9 Authorship and performance

tradition in the age of

technology

(with examples from the

performance history of works by

Luigi Nono, Luciano Berio and

Karlheinz Stockhausen)l

Angela Ida De Benedictis

A famous cartoon, published in the American trade journal Stereo Review

in 1980, shows a man comfortably seated in front ofa well-equipped stereo
system about to listen in amazement to 'electronic music of Stockhausen,
played on the original transistors, capacitors, and potentiometers'
(see Figure 9.1). Though meant to provoke a smile, it also gives us pause for
some serious thoughts. Here the notion of an original or 'period' instrument

And now. eJeclronic music 0/ Stockhausen. played on

the originallransistors. capacilors. and potentiometers . . . . "

Figure 9.1 Charles Rodrigues, 'And now, electronic music ofStockhausen .. .', Stereo
Review (November 1980).
So urce: Reproduced with the kind permission of the publishers.
196 Angela Ida De Benedictis
is transferred from early music to electronic equipment. In addition to the Equally nebulou
instruments used to produce and capture the sounds, the reference to an though 'authoria
electronic repertoire seems designed to conjure up an authorial and authen­ seen as oppositio
tie performance tradition in the reader's mind . That Stock hausen happens ter half of the tw
to be the butt of this satire is unsurprising: after all, it was he who coined simply as antithe
the term 'originelle Technik' for the analogue and predigital sound gen­ rial performance
erators he employed in his own music (Stockhausen 1998, 576). The same 'freer' than their
Stockhausen, as we all know, gave performers and musicologists a multi­ by performers ar
tude of essays designed to precisely and definitively codify and theoreti­ is consistent or i
cally underpin a correct and unequivocal performance tradition for his own dilutes not so ml
music. certifies whether
These introductory thoughts define the framework of my chapter: I will These observ
deal with a few problematic areas in the performance tradition of certain circle of author.
musical repertoires from the latter half of the twentieth century, including valid for the clas
those works realised with the aid oflive electronics, i.e. with the transforma­ fledged crisis wl
tion of acoustic data in real time. Before delving into specific cases, I would latter half of tb
like to give some thought to the concept of 'authorship'. Here I will address not unlike the c
questions that have long been debated in literature and philosophy. I will trichotomy in tt
also build on Hermann Danuser's discussion about authorial intention and formance practi
the authorial performance tradition (Danuser 1997, 27-34). tieth century, th
When applied to a literary text, authorship is a term that, to quote Michel with the flow 01
Foucault, refers to the 'relationship that holds between an author and a text, paradigms) inte
the manner in which a text apparently points to this figure who is outside and local variants t(
precedes it' ([1969] 1977, 115; italics added). Here I especially single out the by its own auth(
word 'text' because it will become the crux of our line of questioning. Applied Hermann Da
to performance practice, 'authorship' must necessarily refer to the relation­ ungstradition" (:
ship that holds between an author and 'a performance', that is, to the manner a questionable c
in wh ich 'a performance' points to this figure. Or to put it another way, the pose that it is mc
manner in which a performance tradition can explicitly and faithfully reflect an examination
the 'creative and authoritative grasp of the author'.2 The transferral of this Nono and Karll
term to music is, however, fraught with 9angers and inevitably leads us back was at once cha
to semiotics: all cultured musical traditions draw on 'signs' that must be in­ When we thit
terpreted on the basis of a 'text', whether oral, written or electronic. This text greater or lessei
in turn leads us back to the 'creative and authoritative grasp of the author', pable of being ,
who, though frequently pronounced dead, continues to flourish in the pink of ferences in thei
health in the repertoire and the examples I intend to discuss. What I wish to thought. By thi~
emphasise is that speaking of an 'authorial performance tradition', and going in matters of ill l
further to ask whether 'authorial' is always synonymous with 'authentic' in cal procedures t
musical performance, we could end up discussing a dual authorship for one down to succee,
and the same work at a given moment: one for the text and another for the per­ In the initial
formance . Often enough we are confronted with cases in which authors seem ble differences
virtually at loggerheads with themselves - namely, where their instructions musical ideas t(
for a particular performance are obviously self-contradictory or remote from intentions, muel
wh at they have set down in their own texts. composing gene
We have been assured from various quarters that the 'authorial intention re­ the explicit or it
mains an unsolved problem in literary rand musical] studies' (FarreIl2005, 98).3 per. It was only
 Authorship and performance 197
ent. In addition to the Equally nebulous is everything associated with 'performative freedom,.4 Al­
Is, the reference to an though 'authoriality' and 'freedom of interpretation in performance' could be
authorial and authen­ seen as opposition al concepts, an analysis of performance traditions in the lat­
Stock hausen happens ter half of the twentieth century suggests that the two terms cannot be treated
, it was he who coined simply as antitheses: as we shall see, it is frequently the unquestionably autho­
predigital sound gen­ rial performances - those that establish or prolong a tradition - that prove to be
. 1998, 576). The same 'freer' than their nonauthorial counterparts. The disclaimer commonly raised
musicologists a multi­ by performers and exeget es - that 'we cannot prove [...] that an interpretation
~. codify and theoreti­ is consistent or inconsistent with an author's intentions' (Farrell 2005, 100)­
:e tradition for his own dilutes not so much the concept of authorship as that of freedom, which alone
certifies whether a performance is obvi-ously wrongheaded or 'unauthentic'.
k of my chapter: I will These observations ultimately lead us to reconsider the hermeneutic
ee tradition of certain circle of author, text and performance. If this model proves only partly
ieth century, including valid for the classical-romantic repertoire (Della Seta 2010), it ignites a full­
e. with the transforma­ fledged crisis when applied to certain forms of musical expression in the
specific cases, I would latter half of the twentieth century. The principal cause of this crisis is
ip'. Here I will address not unlike the one that undermined the validity of the 'author-text-work'
and philosophy. I will trichotomy in the preceding century, and it is related to the fact that a per­
iuthorial intention and formance practice or tradition is never unalterable. However, in the twen­
n-34). tieth century, the gradual (and inexorable) diachronous motion associated
n that, to quote Michel with the flow of history (with its many changes of stylistic and aesthetic
:n an author and a text, paradigms) intersects in addition with a synchronous motion caused by the
gure who is outside and local variants to which a work is soon subjected on the performance level
specially single out the by its own author.
of questioning. Applied Hermann Danuser has already established that the "auktoriale Aufführ­
ly refer to the relation­ ungstradition" (authorial performance tradition) is an aporetische Kategorie,
:', that is, to the manner a questionable concept (Danuser 1997, 30). For my part, I would like to pro­
put it another way, the pose that it is more akin to a 'utopian concept' and to pursue this idea through
tly and faithfully refleet an examination of several examples from the music of Luciano Berio, Luigi
The transferral of this Nono and Karlheinz Stockhausen, composers whose performance practice
nevitably leads us back was at once characteristic and, in different ways, problematical.
'signs' that must be in­ When we think of these three composers, their artistic careers and their
or electronic. This text greater or lesser interest in giving their works a performance tradition ca­
.je grasp of the author ', pable of being considered authorial, we immediately note substantial dif­
o flourish in the pink of ferences in their particular relation towards codifying their own musical
iiseuss. What I wish to thought. By this I do not mean differences of a technical or aesthetic nature
ee tradition', and going in matters of musical composition, but rather of technology and the practi­
ous with 'authentie' in cal procedures they employed to capture their own works and to hand them
lual authorship for one down to succeeding generations and thus to posterity.
md another for the per­ In the initial phases of their careers, they seem to have had no noticea­
in which authors seem ble differences in this respect: all three, without exception, entrusted their
'here their instructions musical ideas to performers whose concern it was to translate the author's
dictory or remote from intentions, much as in the classical-romantic repertoire. Until the mid-1950s ,
composing generally meant setting down a written text - a score - that, unlike
'authorial intention re­ the explicit or implicit poetics pervading it, was invariably committed to pa­
dies' (FarreIl2005, 98).3 per. It was only when the composers encountered technology while working
198 Ange/a !da De Benedictis
in electronic studios with magnetic tape (and later with live electronics and
computer programs) that changes began to occur, step by step, in their crea­
tive practice and in the relevant procedures needed to capture and transmit
their thoughts. One ofthe most obvious effects that came about when technol­
ogy impinged on twentieth-century music was the redefinition of the relation (a) " -'
of author, work and performance. The working methods typical of composing
in the electronic studio, based on repeated listenings and continual reworking
of the sonic results, was evidently also transferred to the processes of perfor­
mance. Since the 1960s, it has become apparent that composers such as Nono,
t
Berio and Stockhausen not infrequently viewed a performance as a step in the ~
1
'exploration' (Nono), 'perfectioning' (Berio) or 'normative systematisation'
(Stock hausen) of a text (that is, a work) still in search of its definitive form and ~
iffz
codification. Nonetheless, each of these steps is 'authorial' and contributes to
the creation of a living and vibrant performance tradition.
In schematic terms, one might say that, in creating performance traditions
§
for their own music, Berio and Stock hausen placed their 'authorial stamp'
in 'writing' and 'rewriting', whereas Nono increasingly did so in 'non-writing'.
Still, regardless of its presence or absence, the text (in the broadest sense)
conditions the birth and evolution of an authorial performance tradition
and continues to determine its fate after the author's death. It should be
pointed out that, as far as 'writing' and 'rewriting' are concerned, I am not
referring to Berio's typical process of determining, step by step, the work's
final form. Often enough this process encompasses the work's initial perfor­
mances, which must be viewed as the actual anchor points of the creative
process: these 'rewritings' are part ofthe work's gestation. Rather, my atten­
tion applies to those 'rewritings' that, over the years, intervened in the per­
formance tradition of some pieces, occasioning alterations and that resulted
from the author's changing relation to his own text.
Let us take, as an example, one of Berio's best-known compositions:
Sequenza I, dedicated to Severino GazzeJloni (see Figure 9.2a). This piece,
published by Suvini Zerboni in 1958, is one of the musical manifestos of
the Opera Aperta (open form) in music. It initiated the well-known se­
ries of like-named pieces and constituted a sort of tribute to the freedom
of the performer who, as we are told in the concise performance notes
(see Figure 9.2b), is granted a certain leeway on the level of rhythm and
tempo, above all owing to the proportional notation. But precisely this
freedom of execution - a freedom written 'structurally' into the score as
an enhancement of the conventional view of interpretation - gradually
became a source of great annoyance to the author. In 1981, after innumer­
Figure 9.
able performances over twenty-three years , Berio finally affirmed that the
'margin of flexibility' inherent in the notation of Sequenza I was intended So urc e: R
to give the performer
following pages: 199-216
 LIVE-ELECTRONIC MUSIC

COMPOSITION, PERFORMANCE, STUDY

Edited by

Friedemann Sallis, Valentina Bertolani, Jan Bude

and Laura Zattra

 Contents

List offigures V1I1

List ofcontributors X111
Acknow/edgements xvii

Introduction
FRIEDEMANN SALLlS , VALENTINA BERTOLANI,
JAN BURLE AND LA U RA ZATTRA

PART I
CompositioD 15

1 Dwelling in a field of sonic relationsbips: 'instrument' aod

'Iistening' in an ecosystemic view of live electronics performance 17
AGOSTINO DI S C IPIO

2 (Tbe) speakiog of cbaracters, musically speaking 46

CHRIS CHAFE

3 Collaborating on composition: tbe role of tbe musical assistant

at IRCAM, CCRMA and CSC 59
LAURA ZATTRA

PART 11
Performance 81

4 Alvise Vidolin interviewed by Laura Zattra: the role of the

computer music designers in composition aod performance 83
LAURA ZATTRA

_.~,
 vi Contents
5 Instrumentalists on solo works with live electronics: towards a 13 A spectral exami
contemporary form of chamber music? 101 Dell'azzurro sileJ
FRAN<;:OIS-XAVIER F ERON AND GUILLAUME BOUTARD FRIEDEMAN"i S .'

6 Approaches to notation in musie for piano and live electronies: 14 Experiencing rou
the performer's perspective 131 examination of 11
XENIA P ES TOVA reception of live I
VINCENT T1FFC
7 Encounterpoint: the ungainly instrument as co-performer 160
JOHN GRANZOW
Bibliograph}
Index
8 Robotie musieianship in live improvisation involving
humans and machines 172
GEORGE TZANETAKIS

PARTIII
Study 193

9 Authorship and performance tradition in the age of technology:

(with examples from the performance history of works by Luigi
Nono, Luciano Berio and Karlheinz Stockhausen) 195
ANGELA IDA DE BENEDI C TIS

10 (Absent) authors, texts and technologies: ethnographie

pathways and compositional practices 217
NI C OLA SCALDAFERRI

11 Computer-supported analysis of religious chant 230

DANIEL P ET ER BIR6 AND GEORGE TZANETAKIS

12 Fixing the fugitive: a case study in spectral transcription of

Luigi Nono's A Pierre. Dell'azzurro silenzio, inquietum. A phi
cori for contra bass Hute in G, contra bass c1arinet in B Hat and
live electronics (1985) 253
JAN BURLE

<

/'
>I:J <:J>' I •

Contents VII

:Isa 13 A spectral examination of Luigi Nono's A Pierre.

101 Dell'azzurro silenzio, inquietum (1985) 275

FRIEDEMANN SA LLIS

Lies:
14 Experiencing music as strong works or as games: the

131
examination of learning processes in the production and

reception of live electronic music 290

VIN CE NT T1 FF ON
160
I:

Bibliography 305

Index 331

172

193

>gy:
uigi

195

217

230

lin
Id

253