In C and Beyond an Analysis of Four 21St Century Interpretations of Terry Riley’S in C (1964)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
In C and beyond An analysis of four 21st century interpretations of Terry Riley’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 minimal music 8 1.1. Musical minimalism 8 1.2. European serialism and indeterminacy 8 1.2.1. Morton Feldman and John Cage 9 1.2.2. Fluxus 9 1.3. Young, Riley, Reich and Glass 10 1.3.1. La Monte Young 10 1.3.2. Steve Reich 10 1.3.3. Philip Glass 11 1.4. Towards postminimalism 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 – Jack Dangers 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 composer 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 classical music. 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 Composers. 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.