From Manuscript to Music: Roger Smalley's Works for Solo Piano

From Manuscript to Music: Roger Smalley’s

Works for Solo Piano

Adam Pinto B.Mus (Hons) M.Mus

This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts of the University of Western Australia

Conservatorium of Music

2019

Thesis Declaration

I, Adam Pinto, certify that:

This thesis has been accomplished during enrolment in this degree.

This thesis does not contain material which has been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma in my name, in any university or other tertiary institution.

In the future, no part of this thesis will be used in a submission in my name, for any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval of The University of Western Australia and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the joint-award of this degree.

This thesis does not contain any material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text and, where relevant, in the Authorship Declaration that follows.

This thesis does not violate or infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, or other rights whatsoever of any person.

This thesis does not contain work that I have published, nor work under review for publication.

Signature:

Date: 01/09/2019

ABSTRACT

This thesis details the solo piano works of Roger Smalley AM (1943–2015). It provides a performer’s perpective of these works, founded upon an investigation into

Smalley’s relationship with the piano. The creative component focuses on two significant compositions: Transformation for piano with live electronic modulation (1968–69, rev.1971); and the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (1984–85). An examination of these works is given with a focus on the technical elements of fingering; coordination and use of the hands; questions of interpretation and style; the relationship between compositional process and piano technique; pianistic fluency; the distinctive properties of Smalley’s piano writing; and the consequences of working with live electronics. Context is given to this examination through selective analyses of Smalley’s last works for solo piano: 3

Studies in Black and White (2002–04); and Morceau de Concours (2008).

The process of preparing a performance of Smalley’s Concerto for Piano and

Orchestra is detailed. This includes the creation of an arrangement of the work for two pianos and an examination of the piano techniques and compositional process evident in the work. Reasons behind musical decisions and specific alterations made in the creation of this arrangement for two pianos are discussed and explained in the context of the orchestration, compositional process and related works by Roger Smalley.

Analyses of Roger Smalley’s recordings of Transformation, Monody (1971–72), and the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra are detailed to illustrate the relationship between his pianism and detailed scores. These analyses provide comparisons between the clear and precise markings in the score and the practicalities of Smalley’s realized performance. Analyses of sketches and drafts for Transformation, Monody, the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, 3 Studies in Black and White and Morceau de Concours are presented, with a focus on the integration of piano technique into Smalley’s compositional process. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Roger Smalley Pianist-Composer ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1.1 Aims ...... 2

1.1.2 Note Streams ...... 3

1.1.3 Pianist-composer ...... 4

1.2 Roger Smalley’s Music for Solo Piano ...... 5

1.2.1 Smalley’s Early Works for Piano ...... 6

1.2.2 Smalley’s Earliest Published Works ...... 9

1.2.3 Missa Parodia I ...... 19

1.2.4 Register, Texture and Orchestration ...... 23

1.2.5 Missa Parodia Conclusions ...... 28

1.3 Reviews of Smalley as performer ...... 29

1.4 Transformation and the influence of Stockhausen ...... 30

1.5 Monody: A Case Study ...... 32

1.5.1 Sources ...... 33

1.5.2 The BBC Recordings ...... 34

1.5.3 The Manuscripts of Monody ...... 36

1.5.4 Revisions to Monody ...... 36

1.5.5 Structure ...... 42

1.5.6 Technical Revisions ...... 47

1.6 Accord in Australia ...... 54

1.7 Concerto for Piano and Orchestra ...... 56

1.8 From Barcarolle to Chopin ...... 57

1.8.1 Albumblätt: A Missing Link ...... 62

iii

1.9 Smalley’s Final Works for Solo Piano ...... 63

1.10 Conclusions ...... 65

Chapter 2 A Complete Transformation: The Score .. 67

2.1 Background ...... 67

2.2 Initial Recorded Source ...... 69

2.2.1 Other Surviving Recordings ...... 69

2.2.2 Manuscripts ...... 72

2.2.3 The Performance Scores ...... 73

2.2.4 Discrepancies Revealed Through My Performance ...... 75

2.2.5 Corrections Required in a Critical Edition ...... 80

2.2.6 Note Streams Revised Through Performance ...... 89

2.3 Conclusions ...... 91

Chapter 3 Transformation: Smalley’s “Magic Piano”

3.1 Introduction and Australian Première ...... 93

3.2 Sources used in preparing a perfomance ...... 94

3.3 The Subsidiary Material...... 95

3.3.1 Subsidiary I 1970 Sketch ...... 96

3.3.2 Performance Instructions 1970 ...... 99

3.3.3 Subsidiary Material 1968–69 ...... 99

3.3.4 Performance Instructions 1968–69 ...... 105

3.4 Smalley’s Performances ...... 107

3.4.1 Structure of the Improvised Bars ...... 107

3.4.2 BBC Recording 1969 ...... 109

3.4.3 BBC Recording 1970 ...... 112 iv

3.4.4 BBC Recording 1971 ...... 115

3.4.5 Conclusions from the Recordings ...... 118

3.5 Smalley’s 1971 Revision Sketch ...... 119

3.6 Conclusions ...... 125

Chapter 4 Arranging a Masterpiece: Roger Smalley’s

Concerto for Piano and Orchestra ...... 126

4.1 Background ...... 126

4.2 Critical Reception ...... 128

4.3 Aims and Reasons for me to create a two-piano arrangement .. 131

4.4 Producing the Arrangement...... 134

4.5 Extended Techniques...... 147

4.6 The Third Movement ...... 150

4.7 Conclusions ...... 153

Chapter 5 Performing the Concerto ...... 154

5.1 Background ...... 154

5.2 Genesis of the Concerto...... 154

5.3 Smalley’s Recording ...... 161

5.3.1 Smalley’s Live Performance ...... 163

5.3.2 Schumann Albumblätt ...... 164

5.4 Compositional Process ...... 167

5.5 Piano Technique ...... 172

5.6 Conclusions ...... 184

Chapter 6 The Colours of 3 Studies In Black and

White and Morceau de Concours ...... 185 v

6.1 Introduction and Aims ...... 185

6.2 Background ...... 185

6.3 Origins of the work ...... 187

6.4 Comparisons with Ligeti’s Études for piano ...... 190

6.4.1 The Gamelan Connection...... 190

6.4.2 Smalley’s Use of Percussion Colours ...... 193

6.5 Smalley’s Sketches ...... 193

6.5.1 Piano Technique ...... 194

6.5.2 Formal Planning ...... 196

6.6 Stuart & Sons Piano ...... 200

6.7 Moto Perpetuo (with interruptions) ...... 202

6.8 Dialogue: for both hands ...... 216

6.8.1 Piano technique ...... 217

6.8.2 Compositional process ...... 218

6.8.3 The Coda ...... 220

6.9 Morceau de Concours: Smalley’s Final Concert Paraphrase ..... 221

6.9.1 Structure ...... 222

Chapter 7 Outcomes ...... 234

7.1 Production...... 236

7.2 Promotion ...... 238

7.3 A Case of Neglect ...... 239

7.4 Première Recording ...... 241

7.5 Technical Analysis ...... 242

7.5.1 Note Streams and Choreography Between the Hands ...... 243

7.5.2 Use of Register and Colour ...... 251

7.5.3 Use of Percussion Colours ...... 254

7.5.4 Textural sophistication ...... 256

7.6 Final Thoughts ...... 258

7.6.1 Suggested Future Projects ...... 260

REFERENCE LIST ...... 262

Appendix 1 Concerto arranged for two pianos ...... 270

Appendix 2 Recital Programme 1 (DVD 1) ...... 343

Appendix 3 Recital Programme 2 (DVD 2) ...... 347

vii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Appearance of percussion in Monody ...... 38

Table 1.2 Comparison of April 1972 and May 1972 manuscripts ...... 39

Table 1.3 Significant revisions to Monody between the April 1972 manuscript and the

Faber 1975 score ...... 41

Table 1.4 Parts, sections, and lengths of Monody ...... 46

Table 2.1 Recorded sources of Transformation ...... 72

Table 2.2 Sketches of Transformation ...... 75

Table 3.1 Bar lengths in Transformation recordings...... 108

Table 6.1 Comparison between Piano Concerto No.2 and Morceau de Concours ...... 233

viii

Table of Figures

Figure 1.1 Rondo from Sonata in F minor (Smalley, 1958–2007) ...... 7

Figure 1.2 Futility (1959) for voice and piano (Smalley, 1958–2007) ...... 8

Figure 1.3 Piano Piece VI Typeset from Smalley’s sketches...... 14

Figure 1.4 The Golden Echo and The Leaden Echo for accordion and piano ...... 15

Figure 1.5 Piano Piece III ...... 17

Figure 1.6 Piano Piece II ...... 18

Figure 1.7 Missa Parodia I Section 10 ...... 19

Figure 1.8 Gloria tibi Trinitas vi William Blitheman ...... 20

Figure 1.9 Missa Parodia I Section 6 ...... 25

Figure 1.10 Missa Parodia I Section 10 ...... 26

Figure 1.11 Missa Parodia II Strophe II ...... 27

Figure 1.12 Transformation Section 3 ...... 32

Figure 1.13 Monody Basic pitch material ...... 35

Figure 1.14 Stockhausen Klavierstücke IX and Monody opening ...... 46

Figure 1.15 Monody Section 18 typeset from the April 1972 manuscript ...... 48

Figure 1.16 Monody Section 18 Faber 1975 score ...... 49

Figure 1.17 Monody Spectrogram ...... 49

Figure 1.18 Monody April 1972 manuscript Section 16...... 50

Figure 1.19 Section 16 Arranged between left-hand and right-hand ...... 50

Figure 1.20 Monody Section 20 ...... 51

Figure 1.21 Monody Section 3 April 1972 manuscript ...... 52

Figure 1.22 Accord all-interval chord and wedge pattern ...... 56

Figure 1.23 Barcarolle ...... 59

Figure 1.24 Berceuse Ferruccio Busoni...... 60 ix

Figure 1.25 Mazurka Op. 24, No. 4 Opening bars Frédéric Chopin ...... 61

Figure 1.26 Wedge pattern from Concerto for Piano and Orchestra ...... 61

Figure 1.27 Albumblätt Opening bars ...... 63

Figure 1.28 Morceau de Concours ...... 65

Figure 2.1 Transformation Section 2 FM/TS Score 1970 ...... 76

Figure 2.2 Transformation Section 2 RS Sketch Post-1970 ...... 77

Figure 2.3 Transformation FM/TS Score 1970 ...... 78

Figure 2.4 Transformation Typeset FM/TS Score 1970 ...... 78

Figure 2.5 Transformation Revision 1971 Sketch Typeset ...... 79

Figure 2.6 Transformation I 1968 Sketch Typeset ...... 79

Figure 2.7 Transformation Arpeggio revision ...... 89

Figure 2.8 Transformation RS Sketch Post-1970 ...... 91

Figure 3.1 Subsidiary Material from Subsidiary 1 1970 sketch ...... 97

Figure 3.2 Transformation Subsidiary Material from Transformation.1 1968 Sketch 101

Figure 3.3 Transformation I 1968 Sketch Section 3 ...... 110

Figure 3.4 Improvised section page 1 from Revision 1971 Sketch ...... 123

Figure 3.5 Improvised section page 2 from Revision 1971 Sketch ...... 124

Figure 4.1 Concerto Introduction two-piano arrangement ...... 136

Figure 4.2 Concerto Section U1 full score ...... 138

Figure 4.3 Concerto Section U1 Two-piano arrangement first version ...... 140

Figure 4.4 Concerto Section U1 Two-piano arrangement final version ...... 141

Figure 4.5 Concerto Section N Two-piano arrangement first version ...... 143

Figure 4.6 Concerto Section N Two-piano arrangement final version ...... 144

Figure 4.7 Concerto moto perpetuo movement Section D Two-piano arrangement ... 146

Figure 4.8 Concerto Section L Two-piano arrangement ...... 148

Figure 4.9 Movement for flute and piano Roger Smalley ...... 149

Figure 4.10 Concerto Third Movement Two-piano arrangement first version ...... 151

Figure 4.11 Concerto Third Movement Two-piano arrangement final version ...... 152

Figure 5.1 Movement for flute and piano Variation 6 ...... 157

Figure 5.2 Concerto scherzo Section C Two-piano arrangement ...... 158

Figure 5.3 Performance instructions. From Movement for flute and piano, by R. Smalley,

Figure 5.4 Sketch of Schumann Albumblätt material ...... 165

Figure 5.5 Schumann Albumblätt Op.99 No. 5 ...... 166

Figure 5.6 Comparison of Schumann Albumblätt and Smalley anti-cadenza ...... 167

Figure 5.7 Chopin Prelude Op. 28, No.4 ...... 167

Figure 5.8 Prime Transposition square. From Roger Smalley: A Case Study of Late

Twentieth-Century Composition, p. 174, by C. Mark, 2012, Farnham: Ashgate

Figure 5.9 Concerto moto perpetuo movement Smalley’s performance score...... 171

Figure 5.10 Concerto Sketch from moto perpetuo ...... 173

Figure 5.11 Concerto Section C original ...... 175

Figure 5.12 Concerto Section C alternative technical division between the hands ..... 176

Figure 5.13 Concerto moto perpetuo movement Section H Solo piano part ...... 177

Figure 5.14 Alkan Grande Étude Op. 76, No. 3 (1838) ...... 178

Figure 5.15 Concerto moto perpetuo movement Section I Solo piano part ...... 179

Figure 5.16 Concerto moto perpetuo movement Section M Solo piano part ...... 180

Figure 5.17 Comaprison between Smalley Concerto and Messiaen Regard de l'Esprit de

joie ...... 181

Figure 5.18 Concerto moto perpetuo movement Section P Solo piano part ...... 183

Figure 6.1 University of Western Australia Gamelan 1977 (Thönell, 1994, p. 80) ..... 192

Figure 6.2 Piano Piece I ...... 193

Figure 6.3 Piano technique sketches for Gamelan ...... 195

Figure 6.4 Gamelan Part B bars 77 to 81 ...... 196

Figure 6.5 Gamelan Final four bars ...... 201

Figure 6.6 Moto Perpetuo Smalley and Klavierstücke IX Stockhausen ...... 203

Figure 6.7 Wedge patterns and chords from Moto Perpetuo sketches ...... 204

Figure 6.8 Decreasing periodicity in Moto Perpetuo Section A ...... 205

Figure 6.9 Smalley’s sketch for Moto Perpetuo Section B ...... 206

Figure 6.10 Formal plan for Moto Perpetuo from Smalley’s sketch ...... 206

Figure 6.11 Moto Perpetuo Overlapping periodicities ...... 209

Figure 6.12 Interruptions from Moto Perpetuo ...... 212

Figure 6.13 Hexachords ...... 214

Figure 6.14 Dialogue bars 272 to 282 ...... 218

Figure 6.15 Black-key and white-key linear patterns from Dialogue ...... 219

Figure 6.16 Notes and durations with first phrase from Dialogue ...... 220

Figure 6.17 Mode created from black-key and white-key scales...... 221

Figure 6.18 Theme of Piano Concerto No.2 ...... 223

Figure 6.19 Theme of Section D from Morceau de Concours ...... 223

Figure 6.20 Aubade No.8 Peter Racine Fricker Interval expansion chart ...... 224

Figure 6.21 Arrangement of Morceau de Concours from Piano Concerto No.2 parts 226

Figure 6.22 Simple chord-aggregates from Morceau de Concours ...... 227

Figure 6.23 All-interval chord and wedge patterns from Morceau de Concours ...... 228

Figure 6.24 All-interval chord and harmonic construction...... 229

Figure 6.25 Morceau de Concours bar 140 to 160 ...... 230

Figure 6.26 Piano Concerto No.2 and Morceau de Concours ending ...... 232

Figure 7.1 Missa Parodia I Section 10 ...... 246

Figure 7.2 Transformation Section 3...... 247

xii

Figure 7.3 Monody Section 20 ...... 247

Figure 7.4 Concerto for Piano and Orchestra scherzo 2 Section H ...... 248

Figure 7.5 Dialogue Climax ...... 249

Figure 7.6 Morceau de Concours bar 168 to 180 ...... 250

Figure 7.7 Variations on a Theme of Chopin Variation1 ...... 251

Figure 7.8 Missa Parodia II Fanfare III (Score typeset at concert pitch) ...... 253

Figure 7.9 Piano Piece I ...... 255

Figure 7.10 Gamelan Introduction ...... 255

Figure 7.11 Gamelan bar 39 to 47 ...... 256

xiii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people and acknowledge their contributions to this thesis:

My supervisors Nicholas Bannan, Chris Tonkin and Graeme Gilling.

My collaborator and friend Emily Green-Armytage.

Coordinator Cecilia Sun

All the associate-artists involved in these performances.

Jesse Stack whose technical assistance was kindly provided to produce the DVD recordings contained in this submission.

UWA Music Librarian Linda Papa.

Dr Stephen Wild (The Eileen and Aubrey Wild Music Research Travel

Scholarship)

Kristie Pinto for her unconditional support.

The ever-honest Dr Richard Ingleby.

Luciano Pinto who is still an inspiration.

This research was supported by a Research Training Program Stipend.

xiv

Chapter 1 Roger Smalley Pianist-Composer

1.1 Introduction

This thesis examines the compositions for solo piano of Roger Smalley AM

(1943–2015). One revealing component of this research project was a recital, performed on the 7th of December 2018 in the Callaway Music Auditorium at the University of

Western Australia Conservatorium of Music (contained on DVD 1 accompanying this thesis). This recital consisted entirely of Smalley’s music for solo piano and provided the opportunity to become intimately familiar with the interpretation of each composition, in comparison with the perspective of Smalley’s solo piano compositions in their entirety.

This exposed the dramatically shifting influences and continual development of

Smalley’s compositional technique in contrast with the consistency assurance in his writing for the instrument.

Smalley was an accomplished performer, both as a pianist and conductor, and preparing this recital reinforced the significance of his unique relationship to the physicality of performance and how this informed his compositional process. This is a concept that has been highlighted by Larry Sitsky:

Smalley, a virtuoso himself, quite naturally writes in a virtuosic fashion for his

instruments of choice, and is a perfect example of what we are in danger of losing

that is, composers who are also constant and active denizens of the concert

platform. Composers who are not performers often have no sense of the theatre

and drama of performance (Sitsky, 2011, p. 164).

With his passing on 18 August 2015, Smalley is now a composer whose unique link to the physicality and drama of performance is accessible only through his scores, recordings, videos and archived sketches.

1.1.1 Aims

Through case studies central to the creative component of this research project, this thesis examines the relationship between the virtuoso pianist and the innovative composer. It explores the relationship evident between these two aspects of his communication as an artist, and what effect his unique and gifted pianism had on the development of his compositional process. To achieve this end, this thesis examines selected solo piano compositions from a pianistic angle, exploring:

1. technical considerations which include: fingering both suggested by Smalley and

alternative options; the use and coordination of the hands; and pedalling;

2. the consequences of working with live electronics;

3. Smalley’s use of extreme and confined registers;

4. texture and the layering of piano sound;

5. questions of style;

6. the relationship between compositional process and technique; and

7. the technical fluency and distinctive properties of Smalley’s piano writing,

including his idiomatic use of “note streams” (Mark, 2012b, p. 157).

1.1.2 Note Streams

In this thesis, the use of the term note streams1 will be a recurring feature, and requires clarification in preparation for the descriptions and more detailed analyses of

Smalley’s works for solo piano in the following chapters. The term note streams was formulated by Christopher Mark, and refers in a general sense to virtuosic layouts of notes that Smalley found aurally and technically gratifying:

Many gestures… arose, one imagines, simply because the composer found them

pleasurable to play, while the note streams… have a vertiginous effect on

performer and listener alike (Mark, 2012b, p. 105).

This characteristic of Smalley’s compositions is discussed by Stephen Walsh, who in 1968 described Smalley’s early music as “at this stage a piano style, based essentially on keyboard figuration and sonority” (Walsh, 1994, p. 14). This thesis adopts the term as an appropriate reference specifically to note layouts designed to be shared between the hands and of a virtuosic character that elicit a rush of adrenaline. Bar three from Section

3 of Transformation, shown in Figure 1.12 is an example of such a note-stream which cascades to the very lowest note of the piano. Smalley notated these note streams to indicate the choreography between the hands in performance, demonstrating his idiomatic awareness of the technique required in their execution. The shapes of the note streams relate to the piano itself, and are used by Smalley to exploit contrasts between extreme registers and enhance the resonance of the instrument.

1 For clarity in this thesis when referring to a discrete appearance in one of Smalley’s works, the hyphenated version of note-stream will be used.

1.1.3 Pianist-composer

Smalley was a virtuoso pianist recognized as one of the most gifted exponents of avant-garde repertoire in his generation, with examples of the critical reception of his performances detailed in Chapter 1.3. His use of note streams highlights his idiomatic writing for the piano, in which pianistic concerns at times override compositional processes. These are significant reasons why I refer to him throughout this thesis as a pianist-composer and regularly place him in the context of other pianist-composers.

Smalley’s works for piano are technically demanding and can appear complex on the page, but possess an elegance and coherence decipherable most readily through a practical investigation at the piano. A feature made even more remarkable considering, as mentioned in Chapter 6.3, Smalley did not compose at the piano. Smalley’s works exhibit a fine balance between strict compositional processes and their integration into his idiomatic writing for the piano. There are instances, shown in Chapter 5.4, where note streams are moulded to maintain the integrity of a compositional process and, conversely, there are instances where Smalley deviates from a compositional process to better suit the piano technique required in the execution of a note stream, illustrated in Chapter 6.7.

These features provide pianists with a unique opportunity to study and understand the relationship between the piano techniques and compositional processes seen in his engaging works2.

2 Akin to Elisabeth Le Guin’s "cello-and-bow" (Le Guin, 2006, p. 14) thinking in her discussion of the works of Luigi Boccherini.

1.2 Roger Smalley’s Music for Solo Piano

The following paragraphs present an overview of Roger Smalley’s compositions for solo piano. I discuss the significance of these compositions, detail the integration of piano technique into Smalley’s compositional process, and illustrate the technical demands associated with their performance. This overview will examine the important connection Smalley maintained throughout his creative life with performance and, specifically, his connection with the piano. Smalley’s compositions featuring the piano frame and thread through his entire corpus,3 which is the case with the great pianist- composers of the nineteenth-century, such as Brahms, Schumann, and Chopin, with whom Smalley developed a well-known connection.4

As is true with many composers of the late twentieth-century, Smalley’s compositional process underwent significant development, and “rethinking” (Mark,

2012b, p. xiii) through his innovative creative life. Smalley’s move to Australia in 1976 and his “tendency to compose works in groups, exploring the same material in work after work until it is finally exhausted” (Walsh, 1994, p. 14) resulted in what superficially appears to be clearly defined stages with distinctive influences within his corpus. This, as pointed out by Mark (2012b, p. 75), is not the case as there is an overlap between

3 Smalley’s first and last published works are for solo piano. Missa Parodia I (1967) is representative of the influence of Peter Maxwell Davies. Transformation and Monody are examples of the influence of Stockhausen. Variations on a Theme of Chopin (1988–89) represents the first instance of Smalley’s re-contextualisation of the music of Chopin.

4 After Albumblatt (1990) Smalley composed a series of chamber works featuring the piano based on the re-contextualisation of the music of Chopin, and later Brahms and

Schumann.

Smalley’s use of the compositional techniques of Peter Maxwell Davies and his association with Stockhausen. This is further demonstrated in this thesis in Chapter 6.3 which details the origins of 3 Studies in Black and White (2002–04) which overlaps with

Smalley’s Chopin based chamber works. However, Smalley’s works for solo piano occur throughout his corpus, and give valuable insight into the critical elements and influences of these superficially contrasting periods. As Stephen Walsh highlights, Smalley’s piano compositions often occured at pivotal moments:

the problems involved in the performance of The Song of the Highest Tower are,

to say the least daunting, and it was perhaps in a moment of despair that Smalley

reverted to the solo piano (Walsh, 1994, p. 17).

1.2.1 Smalley’s Early Works for Piano

The connection between the piano and Smalley’s composition was evident from his earliest experiences. At the age of 10, only three years after commencing piano lessons, a young Smalley, influenced by the Classical Sonatinas he was performing, was composing piano miniatures with titles such as Minuet, Romance, and Rondo, shown in

Figure 1.1. These influences progressed along with his piano studies, and by the age of

15 he had developed an interest in the music of English composers such as Bax, Ireland, and Walton (Mark, 2012b, p. 3).

Although not a work for solo piano, an early song entitled Futility (1959), shown in Figure 1.2, illustrates the early development of characteristics of Smalley’s piano writing which will be examined in this thesis. The piano part, with both staves written in the treble clef, explores the middle register of the piano and already suggests the important relationship between register and colour in Smalley’s piano music. The accompaniment figuration, which in the opening four bars is not sufficiently developed 6

to be classified as a note-stream, rises out of the central register of the piano and suggests the atmosphere of the Wilfred Owen poem. The opening “bell-like” arpeggiated chords beginning each bar are an early example of the percussive colours Smalley draws from the piano, and which will become a characteristic of his future works. The layout of the interlocking octaves crossing the staves illustrates Smalley’s clarity in depicting the technical requirements of performing his music. In bar 5 this develops into a note-stream to be executed with a prescribed coordination between the hands, which will become a characteristic of his detailed scores, and is accompanied by dynamic shaping following the contour of the line.

Figure 1.1 Rondo from Sonata in F minor5 (Smalley, 1958–2007)

IV Rondo

Roger Smalley Allegretto b b2 œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ &b b 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ ‰ Piano œœ œ ? b b2 œ nœ œ bœ j ‰ J ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ œ { b b 4 œ œ J œ & œ œ œ 6 b ˙ &b bb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ Pno. b j {&b bb œ ‰ œ œ ‰ ‰ œ œ ‰ ‰ j ‰ œ œ œ ˙˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

12 œ b nœ œ œœœ œœ œ œœ œ œœ œ &b bbnœ œ œ œ œ œ nœ ∑ œ Pno. b j ˙ œ œ œ œj {&b bb ‰ j ‰ œ œ œ ? ˙ œ œ ‰ ‰ œœnœ nœ œ œ œ J œ œ œ

18 b b &b b ∑ ∑ ∑ Pno. ? { bbbb ∑ ∑ ∑

5 Typeset from Callaway Archive Collection, University of Western Australia

Figure 1.2 Futility (1959) for voice and piano6 (Smalley, 1958–2007)

FUTILITY (Originally in G) Words by Wilfred Owen J. Roger Smalley

Allegretto ####5 p j j 7 Voice & 8 ∑ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ 8

Move him in - to the sun - Gent - ly its œ- œ œ # # 5 - - - œ 7 # ∏ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ ∏ œ œ

∏

∏ œ œ œ ∏ œ ∏ & 8 ∏ œ œ 8 ∏

∏ œ

∏ - Piano p (bell-like) ####5 7 {& 8 ‰ ≈ œ ‰ ≈ œ ‰ ≈ œ ‰ ≈ œ 8 œ œ œ œ ° ø etc

5 mf ####7 j 5 4 j Tr. Solo 8 8 Œ ‰ 8 Œ ‰ & œ œ œ œ œ nœ touch a - woke him once, At # # œ # #7 œ œ 5 ? 4 Œ & 8 ∏ œœ 8 œ nœ 8 œ nœ & ∏ œ œ œ ∏ - œ ∏ œœ

∏

∏ - Pno. # # p pp # #7 ‰ ≈ 5 ‰ ≈ ? 4 ≈ {& 8 nœ #œ œ 8 8 & nœ œ œ œ #œ œ #œ ° ø

8 # ## # Tr. Solo & ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ As a student of Peter Racine Fricker at the Royal College of Music from 1962 to

1965 and in classes# # at Morley College with Alexander Goehr Smalley began broadening & # # Ó ? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ his knowledgePno. of compositional techniques and continued the “piecemeal” (Mark, 2012b, # ##nJœ {& # ‰ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ p. 23) development of his understanding of serial techniques. Smalley also attended the

Dartington Summer Schools, where he was most influenced by Witold Lutosławski in

1963, due to his technique of generating music from twelve-note chords of two or three interval types, which is a technique that would gain importance in Smalley’s

6 Typeset from Callaway Archive Collection, University of Western Australia

compositional process (Mark, 2012b, p. 36). As detailed in Chapter 6.9, these twelve- note chords were constructed by Smalley to contain all twelve notes of the chromatic scale and all possible intervals. Smalley, referring to himself as a “second-string pianist”

(Comte, 2010, p. 245) furthered his piano studies with Anthony Hopkins, where his fascination with Chopin grew, including performances of Polonaise-fantasie Op. 61, and

Two Nocturnes Op. 62 (Smalley, 1994d, p. 67). John White was to become an enduring influence, and was central in fostering Smalley’s interest in works by Busoni and Alkan, bolstering a relationship with these Romantic pianist-composers and between performance and composition.

Currently overlooked is Smalley’s close relationship with the music of Robert

Schumann, which will be explored further in Chapter 5.3.2. In a note dated the 15th of

November 1965 Smalley details what he refers to as a “sifting of ideas” from his previous works. These included a complex use of a harmonic language which was at first chromatic, but became quasi-whole-tone, and of landscaping where there is a foreground, middle ground and a developed background. Smalley also described a “Schumann-like influence [as] very valuable. The bringing in of influencing layers which are basically not akin to the work-concept, even extra musical.” (Smalley, 1956–2009a) This highly developed textural layering is one feature evident in Smalley’s first published works,

Piano Pieces I–V (1962–65).

1.2.2 Smalley’s Earliest Published Works

Smalley’s earliest published works, his Piano Pieces I–V (Smalley, 1969) were composed during his time at the Royal College of Music. Piano Piece I and IV were composed in November 1962. However, it was not until 1964 that the idea of a set of pieces was conceived, exposing influences from Stockhausen’s Klavierstücke, and

Maxwell Davies Five Pieces for Piano (1956) (Mark, 2012b, p. 43). Piano Piece II was 9

composed from 26–27 August 1964, Piano Piece III on 25 January 1965, and Piano Piece

V from 5–7 February 1965.7 Although, described as the first pieces of Smalley’s to exhibit an individual style by Walsh (1994, p. 14), these concise, colourful compositions, which are studies in keyboard technique balanced thoughtfully with the exploration of a musical idea show the influence of Webern and Boulez. They also exhibit a striking similarity to the precision and colour seen in the Préludes composed by Claude Debussy. Examined in the following paragraphs, Piano Pieces I–V demonstrate Smalley’s early use of contrasting sonorities, layered textures, keyboard attacks, pedal effects, serial compositional technique, proportional (space-time) notation, canonic devices, unbarred rhythmic notation and his understanding of physical gesture.

The first two Piano Pieces were originally entitled “Bells” and formed part of a work for trumpet, piano and accordion based on Gerard Manley Hopkins’s poem "The

Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo". The ghostly echo of the opening right-hand chord of

Piano Piece I sustained in the resonance of the silently depressed left-hand chord captures

7 The National Library of Australia archive (Smalley, 1956–2009c) holds 32 pages of sketches for Piano Piece VI. Despite some sections being worked on in great detail, with the first draft dated the 8th of August 1969, this remains an unfinished work. Strophe VI from Piano Piece VI is shown in Figure 1.3, with my typesetting including the missing metronome indication from this incomplete sketch. Dedicated to John White and commissioned for the Belfast Festival of November 1969, it was begun on the 2nd of

August 1969 with Smalley’s sketches and notes revealing it was to be a roughly 20 minute work based on material derived from his own Gloria Tibi Trinitas I, for orchestra (1965 rev. 1969). These sketches were worked on until the 3rd of November 1969 and overlap with Smalley’s composition of Transformation (1968–69, rev.1971) detailed in Chapter

1.4.

a lustre reminiscent of the poem inspiring the work. A delayed pedal effect, which is challenging to execute precisely, creates a similar radiant resonance at the end of Piano

Piece I. Smalley’s use of proportional notation in Piano Piece IV, where one inch on the page represents one second of time, is of considerable interest for the performer, especially as Stephen Walsh suggests its purpose is “rather obscure” (Walsh, 1994, p.

14). However, pianistically it allows the performer freedom to artistically manage texture with clarity. The resonance and sustaining capability of the specific instrument used and the acoustic resonance of the performance space, which will always be slightly variable, inevitably affect the timing of the performance. Sophisticated use of the sustaining pedal is required to ensure the aural clarity of the overlapping chords. As a result of the complexity of the application of the sustaining pedal, no pedal indications are marked on the score, Smalley instead relying on the musicianship and skill of the performer. This is evident in Smalley’s recording of the work, available through Tall Poppies, which reveals the priority given to the aural clarity between overlapping voices, rather than a literal execution of the proportional notation. Dramatic gestures are given space for maximum effect, and resonances of chords are allowed an adequate length of time to register clearly in the listener’s ears before being released, revealing the appropriateness of the proportional notation.

Smalley’s use of the una corda pedal in all dynamic ranges is a pertinent example of his instinctive sense of pianistic colour, which is a recurring feature in his compositions. In Piano Piece III Smalley indicates use of the una corda pedal even in phrases marked at a forte level to create a full tone, but with less cantabile projection.

This corresponds with Piano Piece IV where Smalley indicates the una corda pedal is to be used in all dynamic levels except forte. This creates clarity through a reduction of excessive overtones, so that overlapping chords in the texture remain clearly audible. A comparison between Piano Piece I and Part II of The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo

(July/August 1964) shown in Figure 1.48 for piano and accordion reveals Smalley’s sensitivity to the qualities of instrumental colour. Similarities between the piano and accordion are highlighted in the B♭/C tenuto chord in the opening while, at the beginning of the final system, the accordion plays the B♭/E♭4ths to accentuate the brass-like colour of the chords in the texture which contrast strikingly with the percussive and gong- like colours in the extreme registers of the piano. These contrasting colours, whilst clearly implied in the version for solo piano, are explicit in the original version for piano and accordion.

The contrasts inherent in extreme registers of the piano are another aural and physical feature Smalley exploits in his piano writing, and are detailed in Chapter 1.2.4.

Each section of Piano Piece V exploits a specific register of the piano: the first remains in the extreme treble, not descending below the G ♯ above middle C; the second remains exclusively in the middle register; and the third in the extreme bass, not extending above the B ♮ a ninth below middle C. Paradoxically, the use of register in this way which creates an exciting aural effect and consistent intensity of expression, actually obscures the clarity of the canonic writing which, at least visually on the page, seems to be a striking feature of the work. Conversely, exploiting extreme registers of the piano is also used by Smalley to create clarity of texture. This is evident in Piano Piece III, shown in

Figure 1.5, where, in the fourth bar, one voice written in the extreme treble is played by the right-hand, one voice written in the extreme bass is played by the left-hand and a third voice written in the middle register of the piano is shared between the hands. This contrast in register is reinforced with contrasting dynamic indications for each part, with the

8 I have typeset this work for clarity directly from sketches held in the Callaway Archive at the University of Western Australia (this includes Smalley’s missing metronome indication).

middle voice marked p given prominence over the extreme bass and treble voices, which start at a dynamic level of pp.

The recycling (Mark, 2012b, p. 118) of pre-existing material becomes a feature in

Smalley’s music and Piano Pieces I–V contain initial appearances of material which

Smalley later recycled. Smalley’s next composition, 2 Poems of D.H. Lawrence (1965) is based on the opening bars from of Piano Piece V, and Smalley’s Missa Parodia I

(1967) based on material from a work composed by William Blitheman (c.1525–91), contains the opening bars taken from Piano Piece II with the contrasting articulations and dynamic levels of the brief fragment further developed in this new context. Figure 1.6 taken from Piano Piece II shows the distinctive use of accents on repeated notes, with the sforzando semiquaver creating resonance in the instrument which partially obscures the following piano crotchet. This heavy accent followed by a dull sustained articulation captures the leaden character from the work’s title. Section 10 from Missa Parodia I seen in Figure 1.79 directly quotes from Piano Piece I and then applies the distinctive articulation to modulating chords. These chords then morph into the aggressive final page of the work which, in the full ensemble version, serve as the link between Missa Parodia

I and Missa Parodia II. This refers to an element central to Smalley’s “constructionist”

(Mark, 1994, p. 18) methods, that allow the analyst informed wth his compositional processes to explain the notes within the score.

9 Excerpts from Missa Parodia I and II have been typeset by myself as part of an ongoing project to create a critical edition and performance parts of this work.

Figure 1.3 Piano Piece VI Typeset from Smalley’s sketches.

Strophe VI 2nd sketch 3/11/69 Allegretto violente e = nœ nœ œ nœ nœ Œ n œ Œ n œnnœœ Œ œ≈n œn œ top stave & R sempre clusters between notated sffz 3 limits 5 6 r 8 ?16 ≈ œ œ œ 16bœ ≈bœ ≈ 16 œœ R ≈ œ œ œ ‰ 3 Œ 3 3 3 3 {? ≈ r≈≈ r≈ ≈ ≈ r r ‰ ≈ r≈ r œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœb œ bœnbœœn œ n œ nnœ bœbœ n œ nœ nœ #œ nbœœbnœ #œ ™ bbœbbœbœ bœ & ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

3:2x 5:4x 3 3:2x 11 ? bœ 16 bœ œ Œ. 3 {? ‰ ‰™ Œ œ œ œ b œ œ n œ #œbœœ n œ b œ nbœnbœœnnœ nœ #œ #œ bœn œ v #œ#œœ v nœ nœ & Œ ‰ ≈ n œ 3:2x [5 x 's] 5:3 ?17 3r r ™ 16 ≈ œ ≈ œ ‰ {? ≈ 3r ≈ œ bœ œ

& ∑

? ∑

{? ∑

Figure 1.4 The Golden Echo and The Leaden Echo for accordion and piano

PART II (Accordion and Piano).

ANDANTE e = bœœ-™ 5:4x 7 4 ≈ Ó 2 nœ. Accordion 8 Ó 4 Œ 4 Œ ≈ ≈ & #œ. #œ p p . bbœ œ bœœ-™ 7 4 2 &8 ˙ œ™ 4 ≈ Œ 4 #˙ œ™ ÆJ Piano + p mp p ? 7 + f 4 2 - { 8#+ 4 4 R R silently mf ˙ depressed

. . ‰ 3 5 #œ nœ œ 2 Accordion & 8#œœ™ 4 Ó #œœ Œ ‰ #œ 4 >œ ™ ‰™ mf - f “” > >> œ œ 5: ≈ j œ#4œx loco. 3 5 ‰ Æ #œ 2 & 8 nœ œœ 5 œ 4 œ™ J œ -œ 4 ™ ™ A > nO nO Œ sf ff - f bœ 3 5 . 2 8 4 bœ œ ≈ Œ 4 Piano & œ bœ bœ silently p mp depressed p poco marc. {? 3 5 ˙ Œ 2 8 4 n#˙˙ 4 raise “‘ gradually R ø R

2 5 mfj 8 pp Accordion &4 ∑ 8 Ó 4 n##œœ WW

#œ 5 “” > > > 2 nœ 5 œ 8 n#œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ 4bnœœ 8 Œ œ bœ nœ ‰ 4 ‰ & ‰ # œœ ≈# œ nœ pp mp 5:4e

2 j 5 8 Piano &4 nœ 8 4 n#œ poco ma-rc. pp {? 2 5 ‰ 8 Ó 4 8 ˙ 4 ‰ #˙ œœ œœ œœ ‘ R ø R “

ppp -. -. -. -. -. -. 3 U Accordion & ‰ ‰ 8 ∑ ∑ bbœ œ œ œ œ œ

:“; 5:4x “” œœ œœ œœ > > > n œ™ n Uœ ‰ Ó 3 nœ ## œœ™ ## œœ & 8bœbœ bœ bœ ‰ sfz sfz Piano > 5>:4e> p staccato to extinction ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ™ œ of sound { œœœœœœ œœ œœ œœ ‰ œœ œœ 8 & #œœ™ #œœ œ ™ œ > > > R ( “ ‘ ) ≈ R R R

Pedal harmonic for lower chord only

Figure 1.5 Piano Piece III

Figure 1.6 Piano Piece II

Missa Parodia I Roger Smalley Figure 1.7 Missa Parodia I Section 10

Lento Allegretto rubato 10 ,, 9 3 ? G G sœfz œp ™ œ ppœ ? 3 ∑ R ≈ J Œ R ( )œ bœ œbœ œbœ œ mp p cresc. Piano -. œ œ œ {? œ œ œ ≈ bœ ‰ R h R R R #h sfz p mp sfz mp pp h

. . . . Ÿ(~2~)~~~~~ 5 . . . œ œ œ œ œœ œ#œ œœ#œ#œnœ( # œ ) ? œ œ œ ™ bœ . ? œbœœ bœœ‰ œœ ≈œ &#œnœ ≈ œ p #œ 5 3 ƒ . 3 . . . . . Pno. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ √ ? j >Ÿ œ { œ b˙˙™ œbœ œœ™ bœ œ ™ ( ) ™ œ ˙™ Jœ™ œ sfp Strike the whole chord, then begin the trill.

Allegretto rubato 10 Lento sffz p pp 9 œ. . r j ™ r p bœ ? ∑ bœ ≈bbœœ™ œœ Œ #œ ‰ ‰ œ. . b œ œ ™ œ # œ & œ Pno. -. œr 3 5 r r r œ(hold) œ œ F {? bœœbœœ œ ≈bbœœ‰ œœ œœ œœ bFF œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ sffz p mp sffz mp pp p R ø

1.2.3 Missa Parodia I 23 & ≈ ≈ ‰ ≈ ≈ 16 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Pno. <Ÿ>~ During this period, Smalley23 was receiving critical acclaim as a pianist, particuarly {? ≈ ≈ ‰ ≈ ≈ 16 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ of contemporary repertoire, giving first English performances of Stockhausen

Klavierstücke, Kontakte, and Boulez’s third sonata. In 1966 he came fourth in the

International Gaudeamus Competition for Interpreters of Contemporary Music held at

Utrecht (Walsh, 1968, p. 131). As an active pianist-composer, Smalley composed a virtuoso piano work for himself based on his own Missa Brevis (1966–67), which was based on Renaissance composer William Blitheman’s six settings for organ of the Gloria tibi Trinitas antiphon melody, an excerpt from which is shown in Figure 1.8. The cross-

rhythms, such as the subdivision of a bar into 3 + 3 + 2, and the progressive shortening of note values throughout the set was of particular interest to Smalley (Mark, 2012a, p.

7). Gloria tibi Trinitas vi Figure 1.8 Gloria tibi Trinitas vi William Blitheman BLITHEMAN

[h = 52] 4 ˙ œ b4 Œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ˙ œ ˙ œ #˙w œ & Œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ Œ œ œ œ œ Œ ™ j œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 ∑ Ó Œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ {?b4 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙

7 ™ j b ∑œ™ œ ∑ Œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœœ œ œ œ Ó & œœ J œ œ œ œœœ œ œ œœ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ Ó Œ j ˙ ˙ œ™ œ ™ j œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ™œœœ œ™ œ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ ˙œ œ œ ˙œ œ œ œ œ œ œ {?b Œ J œ J œ Œ

13 Œ œ ThisÓ materialœ wasœ œ the˙œ basisœœœ forœ œ˙a seriesœœ # œofœ œworks,œ nœ commencingœœœ œ œwithœ Gloriaœ œ tibi &b Œ œ œœ œœœœ œœ w ˙œ Ó Œ œ œ œ œ j Trinitas I (1965)œ œ and˙ Missaœ œ Brevisœ™ œ (1966)œ œ , in which˙ Œ Smalleyœ œ œ exploredœ the˙ compositionalœ œœœœ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ w œ œœœ œ œœ œ œ {?b Œ œœœ œ techniques of Peter Maxwell Davies, such as cantus firmus, modality, isorhythm, and canonic devices. Smalley worked in intricate detail to dissect, process and re- 19 ™ j œ œ ˙ œ œ Ó Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ˙ contextualiseb theœ Blithemaœœn# ˙keyboardœ piecesnœ œ œ asœ œa sourceœ œofœ raw materialœ to œconstruct™ œ a & œœœ ˙ œ ˙ œœœ œ œ œ œ œœœœœ J work from his ownŒ musicalŒ œ ideasœ œ . This preoccupationœ œ œ œ with œtechniqueœ and process rather œ œ œ œ ˙ œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙œ {?b œœœ œœœ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ than style is a feature seen in all Smalley’s works (Mark, 1994). As the final works in this series, Smalley composed his Missa Parodia I for solo piano and Missa Parodia II for 25 Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ U piano andb eightœ˙ œ instruments. In none œof these workœ sœ wasœ Smalley3 œ #aimingœ w to recapture the & ˙ Ó Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ #œ œ œ œ ˙ u keyboard style of the Elizabethan composer, or to compose in a neo-classical way inspired Œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ nœ™ j œ U ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ ˙ { b œ œ œ œ™ œ nœ œ 2 œ œ w by Stravinsky (Walsh, 1994, p. 14). Instead,J as Smalley explains beforeu a BBC broadcast of his own performance of Missa Parodia I (Smalley, 1967a), these final two piano works are influenced by the operatic fantasies and paraphrases of Liszt and Busoni. This alludes

to the rapport with Romantic pianist-composers which develops further in later works such as Barcarolle (1986), detailed in Chapter 1.8. In his programme notes Smalley writes how he “deliberately tried to pulverise and disintegrate the material of the Mass and reform it into something altogether more expressionistic and violent” (Thönell, 1994, p.

94), and in moments the virtuosity threatens to overwhelm. However, this is balanced with pianissimo phrases to be perfomed with a “colourless tone” (Smalley, 1967b, p. 14), with these two extremes exploiting the expressive capability of the piano to the fullest.

Missa Parodia I and II were composed in a remarkably brief period between the

6th of June and the 1st of September in 1967 for performance at the Dartington Hall

Summer School of the same year. This rapid composition of less than three months accounts for the less than immaculate notation of the currently available “study score”

(Smalley, 1967b), published by Faber Music. Smalley’s manuscripts are usually a paradigm of clarity and precision and in no need of typsetting. However, a detailed comparison between the existing score and the BBC recordings made by Smalley, similar to the comparisons detailed in this thesis on Monody in Chapter 1.5 and Transformation in Chapter 3.4, is an important future project and essential in creating a critical edition of the work. Being fifth in the series of works using material from the Blitheman original would also account for the work’s rapid creation as Smalley’s digestion of the source material was already largely complete.

As is a common feature of Smalley’s music, the work contains moments of quotation (Mark, 2012b, p. 99), seven in total, which Smalley clearly marks in the score with quotation marks. In the style of the operatic paraphrases of Liszt and Busoni, five of these instances are quotations directly from Smalley’s own Missa Brevis and reference the section of the original explored in that section of the parody. These are found: in

Section 1 taken from the Kyrie; in the introduction to Section 7 and about two thirds of the way through Section 7 from the Sanctus; and the second half of Section 5 and the

beginning of Section 8 from the Benedictus. In Section 10, as mentioned above, there is also a quotation from Smalley’s own Piano Piece II, which is a similarity Smalley noted as he composed the work and decided to highlight. In Section 8 Smalley includes “a quotation from the fifth movement of Webern’s Second Cantata, Op. 31. Webern likened the form of this Cantata to a Mass. His fifth movement corresponds to the Benedictus”

(Smalley, 1994c, p. 95). With this statement Smalley confirms the strong affinity with the music of Webern in this work. A characteristic seen in the left-hand bass gesture in

Section 2, and the sparse texture and falling motives in Section 8, which are both reminiscent of Webern’s Variations for Piano Op. 27.

Smalley writes that Section 6 is derived from “chordal structures based on the harmonic series” (Thönell, 1994, p. 94), which is a technique he will continue to explore and refine in later works. As is always the case with Smalley’s compositions for solo piano “keyboard techniques play an important part in the work’s shape” (Walsh, 1994, p.

16). Pianistically, these two techniques bear further examination, as the harmonically derived chord shapes are clearly connected to the building of a rich, sonorous piano tone.

The note-stream shown in Figure 1.9 is taken from Section 6 of Missa Parodia I, and illustrates the lower bass built from intervals of perfect 5ths which create a rich resonance, while the intensity and excitement is generated by the more chromatic notes in the extreme treble register. These shapes allow the piano to resonate with depth and richness adding to the excitement of the phrases, and demonstrates an early instance of Smalley’s reintegration of tonality in his compositions being linked to the inherent physical qualities of piano resonance. The greatest success of the work is the sense of free virtuosity in the piano writing which is nonetheless controlled through a rigorous compositional process, reflected in the precise notation of dynamics and rhythms, reminiscent of his Piano Pieces

I–V.

Smalley’s use of subtle pedal effects to create unique colours can be heard in the opening phrase of the work which develops the technique from the opening bar of Piano

Piece I. After a percussive articulation in the left-hand chords, the open strings held in the three right-hand chords resonate like an echo. This introduction is a direct quotation from Smalley’s own Missa Brevis and the pedal effect serves as a ghostly echo of the original Blitheman material. Nuanced use of piano resonance is further exploited in

Section 8, where percussive right-hand attacks resonate in harmonic structures held in the bass register with third pedal. This pedalling technique maintains a direction and continuity in the phrase despite the violent attacks in the treble chords. Sensitive and sophisticated use of all three pedals is required throughout Missa Parodia I, and its application is dependent on the discretion and musicianship of the performer. Creating clarity in the overlapping voices requires subtle use of the middle and sostenuto pedals which is too complex to accurately notate, and the sophistication of the contrasting colours requires sensitive use of the una corda pedal. This feature alone makes the work a masterpiece of piano writing and an engrossing pianistic challenge.

1.2.4 Register, Texture and Orchestration

The textural complexities within Missa Parodia I involve a sophisticated use of register to create exciting contrasts. One technically virtuosic requirement within the work is Smalley’s exploitation of writing in confined registers of the piano. Figure 1.10 shows the bass register writing from Section 10 of Missa Parodia I. The uniformity of colour from the two voices written in the same register two octaves below middle C, plus the complexity of the rhythmic interplay between the parts creates an intensely violent assault. Sophisticated techniques such as this make the work one of the most expressive in the avant-garde repertoire of the 1960s. In the first sections of Missa Parodia I, Smalley applies this technique to overlapping chords written in the same register of the piano. 23

Evolving from Piano Piece IV, in which Smalley uses proportional notation to clearly indicate the duration of the overlapping chords, this writing involves a sophisticated use of the right and left sustaining pedals of the piano and a choreographed coordination between the hands to ensure clarity between the voices and a sustained legato. This creates a subtle overlapping and interplay of voices throughout the opening pages of

Missa Parodia I, which is a challenge to achieve for the performer.

There is an intriguing parallel between Smalley’s technique of writing overlapping voices in a confined register of the piano and his technique of orchestrating in groups of instruments in Missa Parodia II and developed further in the Concerto for

Piano and Orchestra, (Mark, 2012b, p. 157) discussed in Chapter 4.4. In Missa Parodia

II, Smalley writes for the strings as a distinct group, the brass as a group, and the woodwinds as a group, only combining them in the selected sections such as Strophe VI.

Figure 1.11 shows Strophe II from Missa Parodia II to illustrate Smalley’s overlapping writing for the violin and viola. This unity of tone and transparency of texture is highly evocative of Smalley’s use of register in his piano writing.

Figure 1.9 Missa Parodia I Section 6 q = 100

bœ œœ 8 œ œ œ loco. & ∑ ≈ 5 5 ff bœbœ bœ bœbœ & ∑ bœbœ bœbœbœ bœ bœ œ 6 5 5 sffz (don't let the tension drop in this bar!) √ loco. œ œ œ {? œœ 8 w R

> loco. bœ œ œ bœ œ bœbœ œbœ bœ & ≈ ≈ bœ bœ bœ #œ > Pno. 5 > 6 ≈bœ & #œ 6 œ œ œ œ œ {? œ œ œ œ bœ bœ bœ bœ R ø 7

& Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Pno. & Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

{? Œ Œ ∑ ∑ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Missa Parodia Figure 1.10 Missa Parodia I Section 10 Roger Smalley

a tempo (vivacissimo) 5 furio8so eœ staœccato œ 5 œ bœ 7:4x œ œœ ? œ œ œbœ œ ‰ œ œœ bœ œœ œ œ œ œœœœœœ bœ œ œœ 3 3 3 Piano sub. ff 5 3 3 3 3 ? 8 3œ œ 5 œ 3 bœœ bœœ œ œ œ œœ bœ nœ bœ œ { œœœbœ #œ #œ #œnœbœ œ≈bœ œ œœ ( œ )œ œ bœ nœ bœ 3 3 senza ped. 3 3

3 5 3 3 3 3 bœ ? 8 œ bœ œ bœ œ œ bœœ œbœ œ bœ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ bœbœbbœœ œ bœbœ œ œbœ 3 3 Pno. 3 5 8 œ 3 {? bœbœbbœœ œ œ œ bœœbœœ bœ nœ œ œbœ nœ œ œbœbœnœ bœbœ œ#œ #œ #œ

5 7:4x 5

3 hectically 3 œ œ™ >œ 3 x= x œ œ™ j œ bœ { _ #œ™ œ œ™bœ œ™ œ™ œ ? bœ œ œ œ J J nœ™ œ™ J J loconœ™ & J J ff j > > > Pno. j ™ #œœ™œ œ™ œ œ™ ? 3 #œ™ œœ™ ™ ? #œ™#œœ™ ≈ { œ ‰ loco bœ J nœ™ ‰& bœ j J œ œ ‰ #>œ#>œ œ™ J 3 poco œ > > > ( p e d . )

& ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Pno. {? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Missa Parodia II Roger Smalley Figure 1.11 Missa Parodia II Strophe II

STROPHE II q = 100 p` . . 5 . . ° 5 2 3 3 5 5 5 3 Vln. &8 ∑ 4 œ 8 œbœ ≈bœbœœ con sord. œ#œœ> œ œ bœ#œœ #œ œ œ œ bœ bœnœ

> 3 5 5 5 3 2 5 3 œ Vla. ¢B 8 œ™œœœœ≈œœœœ#œ 4#œ œ™ œœbœ œ8bœœnœ bœ™ œ œ #œ con sord. > p 5

mp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . f Ÿ . . . 3 3 3 > ° œ 3 2 5 bœ 3 œ œ #œœbœ 2 Vln. glis 4 bœ 8 œ ≈ bœ bœ nœ bœ ≈4 & > #œ ˙(œ ) s. # œ œ œbœ œ bœ nœ R ( œ ) bœ œ œ#œ 3 3 Ÿ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ nœ˙ . 7:6x œ ( n œ ) 2 . . œ . 3 bœ 2 Vla. B 4 #œ œ bœ bœ nœ8 œ bœ ‰ ‰ > 4 ¢ . > & #œ œ. #œ nœ œbœ œ >œ mp 3 pp pizz. f 5

mp cresc. f 3 œbœ > - mf cresc. ° 2 œ 3 œ#œœ nœ bœ b>œ œœ-œ- œbœ-nœ- œ-5 - œ- - œ œ #œœ#œ œ Vln. 4 œ œ ≈ 8 œ œ œ œ & #œ#œ 5 7:4x 5 3 > > > 5 2 bbœœ b>œ œœ-œ- - - -5 bœ Vla. 4 œ ‰ Œ ≈ bœ - 8 œ œ œbœ ¢& #œ œ œbœ - #-œ -#œœbœbœnœ arco mf cresc. 3 sfz f 7:4x

> f > dim. > ° bœ œ bœnœ bœ 3 œ œ œ > œ #œ 3 œ œ ∑ Vln. & œ œ 4 bœ bœ œ nœ #œnœ œ bœ 5 3 3 3 . . - > > >œ > - - nœ#œ nœ œ #œ œ œbœ 3 œ œbœ 3 ∑ Vla. ¢& 4 œ œ œ #œ œ nœ bœ 3 3 3 f 5

1.2.5 Missa Parodia Conclusions

After Smalley’s performance of Missa Parodia I and II at the Dartington Summer

School of Music in 1967, he then gave the London première with the William York ensemble at Wigmore Hall on the 9th of October in 1967. These performances drew critical praise from the London critics:

Mondays’ Macnaughten Concert… was difficult and uncompromising, but for all

that it provided a most enjoyable and rewarding evening. Two specific reasons

suggest themselves. First the playing… Roger Smalley, who is certainly the most

gifted pianist of twentieth-century music that I have heard either live or on record.

Secondly, a work of Smalley’s own, Missa Parodia I and II which was receiving

its London première (Walsh, 1967, p. 24).

Roger Smalley’s Missa Parodia I for piano, performed brilliantly by the composer

for the second time in 10 days, again compelled attention for its confident

utterance and increasingly its formal characteristics (Blyth, 1967, p. 9).

Considering this success of Missa Parodia I in its original live performances, combined with the sophistication and intensity of Smalley’s piano writing, one might anticipate the work becoming recognised as a landmark piano work of the late twentieth- century. Producing a high-quality studio recording and typeset critical edition should be a priority to promote it to a wider audience, especially as the complex score alone does not fully reveal the expressive power of this music, and at some points is missing accurate clef and rest indications.

1.3 Reviews of Smalley as performer

Roger Smalley was a central figure in bringing the music of Karlheinz

Stockhausen to British audiences. He gave British premières of Klavierstücke 5, 7 and 8 during a series of concerts he organised in December 1966 of Stockhausen’s chamber works at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. Smalley also recorded these works for the B.B.C. to great acclaim:

Stockhausen’s Piano piece no. 11 and Gilbert Amy’s Epigrammes… were given

splendid performances by Mr. Smalley, a pianist who plays this music with

ease, clarity of phrasing and rich pianistic colour. Much of Stockhausen’s piano

writing, admittedly, sounds rather harsh and ugly. But in this particular piece it

has a vividness and strength of purpose…Stockhausen’s piano pieces IX and XI…

given a fine performance, including all the sophisticated pedal techniques,

harmonics, and the small-note stylisation (Larner, 1969).

In 1968 Smalley received the Harriet Cohen award for contemporary music performance and, from this date, was performing a wide range of styles including his own compositions for piano and live electronics. An intriguing review of Smalley’s “Meet the

Composer” recital at the Queen Elizabeth Hall in 1971 highlights the conviction and artistic breadth of Smalley’s performances:

Give any musician a sonata of Beethoven to play, and almost inevitably he

will tell you as much about himself as about Beethoven. That, I suspect, was

Roger Smalley’s deliberate intention when… he decided to include the most

elusive of all the sonatas, Opus 101 in A... Mr Smalley went beyond any stylistic

limits, and the result would have been outrageous in its romantic freedoms, but 29

for the player’s inescapable dedication. Far better than a cold account and when

we came to Mr Smalley’s own electronic piece “Transformations” [sic] in the

second half, the Lisztian arpeggios and tremolos of the piano part seemed to make

more sense. In that tough avant-garde breast beats a very emotional heart indeed

(Greenfield, 1971, p. 8).

Both of the above reviewers describe Smalley’s ability to bring an emotionally expressive dimension to his performances. An expression which was drawn in response to details on the score and dedicated to communicating the composer’s intention.

1.4 Transformation and the influence of Stockhausen

Transformation (1968–69, rev.1971) will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter

2 and Chapter 3 of this thesis, and marks a shift in Smalley’s composition, moving from the influence of Peter Maxwell Davies to Karlheinz Stockhausen. There was some overlapping of these influences as Smalley’s association with Stockhausen commenced in Darmstadt in 1964, included attending Stockhausen’s Cologne New Music Course in

1965 (Mark, 2012b, p. 75), and as mentioned in Chapter 1.3, involved performances of

Stockhausen’s Klavierstücke prior to the composition of Missa Parodia I and II in 1967.

Stockhausen’s influence can be seen in Smalley’s use of live electronics and, more significantly, Moment-form, which Smalley details in his 1974 articles on Momente

(Smalley, 1974, pp. 25–26). Smalley was most influenced by “the new formal possibilities and the new attitude to material that [Moment-form] suggested” (Mark,

2012b, p. 80). The strict treatment of compositional material and procedures within a discrete Moment presented Smalley with control over the development and organisation of a work’s structure, and his practical and flexible application of these structural possibilities can be seen in the analysis of Monody in Chapter 1.5.5. 30

Transformation is in Fixed-Moment form (Emmerson, 1994, p. 33), although

Smalley himself described the structure of the work in ‘Sections’ rather than ‘Moments’.

This distinction is reflected in Smalley’s use of phrases to link sections, and the structure of the work developing through turbulent climactic sections before “bell-like” (Dennis,

1969, p. 29) sonorities toll the work’s ending. First conceived as a work for prepared piano, Smalley instead became the first composer to use Ring Modulation (RM) with the piano to create an extended range of sonorities.10 Although listed as a work for solo piano, the sophisticated use of RM in this work makes it essentially a duo. This was developed through the performances given with Tim Souster in Intermodulation, the new music, live electronics ensemble formed by Roger Smalley, Tim Souster, Andrew Powell and Peter

Britton in 1969 (Souster, 1994, p. 25). Smalley’s impressive pianistic writing, shown in

Figure 1.1211 from Section 3 of Transformation, further develops the sophisticated pedal effects, layered textures and virtuosic note streams seen in Missa Parodia I and is combined with the live electronics to create an, at times, overwhelming effect.

10 Stockhausen had used RM in Mixtur (1964) and Mikrophonie (1965), but did not apply the technique to piano until Mantra (1970).

11 Typeset examples from the critical edition of Transformation were produced by Dr

Chris Tonkin.

Figure 1.12 Transformation Section 3

Section 3 E marcato œ 6 (non legato) bœ loco œ bœ Nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ bœ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ bœ bœ t bœ bœ ? 6 Ù bœ œ œ œ œ 7:4 rK † Ù K (8) 8 6:4 rK 9:8 rK œ œ 7:4 rK œ œ œ bœ (8) œ (poco) bœ 6:4 rK œ 5:4 j loco p œ ƒ bœ nœ ^ t ? bœ 6 ? œ bœ œ #œ &bœ 8 ‰ . œ bœ œ œ ( ) œ staccato. œ . œ. œ . bœ Piano nœ œ ƒ P . . . œ Bb bœ . A . ß ß bœ.œ t > 6 > 8 . 3Pœ. b˙˙ t 6 ! 8 ! #œ ~ ? 6 & 8 œ Pot. ! !

legato (non legato) legato œ #œ (loco)bœ œ œ bœ bœ bœ f œ œ ? 1 7 bœ † œ & œ bœ 8 ‰ 8 œ œ 9:8 rK œ œ 6:4 rK œ 7:4 rK #œ nœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ (8) (loco) ^ 7:4 rK bœ Nœ œ ? œ ? 1 7 bœ & bœ #œ 8 ‰ 8 ( ) bœ Piano œ b œ œ bœ p œ œ Bb bœ ß bœ t 1 7 ( ) 8( j ) 8 . (3P)b˙˙ bœœ ˙˙ (3P) t 1 7 ! 8 ! 8 !

( ) #œ bœ ~ ? 1 7 & 8 & 8 bœ Pot. ! ! !

(legato) stacc. poco rit. p . stacc. . œ bœ. #œ. . bœ œ œ P œ bœ . œ bœ œ . bœ. ? œ. . œ. œ. œ #œ 1 5 #œ bœ. & bœ 5 5 ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ 3 R 3 1.5 Monody5 : A Case Study 8 8 > > P #œ stacc. œ #œ bœ p f > > bœ. . nœ œ œ œ œ œ ? . bœ œ œ ? œ œ œ & œ #œ 1 ! 5 ‰ œ . bœ bœ 5 œ 8 8 3 œ bœ œ R 3 bœ 3 Piano > > > > > . 5 th 3 Monody isF describedp . . in. . Smalley’s notes dated the 10 of September 1971 t j 81 ! 85 ( ) b˙ (Smalley, ˙˙ 1956–2009b) as a companionœ œ piece for Transformation˙˙ and continues ^ > t ! 81 j 85 bœ b˙ Smalley’s(3P) exploration of piano with live electronic modulation.œJ ˙ Sharing compositional ( ) ( ) bœ bœ ~ 1 5 traits with& Transformation, discussed in Chapter 82.1, Monody8 œ will receive detailed

Pot. discusson in the following ! paragraphs, with the aim! of resolving! questions of interpretation, and clarifying the formal structure of the work which has been described as “stubbornly resistant to quantification” by Vickery (2016, p. 107). The work is guided by Smalley’s desire to fully exploit the structural and formal possibilities of ring 32

modulation (RM). The challenge of applying RM in a meaningful and coherent manner is a problem highlighted by Simon Emmerson, who called for a “moratorium on the use of the ring modulator in electronic music (especially live electronics)” (Emmerson, 1977, p. 20) to allow a solution to be developed. To meet this challenge and achieve a greater coherence, Monody is written in a single “monodic” (Smalley, 1994c, p. 99) line12 with no use of the sustaining pedal so as to reduce the overtones created by the instrument.

This results in more accurate prediction of the frequencies produced by the RM which are then reinforced with triangles, bongos and congas. These characteristics combined with the strict, constructivist procedures governing the increasing complexity of the note streams makes Monody Smalley’s pianistically most challenging work. In Smalley’s programme notes it is somewhat inaccurately described as being composed between

October 1971 and February 1972 (Smalley, 1994c, p. 99) despite significant revisions, which will be detailed below and are summarised in Table 1.3, occuring after this date.

1.5.1 Sources

Establishing a more comprehensive timeline behind the composition of Monody was important in determining Smalley’s formal plan for the work and in developing a performance. This involved a comparison between the six sources listed below:

1. A recorded performance given by Smalley, broadcast on BBC Radio 3 on the

16th of May 1972. (This will be referred to as the pre-April 1972 performance);

12 In Section 1 and 2 this monodic line does not posses the virtusoity or interplay between the hands to qualify as a note stream. However, the continuous semiquavers in Section 3 and the choreography between the hands required in Section 20 would both qualify these monodic lines as note streams.

2. A recorded performance given by Smalley in a BBC Proms concert entitled

‘Intermoduation at the Round House’, recorded on the 2nd of July 1974. (This

will be referred to as the post-May 1972 performance);

3. Notes detailing initial ideas for a companion piece to Transformation dated

10/9/71;

4. A manuscript “copy incorporating revisions made 21/4/72”. (This will be

referred to as the April 1972 manuscript);

5. A sketch dated from Sept 1971 to May 1972 containing penciled anotations,

and which Smalley used as a performance score. (This will be referred to as

the May 1972 manuscript); and

6. The finalised score published by Faber Music in 1975. (This will be referred

to as the Faber 1975 score).

1.5.2 The BBC Recordings

The two recorded performances of Monody by Smalley listed above were accessed in April 2019 at the British Library in London. Considering the recordings are over 40 years old they are clear and well-suited to the purposes of this research. The pre-

April 1972 performance was originally broadcast on BBC Radio 3 on the 16th of May

1972. This performance must have been recorded well before the BBC Radio 3 broadcast, as it does not contain the revsions made by Smalley in the April 1972 manuscript which would predate the indicated broadcast date. The post-May 1972 performance is from a

BBC Proms concert entitled ‘Intermodulation at the Round House’, and was recorded on the 2nd of July 1974. This recording is of the May 1972 manuscript. The most obvious contrast to be made between these two performances of Monody is of their length. The pre-April 1972 performance is 15ʹ 40ʺ long, while the post-May 1972 performance

recording is 5ʹ 12ʺ shorter, at 10ʹ 28ʺ in length. This gives an initial indication of the

significant revisions made by Smalley to the original work.

This difference in length is a result of Smalley removing one complete section of

the April 1972 manuscript and significantly shortening other sections thereby condensing

the overall structure of the work. These revisions are not entirely surprising as the work,

like Transformation, is in a Fixed-Moment form and unitary in its creation (Emmerson,

1994, p. 33). Smalley derives all the note streams in Monody from a single harmonic

construct created with seven different notes of a simplified harmonic series based on C,

shown in the first bar of Figure 1.13. This notes taken from this harmonic construct forms

a mode, shown in bar 2 of Figure 1.13, which when inverted (bar 3 of Figure 1.13) is only

slightly different producing “a subtle change of colour… analogous to the difference

between major and minor, or melodic and harmonic minor scales on the same tonic”

(Smalley, 1994b, p. 38). This suggests that the structural revisions made by Smalley in

the April 1972 version of Monody were a relatively simple procedure, in which sections

could be easily interchanged and abbreviated. The changes evident in the two recorded

performances are detailed in the following paragraphs together with an examination of

Smalley’s surviving manuscripts.

Figure 1.13 Monody BasicBasic pitchPitch mmaterialaterial o f Monody

#ww b ww bœ bœ œ œ bœ bœ & w œ œ œ #œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ Piano inversion {? w w

1.5.3 The Manuscripts of Monody

The two manuscripts listed in 1.5.1 are held by the National Library of Australia in Canberra, and provide details of the evolution of the work towards the published Faber

1975 score. The April 1972 manuscript reveals that, although the initial composition of the work had been completed by February 1972, there were significant revisions made before the 21st of April 1972. Most interestingly, these revisions were made after Smalley had publicly performed and recorded for broadcast his initial version of the work which is heard in the pre-April 1972 performance. This is in contrast to the early recordings of

Transformation, detailed in Chapter 2.2 which were labelled: “1st (unrevised) version.

Not to be used”. As mentioned throughout this thesis, an extended compositional process and subsequent revisions often fashioned through the act of performance are features common to many of Smalley’s works.

1.5.4 Revisions to Monody

The most notable revision in the April 1972 manuscript is the removal of the entire final section of the work. In the April 1972 manuscript, Section 22 is the sixth statement of the material first used in Section 4, and concludes with semibreve middle C marked with a long fermata. This C is held as the pianist lowers the volume of the RM until only the ppp solo piano sound remains. Whilst this seems a logical outcome to a work based entirely on modes generated from the harmonic series based on C, there is a sense of anti- climax to this conclusion which is heard in the pre-April 1972 performance.

Foreshadowing a similar change Smalley made to the final note of Accord, detailed by

Mark (2012b, p. 119), Smalley removed this final reprise, with the work now concluding with a more energetic section featuring the triangles. Reorganising Monody to conclude

with an energetic percussion section explains another significant change made to the structure of the work.

As described in his pre-concert talk given before his performance of Monody in the pre-April 1972 performance, Smalley considered the sections featuring percussion as one of the three structural ideas alternating through the piece. The function of the percussion instruments is to emphasize qualities of the RM sound, with the triangles associated with very high frequencies and the congas and bongos with very low frequencies. It is therefore logical that these sections may be interchanged. After removing Section 22 from Monody, the final section now featured the triangle emphasizing high frequencies. For a more dramatic conclusion to the work Smalley revised this to a section featuring the drums and their association with the low frequencies. Although this did not substantially alter the structure of the work, it had the consequence of rearranging the appearances of the drums and triangles through the work.

In the April 1972 manuscript the triangles appear in Section 3 and 21 with the drums appearing in the middle of the work in Sections 11 and 13. In the May 1972 manuscript the triangles appear in Section 3 and 11 and the drums in Section 13 and Section 21, which divides the work into two halves, with high frequencies emphasised in the first half and low frequencies emphasised in the second half.

The material in the piano part is also slightly revised in the sections utilizing percussion. Whilst Section 3 remains the Prime version, Section 11 is altered from Prime to Inversion, Section 13 is altered from Inversion to Prime, and Section 21 is altered from

Prime to Inversion. As shown in Table 1.1, this alters the work’s structural symmetry, as the triangles are used with a Prime and Inversion piano part in the first half of Monody, and the drums are used with a Prime and Inversion piano part in the second half of the work. The slight difference between the Prime and Inversion form of the original row,

described in Figure 1.13, results in Smalley’s interchange of the material in these sections creating only a subtle change in colour rather than any disunity between sections.

Table 1.1 Appearance of percussion in Monody

Section 3 Section 11 Section 13 Section 21

April 1972 Triangles Prime Drums Prime Drums Inversion Triangles Prime

May 1972 Triangles Prime Triangles Inversion Drums Prime Drums Inversion

Section R April 1972 manuscript May 1972 manuscript There is one further significant use of drums which is completely removed from Section 1 R1 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 the April 1972 manuscript. Section 20 of the April 1972 manuscript is predominantly Section 5 R2 8, 1, 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 8, 5 played on theSection piano, 9 with theR3 drums5, used8, 1, 2, to 3 substitute what would1, 2, 8, be5, 3the lowest pitch of the piano noteSection-stream 15 , thus R4emphasis 3, 5,ing 8, the1, 2 low RM frequencies.1, 8, 5, T 2,his 3 use of drums was removed asSection one of 19 the first revisionsR5 2, to3, 5,Monody 8, 1 , as they are not8, heard5, 3, 2, in1 Section 20 in the

pre-April 1972 performance. Also, the use of percussion here is inconsistent with the other percussion sections in the work which coincide with a Prime or Inversion statement of the semiquaver note stream. In the May 1972 manuscript each drum strike is replaced simply with the lowest A on the piano which, in the post-May 1972 performance, Smalley plays with violent percussive attacks. Not only is this more rewarding and simpler to play for the pianist, but allows for a more dramatic and sudden use of drums in what has become the final climactic section of the revised May 1972 manuscript.

The opening statement is an allusion to Stockhausen’s Klavierstücke IX, and is slightly revised from the April 1972 manuscript to the May 1972 manuscript. The durations of the notes in the statement, and all other serial components of the work, are controlled by the Fibonacci series. This referential statement, which Smalley labels as R,

uses notes of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 quavers in length.13 Each of the 5 appearances of R is altered, as shown in Table 1.2 to reveal a mirror image. Whilst this is a slight change it does provide an impetus into what in the May 1972 manuscript is the penultimate section Section 3 Section 11 Section 13 Section 21 of the work. April 1972 Triangles Prime Drums Prime Drums Inversion Triangles Prime

May 1972 Triangles Prime Triangles Inversion Drums Prime Drums Inversion Table 1.2 Comparison of April 1972 and May 1972 manuscripts

Section R April 1972 manuscript May 1972 manuscript

Section 1 R1 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 1, 2, 3, 5, 8

Section 5 R2 8, 1, 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 8, 5

Section 9 R3 5, 8, 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 8, 5, 3

Section 15 R4 3, 5, 8, 1, 2 1, 8, 5, 2, 3

Section 19 R5 2, 3, 5, 8, 1 8, 5, 3, 2, 1

There are 10 revisions made in the April 1972 manuscript which all reduce the length in certain sections of the work which are listed below:

1. the number of repeats of Section 2 is reduced from 13 to 8;

2. Section 3 is reduced from 55 to 34 semiquavers in length;

3. Section 7 is reduced from 102 to 42 semiquavers in length;

4. the number of repeats of Section 10 is reduced from 5 to 3;

5. Section 11 is reduced from 110 to 55 semiquavers in length;

6. Section 13 is reduced from 123 to 89 semiquavers in length;

7. the number of repeats of Section 14 is reduced from 3 to 2;

13 In order to clearly convey the kinds of proportions and periodicities that Smalley’s music comprises Arabic Numerals will be used where appropriate in the analyses within this thesis.

8. Section 17 is reduced from 145 to 102 semiquavers in length;

9. the number of repeats of Section 18 is reduced from 2 to 1; and

10. Section 21 is reduced from 165 to 110 semiquavers in length.

Combining the above reductions14 with Smalley’s removal of the entirety of

Section 22 which ends with the final semibreve C, this totals a removal of 897 semiquavers or 224 and ¼ crotchet beats, which accounts for the overall reduction in length of Smalley’s two performances by 5ʹ 12ʺ. These revisions further highlight the importance of the Fibonacci series in Monody, with alterations of 34, 55 and 89 semiquavers in length, and result in a significant tightening of the structure of Monody.

14 Smalley’s rigorous use of the Fibonacci series was likely influenced by the 1971 publication of the English translation of Bela Bartok: An Analysis of his Music written by

Erno Lendvai (Lendvai, 1971).

40 A table summarising Smalley’s significant revisions between the April 1972 manuscript and the Faber 1975 score is shown in Figure

Table 1.3 Significant revisions to Monody between the April 1972 manuscriptMonody Mainand the Revisions Faber 1975from Aprilscore 1972 manuscript to Faber published score

Section April 1972 manuscript Faber 1975 score Section 1 Part R order of durations 12358 Part R order of durations 12358 Section 2 Part A 13 repeats Part A 8 repeats 273 semiquavers long 168 semiquavers long Section 3 Part C Prime Triangles Part C Prime Triangles 55 semiquavers long 34 semiquavers long Section 4 Part B Part B 144 semiquavers long 144 semiquavers long Section 5 Part R order of durations 81235 Part R order of durations 12385 Section 6 Part A 8 repeats Part A 5 repeats 272 semiquavers long 170 semiquavers long Section 7 Part C Extreme Inversion Part C Extreme Prime 102 semiquavers long 42 semiquavers long Section 8 Part B Part B 188 semiquavers long 188 semiquavers long Section 9 Part R order of durations 58123 Part R order of durations 12853 Section 10 Part A 5 repeats Part A 3 repeats 275 semiquavers long 165 semiquavers long Section 11 Part C Drums Prime Part C Triangles Inversion 110 semiquavers long 55 semiquavers long Section 12 Part B Part B 165 semiquavers long 165 semiquavers long Section 13 Part C Drums Inversion Part R Drums Prime 123 semiquavers long 89 semiquavers long Section 14 Part A 3 repeats Part A 2 repeats 267 semiquavers long 188 semiquavers long Section 15 Part R order of durations 35812 Part R order of durations 18523 Section 16 Part B Part B 170 semiquavers long 170 semiquavers long Section 17 Part C Extreme Prime Part C Extreme Inversion 145 semiquavers long 102 semiquavers long Section 18 Part A 2 repeats Part A no repeats 288 semiquavers long 144 semiquavers long Section 19 Part R order of durations 23581 Part R order of durations 85321 Section 20 Part B with Drums Part B Drums replaced with lowest 168 semiquavers long A on piano 168 semiquavers long Section 21 Part C Prime Triangles Part C Drums Inversion 165 semiquavers long 110 semiquavers long Section 22 Part B no repeats Section Removed 181 semiquavers long

1.5.5 Structure

In Smalley’s brief, but detailed, pre-concert talk which introduces his pre-April

1972 performance, he reveals Monody contains three alternating ideas. These ideas are related to the effect of the RM and are listed below.

1. In the first idea, the intervals produced by the RM get smaller from wide

intervals to narrow, which Smalley compares to a decrescendo sign.

2. In the second idea, the intervals produced by RM get larger, from

narrow intervals to wide, similar to a crescendo sign.

3. The third idea is related to other two ideas, but uses percussion

instruments to emphasise particular qualities of the RM sound. The triangles are

used to emphasise the glockenspiel-like sounds produced when the piano tone is

modulated with very high frequencies, while the congas and bongos are used to

emphasise the thumping sounds produced when the piano tone is modulated with

very low frequencies.

This confirms that Smalley perceived the structure of Monody primarily in terms of the RM from which all the compositional material in the piece is derived. This material includes: the modes generated from the harmonic series based on C; the use of percusion; no use of the sustaining pedal to reduce the overtones created by the piano; and the use of changing RM frequencies to create the phrase direction as the piano simply repeats monodic material. This can be most clearly heard in Section 2 in which the piano material is repeated 8 times as the RM moves through the descending notes of the inverted mode from C1 to middle C, making the intervals produced by the RM smaller.

Smalley continues his introduction to the pre-April 1972 performance by revealing that these ideas create three corresponding textures which are alternated and evolve throughout the work’s 21 sections.

1. One texture becomes progressively longer.

2. Another texture becomes progressively shorter.

3. One texture remains unchanged.

Smalley points out that this is “not dissimilar” to the three rhythmic characters

(personnages rythmiques) (Healey, 2004, p. 10) described by Olivier Messiaen. This involves: one character becoming more important; another less important; and the static observer, remaining of constant importance and length throughout. From Smalley’s introduction to his pre-April 1972 performance, and the annotations contained in the April

1972 manuscript, it is possible to map out the work’s sections and give context to the final form of Monody, as seen in the Faber 1975 score. A summary of this form follows, with a representation shown in Table 1.4.

Section 1 is labelled Part R by Smalley, due to its reference to Stockhausen’s

Klavierstücke IX shown in Figure 1.14. This mantra occurs four more times in the work and remains immobile in length as the static observer, the “Spectre of Stockhausen”

(Ford, 1994, p. 9), unchanged by the other ideas in the work. However, the order of the durations in Part R, which in quavers outlines the Fibonacci series (1, 2, 3, 5, 8) is rearranged with each appearance, and the changing direction of the piano line against the immobile RM frequency in each appearance gives an increase or decrease to the intervals produced.

Section 2 of Monody is the first of 5 appearances of Part A. The monodic piano note-stream in Part A increases in length with each appearance, but is repeated fewer times by the numbers of the Fibonacci series (8, 5, 3, 2, 1). In a section in which Part A appears, each repetition of the monodic piano note-stream is modulated by a different

RM frequency giving the section its harmonic development. These repetitions decrease, as a ratio of the Fibonacci series, in each section until the final appearance of Part A occuring in Section 18 which is not repeated thereby completing the journey of Part A

towards immobility in relation to the RM. The changing character of Part A, outlined above, has a direct effect on the character of Part B.

Part B of Monody, which first appears in Section 4, is not only an inverted version of the pitches used in Part A, but is also developed as an inverted version of Part A through the piece. Within each section Part B appears it becomes progressively shorter, by the same length as Part A increases, and is repeated an increasing number of times using the numbers of the Fibonacci series (1, 2, 3, 5, 8), the same number series as used in Part A.

However, the significant difference between Parts A and B is that in Part B the repetitions are written out in full by Smalley with the RM remaining immobile. It is, in fact, one of the most immobile elements of the entire work, as each appearance of Part B is modulated by the RM with middle C. The development of the material within Part B is contained wholly within the piano part. The complexity of the piano part is developed through gradually increasing rhythmic subdivisions which generate excitement as the work progresses and, as detailed more thoroughly by Lindsay Vickery with an array of serial procedures, such as the inversion and rotation of rhythmic groupings (Vickery, 2016, p.

101). Whilst each appearance of Part A and Part B varies in length to some degree, in each section that they appear, both Part A and Part B are, at least to the listener, of similar lengths.

Part C, as detailed in Smalley’s pre-concert talk before his pre-April 1972 performance, involves the use of percussion to emphasize qualities of the RM sound when modulated by very high or very low frequencies. In the first appearance of Part C in

Section 3, the piano part is written in continuous semiquavers with the rhythmic groupings determined by the Fibonacci values of 2, 3,or 5 accentuated by the triangles or drums. The piano note-stream in Part C is either in Prime or Inversion form and is developed by rotation of the pitches within the rhythmic groupings. However, Part C is not such a simple affair, as this piano material is also used in Sections 7 and 17 of Monody,

in which Smalley scores no use of percussion instruments. The piano part in these two sections, first in a Prime form and then in an Inversion form but with no intervening semiquavers between rhythmic groups, is the most adventurous in exploring extremities of range. It contrasts pitches from extreme registers of the piano with the RM frequency remaining immobile. The piano note-stream in these two sections corresponds to the other appearances of Part C through the similar timbre of the percussion-like attacks, the extreme contrasts of dynamics, and the rhythmic characteristics with notes occurring at the Fibonacci durations of 1, 2, 3, or 5 semiquavers.

The question of why Smalley included no percussion in Sections 7 and 11, as mentioned above, is most simply resolved by considering the impracticality of continually swapping from triangle beater to percussion mallet, and of traversing the distance between where the drums are located and the triangles are hung as required by the rapidly changing registers and frequencies of the piano part. However, if we accept every one of these six sections as appearances of Part C, then it results in some elegant mathematics as each section increases in length by a progressively larger then symmetrically smaller number from the Fibonacci series. The second appearance of Part

C increases by 8 semiquavers, the third by 13, the fourth by 34, the fifth by 13 and the final by 8. This also establishes Part C as the rhythmic character which gradully grows in importance until it becomes the only part to appear 6 times and achieves principal prominence as the final section of the work.

Table 1.4 Parts, sections, and lengths of Monody

R Section 1 Section 5 Section 9 Section 15 Section 19

[12358] 38 [12385] 38 [12853] 38 [38512] 38 [85321] 38

A Section 2 Section 6 Section 10 Section 14 Section 18

168 [21x8] 170 [34x5] 165 [55x3] 188 [89x2] 144 [144x1]

B Section 4 Section 8 Section 12 Section 16 Section 20

144 [144x1] 188 [89x2] 165 [55x3] 170 [34x5] 168 [21x8]

C Section 3 Section 7 Section11 Section 13 Section 17 Section 21

34 42 [34+8] 55 [42+13] 89 [55+34] 102 [89+13] 110 [102+8]

Figure 1.14 Stockhausen Klavierstücke IX and Monody opening

Stockhausen Klavierstu¨cke IX

j j œ w & j œ #œ ˙ œ#œ œ œ #w ˙ #œ œ™ #œ w #œ œ J Piano ppp {? ∑

2 & Œ Ó™ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Pno. ? { Monody Part R ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

1 e = 60 mf , j w Piano & j œ™ œbœ b˙ œ nÆœ œ œbœbœ nœ Æœ#œ Æ J senza Ped. p

2 ™ ™ Pno. & Œ Œ Ó Œ Œ Ó Ó Ó ∑ Ó

Pno. & ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 46

1.5.6 Technical Revisions

As well as the structural revisions listed above, Smalley also removed some of the more extravagant ornamentation. This is most noticeable in Section 18 of the April 1972 manuscript, a transcription of which is shown in Figure 1.15. Despite these ornaments being characteristic of Smalley’s customary note streams, this revision is consistent with

Smalley’s overarching musical idea of maintaining simplicity in the piano part for more accurate prediction of the RM. Also, Section 18 in the Faber 1975 score, shown in Figure

1.16, is marked pp, and has an otherworldly effect which would be marred by the inclusion of excessive ornamentation. Interestingly, Smalley uses very few dynamic markings in the April 1972 manuscript, allowing his use of the different percussion instruments and RM to provide the contrasts and provide structural clarity in the music.

As seen in the spectrogram,15 shown in Figure 1.17, created from the entire recording of

Monody made by myself and Chris Tonkin this is highly successful. Each section of the work is clearly visible within the image, and labelled beneath for clarity, with sections containing percussion indicated to demonstrate the unique effect they produce. As the louder frequencies are represented by increasingly darker shades of yellow through to red, this makes Sections 11 and 13 particularly prominent due to the high frequencies created by use of the triangles which form a band across the entire image. The dynamics

Smalley does apply, such as the highly contrasted ff to pp markings in Sections 7 and 17, provide some local relief mimicking the contrast between the triangles and drums, without obscuring the overall structural clarity Smalley had built into the work.

15 Spectrograms used in this thesis were created using Chris Cannam’s software distributed by Queen Mary, University of London (Cannam, 2010) with a Linear scale and Window size 1024/87.5%

Monody Section 18

Figure 1.15 Monody Section 18 typeset from the April 1972 manuscriptRoger S m alley

™ j j œ™ j r j j j œ j r j œ & ™ rœ™ bœ j #œ nœ œ™ bœ r j #œ œ bœ j œ œ œ œ œ™ J J œ #œ œ J œ œ #œ œ œ™ J œ . #œ œ

j bœ œ œ j bœ j œ œ bœ œ & œ œ œ #œ #œ nœ œ™ j #œ#œ œ œ j œ #œ#œ #œ J œ œ œ #œ#œ œ œ R œ #œ#œnœ œ œ

œ j bœ œ œ œ bœ œ & œ œ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ #œ #œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ

j j bœ bœ r œ bœ œ & #œ œ œ j #œ #œ#œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ#œ #œ #œ #œ#œ œ™ J œ J œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ bœ œ œ bœ œ & œ j nœ #œ #œ œ œ œ #œ #œ #œ#œ œ œ R œ œ nœ nœ

(x2)

œ j œ ™ & bœ œ #œ bœ #œ œ bœ œ #œ ™ œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ

Figure 1.16 Monody Section 18 Faber 1975 score

Figure 1.17 Monody Spectrogram

RM Triangles

RM Drums

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Smalley makes many octave transpositions and slight revisions to the piano note streams which is common in his sketches as he endeavours to create a manageable piano part. Figure 1.18 illustrates the thought Smalley gave to large intervals, and the coordination required between the hands in order to execute them with fluency. Figure

1.19 is Smalley’s manuscript typeset to show the implied arrangement of the note-stream between the hands. 49

Figure 1.18 Monody April 1972 manuscript Section 16

Figure 1.19 Section 16 Arranged between left-hand and right-hand

œ œ œ j œ ? œ œœœ œœ œ bœœ bœ œ œ œ

Piano bœ bœ bœ {? bœ bœ bœ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ bœœ œ bœ œ “‘ “‘ “‘ “‘

2 ? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

PnIon. Monody Smalley requires the pianist to operate the RM with either a three- {? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ octave or four-octave keyboard, as well as play four drums and four triangles for colouristic effects, whilst also performing the piano monodic line. This, as one would expect poses, extreme coordination challenges in performance and influences the work’s interpretation, especially in transitioning fluently between sections when all three technical parameters need to be synchronized. As seen in Figure 1.20, the end of Section

20 consists of a demisemiquaver note-stream spread over a range of four octaves which needs to be shared between both hands. From here, the pianist needs to transition to semiquavers played solely in the right-hand, whilst changing the RM frequency on the electronic keyboard at the same time as picking up the drum stick to play the bongos and congas to emphasise the RM of the right-hand piano line. Whilst this is theoretically feasible, it is impracticable to achieve with a fluency that maintains a rhythmic impetus, and drains the music of driving intensity when, at the work’s climax, it needs to be maintained. As a result it is now accepted, in most performances, that a sound engineer

controls the clearly marked live electronic modulation to take some of the strain off the already taxed pianist. This was the case in Cathie Travers’ stylish performance of Monody at the New Music Week Festival at the University of Western Australia in 1990, when

Roger Smalley controlled the live electronics (Smalley, 1990).

Figure 1.20 Monody Section 20

However, the assistance of a second performer controlling the live electronics

now allows the pianist to consider using the percussion instruments as Smalley

originally intended. In the April 1972 manuscript the triangle and drum strikes begin

on the first semiquaver of each section featuring these percussion instruments. This is

not notated in the Faber 1975 score, where no percussion is used on the first semiquaver

of each section featuring percussion. At the beginning of Section 3 of the April 1972

manuscript, shown in Figure 1.21, Smalley acknowledges that this is not possible by

bracketing as optional the initial percussion strike. In Sections 11 and 13 Smalley

manages this transition by notating a change of the RM frequency three semiquavers

and four semiquavers respectively before the percussion sections begin. And in Section

21 of the April 1972 manuscript Smalley left no indication of how this was to be

achieved with only two hands, and was clearly undecided as to the most suitable scoring

for these sections. The decisive revision was made in the May 1972 manuscript, where

the RM frequency is changed at the start of each percussion section and the first triangle

or drum strike is bracketed as optional. In the Faber 1975 score these percussion strikes

are removed completely, with the percussion commencing on the second rhythmic

group of these sections. This maintains Smalley’s initial idea, for the work to be

performed solo, giving the pianist the opportunity to change the RM frequency on the

downbeat and pick up the percussion mallet or triangle beater.

Figure 1.21 Monody Section 3 April 1972 manuscript

With the assistance of a second performer controlling the live electronics these percussion strikes can be executed as Smalley indicates in his initial April 1972 manuscript. This provides an even more dramatic start to each of the percussion sections, with the extreme RM frequencies vividly emphasised from the first semiquaver, highlighting the lively rhythms. In some of our concert performances, with Tonkin operating the live electronics, we have performed the work in this manner to satisfying effect. However, in our studio recording of Monody, available through Tall Poppies

(Smalley, 2018), remaining true to the printed Faber 1975 score seemed to be a more appropriate course, as it accurately reflects the final published version on which Smalley settled.

With lively additive rhythms reminiscent of Olivier Messiaen, and colouful use of percussion, Monody is an immensely enjoyable challenge to perform. However, its impact on the listener has been cast in some doubt with Arnold Whittall describing the work as “rather too austere to retain its initial appeal through repeated hearings” (Whittall,

1976, p. 342). However, this statement highlights the importance of tempo in the interpretation of the music of Roger Smalley, which although not required to be precisely as indicated on the score, should be judged in relation to the musical impact it creates.

Smalley, in interviews, often referred to a tendency in his own playing to “sacrifice” details on the score to garner a more convincing musical “impact” (Ford, 1994, p. 11).

Many performances of Monody to this point have been at a markedly slower tempo than indicated on the score, perhaps to accommodate the coordination of multiple percussion instruments with RM changes. Smalley’s post-May 1972 performance, which is of the

Faber 1975 score of Monody, proceeds at a tempo of crotchet = 58–64 which is markedly steadier than the indicated tempo of crotchet = 72–80, and is 10ʹ 28ʺ seconds in length.

Arnold Whittall in his review describes a “12 minute” (Whittall, 1976, p. 342) work, and an impeccable live performance by Travers, used in an analysis by Lindsay Vickery of the work’s structure, is 10ʹ 11ʺ long (Smalley, 1990). My own recording, made in 2018 as part of this research project, is 8ʹ 40ʺ long, and is reflective of a more intensely driven interpretation with fluid changes between sections made possible through the collaboration of Tonkin controlling the RM. A driving tempo is essential to an interpretation which captures the vibrant dance-like rhythms and conveys the joyous excitement which makes this one of Smalley’s most visceral works. Closer adherence to

Smalley’s marked metronome indications also creates clearer tempo differentiations between sections which are diminished in a slower, less energetic performance. An important piece in Smalley’s development, Monody continues to refine the “pitch- centricity” (Mark, 2012b, p. 112) of his compositional process and provides a step towards one of Smalley’s most pivotal works, Accord (1974–75) for two pianists.

1.6 Accord in Australia

Accord for two pianists was begun in June 1974 and completed in England in

March 1975 and is a result of Smalley’s first visit to Perth, Western Australia where he spent 4 months as an artist-in-residence at the University of Western Australia in 1974.

In Western Australia, Smalley was faced with a new audience and musical community where his works of the past five years developed with Intermodulation were inappropriate to perform. At that time, Perth’s musical community was unaccustomed to the music of

Stockhausen and the use of live electronics. The situation presented Smalley with the opportunity to perform a broader range of music more regularly. As he describes:

In England I’d been performing, but it was exclusively avant-garde music.16

Here I was in the Arensky Trio playing Brahms trios, Beethoven… and working

with the orchestra (Smalley, 2003a, p. 4).

This performing included a large amount of piano duet repertoire17 which crystallized

Smalley’s desire to compose a work for two pianos, which had been a project on his mind since he used to play Busoni’s Fantasia Contrappuntistica with John White at the Royal

College of Music (Smalley, 1994b, p. 101).

16 This statement is somewhat misleading as an investigation of the works Smalley was performing in Britain included: Sonata Op. 101 by Beethoven; Sonata D537 by Schubert:

Polonaise No.2 by Liszt; Piano Concerto Kv. 466 and Kv. 491 by Mozart; Sonata Hob.

XVI:41 by Haydn; and Chorale Prelude “Meine Seele bangt und hofft zu Dir” by Busoni

17 Most notably with Anne Hanrahan to whom Accord is dedicated.

Accord was composed only four years after Stockhausen’s Mantra and a comparison between these works has been made by Whittall (Whittall, 1980, p. 232).

This comparison demonstrates that Accord is a very different work highlighting

Smalley’s gradually move from the direct influence of Stockhausen. Smalley continues with his method of recycling, reusing harmonic material from two earlier works:

Zeitebenen and Strata. These chords provide material for an exploration of pianistic techniques and control the order and length of phrases and note durations which are derived from the intervals within the chords construction. One of these chords, shown in

Figure 1.22, is constructed to contain every interval from minor second to major seventh arranged around a central tritone, from which a note series with a wedge shaped pattern can be generated. The wedge and linear patterns which can be constructed from this chord are significant in Smalley’s future works, and will be continually referred to in the analyses in this thesis.18 Arnold Whittall concludes that “Accord is an exuberant, powerfully constructed piece, and it crowns an impressive series of compositions by

Smalley involving the piano either solo or with other instruments… a recording of this one, by the composer and Steven Savage, is an omission that should be remedied with all possible speed” (Whittall, 1980, p. 223).

18 So prevalent are these patterns in Smalley’s compositional process, that Mark refers to the linear version as the “⍺-pattern” and the wedge version as the “β-pattern” (Mark,

2012b, p. 134)

Figure 1.22 Accord all-interval chord and wedge pattern

All interval chord from Accord #ww 2 2m wedge pattern 11 bw 7m 4 w 3m ˙ b˙ & 9 w 6m ˙ b˙ #˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ #˙ 6 #w 4 #˙ ˙ ˙ 7 w T ? 8 w 5 5 bw 3M 10 ww 6M 3 2M 12 bw 7M

1.7 Concerto for Piano and Orchestra

2 Smalley’s Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (1984–85) which is discussed in ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ greater& detail in Chapter 4, was commissioned by the BBC for European Music Year Pno. 1985,? and beginning∑ with Konzertst∑ ück (1980), is one∑ of many works which∑ presents a

comparison with Romantic models.19 The four movements of the Concerto for Piano and

Orchestra are all based on the same compositional material and performed without a

break. After the first movement which conforms loosely to sonata form, there is a scherzo

with two trios, a slow movement, and finally, after a slow and nostalgic “anti-cadenza”

(Mark, 2012b, p. 18), a fast, driving, moto perpetuo movement, which contains a return

of material from the first movement. While the form may evoke the past, the construction

of the music has little to do with functional harmony. Smalley re-integrates tonality into

his music using the compositional techniques detailed above from his earlier works. The

use of note matrices and the development of material and rhythmic durations based on

intervallic expansion and contraction will be detailed in Chapter 4.4.

The effect of Smalley’s idiosyncratic style of pianism on the structure and overall

impact of the work is significant: commencing the work with an A major triad to ”surprise

19 Such as the Piano Concerti of Franz Liszt (1811–1886)

the audience” (Smalley, 1985); the final “dull thud” (Smalley, 1985) of the lowest A on the piano; and even the form of the work itself, with a double scherzo and trio which allows Smalley an extra opportunity to play the dazzling note streams are the most striking examples. Smalley’s studio recording, which will be examined in Chapter 5.3, and his live performances of the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra in the United

Kingdom, Australia and Germany received high critical acclaim, cementing his position as the leading pianist-composer of his generation:

[Smalley] was soloist here, rightly claiming lineage for such earlier pianist-

composers as Rachmaninov, Prokofiev and Bartok (Greenfield, 1987).

1.8 From Barcarolle to Chopin

Composed in 1986 for the 50th birthday of Smalley’s teacher and friend John

White, Barcarolle is a concert paraphrase of the Barcarolle from Smalley’s own music theatre piece William Derrincourt (1977–79). As William Derrincourt plays a crucial role in the reintegration of tonality into Smalley’s music Barcarolle is of partiular interest for the pianist. John White introduced Smalley to many works by Alkan, Mahler, Fauré,

Szymanowski and Busoni, and it was with Busoni and Leopold Godowsky in mind that

Smalley created this transcription. Smalley chose “to refer more directly to the textures and pianistic layouts reminiscent of the late nineteenth-century… the combination of melody and accompaniment in the left-hand… the delicate filigree work above it and the chromatic slithering [shown in the final bar of Figure 1.23]… could be related to…

Godowsky’s transcriptions of Schubert songs” (Smalley, 1994d, p. 67).

The title Barcarolle is synonymous with great works for solo piano by composers such as Chopin, Fauré, and Alkan. The most comparable model for Smalley’s creation,

considering the features highlighted above, is the Berceuse20 composed by Ferruccio

Busoni as the seventh of his Klavierstücke from the Elegien BV249 (Sitsky, 2005, p.

225). The similarities between the opening of Smalley’s Barcarolle, seen in Figure 1.23, and Busoni’s Berceuse, seen in Figure 1.24 are striking. Smalley’s evocation of a nineteenth and early-twentieth century transcription style in Barcarolle reinforces his move from an advanced post-Stockhausen idiom, seen in William Derrincourt, and forms part of the broader evolution of his compositions towards works based on the re- contextualisation of the music of Chopin.

20 Although Barcarolle is historically the song of the Venetian gondolier, and Berceuse is a lullaby, both represent a gentle rocking motion, either of a boat or cradle.

Figure 1.23 Barcarolle Barcarolle (concert-paraphrase of the Barcarolle from William Derrincourt*) - for John White, on his 50th birthday - Roger Smalley Gently rocking ( q. = 36 40 44 )** June 1986 “” “” #œ. #>œ™ œ #œ. #>œ™ œ 6 #œ. #œ. #œ. #œ. &8 #œ. #œ. #œ. #œ. #œ. #œ. ? 6 p marc. p marc. *** 8 ˙™ ™ Piano - -˙ {? 6 #œ. #œ. 8 #œ #œ. #œ #œ. #œ™ p #œ™ p - pp - pp ° pp ø

5 ™ ™ ™ œ œ#œ œ œ œbœ œbœ œ™#œ#œ œ œ j & J J ‰ œ #œ œ œbbœ œbœ mf molto cantabile œ#œ ? J #œ. œ. #œ. œ. œ. #œ œ. œ. {mf #pœ- . . ™ . . . ™ . . {? #œ. œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ. œ #œ #œ œ #œ #œ. J #-œ™ p sempre ø ø ø ø ø ø

” ” #œ. “#>œ™ œ. #œ.“>œ™ œ. 9 . . . . ™ #œ #œ ™ #œ #œ ™ & Œ #œ. Œ #œ. #œ. ‰ Œ - - - - #œ œj œ #œj œ #œj œj #œ- #œ #œj ? #œ œ œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ #œ #œ ™ ™ . ‰ J ‰ Œ J #œ ‰ Œ Œ #œ™ œ. #œ ‰ #œ™ -J #œ. #œ™ (fsharp) - . {? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ø V.S.

Figure 1.24 Berceuse Ferruccio Busoni

Creating this concert paraphrase led Smalley to re-examine sketches he had made two years earlier for a set of variations for solo piano on Chopin’s Mazurka Op. 24, No.

4. Although the entire Mazurka is used by Smalley as raw material which he dismantled and re-integrated in his construction, the introductory four bars were most significant. A series of contracting intervals morph into the main theme of the Mazurka in a fashion that has striking similarities to the wedge pattern of Smalley’s previous works, including the

Concerto for Piano and Orchestra. A comparison between these wedge patterns can be seen in Figure 1.25 showing the opening bars of Chopin’s Mazurka Op. 24, No. 4, and

Figure 1.26, which shows the wedge pattern from the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra.

These intervals are then used, in an even more refined manner than previously seen, to generate melodic ideas, durations and rhythmic hierarchies to construct the work. The overall form and the rhythmic patterns of the original Mazurka are materials Smalley dissects to use in each variation and, as detailed by Emily Green-Armytage (2004, pp.

15–32), create the overall structure of the variations. This initial composition using

Chopin as his source material proved so “fruitful” (Smalley, 1994d, p. 74) that Smalley continued to construct chamber works in this manner, with source material being drawn from Chopin, Brahms and Schumann.21

Figure 1.25 Mazurka Op. 24, No. 4 Opening bars Frédéric Chopin Chopin Mazurka Op.24, No.4. Moderato > > b 3 Œ ˙ œ n˙ œ b˙ œ ™ > &b bbb4 nœ œ nœ˙ #œ œœ bœ˙ nœ œ œ nœ˙™ œœ œ œ œ™ œ Jœ œ™ #œ Jœ œ™ J ™ J ™ J . Piano p œ œ œ œ ? b b 3 Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ œ œ nœ { b b b4 œ œ ° *

Figure8 1.26 Wedge pattern from Concerto for Piano and Orchestra b b &b b b ∑ #œ nœ #œ œ nœ #œ œ œ bœ &Pno. œ #œ œ {?bb b ∑ b b 2 ™ ™ & Œ Ó Ó Ó ∑ ∑

21 These include: Trio for violin, cello and piano (1990–91); Trio for clarinet, viola and piano (1992–99); Crepuscule for piano quartet (1998–99); Figures in a Lanscape for solo bassoon and 13 strings (1994); Piano Quintet (2003).

1.8.1 Albumblätt: A Missing Link

There was another significant link to these chamber works. As part of a project to dedicate a one-page piece to the winners of the Sounds Australian Composers’ Awards in 1990, Smalley composed a work for Andrew Ford22 who won an award for journalism.

Albumblätt is another work paying respect to the traditions of the late nineteenth-century, with Schumann also composing works with this title. Although missing since its composition, with both Andrew Ford and Daniel Herscovitch unsuccessful in locating a score, several sketches for the work held at the National Library of Australia were unearthed, revised and typeset23 by myself in 2017. An extract is shown in Figure 1.27.

Completed immediately prior to Smalley commencing work on his Trio for violin cello and piano (1990–91), Albumblätt is an initial re-contextualization of the harmonic progression from bars 81 to 88 of Chopin’s Mazurka Op. 59, No. 2. Albumblätt provides another example of Smalley’s willingness to recycle material, as he directly quotes and then further develops Albumblätt in the first movement of his Trio for violin, cello and piano,24 which offers an explanation as to why Albumblätt, until now, has remained a missing link.

22 Ford’s account of this experience further reveals Smalley’s comfort in recycling his own material. (Ford, 2019)

23 My typeset score was used by Herscovitch for his recording of the work recently released by Toccata (Smalley, 2019b)

24 Mark provides a detailed analysis of Smalley’s use of Chopin within the composition of the Trio for violin, cello and piano (Mark, 2012b, pp. 202–211)

Figure 1.27 Albumblätt Opening bars Albumblatt To Andrew Ford, on winning the Sounds Australia Composers' Award for the Most Distinguished Contribution to the Presentation of Fine Music by a Writer or Broadcaster Utilising the Public Media Roger Smalley Slow 5 5 j j 3 #œ œ œ œ#œ nœ #œ œ œ œ œ 3 #œ nœ 2 œ 3 œ œ 3 &4 œ œ#œ œ œ# œ # œnœ œbœ œ 8b œ œ 8 œ 8 ™ œ œ 4 J ≈ ÔR Piano f œ œ œ #œ œ œ™ œ œ™ ? 3 œ œ œ 3 2 3 3 { 4 ÆJ 8 8 8 4 ° 3 ø ø ø ø

1.9 Smalley’s Final Works for Solo Piano

5 5 5 It was not3 œ untilœ œ œ2002œbœ thatœ Smalleyœ œ again3 ™ composed2 3 for Ksolo piano.j 3 Studies2 in &4 œ#œ œ œ œ œ œbœ œbœbœ 8bœ 8 œ 8 ≈™ r œ œ bœ 4 œ Jœ bœ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ™œœ œ Black and White (2002–04), which will be discussed more thoroughlyÔR in Chapter 6 of this Pno. œ œ œ 3 3 3bœ™ 2 œœ 3bœ™ bœ™ 2 {? 4 œ#œ œ 8 8 - 8 ‰ ‰ bœ 4 thesis, was commissioned and first performed by Emily Green-Armytage in the OctagonJ ø ø ø ø ø ø ø Theatre at the University of Western Australia. The three studies are titled: Gamelan: for the left-hand alone; Moto perpetuo (with interruptions): for the right-hand alone;

Dialogue: for both hands. This mirrors the form of the 3 Grandes Études Op. 76 (1838–

1840) composed by the nineteenth-century French pianist-composer Charles-Valentin

Alkan. Smalley’s fascination with the works of Alkan is further detailed in Chapter 6.2. 10 5 j 5 j 2œ bœ œ œ œ œ 5 bœ bœ œbœ œbœ œ 3 bœ ∫œ œ ‰ ? Prior& to 4his˙ move to Sydney in 82007,œ™ Smalleyœ œ bwasœ œ bcommissionedœ 8∫ œ™ by Arsœ Musica

AustralisPno .to compose his Piano Concerto No. 2 for the Sydney Youth Orchestra and John j 3 2 b˙ 5 bœ™ œ œ 3 bœ™ œ {? 4œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ 8n œ™ œ bœ 8 œ™ œ ‰ Chen, who was the winner of the 2004 Sydney InternationalJ Piano Competition. This 3 ø ø ø association with the Sydney International Piano Competition continued, when Smalley was commissioned to compose a work for the 2008 competition. Morceau de Concours

(2008) is a brilliant show-piece which tests the performer’s textural control and technical skill, requiring steely nerves to perform. Morceau de Concours is actually a concert paraphrase of Smalley’s own Piano Concerto No.2 (2004). This continues Smalley’s

willingness to recycle material from work to work and will be explored in detail in

Chapter 6.9. However, as the French title suggests, the work is reminiscent of the test pieces for the Paris Conservatoire with the exploration of colour and texture, trills, and precisely notated rubato in the work’s opening section capturing an impressionist style.

Graceful phrases are created through subtle metric modulation between groups of quavers in simple and compound time signatures. Shown in Figure 1.28, Smalley has clearly

“given himself permission… [to revel] in the sheer sonority of the triad”, which he had also given himself in the opening of the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra to make the piano sound as grand and resonant as possible, which does not happen with dissonant harmonies of sevenths and augmented fourths (Mark, 2012b, p. 17). The work also provides an example of Smalley’s technique of characterising “a movement or section by one or two interval types” (Mark, 2012b, p. 23). In an expressionistic outburst in which the music ‘swaggers’ and is reminiscent of the Missa Parodia I, Smalley bases the extended harmonic structures and melodic contours on a transposition of the all interval chord seen in Accord.

Figure 1.28 Morceau de Concours

1.10 Conclusions

Through an exploration of Roger Smalley’s music for solo piano, pianists are uniquely placed to gain a practical understanding of the evolving compositional process in his works. His earliest published compositions already clearly display the characteristics and piano techniques of Smalley’s individual style. Piano Pieces I–V

(1962–65) show the influence of Webern and Boulez, and Missa Parodia I (1967) can be compared to techniques adopted by fellow English composers Peter Maxwell Davies and

Harrison Birtwistle. Transformation (1968–69, rev.1971) and Monody (1971–72) influenced by Smalley’s contact with Stockhausen are highly original and engaging works with live electronics and are followed by Accord (1974–75) for two pianos.

The Variations on a Theme of Chopin (1988–89) provide the most revealing insight for pianists into Smalley’s use of intervals to determine and generate durations, melodic ideas and rhythmic structure. It is an important composition to perform and interpret in relation to the chamber music which follows, much of which is based on material drawn from the Romantic pianist-composers and constructed with similar techniques. The borrowing and recycling of material, either from others or himself, is a technique seen in nearly all of Smalley’s works for piano. 65

Smalley would often turn to the piano when exploring new techniques and processes, such as his first use of Ring Modulation in Transformation (1968–69, rev.1971). Some works, such as Echo I, remained unfinished as his attention turned to applying a new concept or process to other instruments or ensembles. Although Echo 1 remained incomplete, Echo II for cello (1978) Echo III for trumpet (1978), and Echo IV for horn (1983) are all published through Faber Music.

Smalley’s final compositions for solo piano are musical and technical studies which can be performed to gain an understanding of his unique physical style, compositional process, and to acquire a technical familiarity and fluency with his practically crafted pianistic writing. This is a feature of Smalley’s piano compositions that is reminiscent of the works of the great pianist-composers, and will continue to draw the attention and engagement of pianists and audiences.

Chapter 2 A Complete Transformation: The Score

2.1 Background

This chapter details my involvement in the production of a critical edition of

Roger Smalley’s Transformation (1968–69, rev.1971) for piano and live electronics, initiated as part of the “Intermodulation” project curated by Decibel New Music

Ensemble under the direction of Cat Hope.25 The project required the production of scores and parts for works that are currently unpublished and existing only in sketches at various levels of completion. My participation in the project commenced after Chris Tonkin’s production of a typeset copy of the now-unpublished26 Faber Music edition which had been supplied by musicologist Christopher Mark. Referred to from this point as the

FM/TS Score 1970, it is a facsimile of Roger Smalley’s hand-written manuscript.

Smalley’s detailed manuscripts generally include dates, allowing for an accurate time-line to be established for his often lengthy compositional process. Dates on the

FM/TS Score 1970 indicate it was produced between the 19th of January 1970 and the

10th of February 1970. These dates place the FM/TS Score 1970 well after the initial composition of the work in 1968, but before many of the later performances Smalley and his collaborator Tim Souster were to give up until 1971. The most recent review of a performance of Transformation given by Smalley and Souster was published on the 24th

25 The “Intermodulation” project included the combined efforts of Decibel Ensemble consisting of Louise Devenish, Cat Hope, Stuart James, Tristan Parr, Lindsay Vickery and Aaron Wyatt, and with Pedro Alvarez, Bruce Thompson, Chris Tonkin and myself as guest artists.

26 Transformation is no longer listed on the Faber Music catalogue of published works.

of February, 1971 (Greenfield, 1971). To accompany the FM/TS Score 1970, Mark also supplied a sketch of subsidiary material27 which relates to the improvised bars in Section

1 of Transformation. Referred to from this point as Subsidiary 1 1970 Sketch, this was likewise typeset by Tonkin, whose focus then shifted to examining Souster’s use of live electronics, much of which had not been marked in the FM/TS Score 1970, and in developing contemporary solutions to faithfully recreate these effects in our performances. Whilst Tonkin’s work will not be discussed in detail in this thesis, reference will be made where required to provide a clear description of revisions made in

Smalley’s manuscripts.

I received the work one page at a time over a period of several weeks as Tonkin typeset the FM/TS Score 1970. This allowed me to prepare the work in stages, gradually building a performer’s perspective of the work section by section. It was this unique hands-on perspective of studying the work that exposed several anomalies which I will discuss individually in the following paragraphs. These anomalies include:

1. Missing instructions and details governing the application of live electronics;

2. Uncertainties over correct clefs;

3. Missing notations;

4. Unclear notations; and

5. Inappropriate pedalling instructions.

The resolution of these anomalies necessitated the search for further evidence before a critical edition could be produced. This critical edition is now in the final stages of proofing and will be published by Faber Music in 2020.

27 This subsidiary material originally accompanied the Faber Music score.

2.2 Initial Recorded Source

Pianist and long-time Smalley collaborator Cathie Travers had supplied a digitized copy of a live recording of Smalley and Souster performing Transformation.

Although precise details of this recording were difficult to specify, Travers was certain that it was made in 1970, as part of an Intermodulation concert. This recording became a valuable recorded source for Tonkin in determining the live electronic modulations and aurally to transcribe one prominent section of notation missing from the FM/TS Score

1970. This typeset version was the score used, in conjunction with this recording, to prepare the Australian première performance of Transformation given by myself and

Tonkin on the 7th of June, 2016. However, more evidence was still required to resolve unanswered questions, especially if a critical edition was to be produced for publication.

2.2.1 Other Surviving Recordings

During archival fieldwork at the National Library of Australia in Canberra, I listened to four recordings made by Smalley and Souster, which were digitized at my request. Specific details of these recordings were again difficult to verify. However, the first three listed below clearly pre-date the recording supplied by Travers, especially as notes on the first recording listed below indicate it was “not to be used” as a broadcast by the BBC:

1. Roger Smalley. Transformation I for piano with electronic modulation (1968–69)

(1st version). Roger Smalley - Piano, Tim Souster - Potentiometer. Stereo 7 ips.

BBC recording (not broadcast) made on (..) at the Purcell Room. NB 1st

(unrevised) version. Not to be used (Item NLA.MS-SAV003985)

2. “Intermodulation: Roger Smalley, Tim Souster, Andrew Powell, Robin

Thompson. Concert at Oxford (Holywell Music Room) given as part of the

English Bach Festival on (…) Transformation tests and complete performance?”

(Item NLA.MS-SAV003985)

3. Roger Smalley. Transformation; Memories; Melody Study 1. 7 IPS stereo (Item

NLA.MS-SAV003984)

4. Tape to accompany DAAD submission. 1. Zeitebenen, 2. Pulses for 5 x 4 players,

3. Strata for 15 strings, 4. Transformation, Gloria Tibi Trinitas. (Item NLA.MS-

SAV011012)

The text accompanying the fourth recording listed above indicates it is a collection of disparate performances compiled by Smalley for use as a Deutscher Akademischer

Austauschdienst submission. The live performance of Transformation on this recording is the same as the recording supplied Travers, suggesting it is a representation of the work which Smalley was content to use as promotional material. This adds weight to the significance of this recording as a source of evidence in producing a critical edition and the importance of Transformation amongst Smalley’s other compositions from the period. Gloria Tibi Trinitas (1965, rev.1969) for orchestra is the earliest of the works on this recording and like Strata for 15 strings (1971–73) makes no use of live electronics.

This is balanced with Transformation, Pulses for 5 x 4 players (1969, rev.1985–86) and

Zeitebenen (1973) which all use live electronics and, in the case of Zeitebenen, 4 channel pre-recorded tape.

The British Library archive holds three recordings of Transformation and, after my request to have these digitized, I listened to these recorded sources. These BBC recordings are clearly marked, and included pre-concert talks with venue details, recording and broadcast dates. These recordings are summarised in Table 2.1. The earliest of these recordings is part of an interview given by the 25-year-old Smalley with Sir

Michael Tippett as part of a broadcast entitled “What’s Happening to Music?” It includes 70

an excerpt from the first rehearsal, with Souster, and a performance of the first half of

Transformation I. Referred to here as BBC Recording 1969, it was recorded by Roger

Smalley and Tim Souster in Cambridge and in the BBC studios and was broadcast on

BBC Radio 3 on the 7th of September 1969. This performance is strikingly similar to the first recording archived at the National Library of Australia listed above entitled:

Transformation I for piano with electronic modulation (1968–69) (1st version).

In chronological order, the second recording of Transformation held at the British

Library was broadcast on the 3rd of March 1970 on BBC Radio 3 as an “Invitation

Concert” given at the University of Sussex. The introduction to this performance described it as the first performance of the revised version of Transformation and is consistent with the dates on the FM/TS Score 1970 which was completed on the 10th of

February 1970. Most importantly, the analysis of the recording, referred to here as BBC

Recording 1970, revealed it to be the same as that supplied by Travers and used by

Smalley for his DAAD submission confirming its significance as a source of evidence.

The third of these recordings, referred to here as BBC Recording 1971, was recorded live in the Queen Elizabeth Hall, London on the 23rd of February 1971 and subsequently broadcast on BBC Radio 3 on the 17th of December 1971. This recording commences with an introduction to the work and the technique of Ring Modulation given by Smalley, with the assistance of Souster demonstrating. The recording is the most recent available and the most concise, being 12 minutes and 4 seconds in length, compared to BBC Recording 1970 which is 14 minutes and 3 seconds in length. The greater sophistication and coordination of the ensemble between Smalley and Souster heard in the BBC Recording 1971, which will be detailed in Chapter 3.4.1, reveals the development of Transformation from an expressive experimentation in extension of the piano sound with live electronics, to a polished concise artwork.

71 Referred to as: Date Features Location Transformation I 1968 1968/69 Time divisions and National Library of Sketch extensive subsidiary Australia material Original Sketch 1970 19/01/1970– Hand written original National Library of 10/02/1970 manuscript Australia FM/TS Score 1970 10/02/1970 Facsimile of original Supplied by manuscript Christopher Mark previously published by Faber Subsidiary 1 1970 Sketch 10/02/1970 Facsimile of original Supplied by manuscript Christopher Mark previously published by Faber RS Sketch Post-1970 Facsimile of FM/TS National Library of Score 1970 and Australia annotated by Smalley TS Sketch Post-1970 Facsimile of FM/TS National Library of Score 1970 and Australia annotated by Souster The Revision 1971 Sketch 19/09/1971– Revisions and newly National Library of 23/09/1971 sketched material for Australia various sections Revision 1971 Notes Begun A checklist for the National Library of 13/09/71 Revision 1971 Sketch Australia

Table showing chronological listing of sketches of Transformation

Table 2.1 Recorded sources of Transformation

Referred to as: Date Length BBC Recording 1969 07/09/1969 Incomplete recording BBC Recording 1970 03/03/1970 14ʹ 3ʺ BBC Recording 1971 23/02/1971 12ʹ 4ʺ

2.2.2 Manuscripts

During archival research at the National Library of Australia, I unearthed five scores of interest, which are detailed below and summarised in Table 2.2. One sketch, entitled “Transformation I for piano and live electronic modulation 1968–69”, referred to from here as the Transformation I 1968 Sketch, is further evidence that Smalley was the first composer that I have found to apply Ring Modulation to the piano before

Stockhausen’s Mantra (1969–70). Although the Transformation I 1968 Sketch was significantly refined by Smalley in the later FM/TS Score 1970, details in the

Transformation I 1968 Sketch provided a valuable insight into the development of the subsidiary material contained in the Subsidiary 1 1970 Sketch and important performance instructions detailing the application of this subsidiary material. The significance of these instructions will be explored further in Chapter 3.3 as they relate to the performance of

Transformation.

The FM/TS Score 1970 is a facsimile of Smalley’s original handwritten manuscript, referred to from here as the Original 1970 Sketch, which I unearthed in the archive at the National Library of Australia. Thankfully, this Original 1970 Sketch was clearer than the FM/TS Score 1970 and allowed all details on the FM/TS Score 1970 used by Tonkin to produce the typeset score to be authenticated and corrected if required. In addition to these two sketches I unearthed two further sources of significance at the

National Library of Australia. Detailed in the following paragraphs, they were used as performance scores by Smalley and Souster.

2.2.3 The Performance Scores

The Original 1970 Sketch was photocopied to provide Smalley and Souster with a performance score each, which they needed for their subsequent performances. These performance scores held in the National Library of Australia are referred to from here as:

RS Sketch Post-1970 and TS Sketch Post-1970. The TS score was identified by the circled TS written in black pen on the first page and the detailed annotations made throughout the score in pencil relating to the live electronics required in performance.

Although no circled RS was on Smalley’s performance score, it was identified through the detailed annotations made in pencil regarding revisions to the piano notations including: note patterns used; clef corrections; revisions of note streams; articulation; and dynamic indications.

This allowed a timeline to be established for the production of this series of sources. The Transformation I 1968 Sketch was clearly the basis for the work, compared to the similarity of all that follows with the most noticeable change being that of the title from Transformation I to Transformation. The Original 1970 Sketch is a handwritten manuscript and was photocopied to produce the RS Sketch Post-1970 and the TS Sketch

Post-1970. The TS Sketch Post-1970 was then photocopied again to produce the FM/TS

Score 1970. The repeated photocopying explains the lack of clarity in the FM/TS Score

1970. The RS Sketch Post-1970 and the TS Sketch Post-1970 then contain annotations made in pencil by Smalley and Souster clarifying the notation and live electronic details not included in the FM/TS Score 1970.

I unearthed one final set of sketches from the National Library of Australia which post-date all the sketches mentioned above, and provide the evidence for Smalley’s 73

compositional dates of the work including reference to a revision in 1971. These manuscripts, referred to from here as the Revision 1971 Sketch, are dated from the 19th to the 23rd of September 1971 and contain two pages of sketched revisions and a further four pages of rough first drafts of sections 1, 2 and 6 of Transformation. Three pages of

Smalley’s notes describing his revisions are also held at the National Library of Australia.

These notes, referred to from here as the Revision 1971 Notes, were begun on the 13th of

September 1971 and are a worksheet made by Smalley during his process of revising

Transformation. These two sources show Smalley’s significant reworking of the piano note streams and his initial attempts at notating the improvised bars from Section 1.

The Revision 1971 Sketch is a collection of initial reworkings and unpolished passages undertaken by Smalley in preparation for later integration into a performance score after practical assessment. This could then be used by Smalley in conjunction with the Revision 1971 Notes to produce a final proof of the work. It is likely that it was during this revision that Smalley abandoned further refinement of Transformation as he strove to achieve a more precise and structurally coherent use of live electronic modulation which can be seen in his next work for piano and live electronics: Monody. Smalley’s initial notes for Monody, as mentioned in Chapter 1.5.1, were dated the 10th of September

1971 prior to the Revision 1971 sketch described above adding evidence as to why

Smalley abandoned further revisions of Transformation.

Table 2.2 Sketches of Transformation

Referred to as: Date Features Location Transformation I 1968 1968/69 Time divisions and National Library of Sketch extensive subsidiary Australia material Original Sketch 1970 19/01/1970– Hand written original National Library of 10/02/1970 manuscript Australia FM/TS Score 1970 10/02/1970 Facsimile of original Supplied by manuscript Christopher Mark previously published by Faber Subsidiary 1 1970 Sketch 10/02/1970 Facsimile of original Supplied by manuscript Christopher Mark previously published by Faber RS Sketch Post-1970 Facsimile of FM/TS National Library of Score 1970 and Australia annotated by Smalley TS Sketch Post-1970 Facsimile of FM/TS National Library of Score 1970 and Australia annotated by Souster The Revision 1971 Sketch 19/09/1971– Revisions and newly National Library of 23/09/1971 sketched material for Australia various sections Revision 1971 Notes Begun A checklist for the National Library of 13/09/71 Revision 1971 Sketch Australia

2.2.4Table Discrepancie showing chronologicals Revealed listing ofT hroughsketches of My Transformation Performance

While preparing Transformation for performance, it became clear that Smalley’s Referred to as: Date Length clef indicationsBBC Recording, typeset 1969 by Tonkin07/09/1969 from theIncomplete FM/TS Scorerecording 1970, were at times unreliable. BBC Recording 1970 03/03/1970 14ʹ 3ʺ As SmalleyBBC Recording’s programme 1971 notes23/02/1971 stated , the12 pianoʹ 4ʺ part of Transformation consists of two layers, “a fixed layer and one of superimposed material” (Smalley, 1994c, pp. 96-97) and in keeping with one of the key characteristics of Smalley’s works for piano this texture is clearly handled. In Section 2, seen in Figure 2.1 taken from the FM/TS Score 1970, this results in piano writing with three textural layers spaced over four clefs on each system.

The middle pedal is then used to sustain the lowest of these textural layers which are, as expected, written on an 8vb bass clef. Confusingly, further chords are then written on this

8vb bass clef which overlap and, in some cases, repeat notes already sustained in the

middle pedal. As discussed in Chapter 1.2.4, overlapping voices written in extreme registers of the piano are a characteristic of Smalley’s writing for the piano. Yet in these instances, when combined with Smalley’s indications to use the middle pedal, the indicated clefs seemed inappropriate and resulted in a blurring of the layers within the texture. Logical note leading also suggested that the 8va treble clef at the beginning of

Figure 2.1 should be cancelled half way through the first bar. Necessity dictated that I made decisions on this matter based on my best musical judgement and in consultation with Tonkin and Smalley’s colleague and pianist Graeme Gilling, prior to the Australian première performance. Thankfully the RS Sketch Post-1970 seen in Figure 2.2 contained pencilled annotation made by Smalley which confirmed the decisions I had made to resolve questions of textual ambiguity, including the use of the middle pedal, and other uncertainties regarding clefs allowing for confidence in producing a critical edition.

Figure 2.1 Transformation Section 2 FM/TS Score 1970

Figure 2.2 Transformation Section 2 RS Sketch Post-1970

There was one fragment of missing notation in the piano part, absent from the fourth, fifth, and sixth quaver beats of the top stave in the first bar of Figure 2.3 taken from the FM/TS Sketch 1970. Tonkin transcribed this missing notation aurally from BBC

Recording 1970 and, out of necessity, his transcription, seen in Figure 2.4, was used in our Australian première performance. The RS Sketch Post-1970 yielded information regarding this passage, with the transpositions of the Prime and Inversion forms of the note series required for its execution included in pencilled annotations.28 These annotations corresponded to the passage-work Tonkin had transcribed from Smalley’s

BBC Recording 1970, and were confirmed in my analysis of Smalley’s BBC Recording

1971. More detailed notations for this passage were unearthed in Smalley’s Revision

1971 Sketch shown typeset in Figure 2.5 and in Smalley’s Transformation I 1968 Sketch shown typeset in Figure 2.6. However, these represent Smalley’s still unpolished reworkings and, especially in the case of the Transformation I 1968 Sketch, are both a sketch-in-progress. Furthermore, while the musical thought behind the phrase is clear, a pianistic assessment of the passage suggests the precise layout of the notation was yet to

28 These annotations are: I4[b]; O4[a]; I5[a]; O5[b]; I5[b]; O5[a].

undergo Smalley’s usual revisions to create the fluent practical piano part we expect in his compositions.

Figure 2.3 Transformation FM/TS Score 1970

4 bœ œ œbœ œbœnœ œ œ bœbœbœ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ 8 œ œ bœ œ bœ œœ # œnœœ #. 7 # œœ & 8 3 Ù 9:8 rK 5 œ œ 5:4 r œ ˘ œ 7 ‰ r j t 8 œ œ ˙ œ #ww Nœ œ ˙ 5 œ Piano bb ww ƒ ß f > Nœ bœ œ ? 8 œ œ . bœ bœ j #œ bœœ # nœœ 8 # œœ œœ. œ bœ bœ œ b œ #œ œ &bœbœbœ bœ R œ #œ œ œœ œœ œ 5 5:4 r ˘ œ t 8 ‰ 8 r j w #œ œ ˙ œ (3P) bww3P œ œ ˙ œ ƒ - ß f ~ 8 & 8 ! 5:4 r Figure 2.4 Transformationœ Typeset FM/TS Score 1970 ( j ) r œ œ œ œ œ. Pot. v

3 œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ nœ bœ œ œ œ P 6 œ ? #œ bœ œ œ b œ n œ bœ nœ œ#œ t 2 #œœ 6 #œœ ##œœ & 8 # œ ‰ & bœ bœ nœ 3 # 8 8 ‰ R 5 œ 3 nœ( off with ) œ v p > 3 f ¨ - t 6 #˙˙. 2 j 6 . 8 ˙˙N˙ . œœ œœ #œœ 8 œœ œœ #œœ 8 #˙˙. Piano ˙˙ œœ œœ bb œœ œœ œœ bb œœ bb ˙˙ 3 J 3 $ p p 3 t ? 6 ‰ #œ & bœ 2 6 ‰ 8 œ œ œb œ 8 bœ 8 bœœ bœœ D œ œ # œœ œ œ P 3 p f> ¨ - t 6 2 6 . 8 8 j 8 . ˙˙nb ˙. œœ œœ bnœœ œœ œœ bœœ b˙˙ (3P)˙ œ œ œ œ (3P)œ ^œ ˙3P J 3 $ p p ~ 6 2 6 & 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 3:2 r 3:2 r œ œ j j j j ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Pot. v

3 5 b >œ. œ b œ¨ œ # >œ œ œ #œœ- ( ) #œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ. œœ b œœ tœœ # œœ œœ œœ # œœ 48 ! 83# œœ œœ bœœbœ bœ 48 3 J J #œœ œœ poco 3 f 5 5 F - F > P r j . j t 4 ˙ 3 œ . 4 œ œ œ . #œ #œ ( ) 8 8 8 #. œ œ bb#˙˙ bb˙˙ œœ. bbœœ œœ œœ. Piano 3 5 F f 3 3 ¨ > - ( ) > t j 4 ! 3 j b œ b œ 4 #œœ. œœ #œœ 8 8 œ œ œ poco8 œ . œ œ œœ bœœ œœ œœ bœœ bœœ 78œœ bœœ œœ##œ b œ b œ f 5 ( off ^ ) F F P 5 . t 4 > 3 4 -j 8 8 8 #. r j b œ b œ ( ˙ ) b˙˙ œœ. bœœ œœ œœ. œœ œœ b˙˙ ˙˙ œœ. œœ œœ œœ. # œ # œ (3P) F f ~ 4 3 4 & ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 !

˙ ˙ œ. ˙ Pot.

Figure 2.5 Transformation Revision 1971 Sketch Typeset

Page 4 bar 2 ” ^ ^ “ 4 5 œ 2 bœ 2 5 r.h.3 œ 2 bœ1 œ 1 4 œ > œ œ œ nœbœ bœ œ1œ bœœ œ 6 ≈ R ? #œ #œ bœbœbœ œ #œœ œ≈ &8 œ &b œ 5 6 7 3 l.h. ™ nœ œ ? 6#˙˙™ bœ bœbœ bœbœ bœ œ ? ‰ 8 n˙ ™ œ& œb œ nœ bœ ‹ œœ > œ R Piano Œ œ ^ 3 ? 6 œ 8 ≈ R

{? 6 ? 8 r b˙™ ‹ œ >˙ Œ ‰ ‰ œ ø (3P) 3 R

Transformation 1968 missing notation Figure 2.6 Transformation I 1968 Sketch Typeset Roger Smalley

∑ 1 & sub. p cresc. 8 quasi accel ______Pno. ? ff b?œ 1 >. ∑ 3 b œ 3 b œb#œœ 8 ‹ œ loco. œ 5 œ bœbb œœ ‹ b œ œ œœ b œœ œ ? #œ bœ bœ #œœ b œœ##œ œ & ≈ œ &bœ b œ & R œ ≈ f > Piano ? sfz ∑ 1 3 ‹ > > >8 ? #œ ?‹ nœ bbœ #œœ ##œœ { loco. & b œ œ œ œ {? 1 ∑ 8 ‹ D nœ

‹ & ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Pno. ‹ {& ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 79

2.2.5 Corrections Required in a Critical Edition

Analysis of the RS Sketch Post-1970 exposed corrections made by Smalley during performances which could now be integrated with the FM/TS Score 1970 to produce a critical edition suitable for publication. Although many of the revisions were marginal, a comprehensive list of them provided below exposes their significance when taken in their entirety. All of Smalley’s revisions were checked against comparable sources including the BBC Recording 1971 and the BBC Recording 1970 to ensure they were supported by these performances. The following is a list of revisions which Smalley made to the FM/TS

Score 1970. It includes the revisions which will be incorporated into a critical edition, either as the main score or as an appendix, and also indicates Smalley’s incomplete revisions which were not supported by other sources and which will not be included in a final critical edition.

1. Page 1 Section 1: dynamic changes made to the bass chords in the piano part in

bars 3 to 7. The FM/TS Sketch 1970 has all 6 bass chords marked fff. This would

provide maximum input into the live electronics. However, this was changed to a

pattern over the 6 chords of fff - ff - f - mf - f - ff and then a return to fff on the

next page. This maintains the initial fff cluster to provide a significant input for

the live electronics but then creates a more obvious musical shape to the following

improvised bars. These dynamic alterations, and those listed in point 4, below are

clearly executed by Smalley in the BBC Recording 1971.

2. Page 1 Section 1: “delicato (like an echo)” written above sub.p notation. This was

unclear in the FM/TS Score 1970 and so was not included in Tonkin’s typesetting.

It is clearly legible in the RS Sketch Post-1970, which reinforces the dynamic

indication of sub.p, and is an effect clearly audible in BBC Recording 1970.

3. Page 1 Section 1: bar 2 was originally marked as , but was altered to two bars. A

bar followed by a bar to reflect the significance of the live electronics. This is

a practical result of Smalley and Souster working with live electronics. The sweep

in bar 2 is a significant musical gesture and although Smalley may have imagined

it taking only one beat within a bar, it requires significantly more time to be

audible and to coordinate between players in a performance. This can be most

simply represented by an initial bar exclusively containing the electronic sweep,

leading into the downbeat of the next bar, where the piano part restarts. This

revision is consistent with the Revision 1971 Sketch and heard in the BBC

Recording 1971.

4. Page 2 Section 1: dynamic changes made to the bass chords in the piano part in

bars 2 to 6. The FM/TS Score 1970 has the 6 bass chords marked fff - fff - ff - f -

piu f - ff and finishing with a sffz upbeat chord before Section 2. However, this

was changed in the RS Sketch Post-1970 to a sequence over the 6 chords of fff -

ff - f - mf - f - ff and finishing with a sffz upbeat chord before Section 2. Whilst

this is a slight revision it does more simply represent the musical shape of the

improvised bars, and creates consistency with the first section of improvised bars

on page 1.

5. Page 2 Section 1: in bar 2, the initial typeset score contained the performance

instruction to Use Groups of 1/32/16/11 pitches. This is an example of a

misreading due to the lack of clarity in the twice photocopied FM/TS Score 1970

and should read Use Groups of 1/22/16/11 pitches.

6. Page 2 Section 1: the bass chord in bar 4 consists of two clusters between the

indicated notes, with Smalley even suggesting a fingering to execute this cluster

in the Revision 1971 Sketch. This chord and the following chords in bars 4 to 7 81

on page 2 are all to be played loco, a revision which is supported by the BBC

Recording 1971.

7. Page 3 Section 2: in bar 1, the F which is the fourth note of the quintuplet, is

rewritten an octave lower to obtain more fluent piano writing. This reduces the

range of this quintuplet to the interval of a minor ninth rather than an eleventh,

and makes for more direct voice-leading to the chord on the second quaver beat

of this bar. Although difficult to discern with certainty, BBC Recording 1970 and

BBC Recording 1971 both support a more fluent execution of this quintuplet in

this manner.

8. Page 3 and 4 Section 2: bars 5 to 9 are substantially rewritten in the Revision 1971

Sketch and could be inserted as suggested by Smalley in the RS Sketch Post-1970.

These sketches are detailed and contain extensive fingering suggesting Smalley

considered the execution of the note streams whilst sketching the revisions.

However, these are not supported by the BBC Recording 1971 or the BBC

Recording 1970, and so seem inappropriate to include in the primary performance

score. Inclusion of these revisions would be therefore be provided as an appendix

to a critical edition.

9. Page 4 Section 2: there are clef corrections in all 4 staves of bars 1 to 3 in the

piano part. This clarifies the register of the material on these staves, with loco

indicating the chords and notes to be performed as a separate textural layer distinct

from the lowest chords written on the 8ba clef. These layers are now written in

consistent clefs throughout Section 2.

10. Page 4 and 5 Section 2: clef corrections have been made in the fifth and sixth bars

of page 4 and the first bar of page 5. These markings are supported by the BBC

Recording 1970 and the BBC Recording 1971, despite the lack of clarity in some

moments, and the indication of loco in these bars allows for a clearer texture of

this lowest layer of material.

11. Page 5 Section 2: a 3rd pedal marking is included in the first bar giving clarity to

its continued use and release.

12. Page 5 Section 2: clef corrections have been made from bars 2 to 6 with a (loco)

marking. This makes this layer of material consistent with the register it is written

in on the previous pages and is supported by BBC Recording 1971.

13. Page 6 Section 3: there is some extensive rewriting of the piano note streams made

by Smalley here, which includes changes to clefs. However, apart from 6 specific

corrections to accidentals, the more extensive revisions made to the note streams

are not supported by BBC Recording 1970 or BBC Recording 1971, and detract

from the logic of the cascading note streams. A more detailed explanation of this

is given in Chapter 2.2.6. This is another section which, in a critical edition, would

be appropriate to include as an appendix for performers to consider.

14. Page 6 and 7 Section 3: Smalley suggests a change of layout, with the material in

the third stave to be written in the second stave from last bar of page 6 to the sixth

bar of page 7. This is an example of Smalley setting out the score to correspond

with the piano technique required. The revision would more clearly indicate the

coordination of the hands for the performer, with the right-hand performing

material from the first and second staves and the left-hand performing material

from the third and fourth staves.

15. Page 7 Section 3: there is an addition of an extra note and altered spelling of the

bass chord in bar 3. The D♭, E♭, G♭ chord is enharmonically altered to a chord

comprising C ♯, D ♯, E ♮ and F ♯. This adds some consistency to the use of sharp

accidentals in the left-hand, as the following semiquaver note-stream is written in

sharps. 83

16. Pages 6 and 7 Section 3: clef changes have been made by Smalley from bar 1 on

page 6 which are not entirely supported by BBC Recording 1970 or BBC

Recording 1971. In these performances Smalley performs the chords in the

registers indicated in the FM/TS Score 1970 not the RS Sketch Post-1970.

However, he does perform the entirety of bar 10 loco, two quaver beats earlier

than indicated in the FM/TS Score 1970. This slight revision, as it is supported by

all three sources, will be incorporated into the critical edition.

17. Page 7 Section 3: extra chords and resulting cross-rhythms are written by Smalley

in bars 11 to 13. The repetition of the C, D, F, Ab, Db chord in bar 11 should be

a quintuplet as indicated by Smalley in brackets above the gesture. The revision

then includes a sextuplet repetition in the left-hand of the Bb, Eb, E, A, B chord

on the final beat of bar 12 as a cross rhythm against the septuplet in the right-hand.

This creates a consistent increase in the sub-divisions of the repeated chords

across the page to create an incremental increase in articulations and excitement.

However, these revisions are not present in BBC Recording 1970 or in BBC

Recording 1971. So, despite the logic of the compositional process and benefit to

the musical direction at this point, there is not sufficient support for their inclusion

in a critical edition. An appendix with these revisions would be appropriate.

18. Page 7 Section 3: the layout of acciaccaturas in bar 13 has been altered for fluency

of execution. In the revision Smalley explicitly states that the original layout is

too awkward, and this is consistent with the many revisions Smalley made in his

solo piano works to incorporate fluent piano technique.

19. Page 8 Section 4a: the two ‘chords’ in bar 1 are clusters. This is faintly visible in

the RS Sketch Post-1970 and although difficult to distinguish in the BBC

Recording 1970, is clearly audible in the BBC Recording 1971.

20. Page 8 Section 4a: the acciaccatura chord in bar 6 is revised with the left-hand

notes changed from F ♯, A, C and E♭ to F ♯, A, B and D ♯.

21. Page 8 Section 4a: Bars 13 to 16 contain some interesting additions to the piano

part made by Smalley that are not supported by recorded evidence. These

additions would detract from the significant role played by the live electronics in

this section and are not heard in the BBC Recording 1971 or the BBC Recording

1970. These revisions would not be appropriate to include in the performance

score of the critical edition score, but would be supplied as a performer’s

appendix.

22. Page 8 final bar: Smalley indicates to omit the E♭ from the bottom of the

accented crotchet chord on the first beat of this final bar. This results in clearer

voice leading, with the lowest note of the chords in the final two bars descending

from F ♯ to F ♮ to an E♭ as the highest note of the final cluster, which will be

discussed in the next point.

23. Page 8 Section 4a: Smalley indicated that the last chord is to be a chromatic cluster

played with both palms. This revision was required due the lack of clarity of the

photocopy of the Original 1970 Sketch used to produce the FM/TS Score 1970,

which was explained at the beginning of this Chapter. The cluster is clearly

audible in BBC Recording 1971 and BBC Recording 1970

24. Page 9 Section 4b: pedalling alterations and revisions to the live electronics have

been made by Smalley in the first bar of the piano part, which correspond to

changes made by Souster to the live electronics in the TS Sketch Post-1970

perfomance score. However, these changes are not supported in BBC Recording

1970 or BBC Recording 1971 and are perhaps the result of rehearsing and

performing in an acoustic with less resonance, or on a piano with less projection.

Since no supporting evidence can be found for this revision it would not be

included in the critical edition, nor provided as an appendix.

25. Page 9 Section 4b: slight note corrections and articulation changes have been

made in bars 1 and 3. Every note in the first piano gesture in bar 1 is to be accented

and performed with the indication staccatissimo/martellato. Bar 3 is to start with

an accented A. These expressive markings provide musical clarity to the gestures

in this section of unmodulated piano sound with the accented start to the gesture

in bar 3 supported by Smalley’s deliberately agogic accent in BBC Recording

1971 and BBC Recording 1970.

26. Page 10 Section 5: bar 3 contains a logical revision which connects the tremolos

in bars 3 and 4 more fluently. Despite this revision being challenging to hear due

to the quality of BBC Recording 1970 and Recording 1971, it appears to be

supported and will be included as an appendix in the critical edition.

27. Page 10 Section 5: in bar 7 the first B ♮ of the tremolo is accented as the climax

of the crescendo and decrescendo shape. This is a clearly audible feature of this

phrase in the BBC Recording 1971.

28. Page 10 Section 5: the last two bars contain a revision of the arpeggio notation

and rhythm, and an addition of a sweeping arpeggio, shown in Figure 2.7, used to

create a link between sections. Both of these revisions are difficult to discern

accurately in the BBC Recording 1970, with the arpeggio sweep concluding the

bar not present in the BBC Recording 1971. As such they will be included as an

appendix in the critical edition.

29. Page 11 Section 6: Smalley makes some slight layout changes to clarify the

division of the chords between the hands. These alterations detract from the

consistency of the chord progression, which is the retrograde version of the

progression presented in Section 2, and are difficult to support either with BBC 86

Recording 1970 or BBC Recording 1971. These revisions could be left to the

discretion of the individual performer to suit hand size, so need not be integrated

into the performance score.

30. Page 11 Section 6: Smalley has included RM notes here in the live electronics

part. These correspond to the more detailed indications made in Souster’s TS

Sketch Post-1970 performance score.

31. Page 11 Section 6: in bar 9 to increase the clarity of the texture and facilitate the

use of the third pedal, Smalley suggests either a possible articulation of staccato

on the bass chord, or altering the rhythm of the passage. Of these two suggested

possible revisions, the staccato articulation is the revision supported by the BBC

Recording 1971, in which all the chords in this bar are performed staccato.

32. Page 12 Section 6: Although not indicated in either the FM/TS 1970 Score or the

RS Sketch Post-1970, both the BBC Recording 1970 and the BBC Recording

1971 support an octave lower bass clef in staves 2 and 4 from bar 2. This would

continue to bar 5 of page 12, where the 8ba clef would then only continue on the

fourth stave of the piano part with stave two written as loco. This creates a clearer

texture between the layers, as consistent with the work’s other sections, and so

will be incorporated into the perfomance score of the critical edition.

33. Page 12 Section 6: bar 3 is revised to be marked f (only!)

34. Page 12 Section 6: bar 4 is revised to be marked mf not f

35. Page 13 and 14 Section 6: In BBC Recording 1970 and BBC Recording 1971,

Smalley performs the bass cluster in bars 3, 4 and 5 of page 13 and bars 2 and 3

of page 14 an octave lower than written. However, the E ♮ in bars 3 and 4 of page

13 is perfomed as written. Both of these features would maintain textural

consistency throughout the piece.

36. Page 15 Section 7: In bar 3, the G is crossed out, so only the E is played as written

in the second stave. This revision is difficult to confirm due to a slip in Smalley

and Souster’s peformance at this point in BBC Recording 1970. BBC Recording

1971 revealed that this note should in fact be a G written on the bass clef a fourth

below middle C. The simplest solution to this revision is to commence the bass

clef from bar 3 of page 15 not bar 5, as currently indicated in the FM/TS 1970

Score.

37. Page 15 Section 7: in bar 7 Smalley indicates that the C is to be restruck (Strike

38. Page 15 Section 7: in bar 9 and bar 10 Smalley indicates that the F ♯ is to be

restruck (Strike F ♯)

39. Page 15 Section 7: in bar 12 and bar 16 the sffz clusters are re-voiced to cover less

range in the piano part. This is difficult to hear due to the quality of BBC

Recording 1970, but does reflect the BBC Recording 1971in which the clusters

are less prominent both in range and dynamic level. This revision would be

included as a performer’s appendix, as it would be especially appropriate when

performing on a piano with an excessively resonant bass register, which was

possibly a motivation for Smalley in making this revision.

40. Page 15 Section 7: in bar 13, the sffz chord has B♭on top, while the top clef note

remains a B ♮, and performed at the dynamic level of p to emerge from the cluster.

Figure 2.7 Transformation Arpeggio revision

œ 3 3 e &8 ‰ ‰ ® ® ÙÙ & bœ ∑ œ 7 bœbœnœ ? 3 bœ ∑ Piano 8 & œ >œ œ 1 œ ? 3 ? œœ œ ‰ ‰ ‰ 1 œ ∑ { 8 #œ & #œ ff f £ raise 3 &8 ∑ ∑ 3 {? 8 ∑ ∑ ff

5 œ ∑ ∑ ∑ œ #œ bœ ∑ & & #œ œ #œ Pitches available for ( ar pe g g. u p )

& ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Pno. {& ∑ 2.2.6∑ ∑Note∑ Streams ∑Revised Through∑ ∑ Performance

& ∑ ∑ ∑It is ∑ inevitable ∑ that, aside∑ from∑ the unavoidable errors contained in live Pno. {? ∑ performances,∑ ∑ ∑ some of the∑ revisions∑ made ∑in Smalley and Souster’s performance scores

deserve to be categorized as the results of rehearsals and performances by creative

musicians coping with contrasting acoustics and different pianos in various venues. These

are the efforts which all performers make to get the best result in changing and perhaps

challenging circumstances. This category of revision is evident thoughout the sketches,

especially in subtle changes made by Smalley to the layout of note streams. Figure 2.8

shows the first five bars from page 6 from the RS Sketch Post-1970 as an example of

octave displacements of notes and slight rearrangements of the note streams made by

Smalley in his search for a more pianistic layout so that a greater fluency in performance

could be achieved.

The first three notes of the septuplet on the third beat of the first bar would in the

RS Sketch Post-1970 be transposed up an octave, while the fifth note of this septuplet

having previously been transposed down an octave would once again be transposed up 89

an octave to its original position. Both layouts of the note-stream have positive and negative attributes and alter how rapidly the note-stream ascends into the highest register of the piano. The original version has a more symmetrically balanced ascent between the bass A on the last demisemiquaver of the first beat to the treble E on the last demisemiquaver of the final beat of the first bar. The revised version in pencil, sketched four staves below the original, reaches the treble register more rapidly at the beginning of the third beat, before the final ascent to the top E. In workshopping the section, both layouts were pianistically appropriate, although the original layout as performed in my recording of the work, generates greater excitement as a result of the more even ascent, and is supported by the BBC 1970 Recording and the BBC 1971 Recording.

The recorded performances of Smalley and Souster also reveal features in the live electronics that are not evident in other sources. In the BBC Recording 1971 Souster executes a descending sweep on the final chord of page 12. This is clearly rehearsed as

Smalley waits for this descending sweep before playing the bass chord on the beginning of page 13. Despite the clarity of this gesture in the BBC Recording 1971, it is not present in any other source written or recorded. This suggests that the relationship between the two performers in Transformation should be continually evolving, searching for clearer musical shapes and effective gestures. These interpretative decisions need not be included in a critical edition, but left to the musical tastes and skills of the performers involved.

Figure 2.8 Transformation RS Sketch Post-1970

2.3 Conclusions

Even considering Smalley’s consistency and precision in performance, all performances, by their very nature, contain inaccuracies which may conflict with existing sketches. One of these inaccuracies provided some uncertainty over the correct notation in bar 3 of page 15 of Transformation. As detailed in correction 36 in Chapter 2.2.5, this is a revision that required cross referencing the FM/TS 1970 Score, the RS Sketch Post-

1970 and the TS Sketch Post-1970 with the BBC Recording 1970 and BBC Recording 91

1971. It is for these reasons that, whilst the surviving recorded performances are valuable pieces of evidence, they were examined as supporting material in combination with the existing sketches and balanced by what is logical musically and pianistically. This also takes into consideration the disadvantage of scores, which are an incomplete set of directions that provide performers as much information as practical to reproduce as a musical work of art: a fact Smalley, as an experienced performer who allowed himself the “latitude” (Ford, 1994, p. 11) to recreate a musical idea knew well.

Chapter 3 Transformation: Smalley’s “Magic Piano”

3.1 Introduction and Australian Première

This chapter details the performance and dissemination of Roger Smalley’s

Transformation (1968–69, rev.1971) for piano and live electronics which includes the

Australian première, a studio recording and commercial CD release of the work I made with collaborator Chris Tonkin. This includes a further clarification of performance details, revealed through the analyses of sources listed in Chapter 2, and discussion of the piano techniques in Transformation which are directly related to the work’s performance.

Our first performance given in Studio Underground at the State Theatre Centre,

Perth on the 7th of June 2016, is now available as an ABC podcast29 (Decibel, 2016), and was not only an Australian première, but the first performance of Transformation in over four decades, as the composition has not been performed since September 1971.30 Despite this neglect, which is further explored in Chapter 7.3, Christopher Mark (2012b) has outlined the significance of Transformation as a landmark composition which, as detailed in Chapter 1.4, is the first work to combine Ring Modulation with piano sound and warrants inclusion, providing context, in an account of prominent works of the period.

29 https://www.abc.net.au/classic/new-waves/roger-smalley-intermodulation/9691492

(Accessed 13/02/2018)

30 Transformation was first performed by Roger Smalley and Tim Souster on the 27th of

March 1969 in London, Goldsmith’s Hall.

3.2 Sources used in preparing a perfomance

As mentioned in Chapter 2.1, in conjunction with typesetting the FM/TS Score

1970, Tonkin also developed contemporary digital solutions to authentically recreate the live electronics originally controlled by the VCS 3 analog synthesiser used in the performance of Transformation. To accurately apply the live electronics Tonkin then examined the electronic modulations included in the TS Sketch Post-1970 and compared these to the BBC Recording 1970 and BBC Recording 1971. My concern was on conveying the style and musical language of the work in performance. This included developing a performance of the unnotated bars in Section 1 of Transformation which required consideration of the possible reasons that Smalley chose to leave these bars unnotated. Recordings revealed that Smalley improvised31 note steams in these bars using groups of notes specified within pages of subsidiary material. Preparing a performance of these unnotated bars that captured Smalley’s musical intention, without simply reproducing the improvised note steams evident in his recordings, required analysing and comparing a range of the sources detailed in Chapter 2.2. The foremost of these were:

1. The Subsidiary 1 1970 Sketch;

2. The FM/TS Score 1970

3. The Transformation I 1968 Sketch;

4. The Revision 1971 Sketch;

5. The Revision 1971 Notes; and

6. All the available recordings of Smalley’s performances, but most specifically the

BBC Recording 1970 and the BBC Recording 1971.

31 In the following discussion imrovisation refers to the real-time construction of note streams from groups of notes provided by Smalley in subsidiary material.

3.3 The Subsidiary Material

The following paragraphs detail information contained within each of these sources and its impact on my interpretation and performance of the improvised bars in

Transformation. The evidence in the sketches and notes is evaluated with analyses of the surviving recordings of Smalley and Souster’s performances. The process of comparing and evaluating this information from multiple sources will have an impact on the performance instructions eventually included in the critical edition and will be detailed where relevant.

3.3.1 Subsidiary I 1970 Sketch

The Subsidiary 1 1970 Sketch, shown in Figure 3.1, consists of two pages of note patterns organised into groups of a certain length, all of which are to be played two octaves higher than written. Page 1 contains 18 groups of notes of varying lengths: 3 groups each of patterns which are 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 notes in length. Page 2 contains

28 groups of note patterns of varying lengths: 7 ‘groups’ 1 note in length; 6 groups 2 notes in length; 5 groups 4 notes in length; 4 groups 7 notes in length; 3 groups 11 notes in length; 2 groups 16 notes in length; and 1 group 22 notes in length. These groups of note patterns provide the performer with the raw material with which to improvise in

Section 1 of Transformation.

These groups of note patterns are not exclusive as, evident in the very first three groups of 3 note patterns on page 1, pitches are repeated. The E ♮, E♭ and D ♮ appear twice in these groups. Enharmonically, pitches are also repeated with G♭ and F ♯ featuring in the three groups of 6 note patterns on page 1. The groups resemble note streams, often fluctuating between Smalley’s characteristic wedge pattern and linear pattern. Most groups could be described as having a pianistically appropriate layout, falling within the limits of an octave and possessing a thoughtful balance between the use of black and white keys. A few groups, such as the last group of 4 on page two; the final group of 7 on page two; and the group of 22 on page two do contain intervals greater than an octave. However, considering these groups can be performed with both hands the larger intervals can be fluently handled, as can all the groups contained within the subsidiary material. A familiarity and technical fluency in executing the subsidiary material is a necessary first step in executing the improvised bars in Section 1 of

Transformation. However, the appropriate and stylistic use of these groups requires the application of performance instructions contained within other sources.

Figure 3.1 Subsidiary Material from Subsidiary 1 1970 sketch œ œ n œ n œ ( ) œ b œ n œ n œ b n œ œ œ b œ n œ n b œ # œ œ œ n # œ œ œ n œ œ # œ b œ # b œ œ œ œ n œ n œ œ b œ # œ b œ œ œ b œ # # # œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ # œ n œ œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ n œ b œ n b œ œ œ # œ n œ œ b œ œ # œ b b œ œ # œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ b œ œ # œ œ œ b œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ # œ œ # œ œ n b œ n # n œ œ œ œ œ n œ n œ œ # # œ b œ œ # œ # œ # œ # œ œ b œ n œ œ # œ œ œ n # n œ œ œ b œ # œ œ b n œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ n # n # œ œ œ œ b œ n œ œ œ œ b œ œ n n œ œ n œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ b # œ b œ œ œ b n œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ # # # œ n # b # œ pages 1 and 2 1 and pages œ œ n œ œ œ # b œ œ œ n œ b œ # 'Subsidiary Material' œ œ b n b œ œ œ œ œ b n # œ b œ œ b œ œ œ # # œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b # œ n (all material to be played two octaves higher) two octaves played be to material (all œ œ # œ n œ n œ œ œ n œ œ # n œ # b œ œ # œ # œ œ n œ œ œ b œ # œ # œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ # # œ # œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ n œ # b œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ # # œ œ œ # # œ b b œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ œ œ n n œ œ œ œ œ n # œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ # œ œ n # œ n œ œ # œ œ # # # œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ n # # œ n œ # œ # œ œ # œ œ b œ # œ n œ œ n b # œ œ œ œ œ n œ # # œ œ # # œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ # œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ # œ # # œ # # # b œ # # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # # Page Two Page Page One Page & & & & & & & & & & & & & Groups of 3 Groups of 6 Groups of 9 Groups of 7 Groups of 2 Groups of 4 Group of 22 'Groups' of 1 Groups of 11 Groups of 15 Groups of 12 Groups of 18 Groups of 16

œ œ n œ n œ ( ) œ b œ n œ n œ b n œ œ œ b œ n œ n b œ # œ œ œ n # œ œ œ n œ œ # œ b œ # b œ œ œ œ n œ n œ œ b œ # œ b œ œ œ b œ # # # œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ # œ n œ œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ n œ b œ n b œ œ œ # œ n œ œ b œ œ # œ b b œ œ # œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ b œ œ # œ œ œ b œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ # œ œ # œ œ n b œ n # n œ œ œ œ œ n œ n œ œ # # œ b œ œ # œ # œ # œ # œ œ b œ n œ œ # œ œ œ n # n œ œ œ b œ # œ œ b n œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ n # n # œ œ œ œ b œ n œ œ œ œ b œ œ n n œ œ n œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ b # œ b œ œ œ b n œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ # # # œ n # b # œ pages 1 and 2 1 and pages œ œ n œ œ œ # b œ œ œ n œ b œ # 'Subsidiary Material' œ œ b n b œ œ œ œ œ b n # œ b œ œ b œ œ œ # # œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b # œ n (all material to be played two octaves higher) two octaves played be to material (all œ œ # œ n œ n œ œ œ n œ œ # n œ # b œ œ # œ # œ œ n œ œ œ b œ # œ # œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ # # œ # œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ n œ # b œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ # # œ œ œ # # œ b b œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ œ œ n n œ œ œ œ œ n # œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ # œ œ n # œ n œ œ # œ œ # # # œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ n # # œ n œ # œ # œ œ # œ œ b œ # œ n œ œ n b # œ œ œ œ œ n œ # # œ œ # # œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ # œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ # œ # # œ # # # b œ # # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # # Page Two Page Page One Page & & & & & & & & & & & & & Groups of 3 Groups of 6 Groups of 9 Groups of 7 Groups of 2 Groups of 4 Group of 22 'Groups' of 1 Groups of 11 Groups of 15 Groups of 12 Groups of 18 Groups of 16

3.3.2 Performance Instructions 1970

The FM/TS Score 1970 provided one source of performance instructions. The instructions for the improvised bars on page 1 of Transformation specify the “overall tendencies” of the subsidiary material, which should:

1. move from short groups to long groups;

2. move from trills, tremolos and pauses to no trills, no tremolos and no pauses; and

3. move from irregular rhythms to a continuous motion as fast as possible.

This contrasts with the improvised bars on page 2 of Transformation where the “overall tendencies” of the subsidiary material are essentially reversed to:

1. move from long groups to short groups;

2. move from no trills, no tremolos and no pauses to trills, tremolos and pauses; and

3. move from a continuous motion as fast as possible to irregular rhythms.

On both the pages, Smalley indicates the subsidiary material is to start at the highest notes of the live electronics sweep.

3.3.3 Subsidiary Material 1968–69

The subsidiary material contained in Smalley’s Transformation I 1968 Sketch, shown typeset in Figure 3.2, is significantly more comprehensive than the subsidiary material contained in the FM/TS Score 1970. The necessity of the extra subsidiary material contained in the Transformation I 1968 Sketch is due to Smalley’s improvisation of the upper treble layer of piano material in both Section 1 and Section 2 of these initial performances in 1968 and 1969. In the FM/TS Score 1970, this improvisation is contained

to within Section 1 only. However, the subsidiary note patterns in the Transformation I

1968 Sketch and the FM/TS Score 1970 are comparable with three notable distinctions:

1. The use of sforzando clusters to conclude the note patterns in Box 1 from Section

2. The use of sforzando articulations in the patterns themselves; and

3. The generation of chord structures from the note patterns in Box 2 from Section

100

Figure 3.2 Transformation Subsidiary Material from Transformation.1 1968 Sketch

TRANSFORMATION I subsidiary material

Box 1 Section 1

1 › œ #œ 2 #œ #œ œ &4 sfz sfz sfz #œ sfz œ sfz sfz sfz

› 2 œ #œ œ #œ #œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ bœ & sfz sfz sfz sfz sfz sfz sfz

4 › nœ œ #œ #œ #œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ bœ bœ œ & œ #œ #œ

7 › œ œ œ #œ#œ œ œ œbœ œ#œ œ#œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ & œ bœ œ #œ œ bœ œ œ

11 › œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ #œ#œnœ œ œ œ œbœbœ œ œ œbœbœ œ bœ œbœ & œ œ œbœ œbœ œ œ œ

16 › œ œ #œ#œ œ œ #œ œ bœ œ œ #œ œ bœ œ œbœ œ œ bœ & #œ œ #œ bœ œ bœbœ œ œ œ œ#œ

› 22 œ #œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ #œ & œ bœ #œ bœ œ œ bœ #œ œ œ œ œ

101

TRANSFORMATION I subsidiary material

Box 2 Section 1

› 3 œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ bœ & sfz sfz sfz › 6 œ œ #œ bœ œ œ #œ œ bœ œ bœ œ #œ œ œ bœ & bœ œ

› 9 œ #œ#œ œ œ#œ œ bœ œ #œ#œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ #œ œ#œ œ œ#œ œ & œ #œ œ

› 12 œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ & bœ œ bœ œ › œ œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ #œ bœ & œ bœ

› 15 œ #œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ #œ œ & #œ œ

› œ #œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ & œ bœ

› œ bœ œ œ œ #œ œ #œ #œ œ #œ œ & œ #œ œ

18 › œ œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ #œ #œ œ œ & bœ œ

› #œ œ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ #œ bœ (?) & bœ

› œ #œ œ bœ #œ œ œ œ #œ bœ œ œ œ œ & bœ œ bœ œ

102

TRANSFORMATION I subsidiary material

Box 1 Section 2

› 3 œ œ #œ #nœœ œ œ ##œ‚ nœ œ #œ 7 & ‹ 4 sfz sfz sfz › 6 9 œ œ 7#œ œ #œ œ œ ##œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ #œ &4 ‹ ” sfz sfz › œ #œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ‚ #œ œ œ #œ# œ #œ œ #œ œ #œ¡ œ #œ œ & ¡ ¡ sfz sfz sfz sfz › 12 œ & œ #œ ##œ #œ œ #œ œ œ œ Œ ‚ œ #œ œ # œ¡ ¡ sfz sfz › sfz œ & œ #œ #œ œ œ Œ #œ # œ œ #œ # œ‹ œ #œ œ #œ’ sfz sfz › sfz œ & œ #œ #œ #œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ‹ œ #œ¡ ¡ sfz sfz sfz › 15 œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ & ” œ œ◊ #œ œ” sfz sfz sfz › œ œ œ #œ œ œ‹ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ & œ œ” #œ œ⁄ sfz sfz sfz › œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ & œ” bœ œ œ¡ œ #œ œ⁄ sfz sfz sfz › 18 œ œ œ #œ #œ œ #œ #œ & #œ bœ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ⁄ #œ œ #œ #œ⁄ › sfz sfz œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ #œ & #œ bœ œ œ #œ œ œ” #œ◊ œ #œ #œ⁄ sfz sfz sfz

103

TRANSFORMATION I subsidiary material

Box 2 Section 2 ‹ bœ bœ bœ œ œ bœ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œœ & œ sfz sfz

œ #œ#œ ##œœ œbœ œbœ ‹ œ œ œœ bœ bœ bœœ bbœœ &

œ #œ œ œbœbœ œ œ œ bb #œœ #œ œ ‹ ##œœ œbœ œ bœ #œ œ#œ œ b œœ œ bœ &

œ #œ œ #œ ‹ #œ #œ œ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ & œ bœ bœ œ # œ ‹ œ œ #œ# œœ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ & œ bœ bœ œ bbœœ

‹ #œœ bœ œ œ œ #œ œ bœ œ œ & œ bœ #œ œ œ œ bœ #œœ

‹ # bœœ œ #œ #œ œ bœœ & b œœ #œ œ œ œ nb#œœ #œ #œ œœ #n #œœ œ ‹ œ #œ n##œœ ##œœ œ #œ œ & # #œœ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ ‹ # n œœ œ bœ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ bœn#œœ & Œ

‹ bœœ bœ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ bbœœ bœ & œ #œ#œ #œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ ##œœ œ bœ œ

104

3.3.4 Performance Instructions 1968–69

In each of the improvised bars in Section 1 in the FM/TS Score 1970, Smalley indicates which groups from the subsidiary material are to be applied. However, the precise application of the subsidiary material is less clear. Piecing together precise performance instructions for these unnotated bars was essential not only for my performance, but for inclusion in a future critical edition. Clarification of this is found in

Smalley’s Transformation I 1968 Sketch. The first set of improvised bars, which in this initial version of Transformation are contained in Section 1, are assigned these performance instructions:

Each unit may be played more than once but no unit may be repeated until at least

one other has intervened.

(for both boxes)

Dynamics oscillating ppp – mp, except for pitches specifically marked otherwise

Distribution – freely within the limits bounded by the box. Where the two boxes

overlap (55–63) combine elements from both boxes (right and left-hands)

Speed – as fast as possible

Movement – generally continuous (combine several units to form a continuous

stream of pitches) with caesuras only at pitches marked sfz and when material

from another layer interrupts (Smalley, 1956–2009c)

The second set of improvised bars, which in this initial version of Transformation is contained in Section 2, is assigned these slightly different performance instructions:

(both boxes)

Dynamics - ppp – mf, (generally louder than boxes in S.1) except for pitches

marked otherwise

105

Speed – as fast as possible

Distribution – only during the red lines beneath the boxes.

Movement – generally continuous except when material from another layer

intervenes, caesuras of varying lengths (generally short) can be made after any

cluster marked sfz or sffz

Where the two boxes overlap (46–52) combine elements from both boxes

It should not be necessary to repeat any of the material in the boxes – if it does

become necessary the material must be repeated until it has all been played once.

(Smalley, 1956–2009c)

Three details from these instructions were significant in performing the improvised sections:

1. In the first bars of improvised material on page 1, the subsidiary material groups

specified to be used in a bar may be combined to produce longer note streams

provided a group is not immediately repeated. However, in the second bars of

improvised material on page 2, it should not be necessary to repeat any material,

but if it is, then this must not be done until all the subsidiary material has at least

been played through once. This allows more freedom in the use of subsidiary

groups in the first section of improvised material and may be required to achieve

the performance directives in the FM/TS Score 1970 to move to long continuous

groups of notes with no tremolos, trills, or pauses.

2. In the first bars of improvised material on page 1, the dynamics may fluctuate

between ppp and mp whilst in the second bars of improvised material the

dynamics may fluctuate between ppp and mf. If this performance instruction is

followed, it creates a sense of direction in Section 1 towards the second bars of

improvised material on page 2 which achieves the formal structure of the section.

106

3. The sfz articulations determined where caesuras in the musical line can occur.

This is ambiguous as the subsidiary material provided in the FM/TS Score 1970

contains no sfz articulations. However, it suggests the improvised note streams in

these bars should possess a direction moving towards sfz articulations

immediately preceding caesuras.

3.4 Smalley’s Performances

BBC Recording 1969, BBC Recording 1970, and BBC Recording 1971 were analysed to assess how Smalley and Souster’s performance of the improvised bars related to the performance directions found in these two sources. The most explicit of Smalley’s performance instructions is that the material in the first page of improvised bars moves from short groups with pauses, tremolos and irregular rhythms to longer groups with no pauses, no tremolos and continuous motion. This development is then reversed in the second page, to create an arch-like structure over the entire two pages that comprise

Section 1 of Transformation. In both BBC Recording 1970 and BBC Recording 1971,

Smalley creates this structure clearly with the use of caesuras and sforzandi which, interestingly, are not described in the performance notes contained in the FM/TS Score

1970, but are described explicitly in Smalley’s Transformation I 1968 Sketch.

3.4.1 Structure of the Improvised Bars

The directions detailed in Chapters 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 indicate the structure and overall shape which the improvised bars must exhibit to achieve Smalley’s intention, and these are a feature of Smalley and Souster’s recordings. A significant detail examined in the BBC Recording 1970 and the BBC Recording 1971 which helps in creating this formal structure, is the length of each of the 6 improvised bars on page 1

107

and page 2 of Transformation. The timings on page 1 and 2 in the BBC Recording 1970 and in the BBC Recording 1971 were analysed and are shown in Table 3.1,

Table 3.1 Bar lengths in Transformation recordings

Unnotated Bar Length in BBC Recording 1970 BBC Recording 1971 on Page 1 quavers Length in seconds Length in seconds 1 9 23.78 13.56 2 15 20.11 15.14 3 12 12.88 12.43 4 9 9.80 7.92 5 6 6.95 5.49 6 3 3.46 3.14 Unnotated Bar Length in BBC Recording 1970 BBC Recording 1971 on Page 2 quavers Length in seconds Length in seconds 1 15 19.39 9.64 2 16 11.58 8.43 3 11 9.31 6.83 4 7 7.52 5.71 5 4 6.75 4.89 6 3 6.53 2.56 Total 138.06 95.74

These durations demonstrate that, although the improvised nature of the bars leaves room for some for artistic licence, the relationship between bar lengths and the structure that results is essential to maintain in a performance of this section. Whilst the first bar seems out of proportion, being 3 seconds longer than the following bar, this is a consequence of working with live electronics and the space needed to accommodate the live electronics sweep. As detailed in Chapter 2.2.5, Smalley revised this bar in the

RS Sketch Post-1970 into a bar followed by a bar. This revision is reflected more accurately in the BBC Recording 1971 in which the first improvised bar of page 1 is 1.58 seconds shorter than the second, and is more accurately reflective of the time signature change score from to . The substantially shorter timings for each improvised bar and 108

the overall length of BBC Recording 1971, which is 1 minute and 59 seconds shorter than the BBC Recording 1970, signifies a more concise polished performance. Smalley’s BBC

Recording 1971 displays a more controlled use of the subsidiary material focused on structural ends, and Souster’s use of the live electronics has gained greater sophistication, enhancing the musical shapes and expressive clarity of the piano note streams.

3.4.2 BBC Recording 1969

BBC Recording 1969 provides an insight into the conception of Transformation, and the beginning of the extended evolution of Smalley and Souster’s exploration of live electronics. This includes, as part of the interview with Sir Michael Tippett, an explanation by Smalley of his compositional approach to the work. Smalley outlines the problem of accurately predicting the results which these initial explorations into electronic modulation would have over the loud speakers. As a solution to this problem

Smalley chose to focus on when these electronic effects would occur in relation to the piano part, rather than on the sound produced, which at this stage Smalley could not predict. Smalley could precisely notate and accurately perform the piano part, and Souster could manipulate the live electronics as indicated in the score. However, synchronising these two parameters in performance without an understanding of the effect that the live electronics had on the piano sound was problematic. To track the flow of time, Smalley made a time scale initially on graph paper and then, as seen in Figure 3.3, running in seconds on the Transformation I 1968 Sketch. This time scale allowed Smalley and

Souster to synchronise the four layers of material in the work during rehearsals and develop a familiarity with and understanding of the aural result of the live electronics.

109

Figure 3.3 Transformation I 1968 Sketch Section 3

These four layers of material are divided into two each for the piano and the live electronics. The two layers of material in the piano part consist of:

1. Clusters and chords of great density at the bass of the piano; and

2. Superimposed material of two kinds, the first in the uppermost register of the

piano and freely played by the pianist composed from given units, and the

second of ascending material which connects the low dense material with the

material freely played in the top-most register of the piano.

These two layers of piano texture display Smalley’s exploitation of extreme registers of the piano, as detailed in Chapter 1.2.4. The two layers of material in the live electronics part consist of:

1. The volume of amplification controlled by the potentiometer; and

2. The modulation, which is also amplified, controlled with a tone from a sine

wave generator and Ring Modulator.

In the excerpt of Smalley’s and Souster’s first rehearsal of Transformation I, recorded at Cambridge as part of the BBC programme, one can clearly hear Souster calling out the passage of time in seconds as they rehearse the work, ensuring the accurate use of the live electronics in relation to the piano part.

110

The BBC Recording 1969 of the first half of Transformation I, shares striking similarities to recording 1 listed in Chapter 2.2.1 labelled Transformation I for piano with electronic modulation (1968–69) (1st version) archived in the National Library of

Australia. The most noticeable feature is the excessive tone colour generated with the use of the live electronics. The RM effects are dramatic and often interrupt rather than complement the musical direction. This is reflected in the responsive rather than coordinated ensemble between Smalley and Souster who are working off the time scale, rather than referencing each other and working together to shape the music. This feature, combined with the originality of the technique itself, certainly goes some way to accounting for the reviews of early performances:

It is a very serious piece but the difference between visual cause and audible effect

has a surreal almost Marx Bros. comedy in it. “Smalley’s magic piano,” it should

be called (Larner, 1970, p. 8).

This issue is dealt with in the interview component of the BBC Recording 1969, as Smalley and Tippett discuss the original and challenging nature of what in 1969 were ground-breaking techniques and the apparent complexity of Smalley’s work. Smalley explains that despite these aural and notational features the nature and goal of the composer to communicate remains unchanged.

This excess in exploration of RM effects is echoed in the use of subsidiary material in the improvised bars to create the uppermost layer of piano texture. These improvised bars are extended to such a degree, and modulated with such dramatic and constantly changing use of live electronics, that a detailed analysis is impractical. One significant characteristic of Smalley’s use of subsidiary material in the BBC Recording

1969 and Transformation I for piano with electronic modulation (1968–69) (1st version),

111

is the absence of any trills or tremolos. This feature corresponds to the subsidiary material from the Transformation I 1969 Sketch, shown in Figure 3.2, and with Smalley’s perfomance directions from the same source discussed in Chapter 3.3.4.

Smalley’s discussion with Sir Michael Tippett in BBC Recording 1969 is focused on the degree to which the results produced by the RM are unpredictable. Smalley appears to see the virtue in these unpredictable aural results, and much of the compositional process in Transformation I is directed towards working with this unpredictability. This includes the improvisation, which is essentially in-the-moment composition with live application of subsidiary note streams in reaction to the RM. The long improvised passages and colourful use of the live electronics is a direct consequence of this experimentation and collaboration with Souster. The evolution of Transformation in future performances, from 1969 to 1971, is towards a more concise and structured use of the RM: a process which eventually led to the composition of Monody, discussed in

Chapter 1.5.

3.4.3 BBC Recording 1970

When using the term caesura32 in the following analyses I refer to breaks in the piano note streams. These caesuras range from mere breaths to more substantial breaks lasting up to 3 seconds. The electronic modulation continues to shape the phrases through these moments of inactivity in the piano note streams. There are six caesuras of varying length in the first bar of improvised material on page 1 of Transformation separating the short note streams made of single groups of 3, 6 and 9 notes from the subsidiary material.

In the second bar of improvised material on page 1 the use of caesuras is halved to 3 of

32 Smalley also uses the term caesura in his performance instructions for Transformation detailed in Chapter 3.3.4

112

varying lengths separating note streams made of the longer single groups of 6 and 9 notes from the subsidiary material. By the third bar of improvised material on page 1 the caesuras are replaced by trills and continuous note streams with sforzandi articulations used to distinguish the divide between groups of notes from the subsidiary material which are strung together to create increasingly longer continuous note streams.

Smalley uses the longest continuous note-stream in the first improvised bar on page 2 of Transformation, constructed by combining the 22 and 16 note groups of subsidiary materials. Despite an initial longer caesura after this first breathless note- stream, the three subsequent caesuras in this first bar could be more accurately described as breath marks rather than extended pauses. They create separation between the note streams rather than a break in the phrase. The second improvised bar on page 2 uses two brief caesuras to separate the note streams which are made from 22, 16 and 11 note groups of subsidiary materials. In the third and fourth improvised bars on page 2 the groups of subsidiary materials shorten to 11, 7, 4 and 1 notes in length and the caesuras between the note streams are increased as the motion becomes more irregular. The fifth improvised bar on page 2 uses individual subsidiary groups of 1, 2 and 4 notes with extended caesuras and prominent sforzandi articulations to break the motion of the phrase. In the final improvised bar on page 2, Smalley only uses a single sforzando note and a trill with rapidly oscillating electronic modulation from Souster to lead into the final upbeat chord before Section 2.

The use of trills and tremolos in the first and second bars of improvised material captures the structure and development which Smalley indicates in his performance notes.

However, due to the “as fast as possible” speed of these improvised bars, together with

Smalley’s method of incorporating these trills and tremolos into the subsidiary material groups to form continuous note streams, the trills and tremolos are often not instantly noticeable. They function as an extension of the note streams that Smalley is improvising,

113

and create moments within a longer note stream which contain less pitch variation allowing the electronic modulation to achieve a greater clarity. However, there are clear moments when trills and tremolos are used with prominence in the musical line.

In the first three bars of improvised material on page 1 of Transformation trills and tremolos are used prominently. In the first two of these bars trills are used within the note streams surrounded by subsidiary groups of 3, 6 and 9 notes, and to bring each of these improvised bars to a climax before the bass register chord at the beginning of the next bar. In the third bar the trills and tremolos are incorporated into the note streams of subsidiary material groups of 12 and 9 notes. In the final three bars of this first page of improvised material Smalley creates extended note streams combining subsidiary groups of 3, 12 15 and 18 notes. In the penultimate bar on page 1 the note-stream continues unbroken over the bass register chord in the final bar of the page.

In the second section of improvised bars on page 2 of Transformation trills are used in almost every bar, with the penultimate bar being the only exception. However, in the first bar of improvised material on page 2 the trills and tremolos are brief and incorporated into the note streams made of subsidiary groups of 16 and 11 notes. In the second bar of improvised material on page 2 the trill is incorporated into the end of the note-stream and Smalley uses a crescendo from an almost inaudible ppp dynamic to achieve a climax and sforzando end to the bar, before the next bass register chord at the beginning of the next bar. Smalley also uses trills and tremolos in the third, fourth, and final bar on page 2 with an increasing reliance on the live electronic effects to provide shape in the phrase. These impressive bars clearly show the thoroughly planned and well- rehearsed ensemble between Smalley and Souster. The final bar on this page consists of one sforzando note and a trill with a glissando electronic effect leading into the upbeat chord and the start of Section 2 on the next page.

114

3.4.4 BBC Recording 1971

The use of caesuras in Smalley and Souster’s BBC Recording 1971 captures the structure described in Smalley’s programme notes by an overall decrease in both their length and frequency. The first bar of improvised material on page 1 begins with a 4.32 second caesura in which Souster creates the opening electronic glissandi. This prominent feature suggests that Smalley’s revision, which altered this opening bar into a and bar had now been incorporated into their interpretation. In the remainder of this bar, there are two more significant caesuras which clearly break the direction of the three note- streams. The final caesura in this bar is less prominent and more of a breath before the second bar. In the second bar of improvised material on page 1, Smalley doubles the number of caesuras to six. These caesuras are more variable in length with the final two being more accurately described as breath marks. In the third bar of improvised material on page 1 Smalley only uses two caesuras separating three note-streams, with the final note-stream of the bar running into the next downbeat. In the fourth bar of improvised material on page 1 there are two caesuras which can be more accurately described as breath marks, with the final note-stream again running into the next bar. From the fifth bar of improvised material on page 1, Smalley uses no further caesuras or significant breath marks instead employing the longest continuous note-stream which runs over the downbeat of the sixth bar of improvised material on page 1 and ends with a sforzando articulation and very small breath mark before the start of the notated material on page 2.

Smalley’s use of groups of subsidiary material to construct note streams and his integration of trills and tremolos in the BBC Recording 1971 is significantly more laconic and is detailed below. Overall, there are fewer groups of subsidiary materials, trills and tremolos present, with their use by Smalley clearly directed towards creating gradually longer and more continuous note-streams in the first page of improvised material, and

115

shorter and less continuous note-streams on the second page of improvised material. In the first bar of improvised material on page 1 there are three note-streams. The first is a single subsidiary group of 3 notes. The second is constructed from a subsidiary ‘group’ of 1 and 6 joined by a brief tremolo. The third is a single subsidiary group of 9. The second bar of improvised material on page 1 contains six separate note-streams constructed from: a single group of 9; a tremolo before a group of 3; a group of 2; a

‘group’ of 1; a group of 12; and a group of 3 joined to a tremolo. From the third bar of improvised material on page 1, Smalley begins to combine groups of subsidiary material.

The first note-stream combines two groups of 15 notes, the second note-stream is made of a single group of 12 and the third note-stream is constructed from a group of 3 linked to a group of 15 with a tremolo. The fourth bar of improvised material on page 1 contains three note-streams. The first is a constructed from two groups of 15 joined by a tremolo.

The second is a subsidiary ‘group’ of 1 note, and the third is a single subsidiary group of

12. The fifth and sixth bars of improvised material on page 1 contain the longest continuous note-stream constructed by combining groups of 18, 3, and 5 notes of subsidiary material. This note-stream flows over the downbeat of the sixth bar of improvised material on page 1 and effectively links the section to the notated material on page 2.

In the second set of improvised bars on page 2 of Transformation there are few significant caesuras, with note-streams and gestures separated by breath marks of gradually increasing length. These increase in frequency to the third bar as more groups of subsidiary material are used, and then decrease in frequency to the final bar as Smalley gradually uses fewer groups of subsidiary materials. In the first improvised bar on page two there are no caesuras with only a brief breath mark before the downbeat of bar 2. In the second improvised bar on page 2 there are two breath marks. In the third improvised bar on page 2 there are seven breaths of varying lengths which do not significantly

116

interrupt the phrase. In the fourth improvised bar on page 2 there are four breath marks.

In the fifth improvised bar on page 2 the four breath marks are now more accurately decribed as brief rests. In the final improvised bar on page 2 there are two small caesuras before the final notated upbeat chord.

In the first two bars of improvised material on page 2 of Transformation, Smalley continues to combine groups of subsidiary materials to construct note streams. In the first improvised bar on page 2, Smalley uses a tremolo to link a subsidiary group of 22 and 4 notes to construct a single note-stream. In the second improvised bar on page 2, Snalley uses two note-streams. The first constructed with two groups of 16 notes and the second constructed with a group of 11 and 7 notes. From the third improvised bar on page 2,

Smalley only uses single groups of shorter subsidiary material, which decrease in number and continuity in each bar as the rests between groups grow more prominent. In the third improvised bar on page 2, Smalley’s use of subsidiary ‘groups’ of 1, 2, 11, 4, 7, 1, and 1 are almost continuous with small breath marks and rests between the gestures. In the fourth improvised bar on page 2, Smalley uses single subsidiary ‘groups’ of 1, 11, 4, 1, and 1. In the fifth improvised bar on page 2, subsidiary ‘groups’ of 2, 1, 4, and 2 are separated by brief rests. In the final improvised bar on page 2, Smalley uses a group of 2 and a ‘group’ of 1 before the final notated upbeat chord.

In BBC Recording 1971 Smalley’s utilizes sforzandi at the beginning and end of the groups of subsidiary material within the constructed note-streams to add clarity and create rhythmic drive within the phrases. The structural use of sforzandi articulations can be heard in the very first gesture in the first improvised bar on page 1, with every note of the group of 3 accented clearly. In the third improvised bar on page 1, Smalley highlights these sforzandi by commencing the first and third note-streams at a ppp dynamic level then using a crescendo through the note-stream to a violent concluding sforzandi. This is

117

a dynamic feature common to both recordings analysed in this study and is used to provide the input for more prominent use of the electronic modulation.

3.4.5 Conclusions from the Recordings

Whilst BBC Recording 1969, BBC Recording 1970 and BBC Recording 1971 are single instances of a performance, these analyses demonstrate the evolution of

Smalley’s and Souster’s thoughtful pre-planned structure in the execution of the improvised bars in Section 1 of Transformation. This formal plan of Section 1 of

Transformation is essential for any interpreter of the work to convey in their performance.

The use of successively longer note groups of subsidiary material should correspond to the gradual reduction in frequency and length of caesuras and use of sforzandi articulations. This can then be reversed on the second page of improvised bars to form an arch structure. Longer groups of subsidiary material can be combined freely in the last improvised bars on page 1 to create continuous note-streams to end the first section of improvised material and climax into page 2 of Section 1. Smalley uses trills and tremolos in an unobtrusive way to extend note-streams throughout the improvised bars on page 1 and 2 of Transformation. However, in keeping with Smalley’s performance instructions, prominent use of trills and tremolos should be reserved for the first two bars of improvised material on page 1 and the last three bars of improvised material on page 2. These trills and tremolos are to be used to provide continuous material for well-rehearsed effects created with the live electronics. The glissando effect in the final bar of Smalley and

Souster’s performance of the improvised bars on page 2 of Transformation is an exciting and dramatic climax highlighting the sforzandi chord, which is an upbeat into Section 2.

This is yet another example of Smalley’s ability, first commented on by Stephen

Walsh (Walsh, 1994), in using tightly controlled compositional materials, which can be found here in the groups of notes in the subsidiary material seen in Figure 3.1, to create a 118

seemingly free and organic musical fluency in his works. As a performer, the successful interpretation of Section 1 of Transformation requires a balanced relationship between:

1. the appropriate use of subsidiary note groups of the lengths prescribed by

Smalley;

2. the judicious use of trills and tremolos of varying degrees of prominence;

3. the variation in length of caesuras; and

4. use of sforzandi to accentuate groups of subsidiary materials.

The application of these techniques through the improvised bars, in a well-rehearsed ensemble with the live electronics, results in a clear formal structure to Section 1, whilst still maintaining musical intensity creating a meaningful communication between performers and audience.

3.5 Smalley’s 1971 Revision Sketch

One more source relates to the interpretation of the improvised bars in

Transformation. In the Revision 1971 Sketch Smalley commenced notating the improvised bars of Section 1 from Transformation. The revisions are incomplete with

Smalley indicating on the sketch where inappropriate octave intervals need to be checked and revised, and where an alternate layout of notes required further consideration. A typeset copy of this sketch is given below, with page 1 shown in in Figure 3.4, and page

2 shown in Figure 3.5. In this Revision 1971 Sketch, Smalley simply inserts note-streams created directly from the groups of subsidiary material which correspond to the groups that he has specified in the score should be used in each of the improvised bars in page 1 and 2 of Section 1. In his usual manner, Smalley divides the note streams between the two piano clefs in a suggested execution of the note streams between the hands. To understand Smalley’s compositional process in structuring these improvised bars, I will detail the notation of the first and second pages of improvised material below. 119

On the first page of improvised bars, in bar 1 which is originally a bar, but here is divided into a bar and a bar, a single cluster is notated to be played with the palm.

This would represent the notated chord shared between the right-hand and left-hand which is the final chord of the previous notated section. The first three-note group in the first bar, in which every note is accented, would then correspond to the peak of the electronics sweep. The remainder of the bar then proceeds with a single group of 6 notes, and a single group of 9 notes. In bar 2, which is a longer bar, Smalley inserts two different groups of 6 notes, a single group of 3 notes, a single group of 9 notes, and a single group of 12 notes. In bar 3, which is a bar Smalley inserts a single group of 9 notes, a single group of 3 notes, a single group of 12 notes, and a single group of 15 notes.

In bar 3, which is a shorter bar there is a single group of 12 notes, a single group of 15 notes, and a single group of 18 notes. In bar 4, which is a shorter bar there is a single group of 15 notes, and a single group of 18 notes. In bar 5, which is the shortest bar there is a single continuous group of 18 notes, which would lead into the second page of

Transformation.

Smalley notates the second page as follows. The first bar, which is originally a bar, is here divided into a bar and an bar. After the arrival chord at the beginning of the bar, which represents the notated chord shared between the right-hand and left-hand which is the final chord of the previous notated section. The remainder of the bar only contains the electronics glissando, which sweeps up to the beginning of the bar. This

bar contains a single group of 22 notes, a single ‘group’ of 1 note, a single group of 16 notes, a single group of 2 notes, a single group of 11 notes, and a single group of 4 notes.

In bar 2, which is a longer bar, Smalley notates a single group of 16 notes, a single 120

group of 2 notes, a single group of 11 notes, a single ‘group’ of 1 note, a single group of

7 notes, a single group of 4 notes, and a single group of 7 notes. In bar 3, which is a shorter bar there is a single group of 11 notes, a single group of 2 notes, a single group of 7 notes, a single ‘group’ of 1 note, and a single group of 4 notes. In bar 4, which is a shorter bar there is a single group of 7 notes, a single ‘group’ of 1 note, a single group of 4 notes, and a single group of 2 notes. In bar 5, which is a shorter bar there is a single group of 4 notes, a single ‘group’ of 1 note, and a single group of 2 notes. In the final improvised bar on page 2 which is a bar, there is a single group of 2 notes, and a single

‘group’ of 1 note, before the final upbeat chord into Section 2.

The notation of these improvised bars by Smalley in the Revision 1971 Sketch is a revealing document, and could plausibly be performed despite the constraint it places on the ensemble between the two performers, which results in an obvious lack of spontaneity and associated energy. The Revision 1971 Sketch provides one possible use of the subsidiary material to capture the performance indications given by Smalley and create an appropriately structured section. A comparison with the BBC Recording 1971, which is the most concise and clearly structured of all the recorded performances made by Smalley reveals the constraints placed upon the music through notating these improvised bars.

The key characteristics of Smalley’s performance of the improvised bars in

Section 1 missing from the Revision 1971 Sketch include:

1. An absence of trills and tremolos, which are used prominently by Smalley and

Souster to create glissandi and dramatic colouristic effects, and are a highlight of

their performance. In the BBC Recording 1971 every trill and tremolo executed

by Smalley is shaped with ascending, descending or rapidly oscillating live

electronic modulation by Souster;

121

2. There are no sforzando articulations to add intensity in any of the phrases in the

Revision 1971 Sketch. Sforzandi and crescendi from pp are a feature of all

Smalley’s BBC Recording 1970 and 1971, and are used structurally to highlight

the beginnings or ends of the groups of subsidiary notes. This lack of any

sforzando articulations is possibly related to point three below;

3. Smalley’s layout of the note streams suggests there is no combination of

subsidiary note groups to form longer, more continuous streams of notes. In the

BBC Recording 1971 Smalley highlights these joins between note groups in his

virtuosic extended note-streams at the end of page 1, with subtle yet clear

sforzandi when he combines the subsidiary note groups in performance.

In a critical edition, these revised note streams from the Revision 1971 Sketch would be included as a performer’s appendix with clear perfomance instructions to consider them as suggestions and guides to a more freely executed improvisation as

Smalley originally intended.

122

Figure 3.4 Improvised section page 1 from Revision 1971 Sketch œ™ œ™ > > œ™ palm bœ œ N.B. write an octave higher from here on ‹ bœ™ œ œ 3 J 6 œ œ#œ#œ #œ œ#œ œ bœ œ 15 &8 8 Æ Æ 8 Æ ‹ sffz ff bœ 3 6 > œ #œ œ 15 Piano {&8 8 8 3/6/9 ‹ œ œ 15 œ œbœbœ #œ œ œ œ bœ œbœ œ#œ œ œ#œ 12 & 8 œ #œ œ œ œbœ œ œ #œ 8 ‹ Æ Æ Æ Æ Pno. 15 12 {& 8 #œ #œ œ #œ bœ bœ œnœ #œ 8 6/9/6/3/12 chords as per pg. 1 (also dynamics) ‹ bœ œ œ 12 œ#œ œ œ œ #œ œ #œ œ#œ œ œ #œ œ œ 9 & 8 œ#œ œ œ œ #œ #œ œ 8 Æ Æ Æ Pno. ‹ 12 bœ œ 9 {& 8 bœ œ œ bœ bœ œ œ #œ #œ œ #œ 8 9/3/12/15

‹ œ œ œbœ œ 9 #œ œ œ#œ œbœ bœbœ œ œ #œ bœ œ bœ œ œ œ #œ#œ œ œ &8 œ bœ œ Æ Æ Pno. ‹ 9 œ œ œ#œ {&8 œ œ bœ œ#œ#œ œ#œ bœ œ œ #œ 12/15/18

‹ œ œ œ #œ œ #œ #œ œ #œ œ œ#œ 3 & œ #œ œ œ #œ #œ 8 Æ Pno. ‹ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ 3 {& bœ œ #œ œ œ bœ œ #œ 8 15/18

‹ œ ( , ) 3 bœ #œ #œ œ œ œ bœ &8 bœ bœ œ œ œ ‹ Æ Pno. 3 {&8 œ œ œ bœ bœ 18

123

Figure 3.5 Improvised section page 2 from Revision 1971 Sketch

n bœœ B ﬂat? (octave B ﬂat will ‹ b œ have to be checked) œ #œ œ œ#œ #œ 2 13 œ #œ Æ œ œ J &8 8 œbœ œ œ sfffz Pno. ‹ bœœ 2 13 #œ œ {&8 8 œ bœ #œ bœ #œ œ œ 22/1/16/2/11/4

‹ œ œ #œ œ#œ œ #œ œ œ œ#œ bœ #œ œ bœbœ œ œ #œ œ #œ 16 & œ œ œ œ 8 Pno. ‹ œ #œ œ œ 16 {& #œ œ #œ 8 #œ

‹ #œ œ#œ nœ #œ #œ œ 16bœ œ bœ #œ œ #œ œ #œ #œ œ œ œ#œ#œ 11 œ œbœ Æ œ bœ œ #œ Æ &8 œ #œ bœ J 8 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Pno. ‹ 16 œ œbœ #œ#œ 11 {&8 œ œ bœ œ œ œ 8 #œ bœ bœ œ œ œ 16/2/11/1/7/4/7 octave chords as per page 2 (also dynamics)

‹ ?too low? œ œ œ œ 11 œ œ œ #œ œ œbœ 7 bœ œbœ Æ Æ Æ & 8 œ œ œ J 8 ‹ Æ Æ Pno. 11 7 {& 8 bœ œ #œ 8 œbœ bœ œ œ 11/2/7/1/4 chords loco to end of page

better? 3 œ 8 bœ ∑ ^ ‹ œ loco r œ bœ j œ #œ œ œ ≈ bœ 7 ≈ œ bœ œ 4 œ j œ 3 œ ‰ ≈ &8 8 #œ Æ 8 bœ & bnœ Æ j Æ nœ Pno. ‹ ^ 7 4 3 r≈ {&8 œ bœ œ œ 8 8 & œ #œ œ œ #œ #œ 7/1/4/2 4/1/2 2/1

124

3.6 Conclusions

In comparison to BBC Recording 1970, the Revision 1971 Sketches demonstrate the insurmountable task of using notation to represent the energy and colour that thoughtful and sensitive performers can create through improvisation. The Revision 1971

Sketch serves as a striking illustration as to why these bars remained improvised and not precisely notated in the FM/TS Score 1970. However, the Revision 1971 Sketch does demonstrate how the note groups contained in the subsidiary material may be organised into a simple appropriately structured plan for Section 1. It is likely Smalley undertook the process of notating the improvised bars of Section 1 in the Revision 1971 Sketch to check that the subsidiary material he provided was indeed adequate to cover the requirements to fulfil the performance instructions given. In performances with Tonkin performing on the live electronics, we have found little cause to draw on more than

Smalley has provided, despite a tendency, at times, to get lost within the intense spirit and excitement Smalley’s music invariably inspires in performance.

125

Chapter 4 Arranging a Masterpiece: Roger Smalley’s

Concerto for Piano and Orchestra

4.1 Background

This chapter focuses on the production of an arrangement for two pianos of

Smalley’s Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, from here on referred to as Concerto. The production of this arrangement was undertaken around a performance of Smalley’s orchestral original given on the 13th of September 2017 with the University of Western

Australia, Conservatorium of Music, Symphony Orchestra. The recording of this performance is provided on DVD 4 - Chapter 8, submitted as supplementary material with this thesis. The two-piano arrangement was workshopped with Emily Green-

Armytage, who is an experienced performer of Roger Smalley’s music, and used in rehearsal with composer-conductor James Ledger before the orchestral performance.

Further workshopping and revisions were made before a première performance of the two-piano arrangement given on the 7th of March 2019 contained in this submission on

DVD 2. Using the process of arranging the composition for two pianos as a case study, this chapter will include:

1. An introduction to the Concerto itself, including a history of its significant

performances;

2. An explanation of the significance of the work which, when combined with

Smalley’s recording and performances, provides a complete document of his

importance as a late twentieth-century pianist-composer;

3. Reasons for the creation of a two-piano arrangement of the Concerto;

4. A description of the necessary alterations made in arranging Smalley’s complex

orchestral score with justifications for these alterations; and

126

5. Performance of the Concerto.

Roger Smalley’s Concerto was composed in Western Australia and England as a

B.B.C. commission for European Music year in 1985. It was premièred in Brangwen Hall,

Swansea on 11th Sept 1985 by the B.B.C. Welsh Symphony Orchestra conducted by

Howard Williams with Roger Smalley himself as soloist. An Australian première occurred 17 months later during the Perth International Arts Festival on the 14th of

February 1987, given by the West Australian Symphony Orchestra conducted by Diego

Masson with Smalley again as piano soloist. As a culmination of this rehearsal and performance process, on the 19th of February 1987, a recording was made at A.B.C. Basil

Kirke Studio in Perth Western Australia with the same performers.33 This recording, still available through the Australian Music Centre (Smalley, 1987b), was submitted by the

A.B.C. to the annual UNESCO International Rostrum of Composers in 1987, where it was awarded the highest ranking, that of ‘recommended work’. This was the first

Australian entry to receive this honour, and broadens our perspective of Roger Smalley’s influence in international composition and performance, especially as this entry featured the rare combination of the composer also appearing as soloist.34

33 Produced by Ray Irving, engineered by Norbert Roth and mastered by Chris White, many current members of the Western Australian Symphony Orchestra have vivid memories of this experience.

34 Other recipients include: Louis Andriessen, Henryk Górecki, George Crumb, György

Ligeti, Witold Lutosławski, Franco Donatoni, and Elliott Carter.

127

4.2 Critical Reception

The recording also received international critical acclaim, highlighting the engaging physicality in the Concerto, which is a characteristic in all of Smalley’s solo piano music:

There is some recognisable heroic material especially in the Piano Concerto…

[which] is an extremely exciting and cogent piece of writing. The work is alive

with barbed and thunderous life: gawky and pugnacious with explosive,

hammered rhythms. Stravinsky and Prokofiev are clearly shaping influences.

There is much terracing of dynamic extremes with harrying, creeping and

slithering strings. This is music not in thrall to tonality but then neither is it as

desiccated as say the Piano Concerto by Elliott Carter… Lovely textures squirm,

slide and fluctuate slowly and fast. This is as rich with allusion as Messiaen's

Couleurs de la Cité Celeste and Turangalîla. After 18 minutes of exuberance the

orchestra bows away and leaves the piano alone to muse in a quiet and consonant

dream. The piano then rushes in a syncopated and jazzy… moto perpetuo with

gruff brassy barks and bells. The pianist lays about him as he goes. The recording

is of vivid colours variously shrill, strident, refined and whisper-tender. Award-

winning stuff… Recommended for those with stiffened sinews (Barnett, 2001).

As a combination of a substantial composition, together with international performances given by Smalley himself as soloist, and an award-winning recording, this represents a significant document of a pianist-composer in command of his compositional technique and pianistic skills. This as Andrew Burn states is “a reminder that Smalley is one of the most gifted advocates of contemporary works for the instrument” (Burn, 1989,

128

p. 47). A pianist-composer touring and recording their own virtuoso Concerto is a rarity in the second half of the twentieth-century with artists such as Prokofiev, Busoni and

Bartók a hard act to follow, and the work initially rode a powerful wave of successive, well-received performances. This conclusion is supported by the many enthusiastic reviews of Smalley’s performances, including of the première itself:

In the work as a whole, also, one is stunned by Smalley’s ability to be at once

virtually incompetent and explosively imaginative. There is a case in point at the

end, where a rousing conclusion is immediately undercut by the feeble tick-

tocking of a wood block. The ingeniousness is so complete as to constitute a stroke

of genius (Griffiths, 1985).

The London première was given on Tuesday the 28th of July 1987 at Royal Albert

Hall by Roger Smalley as soloist, Bryden Thomson as conductor and the BBC Welsh

Symphony Orchestra.35

As in the first performance in Swansea two year[s] ago he [Smalley] was soloist

here, rightly claiming lineage for such earlier pianist-composers as Rachmaninov,

Prokofiev and Bartók. Stravinsky too came to mind – not such a virtuoso at the

keyboard – when in the scherzo section of his 25-minute one-movement span neo-

classical figuration of Stravinskian gawkiness led logically to the most simple yet

most daring passage the central solo of the slow movement. Simple and tonal over

repeated chords (Greenfield, 1987).

35 Now known as the National Orchestra of Wales

129

Smalley also performed the work with Australian state orchestras, including performances on the 15th of August 1987, with the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra in Elder

Hall, with Werner Andreas Albert conducting (Cary, 1987), and on the 7th of May 1988 with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra in the Sydney Town Hall, again with Werner

Andreas Albert conducting (Long, 1988). A performance in Germany was given in

Munich on July the 15th 1994 again with Smalley as soloist, and with fellow Australian

Patrick Thomas as conductor, with the Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks.

Since this auspicious beginning and the successful performances with Smalley himself as piano soloist, the work has been somewhat neglected by performers and orchestras. Outside commemorative-concerts and festivals the work remains largely under-performed, and what follows is not in any way an exhaustive list, but is representative of the notable performances given. The American première was given in

April 1989 by American pianist Yvar Mikhashoff as part of the North American New

Music Festival in Buffalo (NY) with the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra under the direction of Jess Levine. Rolf Hind, who we could consider a champion of Smalley’s

Concerto, first performed the work on 25th March 1994 with the BBC Scottish Symphony

Orchestra with Richard Bernas conducting, and again on 1st April 2005 with Jac Van

Steen conducting the BBC Symphony Orchestra. This second performance was broadcast on 23rd July 2005 on Radio 3 and promoted as “Jac van Steen conducts the BBC

Symphony Orchestra in an invitation concert featuring the world première of Mark

Bowden's Sudden Light alongside music by three of the elder generation of composers”

(BBC, 2005). Although, not capturing the enthusiastic reviews of its first performances,

Kenneth Carter described it as:

Not music to second-guess… the piano led the helter-skelter to the finishing post.

Rolf Hind was the abrasively committed soloist (Carter, 2005).

130

Despite the infrequency of significant performances, this distinctive and engaging work has attracted considerable focus in research. This, in contrast to many of Smalley’s earlier works such as Transformation and Missa Parodia I, is the result of the availability of a published score and commercial high-quality recording of the work. The Concerto follows on from Accord as one of Smalley’s significant works highlighting the refined techniques and processes seen in his highly-structured compositions. Christopher Mark in his analysis of the work notes that “[b]oth the simplicity of the material and the rigour of its working out suggest a kinship with Webern… Smalley’s own technical concerns are likewise directed unwaveringly at expressive ends (there’s little evidence of technical indulgence)... Smalley’s music is a direct consequence of ‘its method of construction’”36

(Mark, 1994, pp. 57–58). This compositional process, detailed by Mark, is of relevance and applied in Chapter 5.5 to illustrate Smalley’s integration of piano technique into his compositional process.

4.3 Aims and Reasons for me to create a two-piano arrangement

As the title suggests Smalley’s Concerto for Piano and Orchestra is a virtuosic endeavour for the entire ensemble, with even the strings written as individual parts in some sections to create unique colourful effects. Gordon Kerry, while discussing Diptych

(Homage to Brian Blanchflower), highlights Smalley’s aural acuity and “masterly deployment of orchestral mass and colour” (Kerry, 2009, p. 124). This vivid use of instrumental colour that makes the orchestral version of the Concerto so distinctive, presents a unique challenge in arranging the work for the more homogenous instrumental colour of the two-piano format. Chapter 4.4, in discussing the production of the arrangement, presents specific examples to demonstrate my solutions to this problem.

36 Mark cites a quote from Walsh (Walsh, 1968, p. 134) into this statement.

131

The challenging orchestral writing in Smalley’s Concerto is also one of the reasons why the work is not performed more regularly. Although not an insurmountable obstacle, the sophistication of the orchestral parts represent a significant burden on the limited time professional orchestras have in preparing concert programmes.

A practical reason why the work is not studied, and consequently performed, more regularly is the absence of a reduction for two pianos. Although not a decisive factor, the potential inherent in presenting the Concerto in the exciting two-piano format, and the availability of a rehearsal score for advanced students and conductors, would greatly improve our awareness and understanding of the work. Currently, the only score available is in the composer’s own hand as a full orchestral score, and although Smalley’s manuscript is neat and legible, the condition of the orchestral parts leave much to be desired. Inaccuracies including unreliable numbering of bars rest, a lack of tempo indications, incorrect notes and unclear time signature changes were discovered during preparations for the performance given on 13th Sept 2017 at Hale School Auditorium by the UWA Symphony Orchestra, with James Ledger conducting and myself as piano soloist. Revising and typesetting these orchestral parts to create a critical edition of the work should be a future project of high priority to promote future performances and allow the rehearsal process to run efficiently.

A central objective in my project was to provide a reduction of the orchestral part to assist in the rehearsal of the Concerto. Furthermore, the virtuosic nature of Smalley’s orchestral part writing allowed me to create a convincing and performable concert arrangement for two pianos to promote the work through performance in this way. It was therefore anticipated that this concert arrangement would need to be satisfying to play and have an impact on the listener greater than just a second-best version of an existing

132

orchestral work. This is not unprecedented, with Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring (1913)37 and

Ravel’s La Valse (1919–20) existing in equally convincing arrangements for two pianos, in the case of La Valse made by the composer himself. Analysing Smalley’s integration of compositional process into his writing for the piano would assist in creating a more respectful and authentic reduction and promised to provide a more convincing interpretation of Smalley’s music.

To fulfil the functions of a study score and rehearsal tool for the soloist to learn the challenging piano part, the aim in my arrangement was for the first piano part to contain the entire original solo piano part, with the second piano part based on the orchestral score. This feature of all transcriptions of piano concerti for two pianos was important to maintain in this context. I must acknowledge the extensive workshopping process undertaken with the assistance of pianist Emily Green-Armytage, and composer- conductor James Ledger. During this process, it became apparent that the two-piano arrangement would create a different effect in comparison to the original, through its provision of much greater immediacy of articulation between the two pianos. This offered the opportunity to create an arrangement that maintained the theatrical physicality of the original while compensating for the loss of orchestral colour and textural sophistication.

To supplement the specific examples referred to within this thesis, the finished two-piano arrangement is provided as Appendix 1. This is the score which is now available through the Australian Music Centre (Smalley, 2019a) and was performed in the recital contained on DVD 2 accompanying this submission.

37 Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring was first published as a work for one piano four hands, but is now often perfomed on two pianos.

133

4.4 Producing the Arrangement

As mentioned in Chapter 4.3, the first piano part in my two-piano arrangement of

Smalley’s Concerto contains the entire original solo piano part so that the arrangement functions as a learning tool for the soloist. However, the solo piano part from the Concerto and the first piano part from my arrangement are not identical. There are instances where the first piano is required to contribute to realise the orchestral part with the second piano part. This never places a demanding technical requirement on the solo pianist, but is significant in rendering a fluent recreation of Smalley’s intention. It also results in a more balanced ensemble between the two pianos than the traditional arrangements of Classical and Romantic piano concerti. Furthermore, in sections which benefit musically from an increased interplay between the two pianos, this enhances the visual and theatrical effect, as the performers share orchestral material and create richer textures. Although lacking the vivid instrumental colours of the original, exploiting the two-piano medium more thoughtfully did allow for the creation of a colourful arrangement, especially when remaining faithful to Smalley’s original idea. As detailed in Chapter 1.2.4, a parallel can be drawn between Smalley’s technique of orchestrating in instrumental groups and the distinctive use of register in his solo piano music. The two-piano arrangement of his

Concerto presented opportunities to use extreme piano registers to capture the contrasting colours and characters of the original orchestration, whilst also, as detailed in Chapter

5.2, resulting in fewer challenges maintaining a clear and transparent texture.

The first example of this occurs in Section A of the Concerto and is shown highlighted in Figure 4.1. In Section A, as the tempo gradually accelerates, different sections of the orchestra play accented chords of gradually decreasing periodicities until they synchronize and fill the entire bar propelling the music into Section B. In the original orchestration, the solo piano performs only the shocking A-major chord every twelve

134

quavers, with the orchestral sections gradually entering with diminishing periodicities.

This creates a colourful interplay as well as rhythmic complexity, as each section of the orchestra has its own unique timbre. High-string pizzicato chords, strident brass and wood-wind accents, low-string grunts and decisive percussion hits are all juxtaposed. The simplest method of capturing this colourful interplay and contrast in the two-piano arrangement was to space the chords over extreme registers of the piano. For this to occur, but not result in impossibly athletic leaps across vast spans of the keyboard for the second piano part, selected chords were placed in the first piano part. This only required one extra chord in bars 7 to 11 and two extra chords in bar 12. which are marked clearly to be performed only in the two-piano arrangement. Fortunately, this added an element of cooperative theatre between the two instruments in creating a fluent accelerando into

Section B.

135

Figure 4.1 Concerto Introduction two-piano arrangement

2 q=72, very gradual ACCEL. to double speed (q=144) at B >. >. œ loco [play only œ 7 œ œ ‹ #œ in tw#o>œ. piano version] #œ & Ó Ó Ó J ‰ Œ#n œ ‰ Œ Ó J ‰ Œ Ó Ó #Jœ Pno. {? Ó Ó Ó j ‰ Œ Ó Ó j ‰ Œ Ó Ó ‹ œ œ #œ #œ >. >. q=72, very>. gradual ACCEL. to double speed (q=1>.44) at B >. >. bbœ b bœ b bœ b bœ œ n œ n œ > n œ bœ j >œ. bœ >œ. bœ #œ. >œ. bœ & Œ J ‰ Œ #œ ‰ ‰bbœnœ Œ J ‰ Œ ‰bbœnœ Œ Œ # œ Œ ‰bbœœ Ó J ‰ Œ n# œ J J #œ J #œ >. Pno. >. #œ j j j n#œ j j {? œ ‰ Œ Ó œ ‰ Œ Ó œ ‰ Œ Ó Ó J ‰# #œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ ##œ ##œ ##œ n#œ ##œ œ. œ. œ. >. œ. > > > loco [play on;y > in two piano> version] >œ. >œ. bœ. 10 œ œ b œ ‹ #œ #œ bœ J J J ‹ & ‰ Œ Ó Ó ‰ Œ & ‰ Œ Ó & Pno. ? j ‰ Œ Ó Ó j ‰ Œ Ó Ó {‹ œ œ #œ #œ >. >. >. b bœ >. nbœ >. >. >. >. >. b œœ j J #œ b œœ ™ #œ b œœ #œ & bnœ ‰ Œ #nœ ‰ ‰#n#œ ‰ bnœ ‰ Œ ##œ Œ bnœ ‰ Œ ##œ ‰ J # nœ J J J J J >. Pno. #>œ. j #œj j n#œ j {? ‰# #œ ‰ n œ Ó Ó œ ‰ J ‰ Ó œ ‰ ‰ ‰ n œ #œ #œ. >. ##œ ##œ > >. >. >œ. >œ. 12 œ loco [play only œ loco [play only q = 144 ‹ #œ in two piano version] #œ in two piano version] B œ >œ. œ >œ. Solo Piano balanced with timpani & J ‰ ‰bbœnœ Œ J ‰ ‰bbœnœ Œ ? Œ ∑ J J œ Pno. ff ? j ‰ Œ Œ j ‰ Œ ‰ ‰ Œ ∑ {‹ œ œ œ #œ #œ œ >. >. >. >. ° b bœ b bœ nbœ >. nbœ >. B q = 144 J #œ J #œ & Œ ‰ ‰#n œ Œ ‰ ‰#n œ ∑ #Jœ #Jœ >. >. Pno. #œ #œ Solo Piano balanced with timpani n#œ j n#œ j #œ {? ‰ J Œ œ ‰ ‰ J ‰ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ j ‰ j ‰ j ‰ j ‰ r ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ##œ ##œ > > > > > > >. >.

136

At times, Smalley's orchestration is at a level of complexity beyond what is achievable on two pianos. An important compositional technique in Smalley’s works is the gradual layering of material from different sections to create structural growth, and develop a textural sophistication (Mark, 2012b, p. 169). The final section of the first movement contains this layering of different elements, and forced a choice to be made in order to convey a compromise between the two layers that the orchestration made possible; a colourful atmospheric layer and a more rhythmically articulated layer. As seen in Figure 4.2,38 the 12 violins divided into individual string parts create an exciting, sparkling but colourful effect and a musical link to the moto perpetuo semiquaver note- stream in the last movement. Layered over the top of this, the brass and woodwinds together with the piano perform a vital articulated exchange using the same compositional process of overlapping periodicities as in the work’s introduction. Occurring at what is the end of the first movement, the musical impetus gradually disintegrates instead of building with forward momentum as it does in the introduction.

38 Excerpts from the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra have been typeset by myself as part of an ongoing project to create a critical edition of this work.

137

Figure 4.2 Concerto Section U1 full score

3 4 q = 144 ( q = q ) U1 “” [3 q ] ° œ#œ œ #œ 130 & Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 1 >œ ff R ‰™ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Fls. 2 & “” #œœ œœœ#œ Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ¢& 6 “” ff ° #œ œ #œ & / 0 Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 1 3 ff Obs. “” >. >. œ #œ 0 2 & / Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ¢

œ 3rd Oboe change to Cor Anglais cl.3 (loco) 1 ° Œ Œ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Cls. 2 ¢& 3 ff > j j (sim.) j j j œ œ œ œ œ œ 1.Œ Œ ‰ œ j j 1 ° ‰ bœ ‰ Œ Œ bœ Œ Œ ‰ ‰ bœ Œ bœ ‰ Œ Œ Œ ‰ bœ Trps. 2 & œ œ ¢ Œ ff J J ‰ Œ J ∑ œ œ 3 > 2.3. J J > > ° j j j j j j 1 & œ bœ ‰ j Œ ‰ j ‰ bœ œ ‰ ‰ œ ‰ bœ Œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ bœ Œ ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ bœ Œ œ ‰ 2 œ bœ bœ œ bJœ J bnœ œ J Jœ bœ J Jœ > > J J J Hns. ff > > j j j œ ‰ j Œ ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ ‰ j ‰ œ Œ ‰ ‰ ‰ œ Œ ‰ j ‰ j ‰ œ Œ j ‰ 3 ¢& œ œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ bœ œ œ 4 œ œ J J œ J J œ J J > > J J J °? j j j j 3 Trbs. Ó œ ‰ œ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ Œ ‰ œ Œ ∑ Œ œ ‰ Œ Tuba ¢ #œ #œ #œ #œ ff >. >. >. >. b>œ bœ b>œ b>œ ‹ bbœ bbœ bbœ bbœ & Œ Œ & ‰ J Œ Œ ‰ J ∑ Œ Œ ‰ J ∑ Œ Œ ‰ J Pf. ffj (simj.) (simj.) j {? Œ Œ ? ‰ bbœ Œ Œ ‰ bbœ ∑ Œ Œ ‰ bbœ ∑ Œ Œ ‰ bbœ 3 ‹ b bœ b bœ b bœ b bœ 4 > > > ‹ œ #œ nœ bœ nœ bœ ° bœ œ bœ œ#œ#œ #œnœ#œ #œ œ #œ œbœ bœbœ bœ œ nœ œ œ#œ #œ#œnœ bœ œbœ #œnœ#œ bœ œnœ œ œ#œ #œ#œ œ œ œbœbœ bœ 1 & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ#œ œ œ œ#œ ‹ ff œ #œ #œ #œ nœ bœ #œ #œnœ bœ bœ œbœ œ #œ nœ#œ #œ œ #œ œbœ bœbœ bœbœ nœ œ œ#œ #œ nœ bœ œbœ #œnœ bœ œnœ œ œ#œ #œ#œ œ œ œbœbœ bœbœ 2 & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ#œ œ œ œ#œ ‹ ff œ #œ #œ #œ nœ bœ #œ #œnœ bœ œbœ œ #œ nœ#œ œ œ #œ œbœ bœbœ bœbœ nœ œ œ#œ œ nœ bœ œbœ #œnœ œ œnœ œ œ#œ #œ#œ œ œ œbœbœ bœbœbœ 3 & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ#œ nœ œ œ#œ ‹ ff œ #œ nœ bœ nœ bœ bœ œ #œ#œ #œnœ#œ œ œ #œ œbœ bœbœ œbœ nœ œ œ#œ œ#œ nœ bœ œbœ #œnœ#œ œ œ nœ œ œ#œ #œ#œ œ œ œbœbœ bœbœbœ 4 & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ#œ nœ œ œ#œ bœ ‹ fœf #œ nœ bœ nœ bœ œ#œ #œ #œ œ#œ œ œ #œ œbœ bœbœ œ œ nœ œ œ#œ œ#œnœ bœ œbœ #œnœ#œ œ œnœ œ œ#œ #œ#œ œnœ œbœbœ bœbœbœ 5 & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ#œ nœ œ œ#œ bœbœ ‹ ff#œ #œ #œ nœ bœ #œ #œnœ bœ œ #œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ #œ œbœ bœbœ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œ#œ œ œ nœ bœ œbœ œ#œnœ œ œnœ œ œ#œ #œ#œ#œnœ œnœ œ œbœbœ bœbœbœ 6 & œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ#œ œ#œ bœbœbœ Vlns. ‹ #fœf #œ #œ nœ bœ #œ #œnœ bœ #œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ #œ œbœ bœbœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ#œ œ œ nœ bœ œbœ œ#œnœ œ œnœ œ œ#œ #œ#œ#œnœ œnœ œ œbœbœ bœbœbœ 7 & œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ#œ nœ#œ bœbœbœ œ ‹ ff #œ œ œ#œ nœ bœbœ œ nœ #œ bœ nœ#œnœ œ œ œ bœbœ bœ #œ œ #œ œ œ #œ nœ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ nœ œbœ œ#œ œ nœ nœ#œ #œ#œ#œnœ nœ œ œbœ bœ bœ 8 & œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ#œ nœ#œ bœbœbœ œ#œ ‹ ff #œ œ œ#œ nœ bœbœ œ nœ #œ bœ nœ#œnœ œ œ œ bœbœ bœ œ #œ œ#œ #œ nœbœ bœ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ nœ œbœ œ#œ bœ nœ nœ#œ #œ#œ#œnœ nœ œ œbœ bœ bœ 9 & œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ#œ nœ#œ bœbœbœ œ#œnœ ‹ #œ œ œ#œ nœ bœbœ œ nœ #œ bœ nœ#œnœ œ œ œ bœbœ bœ & #œ œ#œ #œ nœbœ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ nœ œ œbœ œ#œ bœ nœ œ nœ#œ œ#œ#œ#œ#œnœ nœ œnœ œbœ bœ bœbœ nœ œ 10 œ œ #œ #œ bœbœ œ#œ ‹ ff #œ nœ bœ #œ #œnœ œ#œ #œ œ #œ nœbœ bœbœ œ œ nœ œ œ#œ œ nœ bœ œbœ #œ nœ bœ œnœ œ œ#œ œ œ#œ 11 & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ nœ etc., as Vln. 5 ‹ ff #œ nœ bœ #œ œ#œ œ #œ nœbœ bœbœ bœbœ œnœ œ œ œ œ œ œ 12 ¢& œ œ œ œ#œ œ etc., as Vln. 6

ff all Vlns. - ﬀ, on the string, separate bows.

138

After rehearsals and test recordings, it became apparent that the colourful effect of the string parts was impractical to achieve in this arrangement. This was due to the technical limitations39 of the two-piano medium and the difference in articulation and timbre between the violin and piano. Figure 4.3 shows the lack of complexity and sparseness of colour evident in one possible two-piano arrangement of this section. Even through experimentation with tremolo effects, with which a closer rendition could be created, the music still lacked the rhythmic intensity and detail of the original orchestration. However, the rhythmic interplay of chords, seen in Figure 4.4, was an effective use of the two pianos and created a fitting close to the first movement providing a clear link back to the work’s opening material.

In this finalized version of the two-piano arrangement the first piano, just as in the introduction, plays some of the orchestral chords to maintain contrasts in register and fluency in performance. These extra chords are more extensive here than in the work’s introduction with one extra chord occurring in bars 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 197, 199 and

205, and two extra chords in bars 202 and 203. In these last two instances, whilst it is not technically impractical for the chords to be accommodated in the second piano part, the inclusion in the first piano part maintains a consistent balance between the two pianos, allowing the first piano to create an articulated incisive colour, while the second piano holds the sustained string colour from Smalley’s original orchestration.

39 With two pianists there are only ten fingers available to recreate the 12 individual violin lines, as well as the wind and brass parts.

139

Figure 4.3 Concerto Section U1 Two-piano arrangement first version

> > > > > > > > > > > 25 19‹0 nb#œœnb#œœnb#œœnb#œœnb#œœnb#œœnb#œœnb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ U1 q=144 bœ 5 nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ ‹ 3 bbœ &4 & 4 Œ Œ ‰ J ff Pno. j 5 n>œ n>œ n>œ n>œ n>œ n>œ n>œ n>œ n>œ n>œ 3 bœ {&4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 4 Œ Œ ‰ b œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‹ b>œ U1 “” q=144 5 bœ nœ 3 œ#œ œ#œ #œ œ &4 œ #œ œ œ#œ œ œbœ nœ œ bœnœ #œnœ œ#œ nœ#œ 4 Œ Œ #œ Pno. ff 5 n>œ #œ œ b>œ œ bœnœ #œ nœ#œ œ œ ‹ 3 nœbœœœ#œ#œ {&4 œ #œ œ & 4nœbœ œ

3 3 3 3 3 °

> > 19‹2 bœ bœ bbœ bbœ & Œ Œ ‰ J ∑ Œ Œ ‰ J ff ff Pno. j j ? bœ bœ { Œ Œ ‰ b œ ∑ Œ Œ ‰ b œ ‹ b>œ b>œ

œ#œ nœ bœbœ bœ & œ#œ #œ œbœ bœ bœ ∑ Pno. ‹ (etc... split between hands as needed) nœ œ œ#œ #œ#œnœ bœ œ #œnœ#œ {& œnœnœ œ œ œ#œ œ œ bœ œ

> 19‹5 bœ bbœ & ∑ Œ Œ ‰ J ∑ ff Pno. bœj {? ∑ Œ Œ ‰ b œ ∑ ‹ b>œ

& ∑ ∑ ∑ ‹ Pno. nœ œ œ œ bœbœ bœ nœ {& bœ nœ œ nœ#œ œ#œ#œ#œ #œnœ nœ œnœ œbœ bœ bœbœ nœ œ œ œ #œ bœbœ œ#œ

140 25 185 œ bœ bœ bœ- - 5:-6q bœ œ bœ œ- - & œ bœ bœ bœ bœ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ bœ œ bœ Pno. f sub p cresc... bœ œ ? œ bœ bœ (mp) bœ cresc. œ { bœ bœ œ bœ ø ø

7 nœ œÆ œÆ ? #œ bœ bœ nœ ‰ œÆ ? #œ ' ' ' nœ ' ' ˙™ J œ ˙™ ' ' >' > Pno. > f>p {? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ w #œ œ#œ œ #œ #w ‹ æ

> > 6:5q œ b#œœ nœ bœ ‹ nœ2 nœ œ bœ œ nœ 5 & nœ œ nœ & 4 3 ff Pno. 3 3 3 3 3 > > ? œ œ œ bœ œ nœ 5 { & œ 4 œ #œ >œ ø > > ? ‰ bœÆ œ œ œ 5 J b˙ & bœ bœ bœ & 4 f > > P no. ^j ? æ æ bœ 5 { #œ œ œ ˙ œ ‰ & 4 ‹ bœ #œ. >œ œ ˙ œ . Figure> 4.4 Concertosub . Sectionp U1 Two-piano arrangement final versionf

U1 > > > > > > > > > > play only in > ‹ q=144 2 pian>œo version bœ 5 3 locobœ bbœ &4 4 Œ J ‰ ‰ J ff ff Pno. j 5 > > > > > > > > > > 3 bœ {&4 ? 4 Œ Œ ‰b œ ‹ b>œ U1 5 > >3 4 œ1 > œ >œ #œ nœbœ œ bœ n>œ #œ nœ#œ œ q=144 5 œ #œ œ 3 >œ >œ &4 4 ‰ bnœ‰ ‰bbœœ Œ 3 œ 3 3 3 3 J Pno. f 3 ff 5 3 > b>œ > œ 3 j {&4 œ #œ œ nœ #œ œ œ bœ nœ #œ nœ #>œ 4 œ ? œ ‰ > œ #œ 3 3 3 > > °

190 b>œ b>œ b>œ ‹ sim. >œ b œ j b œ b œ Œ loco bœ ‰ ‰ bœ ∑ Œ sim. œ ‰ ‰ bœ Œ Œ ‰ j Œ Œ ‰ bœ & J J œ J bœœ J loco > sim. b œ Pno. ffj ffj loco > ffj ? Œ Œ ‰ bœ ∑ Œ Œ ‰ bœ ∑ Œ Œ ‰ bœ {‹ b œ b œ b œ b>œ b>œ b>œ > >œ >œ >œ œ >œ >œ > j & bbœœ bœ Œ ‰ bœ ‰ bœ ‰bbœœ Œ ‰ bœ Œ bœ Œ ‰ bœ Œ œ bœ ‰ Jœ ‰ Jœ J J Jœ œ >œ œ >œ œ > Pno. j j j œ j ? œ œ ? > { œ & œ ‰ œ Œ Œ Œ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ ‰ Œ #œ œ œ #œ #œ >œ > > >œ >œ

195 > > > ‹ bœ sim. j bœ 200 bœ j bbœ loco bbœ bbœ & Œ Œ ‰ œ Œ Œ ‰ J Œ Œ ‰bœ Œ Œ ‰ J ∑ Œ Œ ‰ J œ >œ sim. > ff ff ff Pno. loco bœj bœj j bœj {? ∑ Œ Œ ‰b œ ∑ Œ Œ ‰ b œ Œ Œ ‰ œ Œ Œ ‰b œ ‹ #œ bœ bœ sim. œ bœ > > loco > > > j j j >œ Œ ‰ œ Œ Œ bœ ‰ ‰ œ œ Œ Œ ‰ œ Œ Œ Œ bœ œ Œ Œ Œ ‰bœœ & bœ œ bœ œ bœœ bœœ œ bœ J J > > >b œ > > > b>œ Pno. >œ > >œ >œ œ bbœœ j j bbœœ bbœœ {? Œ ‰ J Œ ‰ nœ Œ Œ ∑ œ ‰ Œ ‰ J Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ J ‰ J # œ #œ n>œ >œ

U2 ‹ sim. play bars 201-212 only in 2 piano version j 205 b>œ. bœ & ∑ œ Œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ œ ∑ ∑ ∑ & œ bb œœ bœ. mf Pno. f bœœ > b œ j j {? ∑ ? >. Œ Œ Œ ‰ œ Œ ∑ Œ œ ‰ Œ ∑ ‹ #œ #œ œ. 141 œ. U2 bœœ™ ˙˙™ & ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Œ ‰b œ™ ˙™

Pno. sf sf p sf ? j { Œ Œ œ ˙ œ bbœ ˙™ Œ Œ ‰ bbœ ˙™ ˙ œ bbœ #œ ˙ œb bœ ˙™ b bœ ˙™ ˙ œb bœ >œ ˙ œ > > . p 3rd Ped as needed sf

Different realizations of problematic sections were rehearsed and evaluated to create the most effective arrangement. An early draft of Sections N to P from the first movement, shown in Figure 4.5, with two of the clarinet lines in red rendered reasonably accurately from the orchestral score, failed to recreate the exciting climax heard in

Smalley’s orchestration. Revisions, shown in Figure 4.6, were made to the second piano part, with octave displacements in the clarinet lines removed and, from bar 141, replaced with triplet alternating chords based on the note streams from the orchestral score. This revised arrangement, although superficially less faithful to the original orchestration, maintains the triplet against duplet rhythmic tension, and allows greater balance between the two piano parts for a more climactic crescendo to the new section at P. This building in intensity from section to section, which is also a feature in the works of Peter Maxwell

Davies, is an important compositional device Smalley uses to maintain structural integrity and flow through the work (Mark, 2012b, p. 168), and essential to maintain in a two- piano arrangement that captures Smalley’s musical intention. The finalised version of my arrangement represents a balanced two-piano composition with idiomatic piano writing that resembles a work Smalley himself may have penned with Accord and two-piano arrangements of works by Charles Valentin Alkan,40 detailed in Chapter 6.2, existing as a reference for Smalley’s treatment of resources in the two-piano combination.

40 The Benedictus Op. 54 for pedal piano in D minor (1859); and the Impromptu sur le choral de Luther “Un fort rampart est nostre Dieu” Op. 69 for pedal piano in E♭ major

(1866).

142

Figure 4.5 Concerto Section N Two-piano arrangement first version

18 N q=160 (fractionally steadier) ^ ^ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 139 œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ 5 # œ ‹ 6 & œ 4 3 3 & 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 nœ f 3 nœ 3 Pno. p œ # œ œ 3 #œ # œ œ cresc. #œ œ #œ 5 œ #œ #œ #œ œ 6 {& nœ nœ œ œ œ œ nœ 4 œ œ 4 #œ #œ n œ #œ n œ > # œ > > ø mpø ømf ø

N q=160 (fractionally steadier) bœ bœ œbœ bœbœ œ 3 œnœ œ œ Œ nœ œ œ ‰ œ œ 5 J ‰ Œ œ œ 6 & #œ J nœ J #œ 4 4 #œ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Pno. Æ ff 3 Æ œ 3 5#œ œ#œ #œ#œ 6 {& ‰ Œ ‰ Œ œnœ 4 œ Œ œ œ ‰ 4 #œ œ #œ nœ œ #œ #œ ° 3 °3 3 3 O > > > > > > > > > > > > 14‹2 nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ 6 nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ 3 &4 4 no Ped. Pno. 6 n>œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ 3 {&4 n#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4

O bœ bœ bœ bœ bœ bœ œ 6 œ œ œ œ 3 &4 ‰ #œ œ œ ‰ J œ œ ? 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Pno. 3 3 3 œ œ 6 #œ œ #œ #œ #œ 3 {&4 œ œ nœ œ œ œ ? 4 œ nœ nœ #œ #œ 3 3 3 f ff ø

143 #œ nœ œ œ #œ œ 17 135 #œ nœ œ œ #œ œ#œ #œ nœ œ nœ#œnœ nœ œ #œ#œ #œ nœ bœ œ 3 œ #œ œ œ#œ œnœ & nœ œ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 f 3 3 3 3 Pno. œÆ Æ œÆ Æ Æ Æ dim nœ bœ bœ bœ œÆ Æ œÆ Æ Æ {& œ œ #œ nœÆ bœ bœ nœ œ œ œ œ œ #œ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' œ ' #œ ' œ ø ø ø ø ' ' ' Æ Æ nœÆ nœ #œÆ œÆ bœÆ œÆ œ Æ #œÆ œÆ Æ œÆ Æ bœÆ Æ œ œÆ œ œÆ œÆ #œÆ œÆ œ œÆ œÆ œ œ & ' œ ' Pno. #œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 {& œ œ œ œ #œ œ bœ nœbœ nœbœ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ Figure 4.6 Concerto Section Nn œTwo-pianoœ arrangementœ œ final#œ version#œ #œ #œ 3 3 3 3

N q=160 (fractionally steadier) ^ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ^ œ 139 œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ #œ 5 # œ ‹ 6 & œ 4 3 3 & 4 p 3 3 3 3 nœ 3 nœ 3 Pno. 3 œ 3 # œ œ 3 #œ f # œ œ sf cresc. nœ #œ œ œ #œ nœ 5 œ œ #œ #œ #œ œ 6 {& nœ n œ œ œ œ n œ 4 œ 4 #œ #œ #>œ > > # œ mp ø ø ømf ø

N q=160 (fractionally steadier) 3 3 #œ œ bœ ##œnœ ## œnœ œœ ##œnœ ##œnœ Œ nœ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ 5 J ‰ ‰ ‰ œ n œ œ œ œ 6 & J nœ J 4 4 3 3 3 f Pno. f 3 ff 3 3 5 6 {& ‰ ‰ Œ œnœ 4 œ Œ bbœ bbœ bbœ bbœ bbœ 4 #œ #œ #œ # œ #œnœ #œ #œ #œ 3 3 ° ° O > > > > > > > > > > > > 14‹2 nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ nb#œœ 6 nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ nœ 3 &4 4

Pno. no Ped. 6 n>œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ 3 {&4 n#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4

O 3 3 3 >œ nn>œ nn>œ nn>œ nn>œ nn>œ nn>œ nn>œ nn>œ 6 #n#œœ ##nœœ ##nœœ ##nœœ ##nœœ ##nœœ ##nœœ ##nœœ ##nœœ 3 &4 ∑ ? 4 Pno. 6 3 {&4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 4 #>œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ >œ 3 3 3 fø ff

The introduction to the moto perpetuo movement is an exciting conversation between the solo piano and snare drum. This exchange builds in excitement leading into the start of the fourth movement, with the interplay between the two instruments controlled by one of Smalley’s favourite structural processes. After an extended snare drum solo sets the atmosphere, the solo piano enters at D with 13 semiquavers. The snare drum then plays 12 semiquavers which are answered in the piano. From this point the number of semiquavers is reduced by one with each successive entry until the process reaches a conclusion, the crescendo reaches a climax and the fourth movement

144

commences. After experimentation with extended piano techniques, such as tapping on the piano lid and muting strings to create a percussive articulation it was decided that the most exciting solution, shown in Figure 4.7, involved both pianists playing the same repeated note. This stereo interplay between the two instruments creates a distinctive build in excitement as the process unfolds. The subtle accents present in the orchestral parts which accompany the process, occur effortlessly in the two-piano arrangement when the semiquaver note streams in each piano overlaps. Despite the logic of Smalley’s compositional technique, the realisation of this in performance, especially without a conductor, is precarious to say the least.

145

Figure 4.7 Concerto moto perpetuo movement Section D Two-piano arrangement

48 30 q = 144 D q = 144 4 3 &4 ^r 4 r b-˙™™™ bœ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Pno. p f pp ? 4 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ™ ™ { 4 4 >˙™ R ‰ Œ ‰ S ° 3rd P. R sf-f pp

q = 144 D q = 144 4 3 &4 4 ∑ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ Pno. 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ {? 4 4 ∑ > pp (poco accents)

35 & ‰™ r œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Pno. {? œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ Œ œ œ œ œ pp very grad cresc (to ﬀ)

& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ Pno. œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ {? Ó ‰ > R ‰™ Œ™ > Ó pp very grad cresc (to ﬀ)

40 & r œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Pno. R œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ {? R ‰™ Œ R ‰™ ‰™ ≈ Œ ≈ ‰™

& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ Pno. ? œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >œ œ œ œ { > R ‰™ Œ > Œ ‰ > R ‰™ ‰ >

A IV 49 1 q=144 legato & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œbœ œbœ œbœ œbœ œbœ Pno. R œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ {? R ‰™ R ‰ ≈ > R sff pp una corda 3rd P. A IV q=144 clbuœs.ter & ˙™ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ œ œ >œ œ b>˙ ™ J Pno. pp œ œ >œ œ œ œ >œ b˙s˙ff™ {? Œ > R ‰™ > ‰ > R ‰™ ∑ > ° 3rd Ped oﬀ

5 & œ œ œ œbœ œ œbœ œ œbœ œ œbœ œ bœ œbœ œbœ œbœ œbœ œbœ œ bœ œbœ œbœ œbœ œbœ Pno. 146 {?

si.m. . bnœ ‰ Œ Œ ∑ œ ‰ Œ Œ & J J Pno. {? ∑ ∑ ∑

œ #œ œ œbœ œ bœ #œ œ œ#œ œ bœnœ & œ#œ nœ œ bœ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ#œ Pno. ? { &

. œ. #œ #œ & ∑ J ‰ Œ Œ J ‰ Œ Œ Pno. {? ∑ ∑ ∑

4.5 Extended Techniques

Extended techniques, however, were used to create a colourful, almost hushed, contrast in Section L during the scherzo movement of the Concerto, which is shown in

Figure 4.8. Here, piano two is required to mute the strings before the dampers with the left-hand, while playing the quaver line which is shared between the percussion instruments in the original, with the right-hand. The use of this technique on notes separated by a tritone results in a strikingly similar effect as seen in Smalley’s Movement for flute and piano (1976–77, rev.1980), shown in Figure 4.9, which as detailed in Chapter

5.2, is a work with a significant connection to the Concerto. Curiously, in contrast with the challenge of coordinating the orchestral ensemble during the introduction to the fourth movement, which is detailed above, this veiled two-piano reduction of the percussion section presents a more straightforward ensemble challenge. This section is another example where the solo piano assists in performing some of the orchestral parts. While piano two is entirely in command of the seven in the time of six, and the six in the time of five quaver rhythms, piano one performs not only the diminished chords in the solo piano part, but also the string pizzicato interruptions, allowing for a clear balance between the parts, and, as a result, a more manageable ensemble, especially without a conductor.

147

Figure 4.8 Concerto Section L Two-piano arrangement 41 L q = 72 h=q 95 e=144 play only in 2 6 (hold) 7 ∑ ∑ 3 piajno‰ versiŒon Œ &4b˙™ b˙™ 8 4 œ > bœ. Pno. sff p. . 6 >. Ó Ó™ 7bœ bœ 3 {&4 ? 8 œ Œ Œ Œ œ Œ Œ Œ 4 ∑ n˙œ™ ˙™ J J (hold) ° ° una corda

L q = 72 h=q ‹ #œnœnœ œ e=144 nœ#œ#œ œ 7:6e 6 Œ Œ Ó™ 7 3 &4 & 8n¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ b¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ 4 ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ p (mute strings with “” pp l.h. before dampers) Pno. ‹ œ #œ œ bœ œ 6 œ #œ æ ? 7 3 {&4 Œ Œ & æ 8 ∑ ∑ 4 ∑ b˙ œ ff 7 >

(sim.) 100 #œ. #œ. #œ. #œ. j ‰ Œ Œ 5 œ ‰ ‰ Œ œ ‰ Œ 4 Ó ‰ œ Œ 6 Œ œ Œ™ 3 & œ 8 J 4 J 8 J 4 bœ. œ Pno. . (p) . (sim.) œ . . . bœ 5 bœ bœ. bœ 4 bœ 6 bœ 3 {? ‰ œ ‰ ‰ Œ 8 Œ œ Œ Œ™ ‰ œ 4 Ó Œ œ ‰ 8 Œ Œ œ ‰ 4 J J J J J . . . œ œ nœ 5 6 4 J j J 6 j 3 & b¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ 8b¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ 4 ‰ bœ ‰ ‰ Œ 8b bœ Œ bœ. ‰ 4 b œ. b œ. b œ Pno. una corda 5 p 4to keyboar.d 6 . 3 {? ∑ 8 ∑ ∑ 4 Œ œ ‰ Ó 8 œ ‰ ‰ Œ™ 4 J J

M SCHERZO 3 q = 72 press forward to ______q = 80 bœ _. 105 . #œ bœ bœnœ#œ œ œ œ bœ 3 #œ #œ ‹ #œ nœ &4 ‰ Œ Œ ‰ Œ Œ & J J 6 p Pno. bœ. ‹ œbœ 7 ? 3 ∑ œ ‰ Œ Œ œ œœ bœ œ œ { 4 Jœ & œ tre corda with Ped. (change frequently)

M SCHERZO 3 q = 72 preœs.s forward to _ _ œ_. _ _ _ _ _ q = 80 œ#œ œ œ œ œ ‹ #œ #œ œ 3 J J œ œ œœ#œ œ &4 Œ ‰ Œ Œ ‰ Œ & 6 5 pp 7 Pno. œ œ œ œ œ œ tre corda bbœ™ bœbœ™bœ bbœ™ bœbœ™bœ p ‹ nœ#œ bœ ? 3 ? b˙™ œ œ { 4 b ˙ & ™ ‹ b b˙™ pp with Ped. (change frequently) 3P sustain in third pedal until beat 3 of bar 127

148

Figure 4.9 Movement for flute and piano Roger Smalley

149

4.6 The Third Movement

The opening of the third movement is a colourful orchestral solo placed to create poise and atmosphere before what Smalley referred to as the piano soloist’s “anti- cadenza” (Mark, 2012b, p. 18). This anti-cadenza, maked as Section B, occurs between bars 14 and 27 of the third movement. Generally, when using an orchestral reduction for rehearsal and audition purposes, a section in which the solo instrument is rested is omitted for expediency. However, as an aim of this project was to provide a full performance score of this work, it was decided to create a transcription of the orchestral third movement in its entirety, and this movement benefitted greatly from the workshopping process. As can be seen in Figure 4.10, in the first arrangement, although the thematic material is given to piano two, the first piano, as in other sections of the arrangement, plays a colourful complementary role, playing D-major and D♭-major chords from the upper string parts. This creates a richer texture as both instruments are resonating. The challenge for the performers of creating a tight and fluent coordination in this slow exposed material, creates a palpable energy, and allows the performance to maintain an intense sense of ensemble. However, it was decided that to provide a symmetrical balance to the piano soloist’s anti-cadenza, piano two would perform a solo transcription of the entire third movement, shown in Figure 4.11. Not only does this allow both pianists to enjoy a moment of solitude before the outbreak of the moto perpetuo, but it also creates a more focused placement of the soloist’s anti-cadenza, which is such a unique feature of the composition. This entire movement, of course, can be omitted when using the arrangement purely as a rehearsal tool.

150 45 5 5 3 3 . 3 2 3 3 j bœ j 4nœ . 3 j 2 œ 3 &4 ≈ 4 Œ œ ≈ 4 j‰ j œ ‰ Jbœ ‰ 4 bœ≈bœ j‰bœ Ó 4 j‰bœJ‰ 4 œ bœ. œ. bœ #œ. œ . . œ . œ J p bœ . . . p Pno. #œ . . mp5 3 œ œ. œ 2 3 4 2 3 {? 4 Œ 4 ∑ 4 Ó Œ 4 ∑ 4 ∑ 4 una corda bœ. >œ bœ. b œ #œ b œ pp bœ œ pp bœ 3 3 3 Œ 3 2 œ 3 #œ œ ‰ 4bœ Œ 2 #œ‰ 3 &4 #œ 4 œ 4 #œ #œ J 4 œ bœ 4 œ J 4 œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ P no. p œ mp p 3 œ #œ 2 3 4 2 3 {? 4#œ œŒ Œ 4 ∑ 4 Œ Œ 4 Ó™ bnbœœ 4 ˙˙ 4 nœ ˙ Figure 4.10 Concerto Third Movement Twob-bpianoœ w arrangement first ˙ 5 bbœ w ˙ version sff-p ø B >˙™ b>˙™ ˙™ b˙ >œ bœ. q = 72 MVT III ˙™ b ˙™ b ˙™ b ˙ n œ 3 U œ 2 6 ‹ #˙™ bn˙™ n˙™ bn˙ #œ &4 Œ J ‰ Œ 4 ∑ 4 ∑ & pp Sustained, allow ˙ Pno. wcho™rds to ring . w™ n˙ 3 U 2 6bw™ w™ ˙ {? 4 j ‰ 4 ∑ 4 w w œ bw °mp but resonant bw U>™ ˙™ œ B MVT III #˙™ #œ 3 2 q = 72 6Me>lod™y always ff and well marked j &4 4 bœ™™bœ 4 bw b˙ w- œ ‰ -˙™ ˙ >- > > - take time! ff > Pno. Chords mp but resonant f and sustained, allow w 3 U 2 6 chords to ring bw {? 4 ˙˙™ 4 ˙˙ 4 bbnww ˙˙ w ? bbww™ ˙™ ˙ w ˙ w ™ < > ˙ ™ ˙ b˙ ™ b ˙ ™ ˙ b˙ ø ‹ bw> ™ ˙™ b>œ n >˙ w™ ˙™ >˙™ ˙™ b>˙™ b w™ ˙™ b œn #˙ w™ ˙™ #˙™ ˙™ b ˙™ & bw ˙ bœ n ˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ b˙ w œ œ ˙ w œ ˙ w Pno. w œ œ n˙ w œ w œ ˙ w {? w œ œ ˙ bw bœ w œ ˙ w bw™ bw™

>- >- >- & Œ b˙ #˙™ Œ ˙ #œ ˙™ œ ˙ ˙ Œ œ -˙ œ -œ >- -˙™ >- >- b-˙™ f > > > > Pno. ™ [mf] ? bw™ bn˙ b˙ { ww bb˙˙ bbww bbww™ ? w ˙ w bw w ™ bw ø

46 > > rit. ‹ < > ˙ n œ bœ ˙ w™ w™ bn˙ nn#œbbnœ bn˙ bnw™ bnw™ 7 & ∑ & 4 ˙ w™ o Pno. n˙ w™ ˙ w 7 {? ∑ ? 4 bw™ w bw™ w slowly raise pedal “” ˙ > ˙ ˙ take time! ™ œ- w ˙ ˙ œ ‰ 7 & œ -˙™ -˙ ˙ b˙ Œ J -œ 4 > > >- ™ rit. mf #w Pno. ff œ w™ bw bw > œ œ w™ 7 {? w bb˙˙ ˙˙ w œ 4 ˙ ˙ œ ˙ ˙ p sf ˙ ˙ ø

x=72 (Adagio) molto espressivo, poco rubato B rit. (a pause for 7 8 ™ 4 reﬂection) 8 &4 Ó Ó Ó 16 bœ œ™ nœ œ j œ œ ™ 16 U ≈16 bœ™™bœ b œ bœ bœ™ œ bœ œ R Pno. pp p ------hold doown 7 8 -bœœœœœœœ 151bœ n(siœm .)œœœœœœ œ œœœ œbœœœ 4 bœœ 8 {? 4 16 bœ œœœœœœœ b œb œœœœœœœ bœnœœœ œ œœœ16 œœœœœœ ∑ 16

° ø ø ø ø ø ø ø raise slowly

B x=72 (Adagio) molto espressivo, poco rubato rit. 7 8 4 8 &4 ∑ Ó Œ 16 ∑ ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 o Pno. w™ 7 w™ 8 4 8 {? 4 Œ 16 ∑ ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16

Ped..... to be held through cadenza

rit. (sim) rit. (sUim) 8 œ- œ 7 œ j U ≈ 10 bœ œ 8 ≈ j œ™ &16 œ#œ 16#œ œ œ™ œ 16#œ œ œœ 16 œ™ œ o Pno. p o p p 8 #œœœœœ œœ 7 œ#œœœ# œœœ 10 œœœ œœœ œ (niente) 8 œ œ œœ œœœ {? 16œœ œœœœœ œœ 16 œ œ œœ ∑ 16 œœœbœœœ œbnœœœ ∑ 16 ≈œ œ bœœ œœœ

° raise slowly ° ø ø ø raise slowly ° ø

rit. rit. 8 7 10 8 &16 ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ Pno. 8 7 10 8 {? 16 ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ 45 135 5 5 3 3 . 3 2 œ 3 j 3 j bœ j 4nœ . 3 j 2 œ 3 &4 ≈bœ 4 Œ œ≈ 4#œ ‰ j œ ‰ Jbœ. ‰4 bœ≈bœ j‰bœ. Ó 4 j‰bœJ‰4 œ bœ . . bœ . œ . œ. œ. J p . p Pno. #œ . . Œ mp5 3 œ œ. œ 2 3 4 2 3 {? 4 4 ∑ 4 Ó Œ 4 ∑ 4 ∑ 4 una corda bœ. >œ bœ. b œ #œ b œ pp bœ œ pp bœ 3 3 3 Œ 3 2 œ 3 #œ œ ‰4bœ Œ 2 #œ‰3 &4 #œ 4 œ œ 4 #œ #œ J 4 œ bœ 4 œ J 4 œ œ #œ œ œ œ Pno. p œ mp p 3 œ #œ 2 3 4 2 3 {? 4#œ œŒ Œ 4 ∑ 4 Œ Œ 4 Ó™ bb nœœ 4 ˙˙ 4 Figure 4.11 Concerto Third Movement Two-pianobœ warrangementn finalœ ˙ ˙ 5 bb œ w ˙ version sff-p bœ w ˙ ø A . 3 Ubœ 2 q = 72 61 &4 Œ J ‰ Œ 4 ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ ∑ pp Pno. 3 U 2 6 {? 4 j‰ 4 ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ ∑ œ U > > > >˙™ œ A III ˙™ b˙™ ˙™ ˙ nœ ™ q = 72 ™ ™ ™ #˙™ #œ #˙™ bnb˙™ ˙™ ˙ n#nœ 3 2 Melody6 alwa>ys ™ff and well marked > &4 4 ™™ 4nbw™ >- nw œ ‰ ˙-™ bœ bœ w™ b˙ >- J -˙ ff bw > take time! f Pno. Chords mp and sustained, n˙ allow chords to ring with w nn ˙ ? 3 U 2 6 half-pedals bw ˙ { 4 ˙˙™ 4 ˙˙ 4 bbnww ˙˙ ?bbww ™ ˙™ ˙ w ˙ w ™ < > ˙ ™ ˙ b˙ bw ™ b ˙ ™ ˙ b˙ bw ø 5 & ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Pno. {? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ > > > bw™ ˙™ bœ n˙ w™ ˙™ n˙™ bnbw™ ˙™ bnbœn#n˙ w™ ˙™ n#n˙™ > > Œ b˙ Œ ˙- > ˙- & œ - œ #˙™ #œ ˙™ nœ- > n-˙ œ >- >- n-˙™ >- f > [mf] > Pno. w œ œ n˙ w œ w œ œ w™ nn ˙ w œ nw œ w œ œ bw™ ˙ bw bœ w b˙ œ {?ww bb˙˙ w bbnww œ ˙ w ˙ bw™ w bw bw™ bw ø

46 10 7 & ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ & 4 Pno. 7 {? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ? 4 > > > ˙™ b˙™ ˙ nœ b˙™ w™ w™ ˙ ˙™ b ˙™ ˙ n œb ˙™ w™ w™ ˙ <#>˙™ nb˙™ ˙ #nœ nb˙™ w™ w™ ˙ take time! > ˙ >- œ- w ˙ œ ‰ 7 & ˙ Œ n˙™ ˙ ˙™ J œ 4 b-˙™ œ >- b-˙ - ™ ˙ w > > ˙ w™ mf #w Pno. ˙ w ff ˙ w™ œ w™ ˙ w bw bw ˙ w œ œ w™ 7 {? bbww™ ? w bbn˙˙ ˙˙ w œ 4 w ™ bw ˙ bw˙ œ ™ ˙ ˙ p bw™ bw sf ˙ ˙ ø

B x=72 (Adagio) molto espressivo, poco rubato 15 rit. (a pause for x=72 reﬂection) 7 Ó Ó Ó 8 ™ œ™ j 4 U ≈ 8 &4 16 bœ œ nœ bœ bœ™ œ œ œ™ 16bœ œ 16 bœ™™bœ b œ ‰™ R (hold down) Pno. pp p ------o 7 8 -bœœœœœœœ bœ n(siœm.œ) œœœœœ œ œœœ œbœœœ 4 bœœ 8 {? 4 16 bœ œœœœœœœ b œb œœœœœœœ bœnœœœ œ œœœ16 œœœœœœ ∑ 16

° ø ø ø152 ø ø ø ø raise slowly

B x=72 (Adagio) molto espressivo, poco rubato rit. x=72 7 8 4 8 &4 ∑ Ó Œ 16 ∑ ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 o Pno. w™ 7 w™ 8 4 8 {? 4 Œ 16 ∑ ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16

rit. (sim) x=72 20 rit. (sUim) 8 œ- œ 7 œ j U ≈ 10 bœ œ 8 &16 œ#œ 16#œ œ œ™ œ 16#œ œ œ œ 16 o Pno. p o p 8 #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 7 œ#œ œ œ# œ œ œ 10 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 8 {? 16œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 16 œ œ œ œ ∑ 16 œ œ œbœ œ œ œbnœ œ œ ∑ 16

° raise slowly ° ø ø ø raise slowly

rit. x=72 rit. 8 7 10 8 &16 ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 Pno. 8 7 10 8 {? 16 ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 16

4.7 Conclusions

Producing this arrangement of Smalley’s Concerto for two pianos was a process of continual workshopping and revision that lasted over 20 months, from May 2017 to

March 2019. This process was undertaken in comparison with Smalley’s manuscript published by the Australian Music Centre, and his original sketches and drafts for the work which were accessed at the National Library of Australia in Canberra. Consulting as wide a variety of sources as were available seemed an appropriate production method to ensure a faithful arrangement that took into consideration the compositional process of

Smalley’s original masterpiece and allowed for an accurate translation from orchestra to two pianos. However, this notational authenticity was balanced with the desire to produce an arrangement which captured the vivid colours of Smalley’s orchestration and the engaging sense of theatre of the original Concerto. This theatrical interaction and the even balance between the performers, which is a characteristic of all Smalley’s orchestral and chamber music, resulted in the two-piano arrangement creating a convincing impact in performance (contained on DVD 2). As a result, the arrangement functions successfully both as an engaging two-piano composition and as a rehearsal tool in preparing a performance of the original Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, detailed in the following chapter.

153

Chapter 5 Performing the Concerto

5.1 Background

This chapter focuses on my performance as soloist of Smalley’s Concerto for

Piano and Orchestra given on the 13th of September 2017 with the University of Western

Australia Conservatorium of Music Symphony Orchestra with James Ledger conducting.

This chapter will include:

1. A timeline of the work’s composition, to frame details in newly discovered

sketches;

2. Analysis of Smalley’s recording of the work;

3. Details contained in Smalley’s surviving performance score;

4. Interpretation of the Concerto; and

5. A description of the piano technique required in the Concerto and Smalley’s

integration of his compositional process into this technique, building on the

analytical work by Christopher Mark.

5.2 Genesis of the Concerto

Specifying a timeline for the composition of the Concerto is problematic as the genesis of the scherzo movement from the work can be traced back to Smalley’s arrival in Perth, Western Australia in 1976 and his unpublished 7 Modular Pieces for 4 Flutes.41

Never entirely satisfied with a work consisting of “about 15 minutes” of uninterrupted flute sound (Mark, 2012a, p. 15), Smalley reworked these sketches to create Movement

41 This work was performed as Six Modular Pieces for Four Flutes on 28th February 1977 at Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology

154

for flute and piano (1976–77, rev.1980).42 Smalley himself premièred the work with flautist Helen Dilkes on the 6th of July 1980 at Callaway Music Auditorium. Figure 5.1 taken from Variation 6 of Movement for flute and piano is provided for comparison with

Scetion C of the scherzo movement from the Concerto seen in Figure 5.2. Movement for flute and piano was another work Smalley was never convinced by due to the awkwardness of the piano part (Mark, 2012a, p. 15), which employs extended piano techniques, such as muting and plucking strings. However, these chamber music works obviously contained examples of Smalley’s “favoured note streams” (Mark, 2012a, p.

157), and the Concerto finally gave him the opportunity to exploit them unconditionally.

The performance instructions from Movement for flute and piano, shown in Figure

5.3, are important for interpreters of Smalley’s works and deserve attention, as they contain significant insight into details of articulations, stylistic treatment of metronome markings and rubato. In these instructions Smalley (1988) lists distinctions between standard staccato and accented staccato, and between downbeat accents and upbeat accents. These subtle differences of articulation are applicable in all Smalley’s subsequent compositions, even when they are not detailed in performance notes. Smalley highlights the importance that “all tempo relationships are retained” (Smalley, 1988) in the interpretation of his music. As is the case in the Concerto, apparently disparate sections often have underlying tempo relationships that need to be conveyed clearly in performance for the music to maintain consistency and direction. Although referring directly to Movement for flute and piano, Smalley details the importance of more freely

42 Piece II was revised to become Bagatelle for 4 flutes (October 1982). Piece III was revised to become variation 2, Piece IV was revised to become variation 3, Piece VI was revised to become variation 6 and Piece VII was revised to become variation 7 in

Movement for flute and piano (1976–77, rev.1980)

155

flowing sections within his compositions where rubato is stylistically appropriate but may not be explicitly marked. These sections should be interpreted appropriately by the performer to provide a clear contrast with the sections that are strictly in tempo.

156