 0:59 min 4 1:18 min 5 2:02 min 3 3:57 min 3 4:42 min 4 5:48 min 5 7:07 min 4 7:20 min 3 8:04 min 3 8:07 min 4 8:46 min 4 9:41 min 2 10:15 min 1 10:36 min 2 10:46 min 3 10:55 min 4 11:26 min 5 12:04 min 4 12:49 min 3 13:00 min 3 13:26 min 4 15:13 min 2 15:49 min 3 16:43 min 4 17:29 min 3 18:39 min 3 19:27 min 1 19:56 min 2 Time in in Time minutes 20:21 min 3 21:00 min 2 24:15 min 1 24:35 min 2 25:49 min 3 26:06 min 4 26:36 min 4 26:53 min 2 27:04 min 3 27:40 min 4 29:38 min 3 31:35 min 3 32:23 min 3 33:33 min 3 33:53 min 4 35:19 min 3 36:17 min 4 36:44 min 5 37:06 min 4 37:20 min 3 37:27 min 3 38:24 min 3 39:08 min 2 39:28 min 2 40:30 min 1 40:40 min 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of modules being played

Figure 4.1

33

Played modules Time in Remarks minutes 1 00:08 The work starts with the pulse in balafon. 1,2 00:30 1,2,3 00:41 1,2,3,5 00:59 Accompanying G – C melody in mbira. 1,2,3,4,5 01:18 C – C (octave) in melodica. 4,5,6 02:02 Lots of accompanying percussion. From 03:32 minutes E – D – C melody in flute, resolving in some improvisation on this melody. 5,6,7 03:57 5,6,7,8 04:42 Module 8 in voice, singers add an A between the G and F of the module. From 04:58, improvisation in singing, which centres around a C. 5,6,7,8,9 05:48 5,8,9,10 07:07 8,9,10 07:20 Improvisation from 07:40 in string instrument (probably kora). 8,10,11 08:04 8,10,11,12 08:07 10,11,12,13 08:46 Recurring F in melodica (no module). 11,13 09:41 The musicians seem to be making a diminuendo. 16 10:15 Some kora improvisation in the background. 16,17 10:36 16,17,18 10:46 14,16,17,18 10:55 Bass has a specific melodic line: E – G – B. Start of module 14 in voice. 14,16,17,18,19 11:26 14,18,19,20 12:04 14,20,22 12:49 19,20,22 13.00 20,21,22,23 13:26 Module 21 seems to be present very shortly. The bass stops around 13:40. Percussion makes a diminuendo. From 14:40, improvisation in kora. 23,24 15:16 23,24,25 15:49 From 16:17, improvisation by a bowed string instrument (violin?). 14,23,24,25 16:43 14,25,26 17:29 25,26,27 18:39 27 19:27 From 19:47, we hear a G played in guitar/plucked string instrument. 27,28 19:56 27,28,29 20:21 Diminution in module 29. Modules 27 and 28 slowly fade away. Percussion (pulse) slowly stops. 29,30 21:00 Pulse in percussion has stopped. Slowdown in tempo. Improvisation in voice (spoken word and singing), kora, some percussion. Tranquil atmosphere. 31 24:15 Before start of module 31, the music has almost faded away. Module 31 feels like a new beginning. Pulse starts softly in percussion. 31,32 24:35 A lot of percussion enters the music again. From 25:01, A - C pattern in percussion. 31,32,35 25:49 31,32,33,35 26:06 Module 35 in melodica. 31,32,34,35 26:36 32,34 26:53 A lot of accompanying percussion. 36,37,38 27:04 From 27:10, a prominent C – A pattern in percussion. 36,37,38,39 27:40 From 27:50, improvisation in plucked string instrument (kora). It is a bit unclear which module are played in the background. 37,41,42 29:38 37,42,43 31:35 From 31:50, C scales in melodica (C-D-E-F-G) which change to fast short C’s. Improvisation in a bowed string instrument from 32:11. 42,43,44 32:23 Improvisation in a bowed string instrument continues. 43,44,45 33:33 29,43,44,45 33:53 Percussion makes a diminuendo. Tranquil atmosphere from 34:20. Improvisation in a bowed string instrument. 29,45,48 35:19 Module 48 in voice. Mbira plays short C’s. Variation on module 44 in balafon around 36:17. 29,45,46,48 36:17 29,45,46,47,48 36:44

34

29,46,47,48 37:06 29,47,48 37:20 47,48,49 37:27 From 37:50, module 49 in half tempo in electric guitar. 47,48,51 38:24 50,51 39:08 52,53 39:28 Some improvisation in kora. Melodica (?) plays a distinct rhythm in D - E. Percussion slowly fades away. 52 40:30 Module 52 interwoven into the improvisation of the kora. Slowly, only the kora and the melodica remain. 53 40:40 Work ends on a G in module 53 in kora. Figure 4.2

What does this all mean for the harmonic course of In C Mali? In C Mali begins in C major. The familiar first modules, together with a clear C in the pulse, are accompanied by long C’s in flute (module 6, both high and low octave), C’s (octave) in melodica and a G – C melody in mbira. The improvisation in singing, around 04:58 minutes, centres around a C. The woman’s voice constantly returns to this C.

After approximately 07:00 minutes, module 10 enters the work, and slowly the focus shifts from C to G. Module 11, and later module 13, play a central role and are repeated for a long time. The improvisation in kora, starting around 07:40 minutes, centre on a G. From 08:46 minutes we hear short F-notes in melodica in the background. The F sharp of module 14 is postponed by the musicians and does not sound until after module 16. These particularities suggest a change to G Mixolydian.

Africa Express introduces the F sharp from module 14 at the same time as the F sharp of module 18. This happens after the first wave: right before the music went from four modules, via two, to only module 16. The introduction of the F sharp creates a whole different atmosphere. In combination with modules 16 and 17, we hear a lot of B’s, F sharp’s and E’s. This is enhanced by the bassline, which plays a sequence of E – G – B from 10:55 minutes. It seems as if the musicians introduce the E Aeolian modulation, usually expected around modules 22 – 26, a lot earlier. Module 14 stays present in the music until module 22 enters, merging the 22 – 26 passage seamlessly into the harmonic matrass created at the start of the second wave.

The second wave ends with module 27 and 28. The hard F sharp of these modules gets softened by a G in guitar, slowly foretelling the G of module 29. At 20:21 minutes, module 29 enters the music and the change is imminent. After modules 27 and 28 fade away, the music is left with modules 29 and 30 for around four minutes. A tranquil interlude in C major, almost perceptible as a fourth little wave in the recording.

Modules 31 and 32 suggest a return to G Mixolydian. Module 35 is played so rapidly and without any real emphasis, that it seems unlikely for this module to change the harmony. Quite soon after the third wave started, we hear percussion playing an A – C pattern in the background (from 25:01 minutes). From 27:10 minutes, after module 35 has sounded, this percussion becomes very prominent. The improvisation in kora seems to be playing towards a D (the dominant in G Mixolydian context), although the A and C (supertonic and subdominant) also get a lot of attention.

There seems to be a change in harmony around module 43: the music seems to return to C major. The melodica plays a C scale towards G, later changing into short C’s. Improvisation in a bowed string instrument centres around a C and G. Even module 29 is brought back around 33:53 minutes. Module 48 and the preceding diminuendo mark the last chapter, towards the conclusion of In C Mali. The work still seems to be solid in C, with module 47 and 48 accompanying module 49. But as the music progresses, the B flat of module 49 becomes more prominent. There is some improvisation in kora that seems to centre around a D, and a distinct rhythm in melodica (consisting of D – E, from

35

39:14 minutes) that stays present till the end. G Dorian, as Carl suggests In C ends, could indeed be the scale in which In C Mali ends. With the G of module 53 sounding last.

Overall, we can see that the musicians of Africa Express take some liberties with the score and the ‘guidelines’ of In C. The ensemble follows the route of the 53 modules, playing (almost) all of them. At the same time, by changing some of the original module sequence and adding solo improvisations, variations, spoken word and a thick layer of percussion, they give their own spin to the work. There is less spontaneity with the modules as perhaps Riley would have liked, the order seems to be discussed beforehand. Decisions seem to have been made beforehand regarding the harmonic flow of the work and the musicians added some tranquil moments in between the mostly festive atmosphere of this African version of In C. Still, with all the alterations, the recording is unmistakably In C.

4.4.2. Recording 2: In C – Terry Riley + Stargaze

Recording: live performance, streamed by Boiler Room Location: Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Year: April 5, 2015 Website: https://boilerroom.tv/recording/terry- riley-friends-in-c/ Performers: Terry Riley + Stargaze Instrumentation: Terry Riley (Korg synthesizer, voice), André de Ridder (violin), Liam Byrne (viola da gamba), Lisa de Boos (doublebass), Aart Strootman (guitar), David Six (piano), Johannes Fischer (percussion), Djelifily Sako (kora), Maaike van der Linde (flute, bassflute, voice), Marlies van Gangelen (oboe, delta harp), Ausiàs Garrigós Morant (clarinet, bass-clarinet), Morris Kliphuis (horn, cornet), Mads Brauer (electronics) Duration: 67:00 minutes Tempo: ♩ = 68 at the beginning of the performance. During the performance the musicians accelerate to a maximum of ♩ = 137.

In April 2015, the Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ, an Amsterdam based concert hall, hosted their biannual World Minimal Music Festival with Terry Riley himself as the guest of honour. On the opening night, the composer participated in a performance of his In C, together with André de Ridder’s Stargaze.219 Together with his musical collective Stargaze,220 he had a rare chance to perform with Riley himself. The result is fascinating example of how In C sounds with the composer joining in the performance, almost fifty years after the first recording of In C came out. Boiler Room, the British online music

219 Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ, “Concert Terry Riley & Friends.” [online] 220 Official website Stargaze, “About us.” [online] 36 broadcasting platform, made a livestream of this concert. This livestream is still available today through their website,221 and it is this livestream that I have analysed.222

A consequence of this livestream is that the quality of the recording is not as good as a cd-recording. When listening to the livestream and seeing the video at the same time, it is clear that not every visible movement of the musicians can also be heard and vice versa. I have focused mainly on the sound of the video and aimed my determination of when a certain module enters the music on the sounds I heard, even though the video might have suggested otherwise.

Stargaze is a “bunch of people who are trained and have been working in classical and classical- contemporary music.”223 The ensemble gets excited by developments in “contemporary pop, and other uncategorizable genres”224 and tries to implement their love for these genres into their music. The choice for electronics and an electric guitar in this performance of In C thus sounds logical. The performance lasts 67 minutes and is a rather groovy version of In C, sometimes with a pop/rock atmosphere surrounding the music.

There seems to have been made clear agreements between the musicians beforehand about the flow of the performance. There are some collective crescendo’s and diminuendo’s, as well as some ritenuto’s and accelerando’s. Some sections of the composition have been giving their own character, with extra percussion or a focus on improvisation by kora or electric guitar. There is no pulse, making the performance sometimes feel slightly out of rhythm. However, there is a big role for the percussionist who keeps the rhythm steady most of the time, while adding some character to the music. Riley definitely is the star of the concert, often taking the lead in introducing new modules throughout the performance.

Figure 4.3 shows the familiar chart with the number of modules played subsequently. Figure 4.4 shows the additional information. The chart shows us that the ensemble stays within a maximum of five modules played at the same time. This mostly happens at the beginning of the performance. The further the music progresses, the more compact the music seems to become, with the musicians staying within two or three modules from each other. There are a couple of moments in the performance that we hear only one module. Some of these moments seem to be short interludes, leading up to the next modules (for example modules 15 and 37). Others, like module 14 and module 35, seem deliberately planned to be played by themselves.

Almost all of the musicians play all the modules. Some modules, for example modules 40, 52 and 53, are not clearly recognizable in the thick musical layer. The performers seem to have a clear idea of how they want to structure the performance. Certain entrances of particular modules, or the specific percussion instruments that are used to underline a passage, seem to be premeditated.

There is no pulse. Now and again one of the instruments plays short or longer C’s, as replacement for the missing pulse. The percussionist adds, occasionally, some much-needed rhythmical structure. The work starts in ♩ = 68. As the modules progress, the musicians slowly speed up. Around 07:45 minutes we count ♩ = 78. At 08:40 minutes, there is a clear accelerando, which speeds the rhythm up to a ♩ = 110 around 12:40 minutes. The crescendo towards module 19, around 25:00 minutes, again brings a

221 Boiler Room, “Terry Riley & Friends – In C.” [online] 222 By courtesy of the Muziekgebouw, I was lucky enough to receive a copy of their own recording of this particular concert. The concert hall makes recordings of each concert for their own archive. The quality however, of this particular recording, was less than the Boiler Room version. I used the Muziekgebouw recording as a back-up, to occasionally check when in doubt which modules were played. The analysis however, is solely based on the Boiler Room livestream. 223 Official website Stargaze, “About us.” [online] 224 Ibid. 37 faster tempo. Around 26 minutes, we count ♩ = 135. This wavelike effect is visible throughout the entire performance. Module 22 starts in ♩ = 108. At the end of the passage the ♩ = 137. The tempo slows down again when we near module 29.

The instrumentation is quite diverse, with kora, viola da gamba, electric guitar, synthesizer and electronics. The musicians clearly took to heart this rare chance to be able to use any possible combination of instruments. Not surprisingly, the musicians stayed mostly true to the guidelines of In C (see addendum 2 for an overview). The indicated deviations of the guidelines center around the percussion and the lack of pulse, and around the ending of this version of In C. Now and then, the percussion seems to dominate the music a little too much, making it difficult to discern which modules are being played. There is quite some rhythmic augmentation going on in this performance. Module 16, for example, is played twice as slow by horn and oboe. The same happens with module 49 in toy piano.

How do the musicians take care of the salient points of In C? The passage of module 22 – 26 certainly gets some extra attention. Before module 22 enters the music, the ensemble makes a diminuendo, and for a moment 22 is the only module we hear (beside a soft module 21 in flute). Module 22 is introduced on the delta harp, an instrument that we had not yet heard until that moment. The crescendo taking place during the passage has already been mentioned. Percussion enters quite soon after module 22 has started, and it is the that transform the passage into a pulsating, almost chaotic whole. Module 22 enters the music at 30:49 minutes, not at 1/3 of the work, but almost halfway through the total length. The passage lasts around seven minutes. At 37:20 minutes module 26 has died away. Interestingly, after module 26 has left the music, the musicians almost immediately introduce module 29. In this way moving quickly from one highlight, to the next.

Module 29 is introduced with a small diminuendo. While the percussionist continues drumming for a while, the rest of the musicians introduce module 29 one by one. Module 27, 28 and the percussion die away, leaving us with two minutes of calmness. With modules 29 and 30, the musicians create waves of C-triads, on which Riley and some other musicians sing module 29 while the kora improvises. The passage lasts around two minutes. No major salient point, but a short, calm interlude, before we continue towards module 35.

Module 35 is introduced around 45:12 minutes. That is, surprisingly, at 2/3 of the total recording. There seems to be a small diminuendo towards module 35. The module starts in Riley’s Korg synthesizer. Accompanied by a layer of modules 33 and 34, the keyboard plays the module four times. Around 46:51 minutes, the horn enters with module 35, and slowly by slowly more instruments join. The result is the only real unison moment of the performance. Around 48:32 minutes, module 35 is played two times in unison by several instruments, with only shaker eggs in percussion in the background. Around 49:24 minutes there is a shift: one instrument enters a little later with module 35, thus ending the unison section. There seems to be a diminuendo around 50:02 minutes, signalling the end of module 35. The total passage lasts approximately five minutes.

Also worth mentioning, is the passage around module 14. The three minutes of music surrounding this module (and module 15 as well) seem to be well planned. Module 14 is introduced at 19:05 minutes in the woodwinds. From approximately 20:00 minutes, the module is sung by Riley. There is some diminuendo and a ritenuto, slowly calming the music and creating a short moment of reflection around 21:00 minutes, when module 14 is the only module still played (not in unison though). A minute later, around 22:00 minutes, the percussion slowly picks up the tempo, and the violin introduces module 15 in pizzicato. What follows is one of the more ‘groovier’ parts of this performance of In C. Module 15 moves back and forth between instruments, while the percussion

38 and electronics take care of the beat. This passage seems well thought off and planned beforehand. Module 14 returns a little later, accompanying modules 15 – 19.

As mentioned before, Stargaze and Terry Riley decided not to use a pulse during the performance. Does this have any consequence for the harmonic course of this version of In C? The performance starts with an improvisation in the kora. The improvisation seems to focus around an F, ending on an B – E – F – B melody. On this foundation, the viola da gamba starts with module 1. With the amount of E in both kora and module 1, does the performance perhaps start in E? Not long into the performance, it becomes clear that In C has really started in C. Around 01:50 minutes, Riley joins the performance singing long C’s. The electric guitar strums C’s, and with the entry of module 2 the music seems to settle for C major.

Module 14, around 19:00 minutes, brings a F sharp. The module starts softly in the background, slowly gaining more momentum. Meanwhile, the toy piano plays loud F’s and we hear modules 11, 12 and 13 in the other instruments. The music seems deeply rooted in C, but the F sharp starts to give some friction. From 19:42 minutes, the guitar plays short E’s. The emphasis on module 14, and later on module 15, makes the transition to G major clear. According to the literature, another modulation is expected with the arrival of module 18. In this performance however, module 18 is surrounded by a thick layer of module 17, 19 and also, still, module 14. The emphasis on the G, mostly in module 19, seem to make it clear that the music is still in G major.

At 30:00 minutes, with the entrance of modules 20 and 21, the music moves from G major to E Aeolian. With the arrival of C in modules 29 and 30 a little later, the music moves back to C major. Around 43:00 minutes, the music arrives at modules 32 and 33. Here, Riley adds a melody on the synthesizer consisting of B – A – C – B. The extra added A, and the sounding tetrachord of F, G, B, C, seem to indicate a shift to G Mixolydian.

After module 35, the ensemble makes a crescendo through modules 37 – 40. Module 39 gets some extra attention and is clearly audible in the violin. The guitar plays extra C’s around 52:30 minutes. There is no clear modulation to be heard, indicating that the music is possibly still in G-Mixolydian. Module 42 brings the A back into the music. The guitar adds an extra G to the module. It is not until the arrival of B flat in module 49 that we can discern one last modulation. Riley focusses on the B flat while singing, and in combination with some long, low G’s in the background, glissandi in electronics from C – D and short G’s in the piano, this seems to indicate a change to G Dorian. The last note we hear is the G of module 53.

This performance of In C tried to stay true to the intentions of the composer, while at the meantime adding a personal spin to the music. By adding some unusual instruments - like the viola da gamba and the kora - and the use of electronics, Stargaze made the performance stand out from others. Stargaze decided not to use the pulse - but to let each ensemble member play occasional C’s when needed - and to add an extensive array of percussion. This extra percussion, and its broad scale of percussion instruments, created some almost pop/rock episodes in the music. It seems clear that the musicians made agreements beforehand concerning the flow and order of the music. Some modules got a little more attention than others and some entrances of certain musicians seemed to have been staged. There was a key role for Riley himself, who added some personal touches to the music with his signing.

39

In C - Terry Riley + Stargaze - number of modules being played subsequently

1:39 2:48 5:06 9:56 11:56 12:47 14:02 15:19 16:57 19:28 21:00 22:51 24:30 25:05 27:26 29:10 30:36 31:00 33:24

34:58 Time in in Time minutes 36:04 36:52 39:24 42:15 43:30 44:15 45:30 48:32 50:02 50:35 51:31 55:00 56:53 58:08 59:50 64:33 66:10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of modules being played

Figure 4.3

40

Played Time in Remarks modules minutes 00:00 The performance starts with improvisation in kora. 1 00:33 Improvisation in kora continues a while. There is no pulse. Strum C’s in electric guitar. From 01:50 minutes, Riley sings long C’s. 1,2 01:39 Long C’s in bass. The singing continues. 1,2,3 02:06 1,2,3,4 02:48 1,2,3,4,5 04:00 Percussion enters around 04:20 with C’s on a hollow pipe. This seems to have a pulse-like function. 2,3,4,5,6 05:06 4,5,6,7 07:31 Some improvisation in kora around 08:05. From 08:40, accelerando and crescendo. 4,5,6,7,8 09:59 4,7,8,9 11:02 Module 4 in piano. The piano sometimes adds an extra C on the first beat of the module. Perhaps to replace the missing pulse? 4,7,8,9,10 11:56 7,8,9,10 12:30 8,9 12:47 Improvisation in percussion and electronics. Fast C’s in electric guitar. 7,8,9 13:00 Fast C’s in electric guitar continue. Improvisation in kora. 7,8,9,10 14:02 10,11 14:36 Around 15:00, there is some ritenuto. 9,10,11 15:19 Riley seems to play the pulse on his Korg keyboard for a while. 11,12 16:19 11,12,13 16:57 From 17:10, singing by Riley. 11,12,13,14 19:05 Prominent F notes in toypiano. 11,12,13,14,15 19:28 From 19:42, short E notes in guitar. 13,14,15 20:00 Module 14 in voice, sung by Riley. Some diminuendo towards 21:00. 14 21:00 Ritenuto. Only module 14 is still being played (also sung by Riley). Strum B’s by guitar around 21:42. 14,15 22:09 Module 15 enters hesitatingly in pizzicato violin. Percussion enters also. From 22:15, high C’s in guitar. 15 22:51 High C’s in guitar continue. Percussion in the background. 15,16 23:14 Module 16 diminuted in, amongst others, the woodwinds. 15,16,17 24:30 14,15,16,17 24:44 14,17,18 25:05 Slowly, the musicians make a crescendo. Percussion becomes more present. 14,18,19 26:44 14,19 27:26 Improvisation in guitar, kora and viola da gamba around 27:46. 19 28:57 19,20 29:10 20,21 29:34 Diminuendo. Percussion fades slowly. Also, some ritenuto. 20,21,22 30:36 21,22 30:49 21,22,23 31:00 Percussion softly enters again around 31:10. Improvisation in kora until the end of module 26. 22,23,24 32:08 23,24,25 33:24 Beginning of a crescendo. 25,26 34:36 Crescendo. 26,27 34:58 More and more crescendo. 26,27,28 36:01 Crescendo keeps on building. Very present percussion. 22,26,27,28 36:04 Module 22 makes a re-appearance in guitar. 22,26,28 36:28 26,27,28 36:52 27,28,29 37:20 With the entering of module 29, the ensemble gradually makes a diminuendo. Module 27, and later module 28, die away. Percussion fades out gradually. More and more musicians start playing module 29. 29,30 39:24 Riley sings. No pulse or percussion for a while. Some improvisation in kora. 29,30,31 41:35 Singing continues. Percussion returns. 30,31 42:15 Some improvisations by violin and later in Riley’s Korg. 30,31,32 42:45 Around 43:00, a specific melody in Korg, consisting of B – A – C – B (centred around a B). 30,31,32,33 43:30

41

32,33 43:54 32,33,34 44:15 Some diminuendo towards module 35. 33,34,35 45:12 34,35 45:30 Module 35 first in Riley’s Korg, later in horn and violin. Percussion makes a crescendo around 47:41. 34,35,36 48:04 More and more instruments join in module 35. 35 48:32 Unison module 35. Percussion plays shaker eggs in the background. 35,36 49:00 Clarinet enters module 35 a little later than the rest of the ensemble, around 49:23, offsetting the musical structure. 35,37 50:02 Some instruments drop out around 50:02, creating some unexpected stillness. Some tanpura sounds from the electronics. 37 50:20 Shaker eggs in percussion. Short C’s in electronics it seems. 37,38 50:35 35,37,38 51:18 Module 35 returns once in clarinet. 37,38,39 51:31 Crescendo around 51:40. Improvisation in guitar, percussion and electronics. Lots of background sounds surrounding the modules. 39,40,41,42 53:41 Because of the wall of sound of guitar, percussion and electronics, it is not very clear which modules are being played. 39,42,43 55:00 41,42,44 55:56 41,44 56:53 41,44,45 57:10 Crescendo around 57:15, centred around module 45. Strum D’s in guitar, from 57:22. 45,46 58:08 Sudden diminuendo. Improvisation in kora. 45,46,48 59:15 Improvisation in kora continues. 46,47,48 59:50 Improvisation in kora. Diminution in module 47 on toy piano. Around 61:16, singing by Riley. Diminuendo. 48,49 62:38 Singing continues. B flat – C in flute. From 63:33, C’s in percussion. Ritenuto from 63:50, especially in module 49 (violin). 48,49,51 64:33 49,51,50 64:45 Glissando’s from C – D in guitar + electronics from 65:02. From 65:10, module 50 doubled in strings (FF – GG). 50,53 66:10 G’s in piano. Work ends with module 53. G sounds the longest after the musicians stopped playing. Figure 4.4

42

4.4.3. Recording 3: In C Remixed – GVSU New Music Ensemble

For the third recording, I chose two remixes of the album In C Remixed. This double cd contains, in addition to a performance of In C by the Grand Valley State University New Music Ensemble, 18 remixes of In C made by a group of upcoming and settled producers, composers and DJ’s. The idea of making these remixes came from Bill Ryan, founder of the GVSU New Music Ensemble, and he assembled the remixers.225 The GVSU New Music Ensemble gave “their lively and incisive tracks”226 to the remixers to use as they pleased. The result is an album with 18 remixes, each between 6 and 8 minutes long that, despite their enormous differences, all pay homage to In C in some way. For this analysis, I chose two of these remixes: In C Semi-Detached by Jack Dangers and In C with Canons and Bass by Nico Muhly.

4.4.3.1. Remix 1: In C Semi-Detached – Jack Dangers

Recording: innova Year: 2010 Composer: Jack Dangers Performers: Jack Dangers (electronics) Duration: 06:39 minutes Tempo: ♩ = 126

Jack Dangers chose to stay close to his expertise with In C Semi-Detached. The English electronic musician, composer and sound sculptor is mainly known for his work with , an group. Dangers has a lot of experience with remixing existing work and collaborated with and reworked material for David Bowie, and .227 Although no classical musician, Dangers was familiar with Riley’s work: “I participated in a performance of Terry Riley's In C at the San Francisco Symphony Hall. I was not part of the orchestra, but part of the audience. The audience was asked to bring their instruments and participate in the construction of the piece. The fact that each participating musician helped create the music and it is different each time it is played was interesting to me. In C is based around the pulse, a strong piano note repeated, and acts as the foundation of the track and everything layers around it. I wanted to see what the piece sounded like with drums and then with vocoder […].”228

The remix does remind the listener of In C. The pulse is prominently present throughout the work, both in keyboard as in drums. Especially in the beginning do we hear some familiar modules. However, quite soon into the remix Dangers drops the modules and creates his own melodies. Dangers does not use all of the modules. He only uses a couple, picking the ones that suit his remix best. Although he starts with modules 1 and 2, he skips module 3 and presents module 5 before 4.

225 In C Remixed, “The Story.” [online] 226 Soundcloud, “In C Remixed. GVSU New Music Ensemble.” [online] 227 Official website of Meat Beat Manifesto, “Biography.” [online]. See for a more extensive biography of Jack Dangers his website: http://meatbeatmanifesto.com/bio/ 228 Official website In C Remixed, “Downloads/Notes.” [online] 43

After about a minute into the work Dangers adds a beat (a C sharp). Around 02:42 minutes, Dangers drops all the modules. What remains is purely his own work, with a melody in vocoder consisting of B flat - C – D, accompanied by the pulse and some other melodic decoration. Module 27 is the first familiar In C related melody we hear again around 04:12 minutes into the work. Until the end of the remix, Dangers works with his own melodies, accompanied by modules 27, 28 and 29. The work ends with the same melodic line of B flat - C – D in vocoder, accompanied by the pulse and a beat.

Even though it’s quite clear that Dangers did not completely follow the score or the guidelines of In C, it was worth it to revise the remix along the guidelines of Riley’s In C. See addendum 3. Dangers does seem to follow a couple of Riley’s guidelines, although it does raise the question whether this is due to coincidence than to an intention to stay true to the composer’s work. He uses the modules, especially after 02:42 minutes, more like melodic decoration than as the main melody or focus of the music. The tempo of the remix is quite consistent, there are some small tempo changes, but those are negligible. The remix seems to be completely computer-made. Figure 4.5 shows the number of modules being played at the same time during the remix. Figure 4.6 shows the information which is used to form figure 4.5.

In C Remixed: In C Semi-Detached (Jack Dangers Remix) Number of modules being played simultaneously

0:17 0:30 0:49 1:05 1:24 1:37 1:57 2:16 2:42 3:17 3:33 4:12 4:28 4:33 4:40

Time in in Time minutes 4:43 4:46 4:53 4:57 5:03 5:04 5:09 5:12 6:00 6:17 6:39 0 1 2 3 4

Number of modules being played

Figure 4.5

44

Dangers chose to not use any of the salient points of In C. We do not hear the sequence of modules 22 – 26, nor does he use module 35. Also, the F sharp of module 14 or the A in module 42 are not used. We do hear module 29, hurriedly played around 04:36 minutes. What does this mean for the harmonic course of the remix? The work starts with the C in the pulse and modules 1, 2, 4 and 5. So far, the music suggests the work is in C. At 01:09 minutes however, a C sharp in the beat enters the music, creating an uncomfortable atmosphere. At 02:16 minutes, Dangers stops all the modules, leaving the listener with the pulse (C) and with a new melody in vocoder: B flat – C – D. The emphasis on the B flat, suggests a modulation to B flat major. However, since we do not hear a leading note (an A), it’s difficult to be sure whether the music modulated from C to B flat or if Dangers used a minor 7th.

At 03:17 minutes, the pulse in the keyboard stops. We are left with the B flat – C – D melody in vocoder. Soon, Dangers introduces a new melody: B flat – D flat – E flat – E flat – F. Did Dangers modulate to a B flat minor scale? By letting the melody jump from a B flat to a D flat, and ending the melodic line on a F, Dangers emphasizes the B flat minor triad. 04:33 minutes introduces module 29, and from 04:46 minutes we hear the pulse again in keyboard. The reintroduction of C into the music suggests a return to C major. We remain however with the B flat – C – D melody and a B flat – E movement in a flute-like instrument. The work ends with the C in the pulse + B flat – C – D in vocoder. It is not completely clear whether Dangers modulates throughout the remix, or if he even considered the rules of harmony while composing his remix. It seems more likely that Dangers intuitively went for what seemed to work well while composing, instead of predesigning the harmonic progression of his remix. Perhaps very much in style with Riley’s own way of composing.

Played Time in Remarks modules minutes 1 0:17 1,2 0:30 2 0:49 From 00:44 minutes, Dangers adds an E to the figure in module 2. 2,5 1:05 At 01:09, Dangers adds a beat (a C sharp) to the music. 4 1:24 4,5 1:37 4,5,6 1:57 Module 4 and 5 alternate. 5,6,7 2:16 We hear a melodic decoration that sounds like module 7. 2:42 Dangers drops the modules and introduces long tones in vocoder (B flat – C – D). The pulse continues. 3:17 The pulse in keyboard stops. Percussion and vocoder remain. 3:33 Melody in vocoder: B flat – D flat – E flat – E flat – F. This melody is played only once. 27 4:12 28 4:28 Module 28 enters, Dangers improvises a bit with the ending of the module. 28,29 4:33 Module 29 is played twice. 4:40 Improvisation by Dangers. 4:43 Flute-like instrument plays B flat – E. 4:46 Pulse in keyboard returns. Long C-note in the background. 28 4:53 Melody in the background consisting of D – F – G. 4:57 Improvisation by Dangers. 28 5:03 5:04 Improvisation by Dangers. 28 5:09 Module 28 in the background. 5:12 D- F- G melody, B flat – E in flute-like instrument and other melodic decoration by Dangers. 28 6:00 Module 28 in the background. 6:17 Melody in vocoder (B flat – C – D) returns. 6:39 Work ends with the pulse and vocoder. Figure 4.6

45

4.4.3.2. Remix 2: In C with Canons and Bass – Nico Muhly

Recording: innova Year: 2010 Composer: Nico Muhly Performers: Musicians from the Grand Valley State University New Music Ensemble Duration: 07:41 minutes Tempo: ♩ = 126

Nico Muhly is no stranger to the music of Terry Riley. The contemporary classical composer has been familiar with In C since a young age. “The year I discovered In C was the same year I started listening to all the big masterworks of the American minimal tradition. I was 14, I was at Tanglewood, it was heaven.”229 Muhly studied composition at Juilliard School in New York and worked for Philip Glass, for whom he conducted and made demos of his film scores. Muhly’s own works have been played by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Juilliard Orchestra and the Paris Opera, among others.230

For the cd In C Remixed, Muhly created a version of In C that, according to him “[…] hints sideways at Einstein on the Beach, Music for 18 Musicians, and into the future, towards Michael Gordon, towards , towards my generation, and out into the open air”, he writes on the site of In C Remixed.”231 Although completely different from Jack Dangers remix, In C with Canons and Bass also resembles In C in its own way. The remix starts with module 29, a module that will fulfil an important role in the remix, as we will see later. The pulse arrives after 20 seconds. Contrary to Dangers, Muhly does not add any melodies of his own, but strictly uses the melodic material of In C’s modules. Muhly only adds a bass-line to the remix. This does not mean Muhly followed the modules consecutively. Just like Dangers, Muhly chose the modules that would suit his composition best and mixed their order.

Again, I looked at the number of modules played at the same time and at how well Muhly’s remix follows Riley’s guideline. This resulted in the following chart (figure 4.7) and addendum 4. Muhly chose to use a maximum of 4 modules at the same time, and a minimum of just one. He never completely abandons the modules, nor does he stop using the pulse during the remix. Muhly does not follow the numerical order of the modules and uses both modules from the beginning as the end of In C. He starts with module 29, then jumps to module 21, before introducing module 8. Module 1 arrives after a minute into the composition. Muhly uses modules 1 – 11 (except for 10), module 15, module 21, 29 and 30, and from the higher regions modules 41, 42, 47, 49 and 50. Module 53 is the highest numerical module Muhly uses. Interestingly, Muhly combines modules from the earlier and later regions of the original sequence of the modules. For example, modules 3 and 42 around 02:11 minutes. Another point of interest is the way Muhly starts and ends his remix with module 29. He begins and ends his composition with the same modules: 29, 23, 21 and 8. Perhaps the title refers to this canonical quality of the work: In C with Canons and Bass. The work’s ending suggests a return to its beginning, making it circular. The ‘Bass’ in the title clearly points to the bass added to the music.

229 In C Remixed, “Downloads/Notes.” [online] 230 In C Remixed, “Nico Muhly.” [online] 231 In C Remixed, “Downloads/Notes.” [online] 46

Muhly lets a maximum of three instrument play the same module at the same time. There are no unison passages. The tempo is not too fast, there are no accelerando’s. The pulse is present throughout almost the whole remix. When we look at the salient points of In C, Muhly chose not to use module 35 and from the sequence 22 – 26 he only used module 23. However, module 29 has a leading role in In C with Canons and Bass, by opening and closing the work.

In C Remixed: In C with Canons and Bass (Nico Muhly Remix) Number of modules being played simutaneously

0:09

0:59

1:19

1:33

2:06

2:26

2:44

2:55

3:19

3:39

3:47 Time in in Time minutes 4:17

4:38

5:07

5:38

6:12

6:55

7:11

7:27 0 1 2 3 4 5

Number of modules being played

Figure 4.7

As for the harmonic course of the work: The beginning of the remix - with module 29 - seems to suggest a clear start in C major. However, soon into the recording a F sharp (module 21) appears in oboe. This could mean an augmented fourth, which would - just as with In C itself - plead for C Lydian.232 It could also mean that the work started in G major. With the arrival of module 8 after a

232 Potter 2000, p. 113 47 minute and the low bass playing C and A’s, it seems likely that the work is indeed in G major. Especially, with the arrival of an A with module 42 (in In C itself, the arrival of A suggests a modulation to G major233).

At 03:10 minutes, module 29 brings a B flat. The bass plays A – G – F for a while, resolving into A – G – C at 03:40 minutes. The bassline ends on a C, suggesting a modulation to C major. The ending of In C with Canons and Bass brings back the beginning: modules 8, 21, 29. The same question rises here as well: does Muhly end in C major, or in G major? The last sounding module is 29. The work ends on a C, suggesting that, indeed, this version of In C at least ends in C.

Played Time in Remarks modules minutes 29 00:00 After 3 seconds, a low C enters the work (perhaps module 6?). No pulse yet. 29,21 00:09 The pulse enters the work around 00:19 minutes. 29,21 00:19 29,8,21 00:50 Module 29 stops, but we do continue to hear its high C for a while longer. 23,8 00:59 8 01:10 Low bass enters (low C’s & A’s). 1 01:19 2 01:24 1,2,8 01:33 Flute plays a long, low E. 1,2,8 01:41 1,2,9,42 01:54 2,41,42 02:06 3,42 02:11 3,42 02:17 3,4,42 02:26 The bass stops. 4,5,42 02:36 5,42,47 02:44 47 02:51 6,47 02:55 49 03:10 The bass returns at 03:13 (A – G – F). 7,49 03:19 7,8,49 03:22 From 03:33, the pulse is played on and off by electric guitar (with distortion). 8,50 03:39 8,50 03:40 From 03:44, the C returns in the bass (A – G – C). 8,53 03:47 7,53 03:56 7 04:17 The bass stops at 04:26. 7,8 04:34 7,8,11 04:38 7,8 04:44 8,9 05:07 9 05:33 9,11 05:38 At 05:41, the bass returns (low C’s). 9,15 06:03 15,21,29 06:14 From 06:12, there is a C – A figure in bass, with an E around 06:27. 21 06:55 The bass stops. 8,21,30 07:02 8,23,29 07:11 8,29 07:23 29 07:27 The pulse stops. Figure 4.8

233 Carl 2009, p. 69 48

4.5. Then and now: comparison between the recordings

We now have seen and heard four very different interpretations of In C. What remains, is to establish how these recordings differ from the first 1968 recording. In doing so, it might be possible to determine how a new generation looks at and works with In C. One of the research methods was to compare the recordings with Riley’s guidelines. Interestingly enough, these guidelines were written after the first recording. When compared with his own guidelines, the 1968 recording would not comply with all of them. There are few to no group crescendos and diminuendos, the musicians stray from each other as far as a maximum of six modules at certain points, and there is no large crescendo and diminuendo at the end of the recording around module 53. The musicians do however follow the sequence of the modules strictly, there is an ever-present pulse, and the musicians listen very carefully to each other.

In C Mali follows the guidelines to some extent. There is a good group dynamic, a consistent rhythm, a present pulse, and no instrument taking a leading role. The most notable deviations are the way of dealing with the sequence of the modules – some modules are not played or played at a later stage - and the not so precise way of reproducing the modules. It is Stargaze’s version of In C that stays the most loyal to the guidelines. Their main deviation lies in the absence of a constant pulse. The percussion seems to overwhelm the ensemble sometimes slightly.

The guidelines prescribe a progression in which the musicians stay within 2 or 3 patterns from each other. In none of the analysed recordings was this the case. For both In C Mali and Stargaze’s In C, the maximum was a distance of five modules. In the 1968 recording, there is even a distance of six modules occasionally. Whereas all the recordings have moments where only one module is played, it is only Stargaze’s In C that has a in unison moment. The sequence of the modules is structurally followed in the 1968 recording. In the newer recordings, the musicians feel free enough to play and experiment with the sequence, moving modules around to better suit the feel or even the harmonic flow of the music. The two new recordings even left some modules out: modules 15 and 40 do not seem to be played in In C Mali, and modules 52 and 53 are not clearly discernible in Stargaze’s In C.

The pulse, very present and maybe the most distinguished element of the 1968 recording, has lost some of its importance in the newer recordings. Both groups replaced the piano-played pulse with a pulse in percussion. Where In C Mali has playing the pulse combined with an extensive array of African percussion, Stargaze’s In C chose to drop the pulse and instead have one percussionist keep up the rhythm occasionally. The other instruments occasionally functioned as a pulse, by adding C’s when the music seemed to need it. The length of the recordings is almost alike, with Stargaze’s In C being the longest with 67 minutes. Also, the tempo does not differ immensely. With ♩=132 for the 1968 recording and ♩=128 for In C Mali, it is the tempo-changes in Stargaze’s In C that grab the attention. With a tempo range from ♩=68 till ♩=137 (and a lot of different tempi in between), it is their performance that has the most ritenuto’s and accelerandi’s. Not surprisingly, it is the performance without the pulse, that has the most tempo fluctuations.

The approach of the salient points of the score differs slightly per recording. Both In C Mali and Stargaze’s In C chose to let certain passages of the score stand out, and thus create different chapters in the book that is In C. Both ensembles chose to highlight section 22 – 26 and to create a moment of calm around modules 29 and 30. The 1968 recording did neither of these things. In C Mali and the 1968 recording do not give module 35 the attention that it perhaps should have gotten, if we purely look at the score. Stargaze’s version, by creating an in a unison moment around module 35, puts the module in the spotlight. Not mentioned in the literature - but visible in the analyses - is the importance of module 14, and the way the two newer recordings deliberately ‘play’ with this

49 module, by either introducing the module later or by having the module be played by a notable instrument.

All in all, the most striking difference between the old and the newer recordings is the difference in approach towards the aspect of ‘freedom’ surrounding In C. Where the two new recordings keep quite close to the score and to the guidelines, both take a lot more liberty in adding or changing elements of In C to support the music. The changes are small, and not perceptible when first listening to the recording. They are clearly made to support the music itself and not for the sake of ‘just’ adding something new to the piece. By repositioning the entrance of certain important modules (for example modules 14 or 29) and by repeating them at a later point during the performance, the musicians keep control over the music while at the same time creating structure for the audience. By adding improvisations and by actively creating highlights and moments of calm, the musicians add an extra layer of character to the music that brings out new aspects of In C.

Of course, we should not forget that Riley himself performed with Stargaze. His contribution to that performance should not be overlooked. We may assume that Riley agreed with the musical decisions made during the concert, and that some of them were perhaps initiated by himself. His Indian singing and his improvisations on keyboard are a result of the years of extensive training with Pandit Pran Nath. The keyboard has been his preferred instrument for many years. The tempo changes, the changes in dynamics, the improvisation and the singing, are all influences from his work after In C. In this recording, Riley seems to look at In C with fresh eyes. By doing so, he underlines the chameleon- like effect that the work entails: In C’s quality to be given a new musical look by its performers.

As for taking the liberty to alter elements of In C: Jack Dangers and Nico Muhly did their best to meet the expectations. Both remixers present work that in a way portrays In C, but that clearly is meant as a creative elaboration on In C’s materials. Both Dangers and Muhly used only a small portion of the modules, and what they used was shuffled in such a way that very little of the original order remained. The pulse is clearly present with both of the remixes.

Jack Dangers made his remix solely with the computer. His use of the first seven modules makes the remix recognizable as (a distant relative of) In C. After a mere 3 minutes into his remix however, Dangers drops the modules and introduces his own melodies with an occasional module from Riley’s score in the background. Nico Muhly, however, chose to stay closer to the original recording in sound. His remix sounds a lot more like In C than Dangers’ his remix does. Perhaps this is because no extra melodies were added. All the material Muhly used comes from a traditional recording of In C. As Muhly mentioned, his remix is a tribute to Riley, but also to his colleagues Glass and Reich, to Gordon and Adams and must be seen as a transitioning of In C into the new generation.

“From the heady days of the 60s to the fastpaced 21st century lifestyle, what has changed in the last 45 years? According to Bill Ryan of the GVSU New Music Ensemble, "In C Remixed" offers 18 answers to that question.”234 Whether the remixes succeeded can be a point of discussion. How much does a remix need to be a representation of the original work to be a good portrayal of In C in the 21st century? It can be argued that the idea of a remix, the re-use of fragmented musical material, is inherent to In C’s structure. What the other two recordings of In C, by Africa Express and Stargaze, show, is that a ‘traditional’ performance of In C can shake things up just as much as a remix does.

234 Soundcloud, “In C Remixed. GVSU New Music Ensemble.” [online] 50

Conclusion

It remains a point of discussion: was In C musical minimalism’s big breakthrough? And does that make Terry Riley the “godfather of minimal music”?235 Luckily, we do not have to answer these questions. The importance of In C in Riley’s life and career seems an undisputed fact. Where Riley himself has never been happy with the label of minimalist236, he has said himself that In C “[…] wasn’t the first minimal piece, [it] was [however] the first piece that showed people how to do it.”237 It were the short, repetitive modules of In C, and not the long drones of La Monte Young, that arguably paved the way for a new musical genre. The premiere - and the subsequent LP - proved to have an enormous impact on both performers and listeners. The combination of repetition and tonality was, in a world dominated by the European serialist works, for many a fresh breath or air.

Although In C’s score seems quite simple at first glance, the work survived the last decades and seems to be more alive now than ever. Perhaps it was the seeming simplicity of the idea behind the 53 modules and the steady rhythm - personified in the pulse - that drew a diverse and large audience to its music. As we have seen in chapter 2 and the analysed recordings, In C does not limit itself only to classical musicians. Rock musicians like The Who and Soft Machine, but also current rock groups like Acid Mothers Temple, were influenced by Riley’s music.

The perception of In C, and the story that is told by the music, is influenced both by internal as well as external influences: the score and the accompanying guidelines on the one hand, the interpretation and the choices of the musicians on the other. Riley leaves a lot of artistic options open for the musicians themselves to decide: which instruments to use, which tempo to take, how often to repeat a module and thus how long the performance lasts. The score offers just enough support for the music to not merge into pure improvisation, holding the reins just tight enough for the music to always be discernible as In C yet allowing the performers enough liberty to play with the presented material.

In C has a peculiar way of dealing with musical rules and liberty, and it is this aspect that eventually determines how the performance will sound. As we have seen, the performers make the choice to stay true to, or to stray from, three variables when performing In C. The score on the one hand, the guidelines on the second, and the legacy of In C as the third. The guidelines present a list of suggestions concerning the performance practice. Although it was never the intention of the composer that performers should strictly follow them - Riley left the instructions deliberately vague - the guidelines do present the musicians a choice: how far does one want to stray from Riley’s vision? Following the guidelines meticulously means following the score as well. However, an ensemble can stay true to the score and play all the modules subsequently, but not follow all the guidelines. It is this balance, that has a lot of influence on the resulting performance.

The legacy of In C presents a more intangible variable. The story of its composition is well known - many articles and interviews are written about the work and Riley’s vision on it - labelling In C as one of the (or the) first minimal works. The immensely successful 1968 recording presents musicians with a clear model of In C as played and orchestrated by the composer. Even though Riley himself has since participated in many very different performances of In C, it seems unlikely that new musicians perform In C without listening to the 1968 recording at least once. And thus, this third variable that

235 Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ 2015, p. 2 236 Strickland 1987, p. 110 237 Potter 2000, p. 147 – 148 51 was also taken into account when analysing the recordings, by shortly describing and comparing the 1968 recording with the other four.

The analysed recordings were all made between 2010 and 2015, almost fifty years after the premiere of the work in 1964. In chapter 4, we have looked at the most distinctive moments of the recordings and the musical choices made by the performers. Africa Express, Stargaze, Jack Dangers and Nico Muhly all took up the challenge and plunged into the by now well-known 53 modules. Or less. One of the remarkable things of the two ‘regular’ recordings was their attitude towards subsequently following the sequence of the modules. Both ensembles chose to alter the sequence - In C Mali even left some modules out - to better suit the feel or the harmonic flow of the music. While the rhythm in In C Mali was quite continuous, it was Stargaze’s version that showed the most fluctuations in the tempo. Both recordings exchanged the piano played pulse for (melodic) percussion.

Interestingly enough, when compared with his own guidelines, Riley’s first recording would not comply with all of them. There is, for example, no in-unison moment in the 1968 LP. The performance by Stargaze did offer an in-unison moment around module 35. Their portrayal of this characteristic module is very unlike the 1968 recording. The ensemble chose to highlight the module, and to create a notable moment around it. They did the same with modules 22 – 26 and module 14, and thus created different musical ‘subchapters’, evolving around certain modules. The same can be said for In C Mali and their portrayal of module 14 and module 29. Both ensembles use added improvisations for an extra musical layer, emphasizing with the improvisation these salient moments. Riley wrote the guidelines some time after he finished the score, as a sort of afterthought, inspired by his performances of In C. The performance with Stargaze, in which Riley also plays, stays the closest to the guidelines from all the discussed recordings (including the 1968 recording).

The four recordings differ greatly from each other. All portray an own – and very diverse - world of sound. This was one of the reasons for selecting these four particular recordings. What seems to characterize this generation of musicians, based on the discussed recordings, is their desire to not settle for a mere copy of the musical idiom of the 1968 recording, but to look for their own. Instead of building on the soundworld of the 1968 version and its legacy, the ensembles approached In C from another direction: by incorporating and translating the score and the guidelines of In C into their own soundworld. It is this dialogue between the musicians and the composition that is shown by the attempts of the musicians to use the liberty given by the composer not to alter the music or the idea behind the work, but to strengthen it. By their interpretation of the guidelines and the score, as well as by adding elements of improvisation or percussion, the ensembles seem to support the music and to emphasize new and unknown aspects of it.

In C Remixed’s Jack Dangers and Nico Muhly took the idea of musical liberty a step further in their remixed versions of In C. In C Semi-Detached and In C with Canons and Bass both portray In C but are clearly meant as a creative elaboration on its materials. Both remixers only use a small portion of the modules, meanwhile discarding the original order of the work. The pulse is strong and present by both. Dangers adds some own melodies and improvisations to the remix. That the two remixes are still recognizable as In C, is mostly due to the use of a couple of clearly recognizable In C-modules (arguably modules 1 – 5).

So, how do current performances and recordings of In C relate to the original idea behind In C, as portrayed in the score and the guidelines accompanying the score? Based on the analysed recordings, current performers stay quite true to the original score and idea behind In C but do take the liberty to alter details as to support the music. “The whole pleasure of the work is in the way that successive performances bring out different aspects of the music and keep it new for all involved,

52 performers and listeners”,238 according to Carl. In short, even though none of the ensembles meticulously follow the score and the guidelines, all recordings are still discernible as In C. The decisions concerning the balance between the three variables, decides for a large part how recognisable an In C performance is. How the performers deal with these choices, determines the character of the performance.

As for the remixes by Dangers and Muhly, whether these are real interpretations of In C in the 21st century, as Bill Ryan claims, could be a follow-up discussion. Arguably, the idea of a remix, the re-use of fragmented musical material, is inherent to In C’s modular structure. What In C Mali and the In C of Riley and Stargaze have shown, is that new ‘regular’ interpretations of In C can be just as fascinatingly different as a remix might pretend to be.

238 Carl 2009, p. 108 53

Bibliography

Books and articles

Alburger, Mark. “Shri Terry: Enlightenment at the Riley’s Moonshine Ranch.” Twentieth-Century Music 4, no. 3 (March 1997): 1 – 20.

Beirens, Maarten. “European Minimalism and the Modernist Problem.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Minimalist and Postminimalist Music, edited by Keith Potter, Kyle Gann and Pwyll ap Siôn, 61 – 85. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

Bernard, Jonathan W. “Feldman’s Painters.” In The New York Schools of Music and the Visual Arts, edited by Steven Johnson, 173 – 216. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Bernard, Jonathan W. “Minimalism, Postminimalism, and the Resurgence of Tonality in Recent American Music.” American Music 21, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 112 – 133.

Bernstein, David. “Introduction.” In The San Francisco Tape Music Center: 1960s Counterculture and the Avant-Garde, edited by David Bernstein, 1 – 4. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Bernstein, David. “Anna Halprin.” In The San Francisco Tape Music Center: 1960s Counterculture and the Avant-Garde, edited by David Bernstein, 222 – 238. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Bernstein, David and Maggi Payne. “Terry Riley.” In The San Francisco Tape Music Center: 1960s Counterculture and the Avant-Garde, edited by David Bernstein, 205 - 221. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Bosma, Brenda. “Thuis bij Terry Riley.” Festivalkrant World Minimal Music Festival, (April 2015): 8 – 11.

Cagne, Cole. Soundpieces 2: Interviews with American Composers. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993.

Carl, Robert. Terry Riley’s In C. Studies in Musical Genesis, Structure, and Interpretation. New York: , Inc., 2009.

Cowell, Henry. New Musical Resources. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1930.

Doran Eaton, Rebecca M. “Minimalist and Postminimalist Music in Multimedia: from the avant-garde to the Blockbuster Film.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Minimalist and Postminimalist Music, edited by Keith Potter, Kyle Gann and Pwyll ap Siôn, 181 – 200. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

Duckworth, William. Talking Music. New York: Schirmer Books, 1995.

Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich. Understanding Music. The Nature and Limits of Musical Cognition. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Fink, Robert. “(Post-)minimalisms 1970 – 2000: the search for a new mainstream.” In The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music, edited by Nicholas Cook and Anthony Pople, 539 – 556. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Fink, Robert. Repeating Ourselves. American Minimal Music as Cultural Practice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

54

Gann, Kyle. American Music in the 20th Century. New York: Schirmer Books, 1997.

Griffiths, Paul. Modern Music and After. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Heisinger, Brent. “American Minimalism in the 1980s.” American Music 7, no. 4 (Winter 1989): 430 – 447.

Mastenbroek, Luc. “Koreless.” Festivalkrant World Minimal Music Festival, (April 2015): 12 – 13.

Mertens, Wim. American Minimal Music. London: Kahn & Averill, 1983.

Muziekgebouw aan ‘t IJ. “Welkom.” Festivalkrant World Minimal Music Festival, (April 2015): 2.

Nyman, Michael. : Cage and Beyond. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Potter, Keith. Four Musical Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Potter, Keith, Kyle Gann and Pwyll ap Siôn. “Introduction: experimental, minimalist, postminimalist? Origins, definitions, communities.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Minimalist and Postminimalist Music, edited by Keith Potter, Kyle Gann and Pwyll ap Siôn, 1 – 16. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

Pritchett, James. The Music of John Cage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Reich, Steve. Writings on Music: 1965 – 2000. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Rockwell, John. “Foreword.” In The San Francisco Tape Music Center: 1960s Counterculture and the Avant-Garde, edited by David Bernstein, vii – x. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Ross, Alex. The Rest is Noise. Listening to the Twentieth Century. London: Fourth Estate, 2007.

Schwarz, K. Robert. Minimalists. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996.

Shaw-Miller, Simon. “‘Concerts of everyday living’: Cage, Fluxus and Barthes, interdisciplinarity and inter-media events.” Art History 19, no. 1 (March 1996): 1 – 25.

Simms, Bryan R. Music of the Twentieth Century: Style and Structure. New York: Schirmer Books, 1986.

Strickland, Edward. American Composers. Dialogues on Contemporary Music. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Strickland, Edward. Minimalism: Origins. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

Warburton, Dan. “A Working Terminology for Minimal Music.” Intégral 2 (1988): 135 – 159.

Wright, Steven. “Arvo Pärt.” In Music of the Twentieth-Century Avant-Garde: A Biocritical Sourcebook, edited by Larry Sitsky, 358 – 364. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.

55

Online articles and reviews

Chamberlin, Daniel. “Party Arty.” Miami New Times, September 18, 2003. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/party-arty-6346689

Clark, Philip. “RILEY In C.” Gramophone, accessed on June 15, 2018. https://www.gramophone.co.uk/review/riley-in-c-1

Colter Walls, Seth. “Terry Riley: ‘I haven’t felt nailed down to anything’.” The Guardian, October 2, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/oct/02/terry-riley-interview-brooklyn-national- sawdust-concerts

Davidson, Justin. “A Stoner’s Revolt.” New York Magazine, April 19, 2009. http://nymag.com/arts/classicaldance/classical/reviews/56138/

Fox, Killian. “Damon Albarn: ‘Africa Express is just there to help spread the joy’.” The Guardian, August 26, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/aug/26/damon-albarn-africa-express- interview

Gann, Kyle. “A Forest from the Seeds of Minimalism: An Essay on Postminimal and Totalist Music.” Program of the 1998 Minimalism Festival of the Berliner Gesellschaft fur Neue Musik, August, 1998. http://www.kylegann.com/postminimalism.html

Gann, Kyle. “Breaking the Chain Letter: An Essay on Downtown Music.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. http://www.kylegann.com/downtown.html van Gijssel, Robert. “De maximale vrijheid van minimalcomponist Terry Riley.” De Volkskrant, April 7, 2015. https://www.volkskrant.nl/cultuur-media/de-maximale-vrijheid-van-minimalcomponist-terry- riley~bf254317/

Griffiths, Paul. “Serialism.” Grove Music Online, January 20, 2001. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.25459

Grimshaw, Jeremy N. “Young, La Monte.” Grove Music Online, July 10, 2012. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2225888

Johnson, Steven. “Feldman, Morton.” Grove Music Online, January 20, 2001. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.09435

Johnson, Steven and Olivia Mattis. “New York School.” Grove Music Online, January 20, 2001. https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.47036

Keller, James M. “Terry Riley Dances On.” Chamber Music Magazine, accessed on June 7, 2018. https://www.chamber-music.org/magazine/terry-riley-kronos

Kozinn, Allan. “A Classic Minimalist Score, Played at Maximal (and Electronical) Length.” New York Times, November 9, 2009. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/arts/music/10grand.html

Lacey, Sharon. “Many happy returns, Terry Riley.” MIT Center for Art, Science & Technology, May 5, 2015. https://arts.mit.edu/many-happy-returns-terry-riley/

Moore, Barbara and Kelsey Cowger. “Fluxus.” Grove Music Online, November 26, 2013. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2256561

56

Oltermann, Philip. “Terry Riley’s masterpiece – and minimalism, African style.” The Guardian, November 27, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/27/terry-riley-in-c-mali- minimalism-african-style

Potter, Keith. “Minimalism.” Grove Music Online, January 20, 2001. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.40603

Pritchett, James, Laura Kuhn and Charles Hiroshi Garrett. “Cage, John.” Grove Music Online, July 10, 2012. https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2223954

Richard-San, Mark. “Review: Acid Mothers Temple In C.” Pitchfork, July 25, 2002. https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/21-in-c/

Schwarz, Robert K. “Music; a New Look at a Major Minimalist.” New York Times, May 6, 1990. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/06/arts/music-a-new-look-at-a-major-minimalist.html

Service, Tom. “A guide to Terry Riley’s music.” The Guardian, January 28, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2013/jan/28/terry-riley-contemporary-music- guide

Shere, Charles. “Erickson, Robert.” Grove Music Online, October 16, 2013. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2249475

Strickland, Edward. “Riley, Terry.” Grove Music Online, January 20, 2001. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.23474

Taruskin, Richard. “A Contradiction in Terms?” Oxford History of Western Music, accessed on June 14, 2018. http://www.oxfordwesternmusic.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/view/Volume5/actrade- 9780195384857-div1-008005.xml?rskey=LMbsKh&result=1

Taruskin, Richard. ““Classical” Minimalism.” Oxford History of Western Music, accessed on June 14, 2018. http://www.oxfordwesternmusic.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/view/Volume5/actrade- 9780195384857-div1-008006.xml?rskey=p7wVR3&result=1

Thomas, Ernst and Wilhelm Schlüter. “Darmstadt.” Grove Music Online, January 20, 2001. https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.07224

Unknown. “Second Viennese School.” Grove Music Online, January 20, 2001. https://doi- org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.53872

Websites

Album Liner Notes. “Music for Airports liner notes.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/MFA-txt.html

In C Remixed. “The Story.” Accessed on June 10, 2018. http://in-c-remixed.com/story/story.html

In C Remixed. “Downloads/Notes.” Accessed on June 10, 2018. http://in-c- remixed.com/downloads/downloads.html

In C Remixed. “Nico Muhly.” Accessed on June 10, 2018. http://in-c- remixed.com/remixers/nicomuhly/nicomuhly.html

57

In C Remixed. “Jack Dangers.” Accessed on June 10, 2018. http://in-c- remixed.com/remixers/jackdangers/jackdangers.html

Muziekgebouw aan ‘t IJ. “Concert Terry Riley & Friends.” Accessed on June 11, 2018. https://www.muziekgebouw.nl/agenda/3837/Opening_Night_met_wereldpremiere_van_Riley/Terry _Riley_amp_Friends/

Soundcloud. “In C Remixed. GVSU New Music Ensemble.” Accessed on June 10, 2018. https://soundcloud.com/billryan/sets/in-c-remixed

Official website of Meat Beat Manifesto. “Biography.” Accessed on June 14, 2018. http://meatbeatmanifesto.com/bio/

Official website of Terry Riley. “Biography.” Accessed on June 9, 2018. http://terryriley.net/biography.htm

Official website of Stargaze. “About us.” Accessed on June 10, 2018. http://we-are- stargaze.com/about-us/

Tate Modern. “Art Term: Fluxus.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art- terms/f/fluxus

Audio & video

Boiler Room. “Terry Riley & Friends – ‘In C’.” Accessed on June 14, 2018. https://boilerroom.tv/recording/terry-riley-friends-in-c/

Youtube. “Kronos Stories: Terry Riley.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VII-QqeDoZg

Youtube. “TERRY RILEY: In C(onversation).” Accessed on June 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rnf35ukAs0

Youtube. “Terry Riley interview | 2015 | The Drone.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMKJ9J1Lzf4

Youtube. “Terry Riley interviewed.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDkJ4dQvFq4

Youtube. “Terry Riley – Shri Camel – Holland Festival 1977.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfHmEblM1Dk

Youtube. “TERRY RILEY tape loops.” Accessed on June 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O07QZwl8uac

Discography

Riley, Terry. In C. Terry Riley with members of the Centre of the Creative and Performing Arts in the State University of New York. CBS Records ED CD 314, 1971. CD.

Riley, Terry. In C Remixed. Grand Valley State University. innova 758, 2010. CD.

Riley, Terry. In C Mali. Africa Express. Transgressive Records Ltd. TRANS186CD, 2014. CD.

58

Image frontpage

Blake, Camille. Terry Riley [Photograph]. Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ, April 2015. Photograph by courtesy of the Muziekgebouw.

Images

Page 31 Bol.com. “In C, Terry Riley | CD (album) | Muziek” [Online photograph]. Accessed on July 19, 2019. https://www.bol.com/nl/p/inc/1000004011919923/?suggestion Type=browse&bltgh=km-aH6aGkUxxIRyZrDNKFw.1.14.ProductImage

Page 32 Bol.com. “Africa Express Presents Terry Riley, Africa Express / Ariola Express |CD (album) | Muziek” [Online photograph]. Accessed on July 19, 2019. https://www.bol.com/nl/p/africa-express-presents-terry-riley/9200000036369298/ ?suggestionType=typedsearch&bltgh=mqbfJWGXCYH5Qo-BtJhM3w.1.6.ProductTitle

Page 38 Bolechowski, Francoise. Stargaze + Terry Riley [Photograph]. Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ, April 8, 2015. Photograph by courtesy of the Muziekgebouw.

Page 45 Amazon. “In C Remixed – Terry Riley: Amazon.de: Musik” [Online photograph]. Accessed on July 19. 2019. https://www.amazon.de/C-Remixed-Terry- Riley/dp/B002QEXC5I/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1532022077&sr=8- 10&keywords=in+c+remixed

59

Addendum 1: Guidelines checklist – Africa Express In C Mali

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley – did the performer follow them?

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley Yes No Remarks All performers play from the same page of 53 melodic patterns played in x x All the 53 modules are played, but not in sequence. sequence. Some modules appear later in the work than they were meant to (for example module 14), and some modules come back more often during the recording (for example module 29). There is a lot of improvisation in between. A group of about 35 creates a rich full overlay but interesting performances x 17 musicians. have been created with many more or many less. Patterns are to be played consecutively x Module 14 arrives later than it is supposed to. Module 29 returns later on in the recording. with each performer having the freedom to determine how many times he or x x There seems to be a lot of freedom in the she will repeat each pattern before moving to the next. improvisations and in percussion. The modules however, and who plays what when, seem to be orchestrated. There is no fixed rule as to the number of repetitions a pattern may have, x Some modules are only played for a really however, since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an short time, others we hear much longer. hour and a half, it can be assumed that one would repeat each pattern somewhere between 45 seconds and a minute and ½ or longer. since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an hour and a x The recording is a bit shorter: 40:45 half minutes. It is very important that performers listen very carefully to one another and x this means to occasionally drop out and listen. As an ensemble, it is desirable to vary dynamics x as well as create group crescendos and diminuendos. x There are some diminuendo’s, mostly when instruments and the percussion drop out. Each pattern can be played in unison or canonically in any alignment with itself x or its neighboring patterns. One of the joys of playing IN C is the interaction of the players in polyrhythmic x combinations that spontaneously arise among patterns. Some quite fantastic shapes will arise and disintegrate as the ensemble progresses through the piece. It is important not to hurry from pattern to pattern but to stay on a pattern x x Overall, there is no hurrying feeling, but long enough to interlock with other patterns. some modules (like module 35) are rushed. As the performance progresses, performers should stay within 2 or 3 patterns x The scope differs from 5 to just 1 module. of each other. It is important not to race too far ahead or lag too far behind the main x patterns sounding. The ensemble can be aided by the means of an 1/8th note pulse played on the x high C’s of a piano or mallet instrument. It is also allowed to use instead or with the pulse, improvised percussion to x keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise. Care must be taken however that the percussion does not overwhelm the x Sometimes the percussion does ensemble. overwhelm the ensemble slightly, making it difficult to determine which modules are being played in the background. Players must take care to play each pattern precisely. x The musicians do not seem to be very precise with the modules. Some modules are altered, for example module 8 in voice (around 04:42 minutes). The first rehearsal should have everyone playing a repetition of each pattern x in unison before going on to rehearse sections of the piece. The tempo is left to the discretion of the performers. Extremely fast is x discouraged.

60

When a performer is not playing, she should be conscious of the larger x periodic composite accents that are sounding. When she re-enters she must be aware of what affect [sic] the entrance will have on the overall flow. The ensemble should aim to merge into a unison at least once, but preferable x The ensemble creates a unison moment [sic] often during the course of a performance. around module 29. If all patterns seemed to be played too much in unison a player should try to x For example, module 22 and module 31 in offset his pattern by and [sic] 1/8th note or other value so as to create a feeling melodica and balafon. of shifting alignments. It is OK to transpose patterns. Take care when transposing, especially with x patterns in running 16th notes. This can create a very muddy sound. Also all instruments should aim at a blend at [sic] no one instrument should x stick out except momentarily. Rhythmic augmentation of patterns can be effective. x For example, module 29 in melodica and electric guitar. Players may omit patterns that are too difficult or unsuitable for their x instrument. Amplification of instruments is allowed to help achieve a balanced dynamics x [sic]. Electronic instruments are also welcome. x IN C usually ends this way: When each performer arrives at figure #53, he or x Not all the instruments arrive at module she stays on it until the entire ensemble has arrived there. 53. The group then makes a large crescendo and diminuendo a few times and x There is a diminuendo towards the end then each player drops out when he or she wishes. (module 53), but no crescendo.

61

Addendum 2: Guidelines checklist – Terry Riley + Stargaze In C

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley – did the performer follow them?

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley Yes No Remarks All performers play from the same page of 53 melodic patterns played in x sequence. A group of about 35 creates a rich full overlay but interesting performances x There are 13 musicians on stage. have been created with many more or many less. Patterns are to be played consecutively x with each performer having the freedom to determine how many times he or x she will repeat each pattern before moving to the next. There is no fixed rule as to the number of repetitions a pattern may have, x however, since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an hour and a half, it can be assumed that one would repeat each pattern somewhere between 45 seconds and a minute and ½ or longer. since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an hour and a x The performance lasts 1 hour and 7 half minutes. It is very important that performers listen very carefully to one another and x this means to occasionally drop out and listen. As an ensemble, it is desirable to vary dynamics x as well as create group crescendos and diminuendos. x Each pattern can be played in unison or canonically in any alignment with itself x For example, after the unison passage, or its neighboring patterns. module 35 is played canonically by the clarinet. One of the joys of playing IN C is the interaction of the players in polyrhythmic x combinations that spontaneously arise among patterns. Some quite fantastic shapes will arise and disintegrate as the ensemble progresses through the piece. It is important not to hurry from pattern to pattern but to stay on a pattern x long enough to interlock with other patterns. As the performance progresses, performers should stay within 2 or 3 patterns x From a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5 of each other. modules are played at the same time. It is important not to race too far ahead or lag too far behind the main x patterns sounding. The ensemble can be aided by the means of an 1/8th note pulse played on the x There is no constant pulse. high C’s of a piano or mallet instrument. It is also allowed to use instead or with the pulse, improvised percussion to x There is (improvised) percussion. The keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise. percussion is not always present, but weaves its way through the music. Care must be taken however that the percussion does not overwhelm the x Sometimes the percussion seems to ensemble. overwhelm the other musicians. Players must take care to play each pattern precisely. x The first rehearsal should have everyone playing a repetition of each pattern No information available. in unison before going on to rehearse sections of the piece. The tempo is left to the discretion of the performers. Extremely fast is x discouraged. When a performer is not playing, she should be conscious of the larger x periodic composite accents that are sounding. When she re-enters she must be aware of what affect [sic] the entrance will have on the overall flow. The ensemble should aim to merge into a unison at least once, but preferable x [sic] often during the course of a performance. If all patterns seemed to be played too much in unison a player should try to x For example, the clarinet around module offset his pattern by and [sic] 1/8th note or other value so as to create a feeling 35, as mentioned above. of shifting alignments. It is OK to transpose patterns. Take care when transposing, especially with x patterns in running 16th notes. This can create a very muddy sound. Also all instruments should aim at a blend at [sic] no one instrument should x stick out except momentarily. Rhythmic augmentation of patterns can be effective. x

62

Players may omit patterns that are too difficult or unsuitable for their x instrument. Amplification of instruments is allowed to help achieve a balanced dynamics x [sic]. Electronic instruments are also welcome. x IN C usually ends this way: When each performer arrives at figure #53, he or x Not every performer arrives at module 53. she stays on it until the entire ensemble has arrived there. The group then makes a large crescendo and diminuendo a few times and x x There is a crescendo around module 45 then each player drops out when he or she wishes. and a sudden diminuendo after. There is no large crescendo and diminuendo around modules 50 – 53.

63

Addendum 3: Guidelines checklist – Jack Dangers In C Semi-Detached

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley – did the composer follow them?

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley Yes No Remark All performers play from the same page of 53 melodic patterns played in x Dangers used some of the modules, but sequence. not all 53 and not in sequence. A group of about 35 creates a rich full overlay but interesting performances x Only 1, Jack Dangers himself. have been created with many more or many less. Patterns are to be played consecutively x Dangers leaves gaps between the modules. with each performer having the freedom to determine how many times he or x Everything is pre-recorded and she will repeat each pattern before moving to the next. premeditated. There is no fixed rule as to the number of repetitions a pattern may have, x The remix lasts only 06:39 minutes. The however, since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an played modules last from only 6 seconds hour and a half, it can be assumed that one would repeat each pattern (module 29) to approximately 1 minute somewhere between 45 seconds and a minute and ½ or longer. (module 5). since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an hour and a x 06:39 minutes. half It is very important that performers listen very carefully to one another and x The recording is a remix, meaning every this means to occasionally drop out and listen. musical decision was premeditated. As an ensemble, it is desirable to vary dynamics x There are no noteworthy changes in dynamics throughout the remix. as well as create group crescendos and diminuendos. x Each pattern can be played in unison or canonically in any alignment with itself x or its neighboring patterns. One of the joys of playing IN C is the interaction of the players in polyrhythmic x The recording is a remix, meaning every combinations that spontaneously arise among patterns. Some quite fantastic musical decision was premeditated. shapes will arise and disintegrate as the ensemble progresses through the Perhaps Dangers played with this during piece. the creation process, on the recording we do not hear this. It is important not to hurry from pattern to pattern but to stay on a pattern x long enough to interlock with other patterns. As the performance progresses, performers should stay within 2 or 3 patterns x of each other. It is important not to race too far ahead or lag too far behind the main x patterns sounding. The ensemble can be aided by the means of an 1/8th note pulse played on the x high C’s of a piano or mallet instrument. It is also allowed to use instead or with the pulse, improvised percussion to x There is some percussion (egg shaker, keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise. drums) + a beat. Care must be taken however that the percussion does not overwhelm the x ensemble. Players must take care to play each pattern precisely. x Some modules tend to get slightly less precise the longer they are being played, for example module 27. The first rehearsal should have everyone playing a repetition of each pattern No information available. in unison before going on to rehearse sections of the piece. The tempo is left to the discretion of the performers. Extremely fast is x discouraged. When a performer is not playing, she should be conscious of the larger x Every entrance in this remix is periodic composite accents that are sounding. When she re-enters she must premeditated. be aware of what affect [sic] the entrance will have on the overall flow. The ensemble should aim to merge into a unison at least once, but preferable x x Aside from module 1, which is the first and [sic] often during the course of a performance. only unison played module, there are no other unison moments except for some of Dangers own melodies (B flat – C – D in vocoder for example). If all patterns seemed to be played too much in unison a player should try to x offset his pattern by and [sic] 1/8th note or other value so as to create a feeling of shifting alignments.

64

It is OK to transpose patterns. Take care when transposing, especially with x patterns in running 16th notes. This can create a very muddy sound. Also all instruments should aim at a blend at [sic] no one instrument should x stick out except momentarily. Rhythmic augmentation of patterns can be effective. x Players may omit patterns that are too difficult or unsuitable for their x instrument. Amplification of instruments is allowed to help achieve a balanced dynamics x The whole remix seems to be made with a [sic]. computer. Electronic instruments are also welcome. x IN C usually ends this way: When each performer arrives at figure #53, he or x she stays on it until the entire ensemble has arrived there. The group then makes a large crescendo and diminuendo a few times and x The remix ends with the pulse + a melody then each player drops out when he or she wishes. in vocoder (B flat - C – D)

65

Addendum 4: Guidelines checklist – Nico Muhly In C with Canons and Bass

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley – did the composer follow them?

Guidelines In C by Terry Riley Yes No Remarks All performers play from the same page of 53 melodic patterns played in x Muhly used some of the modules, but not sequence. all 53 and not in sequence. A group of about 35 creates a rich full overlay but interesting performances x The remix seems to be made by Nico have been created with many more or many less. Muhly, using the musical material given to him by the Grand Valley State University New Music Ensemble. Patterns are to be played consecutively x with each performer having the freedom to determine how many times he or x The work seems pre-composed, with she will repeat each pattern before moving to the next. Muhly making decisions beforehand when and how often a module will be played. There is no fixed rule as to the number of repetitions a pattern may have, x x This differs per module. Some modules are however, since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an played for a minute, others much shorter hour and a half, it can be assumed that one would repeat each pattern (for example, module 23 only lasts 11 somewhere between 45 seconds and a minute and ½ or longer. seconds). since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an hour and a x Much shorter, only 07:41 minutes. half It is very important that performers listen very carefully to one another and x this means to occasionally drop out and listen. As an ensemble, it is desirable to vary dynamics x x There is some variation in dynamics, but not much. as well as create group crescendos and diminuendos. x Each pattern can be played in unison or canonically in any alignment with itself x or its neighboring patterns. One of the joys of playing IN C is the interaction of the players in polyrhythmic x There seem to be no spontaneous actions, combinations that spontaneously arise among patterns. Some quite fantastic everything is pre-composed. shapes will arise and disintegrate as the ensemble progresses through the piece. It is important not to hurry from pattern to pattern but to stay on a pattern x x There is some interlocking, however this is long enough to interlock with other patterns. pre-composed and orchestrated. As the performance progresses, performers should stay within 2 or 3 patterns x Muhly combines modules from the of each other. beginning and the end of In C.

It is important not to race too far ahead or lag too far behind the main x x Yes, everything seems in balance. patterns sounding. No, Muhly uses modules at random, and not in sync with its original order. The ensemble can be aided by the means of an 1/8th note pulse played on the x high C’s of a piano or mallet instrument. It is also allowed to use instead or with the pulse, improvised percussion to x The pulse is sometimes played by keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise. . Care must be taken however that the percussion does not overwhelm the x ensemble. Players must take care to play each pattern precisely. x The first rehearsal should have everyone playing a repetition of each pattern No information available. in unison before going on to rehearse sections of the piece. The tempo is left to the discretion of the performers. Extremely fast is x discouraged. When a performer is not playing, she should be conscious of the larger x periodic composite accents that are sounding. When she re-enters she must be aware of what affect [sic] the entrance will have on the overall flow. The ensemble should aim to merge into a unison at least once, but preferable x Since there are only a couple of modules [sic] often during the course of a performance. played by a couple of instruments (and not all), there is no unison moment in this remix. There are some moments when only one module is played, this however, is not unison.

66

If all patterns seemed to be played too much in unison a player should try to x For example, module 3 in both piano and offset his pattern by and [sic] 1/8th note or other value so as to create a feeling bass clarinet. of shifting alignments. It is OK to transpose patterns. Take care when transposing, especially with x patterns in running 16th notes. This can create a very muddy sound. Also all instruments should aim at a blend at [sic] no one instrument should x stick out except momentarily. Rhythmic augmentation of patterns can be effective. x Players may omit patterns that are too difficult or unsuitable for their x Muhly probably thought of this during the instrument. composition process. There are, for example, no fast patterns for lower instruments, like the bass clarinet. Amplification of instruments is allowed to help achieve a balanced dynamics x [sic]. Electronic instruments are also welcome. x IN C usually ends this way: When each performer arrives at figure #53, he or x The work ends with module 29. she stays on it until the entire ensemble has arrived there. The group then makes a large crescendo and diminuendo a few times and x x There is no crescendo, there is however a then each player drops out when he or she wishes. diminuendo towards the end of the remix.

67