3.3.2.3-4.3.3.1-4perc-5walkers-pn-hp-strings-cello

 

Paramusic #2 was composed on demand of the Beveren municipality and the orchestra of the Sint-Niklaas Academy. This is my second orchestral piece, in which I attempted to perceive among other things my first experience in working with an orchestra. ( Paramusic #1 ). I began with deconstruction of the orchestra as the “one whole” instrument: I divided the orchestra in many independently acting soloists and ensembles. I tempted to create such a polyphony of the processes, in which each particular flow would be really independent. In fact, Paramusic #2 is a set of solo and ensemble pieces, composed in such a way that when playing any combinations at the same time, there take place correlations of the acoustic flows.

These pieces synchronize mostly at the beginning, and then they are played concurrently: with unmatched time and pulses. There is no improvisation in pieces (they are accurately notated): however the total result is always unpredictable: it is not known how the pieces would develop relative to each other during the next play. Despite the apparent uncontrollability of the result it is possible to calculate the “fields of indeterminacy” in advance: to select the acoustic material of the flows in such a way that in different variations of playing at a certain point there could take place the necessary correlations.

 

 

Of even greater interest for me are the pure indeterminacies – matches of the flows which I didn’t calculate in advance. I consider such uncontrolled situations to be the gift from above. 😉

I think of how to let the listener enjoy this play of indeterminacies: in fact in concert perception (in conditions of a great number of the simultaneously happening processes) it is complicated to notice the match of a certain pair of flows. The listener needs to see what the author knows: to understand which of the matches proceed from the material properties, and which of them appeared on their own. I think in such a case the composition must have an introductory heuristic part, which would show the listener how the flows can connect or not. In this case he brings about the opportunity for himself to watch the contingent processes.

 

One Test

Of even greater interest for me are the pure indeterminacies – matches of the flows which I didn’t calculate in advance. I consider such uncontrolled situations to be the gift from above. 😉
I think of how to let the listener enjoy this play of indeterminacies: in fact in concert perception (in conditions of a great number of the simultaneously happening processes) it is complicated to notice the match of a certain pair of flows. The listener needs to see what the author knows: to understand which of the matches proceed from the material properties, and which of them appeared on their own. I think in such a case the composition must have an introductory heuristic part, which would show the listener how the flows can connect or not. In this case he brings about the opportunity for himself to watch the contingent processes.



 

 

 

Some flows in Paramusic #2 are the concert pieces for solo instrument or ensemble, other flows represent spatial compositions, played in an open or big enclosed space. Any combinations of playing these pieces are acceptable.

 

“…” for alto-flute solo
“…” for flutes duo
“…” for prepared oboe and truebone
“…” for oboes duo
“…” for spatial horn quartet
“…” for brass orchestra
“…” for 4 percussions
“…” for 5 walkers (megaphones, petards, rockets)
“…” for piano solo
“…” for piano and harp duo
“…” for string orchestra
“…” for cello solo