Performance 2 - Commentary

Why Fratres Recomposed?

Fratres is a mesmerizing set of variations on a six-bar theme, combining frantic activity and sublime stillness that encapsulates the quote 'The instant and eternity are struggling within us'. [1] 

It was written in 1977 without fixed instrument and since then has had 17 different versions published by Universal Edition. When asked about performance practice for this piece, Pärt frequently provides neo-platonic explanations where 'the music's highest value is outside its colour and exists beyond particular instruments'.[2]. This quote alone, alongside my love for this piece as a violinist, gave me the idea of writing the 18th version within the electronic domain (Something that has never been done before).

In particular, within the context of noise, the opening gesture of the piece resembles a beautifully chordal 'white noise' which could be moulded electronically to provide further rhythmic groove whilst sustaining the rich harmony throughout.  

Inspiration

The blurring between the domains of classical music and electronic music has been explored on a spectrum between sampling a small melodic idea to using the entire piece. 

For example, Tiësto's version of Adagio for Strings only uses the first 4 bars of melodic material to create an electronic cover that lasts 9 minutes (the radio edit is only 3 minutes). However, these 4 bars are the first and probably the most recognisable sequence of notes within the entire piece. The juxtaposition between the expressive line and powerful drum and bass creates an emotional response to the listener. Within the context of Fratres Recomposed, although there is a cycling set of piano harmonies underneath, there isn't really a section that is considered the 'golden-brick' of the work - instead we have a set of variations that are all equally worthy. There is also the risk of the improvisation stultifying if we focus too much on one melodic idea which, in my opinion, wouldn't best represent an electronic recomposition of Fratres.

One of my favourite reworkings of a classical piece - Spring 1 manages to find an ideal balance between using pre-existing material and creating new material - creative reimagining. Similar to Tiësto, sections that are 'well known' are used and spread across the 8 violins in canon - almost imitating the concept of a loop on a computer (Human variation of Paradigm 2a). Electronics are only very subtly used in the lower register chords, showing that a recomposition doesn't need to have a substantial amount of electronics. With such powerful preliminary material it's sometimes necessary to let the music sing without too much electronic input.

Finally, on the other side of the spectrum, Starkey uses the entire of Einaudi's piece Experience as the basis for his remix. The entire piece is present with the addition of beats, new sounds and changes in the arrangement. This is certainly pleasing to listen to after listening to the original piece and sometimes is the way the composer hopes the listener may approach it so they can make meaningful connections between the changes. However, this type of composition may lead to quite a big restriction in creative potential if we are only bound to the two operations of addition and subtraction of material. This is why finding a balance between the two ends of sampling classical works would be ideal for this recomposition.

Remix or Recomposition? 

One thought that came into mind early on in the construction process was whether this work would be classed as a Remix of Fratres or a Recomposition of Fratres. These terms have been used interchangibly (Starkey Remix vs Richter Recomposed) so it was worth exploring the difference between the two.

Kleiner et. Szepanski (2003) introduces the idea of a Rhizome where they use a concept of a tree to describe a 'remix' and a Rhizome for a 'recomposition'. A Rhizome is described as a richly branched, subterranean structure which is made up of roots and shoots. What makes it different to a tree structure is that a rhizome connects one arbitrary point with another arbitrary point. [3]

Deleuze et. Guattari (1977) describes 6 criteria for the Rhizome and I set out three of the most useful one's below: [4]

• Connection - Every point of a rhizome can be and must be connected to every other point of the rhizome.
• Heterogeneity: Unlike a tree structure, the rhizome is not organised hierarchical or central but anti-hierarchical and decentralised.
  
• Insignificant Break: A rhizome can be destroyed at any arbitrary point, it will then grow further along its own or along other lines (de-territorialisation and re-territorialisation)
  

Applying this within a musical context:

• All sounds and non-sounds are points which can be connected to become music
• All points (notes, sounds, noise, silence) are, potentially, equal in value.
  
• An existing connection (opus/rhizome) can become a starting point for a new connection (opus/rhizome). Classical music can thus be transformed into electronic music and vice versa. 
  

Outro Analysis
As mentioned earlier, the sketch for Fratres was inspired by the 8 different variations that Pärt explores in his original that all stems to the theme present in the artificial harmonics in the 9th final section. This sketch also appears on the pad-design on the Push Controller where samples of the artificial harmonics are heard. 

In the outro of the recomposition, I always push two samples at the same time that are reflected in the vertical axis. This is because the samples have been laid out in such a way that a sample on the opposite side is a direct reflection. As this section of music is mostly simple crotchet movement, it means that we achieve new harmonies between the two samples interacting. 

Notice that the sketch has a rotational symmetry of 8 - reflection happens on all possible lines. Diagonally, lengths of samples are the same (5,7 or 9) ; vertically we have reflected bars and horizontally we have a reflection of whether the sample has piano present (which when reversed produces some beautiful risers) or if the sample has been EQd such that only the harmonics are present (Low Cut).

The 16 bar loop makes it difficult for the listener to identify and remember any repetitive structures, however when Vector Delay is introduced - this produces some fascinating inner rhythmic ideas that all stem from simple crotchet movements. A perfect juxtaposition of disruptive symmetry and arhythmic nestling to end the work in a haunting manner, just like the original.

• Paradigm 1 - Instrument/Machine being fully operated by the Human
• Paradigm 2a - Human inputting material that is then cloned or variated by the machine
• Paradigm 2b - Machine autonomously creating musical material or collaborating

To further expand on this theory - I created a brand new Paradigm (unintentionally) at the end of my work. For a computer to generate music whilst being 'turned off' by the human creates this ghostly-like interaction that certainly contribute towards the performance. For an audience member, having so much musical material generated by a machine that is off and not being controlled by the human gives the impression of a third hidden member in the interaction (Meta-Music Reference).

On the right is a table that describes the performance models used at different points in the performance, its relevant paradigm and the pre-existing elements (as described by Butler [5]) before the performance.

Reflection

From my first performance, I decided that I wanted to include live violin playing - given that since the first performance, I have become more confident in navigating the Push. The live violin worked well with the samples of Fratres and it was almost indistinguishable (apart from visually) what was played live and what was sampled on the instrument, thus blurring the lines further between classical live performance and electronics. Because of the EC situation, I had to do the videography on my own and although there was some noise on one of the cameras that I wasn't able to fix - I have been able to deepen my knowledge of videography even further than last time plus taking into account the visuals of the controller itself.

On reflection, I would situate this work between Richter and Starkey in the domain of classical music recompositions/remixes. What makes my work different to Richter and Starkey is the way I employ hidden meta-structures into my work that reflect the original composers oeuvre (eg Mirrored variations). Another difference is the accessibility of the choice of original material. Fratres is a demanding piece for the violinist and stereotypically performers that would learn this piece wouldn't be accustomed to performing digital music - whilst an Einaudi or Vivaldi piece would be easier to manipulate or play through one performer. This itself can be a USP as could future works that engages demanding classical music with electronic recomposition.

Does this piece have the same expressive and accessible intensity as Tiësto's example above? Because they are on opposite sides of the sampling spectrum, it is more difficult to compare but it does raise the question as to whether spending more time on a fragment would lead to a more cohesive work that is traditional to electronic music. With other composed works, I seem to have a natural tendency to compose a whole bunch of new ideas and collage them together, instead of developing smaller ideas. Perhaps when exploring this genre in the future, taking the minimalist approach could force myself into making meaningful and powerful developments in my music that would make my work more accessible to a wider audience.