Master Thesis Arts and Culture: Musicology Nora Kim Braams
Student number: 6126170 Thursday July 19, 2018 Supervisor: Dr. M. Beirens University of Amsterdam
In C and beyond
An analysis of four 21
st
century interpretations of
2
Index
Introduction 4
Chapter 1. - A brief history of minimal music 8
1.1. Musical minimalism 8
1.2. European serialism and indeterminacy 8
1.2.1. Morton Feldman and John Cage 9
1.2.2. Fluxus 9
1.3. Young, Riley, Reich and Glass 10
1.3.1. La Monte Young 10
1.3.2. Steve Reich 10
1.3.3. Philip Glass 11
1.4. Towards postminimalism 11
Chapter 2. - The life and music of Terry Riley 12
2.1. Early life and education 12
2.2. After San Francisco State University: 1958 – 1959 12
2.2.1. Young and Riley 13
2.3. Early works, tape music and looping techniques: 1960 – 1961 13
2.3.1. Envelope 13
2.3.2. String Trio 14
2.3.3. Mescalin Mix 14
2.4. Drugs, jazz and Europe 15
2.5. Last works before In C 15
2.5.1. Music of The Gift 15
2.5.2. Coule 16
2.6. Return to San Francisco: In C 16
2.6.1. The premiere of In C 17
2.7. After In C 18
Chapter 3. - Analysis: In C – the score and the guidelines 20
3.1. The score 20
3
3.3. Rhythmic vocabulary 22
3.4. Motivic transformations and rhythmic displacement 23
3.5. Harmonic analysis 24
3.6. Module 35 26
Chapter 4. - Analysis: recordings of In C 27
4.1. Introduction 27
4.2. The analysis method 28
4.3. The original recording: Columbia Records, 1968 29
4.4. The recordings 30
4.4.1. Recording 1: In C Mali – Africa Express 30
4.4.2. Recording 2: In C – Terry Riley + Stargaze 36 4.4.3. Recording 3: In C Remixed – GVSU New Music Ensemble 43 4.4.3.1. Remix 1: In C Semi-Detached – Jack Dangers 43 4.4.3.2. Remix 2: In C with Canons and Bass – Nico Muhly 46
4.4 Then and now: comparison between the recordings 49
Conclusion 51
Bibliography 54
Addendum 1: Guidelines checklist – Africa Express 60
Addendum 2: Guidelines checklist – Terry Riley + Stargaze 62
Addendum 3: Guidelines checklist – Jack Dangers 64
4
Introduction
That the bus ride to his work at the Gold Street Saloon in San Francisco would have so much influence on the rest of his musical life, Terry Riley could not have known. It was here, in 1964, that the 28-year-old composer envisioned the music of his composition In C. Riley’s “most famous work, and variously heralded as the first masterpiece of minimalism” and “the work that ushered in a new musical era, after which the world was never quite the same.”1 Big words, written by Tom Service in
The Guardian. There hovers however, undoubtedly, an almost mystical awe around In C. For many, the piece and its 1968 recording were indeed their first introduction to musical minimalism. The work seems to embody the hippy, carefree vibe of the 1960s American West Coast.
In C’s score consists of 53 modules, short musical melodies, ranging from a single note to a short
passage. The single page score (see figure 1.1) comes with a set of instructions or ‘guidelines’ on how to best keep the ensemble together during the performance. The modules can be played in
sequence, or not. Players can decide individually to omit modules, as well as pick up the tempo or volume, or to slow down. In C presents the performing musicians with a lot of freedom in choosing the circumstances surrounding the performance (instruments, size of the ensemble, tempo etc.). “The work mutates to suit the players”,2 as Justin Davidson writes. In C has numerous performances
each year as well as multiple recordings since 1968. In contrast to most classical works, In C has inspired not only classical musicians, but a broad spectrum of performers from different musical genres. From a recording by The Shanghai Film Orchestra, by New York’s Bang on a Can,3 to a version
by the psychedelic-rock band Acid Mothers Temple.4 It seems clear that In C, with its still growing
popularity and ongoing performance practice, securely procured its place in the classical canon. In 2015, Terry Riley celebrated his eightieth birthday. The Amsterdam based concert hall
Muziekgebouw aan ‘t IJ joined the celebrations by dedicating their fourth biennial World Minimal Music Festival to Riley’s music. The “godfather of minimal music”5 was present himself, and joined
the young collective Stargaze on stage for a performance of In C. For myself, working in the Muziekgebouw at the time, this festival was the first introduction to Riley’s In C. Leading up to the festival, I got to know the 1968 recording, and simultaneously, the 2014 recording by Africa Express. Both recordings differed so immensely in sound, atmosphere, instrumentation and rhythm but yet still managed to portray, clearly, the same composition. How could this be the same piece? This question became the starting point for this thesis.
“From the heady days of the 60s to the fastpaced 21st century lifestyle, what has changed in the last
45 years?”6 These are the words of Bill Ryan, founder of In C Remixed. The 18 remixes on this
recording, of which two will be discussed in chapter 4, are radical translations of In C in the 21st
century. Ryan’s words however, sum up the question with which this research started. What has changed in the performance practice of In C? This thesis centers around this subject. How do current performances and recordings of In C relate to the original ideas behind In C, as portrayed in the score and the guidelines accompanying the score? Despite the different circumstances surrounding the 1 Service 2013 [online] 2 Davidson 2009 [online] 3 Ibid. 4 Richard-San 2002 [online] 5 Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ 2015, p. 2
5 diverse performances, In C seems to retain its ‘core character’, even when performed by musicians from a different musical genre.
Often, to explore a new musical work is to start at the score. The score, one could argue, is the closest a musician can get to knowing what the composer wants, especially in classical music. With In
C, this seems no different. The score, seemingly simple in structure, can tell us something about the
rhythmic and harmonic structure. The accompanying guidelines explain that what the score itself refrains from mentioning: suggestions about instrumentation, speed, volume and time management. However, these guidelines are mere suggestions and because of the score’s structure and its reliance on musicians to add intuitive decisions during the performance, the score itself would not say all there is to say about In C.
Thus, to analyse performances and recordings of In C we have to look at these two variables: the score on the one hand and the guidelines on the other. How the musicians interpret and combine the two defines the resulting performance. There is, however, a third variable we need to take into account: the ‘idea’ behind In C and its legacy. The story behind the piece, how it came into being and the time in which it was written, but also the idea of flexibility of musical choices, must have their influence on musicians performing the work nowadays. This thesis will look at the balance - or perhaps, the hierarchy -between these three variables in four current performances of In C, and how these relations determine the final sound of those performances. Is it possible for musicians, by interpreting one or two of the variables more freely, to still create a version of In C that sounds like the familiar representation of the work?
In this digital age, it seems unlikely that any musicians would only use the score as reference when studying a piece. Recordings are everywhere and are easily reachable. It seems fair to say that most of the current musicians have encountered In C though a recording or a performance. They probably also have listened to the first 1968 recording of In C by Columbia Records. With Riley himself playing and orchestrating this LP, the recording seems to come closer to the composer’s original intention than the score does. To analyse the current performance practice of In C we must not forgot to look at the influential status of this 1968 recording as well.
During this research, I relied heavily on the book Terry Riley’s In C by Robert Carl.7 His intensive study
of In C and his overview of recordings through the years, has been an immense source of information and inspiration. It was his work that inspired the analysis of the four recordings. It is one of the aims of this thesis to build upon and to extend Carl’s approach into some of the most recent
interpretations of In C. The structure of this thesis was also inspired by his book.
Keith Potter’s Four Musical Minimalists8 gave extra insight in the life of Riley and his three famous
colleagues (Young, Reich and Glass). The interviews with Riley in Edward Strickland’s American
Composers. Dialogues on Contemporary Music9 and in David Bernstein’s The San Francisco Tape
Music Center,10 shaped a better view of Riley’s own thoughts of In C. Youtube proved an important
source for live interviews with and music of the composer. For information about the musical genre of minimalism, I turned to K. Robert Schwarz’s Minimalists,11 Strickland’s Minimalism: Origins12 and
The Ashgate Research Companion to Minimalist and Postminimalist Music13 by Potter, Gann and ap
7 Carl 2010 8 Potter 2000 9 Strickland 1987 10 Bernstein 2008 11 Schwarz 1996 12 Strickland 1993
6 Siôn. The internet proved very useful in finding articles and reviews about the several performances of In C and the Grove Music Online provided me with information on almost anything music-related. Alex Ross’s The Rest is Noise14 got me interested in the subject, being the first book I read concerning
musical minimalism and In C.
The first chapter will contain a short overview of minimalism in music. How did the genre originate, what influenced the music and who are the key players. It also shortly describes minimalist evolution into, what some call, postminimalism. Chapter 2 will look more thoroughly at the life and works of Riley. It will describe his personal and musical growth towards the premiere of In C. The premiere of
In C will be described, and we will take a short look at Riley’s life and work after the premiere. The
third chapter is an in-depth analysis of the score of In C. The analysis will look at the rhythmic vocabulary, motivic transformation and the harmonic flow of the music. The last chapter brings four analyses on different recordings of In C. A short look at the original 1968 recording leads the way to analyses of two ‘regular’ In C recordings and two remixes of In C. The analyses focus on how the musicians interpreted the score and the guidelines, the decisions they made in highlighting certain passages, the instrumentation etc. To emphasize the diversity of In C, two remixes will be analysed. The idea of a remix, the reusing and shuffling of musical material, seems to have some link with the idea behind In C. With all four recordings being made in the 2010s, the analysis will hopefully shine light on the perception of In C by a new generation of musicians. It will also continue there were Carl’s research ended.15 The chapter ends with a short comparison of the four analysed recordings
with the original 1968 recording.
14 Ross 2007
15 Carl 2010, p. 122. The last recording analysed by Carl is a recording by the American Festival of Microtonal Music
7
Figure 1.1 Score of In C16
16 Carl 2009, p. 2
8
Chapter 1. - A brief history of minimal music
1.1. Musical minimalism
Few twentieth-century musical styles have provoked as much controversy as musical minimalism did, and perhaps still does.17 “A term borrowed from the visual arts to describe a style of composition
characterized by an intentionally simplified rhythmic, melodic and harmonic vocabulary”,18 according
to Keith Potter, who emphasizes the simplified musical means of the compositions. For many, however, the genre is linked to the early works of four specific composers. As Steven Wright writes: “[…] the term ‘minimal music’ is generally used to describe a style of music that developed in America in the late 1960s and 1970s, and that was initially connected with the composers La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass.”19 This makes minimal music one of the few musical
genres by which composers are an integral part of its definition.
Minimal music is mostly seen as an opposition against modernism in music, represented by serialism and indeterminacy. “Openly seeking greater accessibility, it is tonal or modal where Modernism is atonal, rhythmically regular and continuous where Modernism is aperiodic and fragmented, structurally and texturally simple where Modernism is complex.”20 The genre incorporates not only
the repetitive music of Reich and Glass, but also the drone improvisations of Young,21 composers
associated with the English Experimental School such as Gavin Bryars, the ‘holy minimalism’ of Arvo Pärt and Henryk Górecki,22 and the European minimalism of Karel Goeyvaerts and Louis Andriessen in
the 1970-1980s,23 amongst others.
1.2. European serialism and indeterminacy
Minimalism’s chronology is not a clear one. Some name La Monte Young’s Trio for Strings (1958) the first minimalist work, others the earlier works by Goeyvaerts (1950s) or the music of John Cage (1940s).24 Also Terry Riley’s In C is often recognized as the first more widely received minimal work.
Clearly, there is not an overall consensus on the beginning of minimalism. What we do know, is that minimalism originated in the United States, on the West and East Coast, in a time in which
technology, the horrors of World War II, the breaking with European musical tradition and interests in non-Western music and jazz all played crucial roles in the evolution of classical music.
Classical music in post-war Europe had evolved itself into the heavy serialism of the Second Viennese School and the Darmstadter composers. Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez and others were strict followers of the twelve-tone technique. Even established composers, like Stravinsky, began to use serial techniques.25 Making serialist music the highest achievable goal for a composer around that
time. The results were atonal, complex compositions, only accessible for the in-crowd and not the
17 Schwarz 1996, p. 8
18 Potter 2001 [online] 19 Wright 2002, p. 361 20 Potter 2001 [online]
21 Potter, Gann and ap Siôn 2013, p. 3 22 Potter 2001 [online]
23 Beirens 2013, p. 63
24 Potter, Gann and ap Siôn 2013, p. 1 25 Griffiths 2001 [online]
9 general public. Or as Boulez once claimed, according to Morton Feldman: “[…] he is not interested in how a piece sounds, only in how it is made.”26
1.2.1. Morton Feldman and John Cage
Two composers who influenced the development of minimalism, were Feldman and John Cage.27
Feldman’s compositions, characterized by vast spaces of sound, can be seen as a bridge between the Darmstadter serialism and the future minimalist works of Young. His later works had a tendency “to lock sounds into clearly audible, repeating metrical patterns”,28 resembling patterns in the music of
Reich and Glass.29 Feldman was no minimalist in the way minimalism later came to be understood.
His music is minimalistic in that there is a minimum of material notated on the score. He however, formed a crucial step in the evolution of minimalism in music.
From the 1950s and on, Cage avoided tonality and repetition in his compositions and preached a music that would unfold moment by moment by itself, instead of following a pre-designed harmonic structure. In contrast to serialism, the composer should not be bound to values and rules. Cage proposed an acceptance of all sounds and investigated ways of opening up his music, a process he called ‘indeterminacy’. Indeterminacy in music means that music does not have to sound like conventional music to be recognized as such. His compositions took on the character of processes, instead of being fixed objects.30 Thus emphasizing “the ability of a piece to be performed in
substantially different ways.”31 Even though Cage has always been critical of minimal music, his
earlier works show proto-minimalist characteristics. For instance, Cage worked towards a music that was more based on rhythm than on pitch. Also, Cage used a lot of influences of non-Western music in his own work.32
1.2.2. Fluxus
The 1960s saw the emergence of the Fluxus collective, an international coalition of experimental writers, performers and musicians.33 Fluxus saw itself as an alternative to the heavily structured
academic arts of the time.34 Influenced by Cage, chance played a vital role in the creation of their art.
Artists used a ‘do it yourself’35 attitude to create their art, using different media’s and often creating
random performances in unusual places.
At the end of the 1960s, European serialism was at the height of its influence. Young composers preferring tonal music had a hard time at the academia and started to rebel. While these neo-Romantics and the established serial composers fought their battles ‘uptown’, in the ‘downtown’ scene of New York the indeterminacy of Cage and Feldman was going strong.36 On the West Coast,
26 Bernard 2002, p. 178
27 Johnson and Mattis 2001 [online]. John Cage and Morton Feldman were good friends. During the early 1950s, they
founded the New York School, a term used to describe the collaboration between themselves and composers Earle Brown, Christian Wolff and David Tudor.
28 Potter 2000, p. 6 29 Ibid.
30 Pritchett, Kuhn and Hiroshi Garrett 2012 [online] 31 Pritchett 1993, p. 108
32 Potter 2000, p. 4
33 Moore and Cowger 2013 [online] 34 Tate Modern “Art Term: Fluxus” [online] 35 Ibid.
10 the ‘downtown’ scene was centered in San Francisco. Here, in the early 1960s, the San Francisco Tape Music Center was founded, which hosted the 1964 premiere of Terry Riley’s In C.37
1.3. Young, Riley, Reich and Glass
La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass (all born between 1935 – 7) are widely seen as key figures in the evolution of minimal music. All four belonged to environments that proved fruitful for the development of minimal music and the rejection of serialism and the academic scene: the California counterculture of the 1960s to which Riley, and for a while, Young and Reich belonged, and the Manhattan ‘downtown’ scene, in which Reich, Glass, Young, and for a while, Riley thrived. Both scenes “emphasized the breaking down of barriers, not only between different kinds of music but also between different art forms.”38
1.3.1. La Monte Young
The term minimal music was first used in a review by Michael Nyman in 1968.39 Ten years prior, La
Monte Young composed his Trio for Strings. The trio is mostly known for its reliance on long sustained tones. Young himself, whose music is most famous for its drone-like feel, recognized the importance of the trio: “[…] I feel it actually influenced the history of music since no one had ever before made a work that was composed completely of sustained tones.”40 Young, after moving to
New York, became involved in Fluxus during the 1960s and founded his Theatre of Eternal Music in 1962.41 His intensive studies of Indian music inspired Young to perform long improvisations in just
intonation.42 Young’s focus on sustained tones instead of pulsing repetition, separates him from
Riley, Reich and Glass. His music advocates intense exploration of sounds, time and space, of long tones and long rests.43
1.3.2. Steve Reich
Terry Riley’s life is described in detail in chapter 2. His In C was an enormous success and it was Riley who reintroduced tonality into his works and who first worked with tape-loops and modular
repetition. Joining Riley in the premiere performance of In C was Steve Reich. Where Riley was free-spirited, Reich preferred an ordered structure in his music. Intrigued by tape-loops and phasing, Reich wanted to transpose the tape technique to a live performance. Where Young and Riley turned to Indian and Arabic music, Reich studied African drumming rhythms, resulting in Drumming (1971), “perhaps minimalism’s first real public success”,44 with a recording by Deutsche Grammophon. Music
for 18 Musicians (1976) was another success, and Reich has since been one of the most famous
composers of the twentieth century. 1.3.3. Philip Glass
Philip Glass thrived in the Manhattan ‘downtown’ scene, where he had his own ensemble (just as Reich did). Glass’ musical style is characterized by clear and recognizable melodies, with a trademark
37 Bernstein 2008, p. 1 – 2 38 Potter 2001 [online] 39 Potter 2000, p. 3
40 Ibid., p. 34. From a version of the composer’s own programme note for Trio for Strings.
41 Terry Riley joined Young for a while in his Theatre of Eternal Music. Other members of the Theatre were John Cale
(founder of the Velvet Underground) and visual artist Marian Zazeela (his later wife), amongst others.
42 Grimshaw 2012 [online] 43 Potter 2001 [online] 44 Gann 1997, p. 200
11 of “repeating four- to six-note arpeggio’s, used to articulate chromatically related triads.”45 During his
studies in Paris with Nadia Boulanger, Glass came into contact with the music of Ravi Shankar. Inspired by the principles of Indian rhythmic structure, Glass began to use repetitions of small rhythmic patterns. The opera Einstein on the Beach (1976) meant Glass’ breakthrough.46
1.4. Towards postminimalism
One of minimalism’s traits is its quality to merge with other musical genres. The American music scene between 1945s – 1965s burst with new popular music genres. Rock ‘n roll, blues, soul, funk and, most importantly, the bebop of the post war jazz-scene, all presented themselves to the young composers. Not coincidently, Young, Riley, Reich and Glass were all big jazz-fans and avid jazz players.47
After the ‘rise’ of minimalism, and the successes of In C, Music for 18 Musicians and Einstein on the
Beach, the genre evolved. Musicians and composers started looking into other musical genres for
inspiration, resulting in cross-overs. British rockers David Bowie and Brian Eno worked with Glass, and Frank Zappa found inspiration by Anton Webern and Feldman. New York’s The Kitchen, a “mecca of conceptualist and minimalist music”,48 started programming experimental rock bands.49
The use of electronics in music blossomed during the twentieth century. With the rapid development of electronic devices and techniques during the twentieth century, it is no surprise that almost every composer nowadays uses electronics in their music. Musical minimalism would not have existed without the possibilities of tape-loops and phasing.50 From the San Francisco Tape Music Center
where In C premiered, to the ambient tape-loops of Brian Eno’s Music for Airports (1978),51 and
eventually to the subgenre ‘minimal techno’ of the current electronic dance scene.52 The use of
repetition in music grew with the possibilities new electronics brought.
What could come after minimalism? The tonal, pattern-repetitive style of the 1960s evolved and a new generation of composers entered the 1980s with new ideas. Borrowing from minimalist
strategies - but meanwhile adding their own - a new musical language was born.53 Postminimalism is
a term often used by scholars to describe the compositions following the footsteps of the minimalist works of the 1960s – 1970s. Clearly descending from minimalism, the works are yet so different that the music calls for a new term.54
Minimalism grew into multiple branches of music that got inspired by and could never have developed without the minimalist works of the 1960s – 1970s. Or, as Kyle Gann wrote: “One could imagine that some future history of music will describe the period starting in the late 20th century as follows: ‘Our current musical language arose in the 1960s and '70s. In its nascent, simplistic state, it was at first mistaken for a full-blown style in itself, and was termed 'Minimalism'....’.”55
45 Ibid., p. 203 46 Ibid., p. 199 – 206 47 Ross 2007, p. 518 48 Gann 1997, p. 294 49 Ibid., p. 291 – 294 50 Ibid., p. 253 – 254
51 Album Liner Notes “Music for Airports liner notes” [online] 52 Chamberlin 2003 [online]
53 Gann 1998 [online]
54 Potter, Gann and ap Siôn 2013, p. 3 55 Gann 1998 [online]
12
Chapter 2. – The life and music of Terry Riley
2.1. Early life and education
Terry Riley (Colfax, California 1935) grew up listening mostly to popular music. It was not until high school that Riley, with the help of his piano teacher Duane Hampton, got interested in classical music.56 His first compositions were based on the music he learned at the piano and showed a strong
influence of Fauré and Poulenc.57 Riley played in local dance bands and developed an interest in
bebop.58 Without proper music education in high school, it was pure luck and with the guidance of
his piano teacher that Riley could develop his musical talent.59
In 1955, Riley enrolled at the San Francisco State University to study piano with Wendell Otey. Due to the high skill level of his fellow piano students, and his inability to compete, Riley changed to
composition instead. His new mentor, composer Robert Erickson, would prove to be a major influence on Riley’s studies and further career.60 In 1957, Riley graduated from the San Francisco
State University, and it was during this time that he wrote the first work on his current worklist: Trio for violin, clarinet and piano.61 At SFSU, Riley met Pauline Oliveros and Loren Rush, two likeminded
students who would become lifelong friends and collaborators in many of his musical projects.
2.2. After San Francisco State University: 1958 - 1959
After SFSU, Riley started an improvisation trio with Oliveros and Rush. With Riley on the piano, Oliveros on French horn and Rush on percussion, the trio’s main work was an atonal soundtrack for a film by Claire Falkenstein: Polyester Moon (1958).62 Free improvisations in a music style other than
jazz was a practice still rare at that time.63 The trio, according to Pauline Oliveros, would record short
five-minute improvisations and then discuss the results. “That was the method. Play, record, listen back, and then discuss it.”64 For Riley, the experience of Polyester Moon was important in suggesting
to him that improvisation, distinct from any jazz idiom, could indeed be his natural mode of expression, and was worth of exploration.65 The method of ‘play first, discuss later’ also seemed to
inspire Riley. As we will learn, Riley applied the same rehearsal practice with In C.
During the same period, Riley took private composition lessons with Robert Erickson (1917 - 1997) at the San Francisco Conservatory until he enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley in 1959.66
Erickson, an influential West Coast avant-garde composer67, had a major influence on Riley. His
interest in improvisation and forms of ‘openness’ in music, and his experiments with electronics and
56 Schwarz 1996, p. 25
57 Carl 2009, p. 13. Terry Riley interviewed by Robert Carl. 58 Schwarz 1996, p. 26
59 Carl 2009, p. 14
60 Ibid., p. 14 – 15. Terry Riley interviewed by Robert Carl. 61 Potter 2000, p. 95
62 Doran Eaton 2013, p. 184 63 Potter 2000, p. 95
64 Carl 2009, p. 17. Pauline Oliveros interviewed by Robert Carl. 65 Potter 2000, p. 96
66 Carl 2009, p. 15
67 Rockwell 2008, p. viii and Shere 2013 [online]. Pauline Oliveros, Paul Dresher and Morton Subotnick all studied with
13 tape music left their mark on Riley’s later work.68 This is visible in one of the first works Riley wrote:
Spectra (1959). Spectra is a good example of Riley’s first attempts to create independence amongst
players by creating a fluid-like rhythmic structure. According to Carl, Spectra shows two aspects that would turn out to be exemplary for Riley’s composition style: periodic sustained tones and extensive rhythmic freedom.69
2.2.1. Young and Riley
In 1958, La Monte Young enrolled at UC Berkeley. With his distinguished sense of style and his radical ideas of music, Young intrigued Riley instantly. He introduced Riley to the early music of John
Coltrane, to gagaku (Japanese court music) and to Indian music, and in doing so, changed Riley’s way of looking at composing and at music in general.70
Young introduced Riley to Anna Halprin, who had her own dance company linked to the Tape Music Center71. Young and Riley would compose and perform music for the company. For Riley, this was his
first experience with anything theatrical.72 Inspired by Cage, Young and Riley wanted to create
sound-orientated music out of unrelated and undetermined elements. Any shared intention between the dance and the music was deliberately avoided.73 One of the few remaining works of this period in
Riley’s life is the Concert for Two Pianos and Five Tape Recorders (1960). This work exists of improvisations by Riley and Young for Halprin’s dance sessions, organized on tapes by Riley.74
Most influenced by Young is, according to Riley, his String Quartet from May 1960.75 The quartet
shows influences of the sustained sounds of La Monte Young’s Trio for Strings (1958).76 When asked
about the quartet Riley said: “It’s funny… it’s in C too, but it’s all long tones. Some of the motives which later turn up in In C are in that quartet.”77 Another In C preview could be his use of modal
centers in the Quartet. “[It] actually is fairly chromatic, but it uses a lot of modal centers which make it feel like it has tonal centers. It uses a lot of fourths and fifths and sustained intervals which sound very consonant.”78 As we will see in later chapters, In C seems to be composed around modal centers
instead of tonal ones.
2.3. Early works, tape music and looping techniques: 1960 – 1961 2.3.1. Envelope
Another work that shows similarities with In C is Envelope (1960), a work that consists of “a
combination of written pitches and graphic symbols that could be freely interpreted”79 according to
Riley. The work consists of four parts of the same duration, divided in sections (every four measures).
68 Carl 2009, p. 15
69 Ibid., p. 15 – 16
70 Bernstein and Payne 2008, p. 2 11
71 Bernstein 2008, p. 225. The dance company was called the San Francisco Dancers’ Workshop. 72 Carl 2009, p. 126
73 Ibid., p. 19 – 20
74 Bernstein and Payne 2008, p. 213 75 Strickland 1987, p. 111
76 Potter 2000, p. 97
77 Strickland 1987, p. 111. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 78 Alburger 1997, p. 2. Quoted in Carl 2009, p. 25
14 The performers can enter at the section of their choosing, playing the work from there until they return to their starting point. The notation system of Envelope shows clear similarities with In C.80
2.3.2. String Trio
Riley graduated at UC Berkeley in 1961 with a String Trio.81 According to both Carl and Potter, the
Trio was the first showcase of what later would become Riley’s own minimalist approach: the use of
modal pitch domain and regular rhythmic repetition. 8283 The Trio has the “beginnings of little
repetitive cells, which is the first use of that in my [Riley’s] music… The opening is like a pulse.”84 The
work is not completely repetitive and does not have a consistent rhythm. But the overall feeling of the piece, according to Carl, is far more pulsating then any of his previous works. The musical
material is more consonant and the harmonic nature of the work tends to be constructed of layers of thirds, with added dissonant tones. This results in a musical landscape that sounds consonant yet is not tonal in a traditional way.85
2.3.3. Mescalin Mix
During 1960 – 1961, Riley started experimenting with tape technology. He owned a Wollensack tape recorder, a simple device that records multiple layers of sound on one single track.86 He combined
this ‘sound on sound’ technique with a looping technique, creating a soundscape of dense layers, more noise than music. Riley would, after recording various sounds of different durations, cut the tape in pieces and form the tape into a loop. The loop would be strung through his window, out into the garden, around a group of bottles, and return through the window into the studio.87 The
recording was brought to the San Francisco Tape Music Center (which was called Sonics at this time) to use the Echoplex, a device that allowed a sound to be repeated on itself in an ever-accumulating counterpoint. This way Riley could create an effect that is somewhat similar to digital delay.88 One of
Riley’s first compositions with tape technique was Mescalin Mix (formerly known as M…Mix), a work that evolved from tapes Riley had made for Halprin.89 While some of the sounds on the tapes can still
be identified, much of work is so distorted that it is hard to recognize, according to Potter.90 Mescalin
Mix sounds, as the name implies, very drugs-influenced and Riley himself admitted that the work
“sounded just like an acid trip”.91
Through his compositions in 1960 – 1961, Riley discovered that repetition itself could be the centre of his musical organization. Both Mescalin Mix and his String Trio focus on repetition, the first in sense of tape loops, the second of rhythmic repetition.
80 Potter 2000, p. 97
81 Ibid., p. 99 82 Carl 2009, p. 28 83 Potter 2000, p. 99
84 Alburger 1997, p. 3. Quoted in Carl 2009, p. 28 85 Carl 2009, p. 28
86 Potter 2000, p. 98
87 Gagne 1993, p. 238. Mentioned in Potter 2000, p. 98 88 Bernstein and Payne 2008, p. 214 – 215
89 Potter 2000, p. 98. The tapes were called subsequently Three-Legged Stool, The Four-Legged Stool and The Five-Legged
Stool.
90 Ibid., p. 98 – 99
15 2.4. Drugs, jazz and Europe
The title of Mescalin Mix was not an ironic one. Riley has always been very open about his drug use during the 1960s. Young introduced Riley to marihuana and peyote.92 Riley immediately saw the
potential of these drugs for his own artistic growth, as the drugs changed his perception of time and life.93 “I was never concerned with minimalism [per se], but I was very concerned with psychedelia
and the psychedelic movement of the sixties as an opening toward consciousness. […] So I think what I was experiencing in music at that time was another world. […] I believe music, shamanism, and magic are all connected, and when it’s used that way it creates the most beautiful use of music.”94
In February 1962, Riley and his family moved to Paris.95 Riley was well trained as a ragtime-pianist by
this time, having worked as one in the Gold Street Saloon in San Francisco. In Paris, he continued this line of work and played at Fred Payne’s Artists Bar in Pigalle. By playing at officers’ clubs at American military bases throughout Europe, he was able to travel a lot.96 Riley’s stay in Europe enabled him to
further develop two interests: his love for jazz and his skills as a jazz pianist, and his exploration of non-Western music. His love for jazz began at Berkeley with the discovery of John Coltrane’s music.97
Coltrane’s hit albums during the 1960 – 196598 became more and more influenced by modes, both of
the Western church (Gregorian modes) as of Middle-Eastern music (maqam system).99 His modal,
and later free-jazz innovations, were a big influence for Riley at the time.
During spring 1962, Riley moved to Algeciras, in the south of Spain, where he was first introduced to Moroccan music.100 Over the radio, Riley heard the call for prayer and the maquamat. The way the
music keeps on repeating small musical particles for a long time while keeping the music interesting with melodic improvisation, intrigued him. Again, it was the combination of modal music combined with a repetitive nature that left an impression on the young composer.101 An interest that eventually
resulted in In C.
2.5. Last works before In C: Music of The Gift and Coule 2.5.1. Music of the Gift
Two other important works that precede In C are Music of the Gift (1963) and Coule. The first was written by Riley in Paris for The Gift, a play by Ken Dewey, a Bay-Area director. For Music for The Gift, Riley recorded Chet Baker’s quartet playing So What, Miles Davis’s classic from his 1959 album Kind
of Blue. He then ran this recording through his ‘time-lag accumulator’, a device Riley designed with
the help of the French National Radio: “I described the effect to the French engineer, a very straight guy in a white coat, who fooled around and ended up hooking two tape recorders together.”102 What
followed was exactly the sound Riley had wanted: an echo effect. By connecting the two tape recorders he could let the first one play back, and record with the second one. While recording, the
92 The drug mescalin is made from the peyote cactus. 93 Potter 2000, p. 103 – 105
94 Duckworth 1995, p. 169. Quoted in Carl 2009, p. 23 95 Potter 2000, p. 101
96 Schwarz 1996, p. 36 97 Strickland 1987, p. 115
98 My Favorite Things (1961), Impressions (1961-3) and Ascension (1965) 99 Potter 2000, p. 102 – 103
100 Ibid., p. 101 101 Ibid., p. 102 – 103
16 second recorder feeds back to the first machine, who plays back what is added.103 Riley named this
device a ‘time-lag accumulator’ and would continue using this repetitive technique for a long time during solo performances.104
Music for The Gift marks the point where Riley started to understand what repetition could do for his
music. According to Potter, Music for The Gift paved the way for instrumental works like In C. It showed to Riley that it was possible to make proper compositions while applying the principles of delay and accumulation to both pitched material, speech and other non-musical sounds.105 “It’s
probably my first orchestral piece but I made it all out of tape. That piece, Music for The Gift, was when I really started understanding what repetition could do for musical form. That’s the forerunner of In C.” 106
2.5.2. Coule
Coule (later renamed Keyboard Studies No. 1), a work for piano solo, had its premiere at the same
concert as In C, but was written during Riley’s stay in Europe. The work shows many similarities with
In C, especially the notation: Coule consists of 16 melodic modules. The performer must take a
‘continuum figure’ (modules 1, 7 and 11) and combine these with the successive modules, until moving on to the next continuum figure. So, module 1 can be combined with modules 2 – 6, before moving on to module 7, which in turn can be combined with modules 8 – 10, and so on.
The open-form structure of Coule precedes In C. It leaves the performer free to choose the way to organise his or her performance: how to combine the modules, or to not use the successive modules between the continuum figures at all. Just like In C, this work “creates the idea of a piece as a
network of events rather than a mere succession”, as Carl puts it.107
2.6. Return to San Francisco: In C
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought Riley back to the United States.108 Back in
San Francisco, Riley and his family moved into a house at 215 Bocana Street, just south of Potrero Hill.109 His return to San Francisco came at a fortunate moment: his old friends and colleagues at the
San Francisco Tape Music Center were dedicating the 1964-1965 season to local composers. Morton Subotnick contacted Riley to ask whether he wanted to do a concert as well.110 It was this concert
that would host the premiere of In C.
Riley composed In C in March 1964, shortly after returning to San Francisco. The music came to him at night: “Then one night, riding the bus down to work at Gold Street, I just heard it – I heard the ideas, every motive.”111 “[…] I didn’t hear every one [module], but I heard the whole beginning with
the modulation …”112 The piece was apparently written in less than 24 hours and has had its current
form of 53 modules from the beginning. Multiple factors laid the groundwork for In C. The looping
103 Strickland 1987, p. 112 104 Carl 2009, p. 36 105 Potter 2000, p. 107
106 Strickland 1987, p. 113. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 107 Carl 2009, p. 35
108 Strickland 1987, p. 109. All U.S. Army clubs around Europe closed their entertainment programs as a gesture towards the
presidential family. Without this major source of income, Riley was left no choice but to move back home.
109 Carl 2009, p. 39
110 Ibid. Morton Subotnick interviewed by Robert Carl.
111 Strickland 1987, p. 113. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland. 112 Ibid. Terry Riley interviewed by Edward Strickland.
17 principle in his tape pieces and the experiments with his time-lag accumulator made Riley want to transcribe this kind of music to a performance by real instruments.
2.6.1. The premiere of In C
On November 4th, 1964, In C premiered at the San Francisco Tape Music Center. The concert was
repeated on 6 November. Both concerts were dedicated to, and compiled by, Riley himself. ‘An Evening of Music By Terry Riley’ commenced at 20:30 hours and the audience, around 120 people113,
were sitting around the musicians on folding chairs. Instead of arranging the seats beforehand, the seating was deliberately informal. Riley would play his Music for the Gift while the audience entered the hall.114 The concert was divided into two halves, with a break in between. The first half consisted
of three tape pieces, I, Shoeshine and In B♭ Or Is It A♭, and one keyboard work, Coule, performed by Riley. After the break, In C was performed by Riley and his ensemble.
The ensemble consisted of 13 musicians, all drawn from Riley’s own pool of close friends: Pauline Oliveros (accordion), Morton Subotnick (clarinet), Ramon Sender (Chamberlin organ), Jon Gibson (soprano saxophone), Stan Shaff & Phil Winsor (trumpet), Mel Weitsman (sopranino recorder), Warner Jepson (piano), Sonny Lewis (tenor saxophone), James Lowe (piano), Jeanie Brechan (keyboard) and Steve Reich (Wurlitzer electric piano).115116
The performance hall of the Tape Music Center was around 37 meters long with a small stage at the far end of the room.117 Carl collected the known information about the stage set-up: the two grand
pianos, the Wurlitzer electric piano and several other performers were on the ground level with the audience. The musicians were randomly situated over the performance space, but all were able to see each other and communicate the cues. The Wurlitzer and the Chamberlin organ were amplified. The organ was situated in a studio upstairs and was heard through loudspeakers in the concert hall. The concert also involved a real-time visual performance by Antony Martin. Martin “projected ‘a rhythmic/melodic light composition’ of various shapes and colours simultaneously with the music.”118
According to Carl, it is important to realize that In C, from the earliest performance, had an electronic aspect, and thus pioneered a mix of live performed electronic and acoustic instruments.119
It is unknown how many rehearsals the group had before the premiere, even Riley himself doesn’t remember fully. “I think we had one rehearsal with just about everybody, but I don’t think we ever had one with everybody, I’m almost positive of that”.120 One thing that did came up during the
rehearsals, was the difficulty to keep a common tempo throughout the work. Reich, being a percussionist himself, suggested to add a rhythmic element to keep the group together. It was decided that Brechan would play high C’s on the piano. This seemed to work and so the pulse was born.121
The participating musicians still think fondly of the premiere. Reich: “I think it [the interaction] was excellent. I’ve always been a chamber music type of composer and player, and In C brings the best of
113 Carl 2009, p. 45
114 Ibid., p. 46 115 Ibid., p. 43
116 Potter 2000, p. 108 – 109
117 Carl 2009, p. 45. Mentioned in the text as “40 yards long, 25 wide and 25 high”. 118 Potter 2000, p. 109
119 Carl 2009, p. 46
120 Ibid., p. 44. Terry Riley interviewed by Robert Carl. 121 Potter 2000, p. 109
18 that out in people.”122 Oliveros remembers that there were a couple of “rocky stretches”123. It
seemed that even with these experienced musicians who knew the piece quite well, it sometimes was difficult to keep the music’s thread. Oliveros remembers that the tempo of the premiere was much lower than that of the later recording. She claims the tempo was around ♩= 69.124 Carl argues
that In C’s success after its premiere was due to the number of composers joining in the premiere performance. Inspired by the premiere, they incorporated qualities of In C into their own music. Carl thinks it likely that these performers were crucial to the survival and ongoing appreciation of the work.125
Alfred Frankenstein, classical music critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote a very positive review of the second concert on November 6th. The review was printed on November 8, 1964 and had the title ‘Music Like None Other on Earth’.126 For a bohemian, experimentalist composer to receive such
a praising review was extraordinary. Classical music, at that moment, was mostly concentrated on the serialist movement. It was “the first critical document to identify this new musical language and to be aware of that originality” according to Carl.127
2.7. After In C
After the premiere, Riley did not, as one would expect, chase its success. Instead, he moved to New York in 1965 and sang in La Monte Young’s Theatre of Eternal Music for a couple of years.128 In 1968,
Columbia Records approached Riley for a recording of In C. The recording, which will be discussed in chapter 4.2, was an enormous success and meant the continued fame of In C and its composer. In 1969, Riley recorded a second album with Columbia Records which included two works: Poppy
Nogood and His Phantom Band (an elaboration of Dorian Reeds129), a piece that showed his evolved
work with tape experiments, and A Rainbow in Curved Air, a work that anticipated the keyboard compositions Riley would devote most of his time on over the next decade.130 A Rainbow in Curved
Air inspired many (rock)musicians, like The Soft Machine and The Who. Pete Townshend’s organ
parts in The Who’s Baba O’Riley were inspired by Riley’s work.131
In 1970, Riley met the North Indian raga vocalist, Pandit Pran Nath and became his disciple for 26 years. He devoted the following decade to studying Indian music, resulting in accompanying Pandit Pran Nath during concerts as a tanpura, tabla and vocal accompanist.132 During this time, Riley
disappeared from the public eye and largely gave up on notated composition.133 From 1971-81, Riley
taught Indian music at Mills College in Oakland. His compositions during the ‘70s were mostly electric-organ and keyboard improvisations, incorporating in his compositions influences of ragtime, non-Western modes and cyclic processes.134 As a solo keyboard performer, Riley frequently toured
122 Carl 2009, p. 49 – 50. Steve Reich interviewed by Robert Carl. 123 Ibid., p. 50. Pauline Oliveros interviewed by Robert Carl. 124 Ibid. 125 Ibid., p. 51 126 Ibid., p. 53 127 Ibid., p. 54 128 Strickland 1987, p. 106 129 Strickland 2001 [online] 130 Strickland 1987, p. 106 131 Service 2013 [online]
132 Official website of Terry Riley, “Biography.” [online] 133 Schwarz 1990 [online]
19 Europe.135 Recordings were made of Persian Surgery Dervishes (1971), Descending Moonshine
Dervishes (1976) and Shri Camel (1977).136
At the end of the ‘70s, Riley met with David Harrington of the Kronos Quartet, who inspired him to start composing for string quartet.137 The collaboration turned out to be a fruitful one, Riley has so
far composed 13 string quartets, amongst which Salome Dances for Peace, and many other well-known works, like Cadenza on the Night Plain and Crows Rosary for the Kronos Quartet.138 Riley’s
compositions after his compositional ‘break’ retained an improvisational feel, but did not sound anything like In C.139
Riley left Mills College at the beginning of the ‘80s. From 1989 – 1993, Riley led his own ensemble Khayal, an improvising performance group. With Jade Palace, a Carnegie Hall commission, he composed his first orchestral work.140 During recent years, Riley has been performing with multiple
different ensembles and musicians, among which his son, guitarist Gyan Riley. He regularly performs solo piano concerts of his own work.141 For his eightieth birthday, Nonesuch label released a box set
of his opuses, played by the Kronos Quartet.142 Riley continues to inspire a new generation of
composers, musicians and electronic producers with his old and new compositions.143
135 Ibid.
136 Strickland 1987, p. 106 – 107 137 Ibid., p. 108
138 Official website of Terry Riley, “Biography.” [online] 139 Schwarz 1990 [online]
140 Ibid.
141 Official website of Terry Riley, “Biography.” [online] 142 Colter Walls 2015 [online]
20
Chapter 3. – Analysis: In C – the score and the guidelines
3.1. The score
The first LP version of In C, issued by Columbia in 1968, presented the score on the sleeve of the disc. The single page of notated music was printed to give the listener a better understanding of the music. Ever since, the score of In C has been widely reproduced. It makes In C one of the more easily accessible scores, more readily available via copies than through its original source.144 This chapter
will present an in-depth look at the score of In C.
In C is above all a musical work that depends on the performers’ interpretation of the work. Because
of its musical concept, the work is highly changeable, meaning no performance will ever sound the same. “[…] because of the open elements of In C’s inherent structure, different performances will reveal different aspects of the work.”145 By studying both the score and some recordings of In C
(chapter 4), I will try to get a better understanding of the multiplicity of the work.
The score of In C consists of one single page with 53 modules (figure 1.1). These modules differ in length, ranging from only an eighth beat long (module 10) to thirty beats long (module 35). Each module can be repeated by the musicians ad libitum. All the musicians will move gradually from module 1 to 53. When everyone has reached module 53, the work ends.146
The rhythmic vocabulary of the work consists of even subdivisions. The work is made up of
sixteenths, eighths, quarters, halves and wholes. Through the work the pulse plays an important role. Originated as a practical necessity during the premiere, the pulse turned out to be one of the most defining and important features of the work.147 The pulse provides a rhythmic anchor, a clear steady
rhythm consisting of eighth notes played in the same tempo during the entire piece. In addition to its rhythmic component, the pulse guarantees there is always a C included in the harmonic content of the work.148 Even though the pulse has become accepted as a necessity, it is not required and there
are a few performances under the direction of the composer himself, that have managed to do without it.149 One of these performances will return in chapter 4.
3.2. The guidelines
As opposed to the first score, the current version has a set of written instructions or ‘guidelines’ (figure 3.1). Over the years, after hearing and participating in many performances of the work, Riley made a list of suggestions on how best to play In C. Riley himself has tried to convince musicians and audience that the performances of In C can better be seen as contributions to an ongoing exploration of the possibilities of the piece, rather than a mere reproduction of the score.150 This view on his
work is also visible in the choice of words of the guidelines: Riley leaves room for the musician’s own interpretation.151 144 Potter 2000, p. 109 145 Carl 2009, p. 57 146 Schwarz 1996, p. 44 147 Potter 2000, p. 109 148 Carl 2009, p. 58 149 Potter 2000, p. 111 150 Ibid., p. 109 151 Carl 2009, p. 60
21 The latest (2005) edition of the score of In C contains the following guidelines:
All performers play from the same page of 53 melodic patterns played in sequence.
A group of about 35 creates a rich full overlay but interesting performances have been created with many more or many less.
Patterns are to be played consecutively, with each performer having the freedom to determine how many times he or she will repeat each pattern before moving to the next. There is no fixed rule as to the number of repetitions a pattern may have, however, since performances normally average between 45 minutes and an hour and a half, it can be assumed that one would repeat each pattern somewhere between 45 seconds and a minute and ½ or longer.
It is very important that performers listen very carefully to one another and this means to occasionally drop out and listen. As an ensemble, it is desirable to vary dynamics as well as create group crescendos and diminuendos.
Each pattern can be played in unison or canonically in any alignment with itself or its neighboring patterns. One of the joys of playing IN C is the interaction of the players in polyrhythmic combinations that spontaneously arise among patterns. Some quite fantastic shapes will arise and disintegrate as the ensemble progresses through the piece.
It is important not to hurry from pattern to pattern but to stay on a pattern long enough to interlock with other patterns. As the performance progresses, performers should stay within 2 or 3 patterns of each other. It is important not to race too far ahead or lag too far behind the main patterns sounding.
The ensemble can be aided by the means of an 1/8th note pulse played on the high C’s of a piano or mallet
instrument. It is also allowed to use instead or with the pulse, improvised percussion to keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise. Care must be taken however that the percussion does not overwhelm the ensemble.
Players must take care to play each pattern precisely. The first rehearsal should have everyone playing a repetition of each pattern in unison before going on to rehearse sections of the piece.
The tempo is left to the discretion of the performers. Extremely fast is discouraged. When a performer is not playing, she should be conscious of the larger periodic composite accents that are sounding. When she re-enters she must be aware of what affect [sic] the entrance will have on the overall flow.
The ensemble should aim to merge into a unison at least once, but preferable [sic] often during the course of a performance. If all patterns seemed to be played too much in unison a player should try to offset his pattern by and [sic] 1/8th note or other value so as to create a feeling of shifting alignments. It is OK to transpose patterns. Take care when
transposing, especially with patterns in running 16th notes. This can create a very muddy sound. Also all instruments should
aim at a blend at [sic] no one instrument should stick out except momentarily. Rhythmic augmentation of patterns can be effective.
Players may omit patterns that are too difficult or unsuitable for their instrument.
Amplification of instruments is allowed to help achieve a balanced dynamics [sic]. Electronic instruments are also welcome.
IN C usually ends this way:
When each performer arrives at figure #53, he or she stays on it until the entire ensemble has arrived there. The group then makes a large crescendo and diminuendo a few times and then each player drops out when he or she wishes. Figure 3.1 Guidelines accompanying the score of Terry Riley’s In C, edition 2005152
The guidelines state, for example, the ideal number of players to be used in a performance. While Riley himself suggests a group of 35, Keith Potter argues that the best performances known to date have used between ten and twenty musicians. “Anything much larger risks degenerating into a free-for-all, discouraging the performers from attempting the kinds of close counterpoint characterizing the most successful versions.”153 The four recordings analysed in chapter 4 are all played by
ensembles consisting of 12 - 17 performers.
Instrumentation remains unspecified. Riley allows the use of electronic instruments and
amplification, he even allows some “improvised percussion to keep the rhythm of the ensemble precise”.154 He encourages the use of singing. Arguably, because of Riley’s intensive study and
practice of Indian vocal traditions. It is furthermore allowed to use transposition at the octave, making In C accessible for almost all instruments. Players are allowed to use augmentation or diminution, making the faster modules available for bass-register instruments.155
152 Ibid., p. 58 – 59
153 Potter 2000, p. 111 154 See figure 3.1 155 Ibid.
22 Keith Potter mentions, notably, that although In C is widely labeled as a hippie composition - that embraces the idea of the more the merrier and encourages musicians to do their own thing - Riley’s one rule is for the musicians to work closely together. He encourages close listening and discourages musicians to draw too much attention to themselves or their instrument, for it would ruin the structure of the work.156
3.3. Rhythmic vocabulary
Let us take a closer look at the score itself (see figure 1.1). When we look at the rhythmic vocabulary of In C, the first thing to notice is the difference in length of the separate modules. Following Robert Carl’s example157, I have counted the beats in quarter notes per module and presented this in the
following chart (see figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 Duration of modules of In C
The chart shows clearly the difference in length per module. We could speculate that Riley created premeditated wave-like patterns in the score. From module 1 – 15, the modules show a slow build-up in duration, before dropping off quickly. During modules 16 – 34, the durations seem to rise and fall in a generally symmetric pattern. Through modules 35 till the end, the durations per module alternate between short and longer modules. It seems that Riley paid careful attention to the shaping of time-flow and phrasing in the separate modules. Longer modules are interspersed with short modules, see for example modules 6, 7 and 8.158
Another rhythmical aspect to consider is the rhythmic vocabulary of the modules. Carl catalogued the combination of rhythmic content per module. His research159 shows a gradual variation in the
156 Ibid., p. 112 – 113
157 Carl 2009, p. 63. Figure 3.2 is inspired by Robert Carl’s example. His chart however, presented on page 63 of his book
Terry Riley’s In C, turned out to contain some errors: the durations of modules 12, 39 and 42 are not presented correctly there. 158 Ibid. 159 Ibid., p. 62. Figure 4.2. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
Duration of modules of In C
(beats in quarter notes per module)
23 rhythmic content of the modules. In C starts with eighths and quarter notes, gradually introducing longer notes and sixteenths. At module 22, the work has showcased its full range of rhythmic values. Modules 22 – 26 are worth an extra look. Consisting of eighths in the original score, the modules are nowadays printed as dotted quarters instead.160 Since the sounding pulse is an eighth note, the
figures in modules 22 – 26 have longer-held tones, creating a sort of resting point between the rhythmically more active modules before and after.161 Also, because of the dotted notes, there is a
slight “shaving of lengths”162, creating a sense of acceleration. This will be visible in the recordings in
chapter 4. Modules 27 – 34 have - just like the starting modules - a wide range of rhythmic figures, leading up to module 35, the single real melody of the work and the module with the maximum harmonic conflict.163 Module 35 combines almost every rhythmic value of the piece in one single
module. The remaining modules of the piece reaffirm the sixteenth note as the most dominant value in the work. Hereby reversing the rhythmical process of modules 1 – 21.164
When looking at the rhythmic units and the durations of the modules, we can see that the work seems to have two musical peaks: module 22 and module 35. The piece gradually rises to module 22 - where the texture shifts in many ways -, remains on a plateau until module 35 - which displays the melodic peak of the work - and from there resolves into the remaining modules. This is underlined by the number of different pitch classes per module in In C, or the work’s “harmonic density”.165 This
harmonic density is limited per module. Gradually, Riley introduces new pitch classes into the harmonic language of In C. Starting with a C and E in module 1, he introduces F in module 2, G in module 4 etc. Not surprisingly, modules 22 – 26 and module 35 are the modules with the most comprehensive set of pitch classes. Modules 22 – 26 consisting each of five pitch classes, module 35 has nine.
On a side note, the above mentioned is all based on the score alone. In a performance, each module would be combined with the surrounding modules, making the total amount of pitch classes at any given moment possibly even higher.
3.4. Motivic transformation and rhythmic displacement
Before we turn to In C’s harmonic features, it is worthwhile to take a look at the motivic
transformations Riley applies in the work. When looking at the beginning of In C, modules 1 – 5 seem to showcase Riley’s technique. We have seen that the pitch class grows from two to four (module 1 starts with C/E, F/G are added in modules 2 – 5). Module 1 starts with a repeated quarter note, preceded by a grace-note upbeat. At the same time the pulse (a continuous eighth note) starts playing. Module 2 changes the rhythmic vocabulary to eighth and quarter notes, module 3 – 5 contain only eighth notes. Considering the performance context, the slow shifting of the pitch class makes the listener hear the same modal content even though different players might be playing different modules at the same time.
But Riley also plays with rhythmic displacement. He transforms the rhythmic profile of module 2 into that of module 3 by changing module 2’s quarter note to an eighth note in module 3. Module 3 starts with the same note (an E), but this time the eighth note is preceded by a rest. In the following
160 Potter 2000, p. 114. The dotted quarters are apparently easier to play for most instruments. 161 Carl 2009, p. 62
162 Ibid., p. 63 163 Potter 2000, p. 114 164 Carl 2009, p. 63 165 Ibid., p. 61
24 modules 4 and 5, Riley replaces the rest, creating with module 5 a rhythmical palindrome of module 4. Riley uses a similar technique for modules 9 – 13, 31 – 34, 36 – 41 and 49 – 53. Because of the displacement, the rhythm seems to change directions, thus demanding the listeners’ and the musicians’ attention. It creates a balancing act, a sense of change that is perceptible but difficult discern.166
Modules 22 – 26 show an even more rigorous form of displacement. Throughout the modules, Riley shifts the rhythmic weight and creates a form of rhythmic rotation. Each module is a rising scale based on E Aeolian (E/F sharp/G/A/B). Module 22 emphasizes the E by repeating it five times. The module ends on an eighth note (B). Module 23 starts with an eighth note (E), followed by a five-times repeated F sharp. Module 24 starts with two eighth notes (the E and F sharp) and repeats the
following G five times. Etcetera. Thus, the five modules all start with the follow-up pitch class, but also with a follow-up in number of eighth notes (from 0 until 4 eighth notes in module 26). The progression serves a harmonic function. Each note of the scale gets the utmost attention. The music works itself slowly up, until it reaches its peak: the B in module 26. This B serves an important voice-leading function. Arguably, the B could still be sounding when the first musicians arrive at module 29 (a C triad), modifying the B into a leading tone towards C.167
One last remarkable thing to notice is Riley´s use of identical modules during the work. There are three modules that appear twice in In C. Modules 10, 11 and 18 are the same as modules 41, 36 and 28. The modules are not exact palindromes when it comes to their position in the work, but their placing does seem to highlight modal changes.Modules 10 & 41 and 11 & 36 both seem to define a modulation towards G. Modules 18 & 28 enclose the passage of modules 22 – 26.168
3.5. Harmonic analysis
But, if module 10 seems to define a modulation towards G, is In C really in C? There is no doubt in the first modules: In C at least starts in C. The first note played is the pulse (a C eighth note) and the first note of the first module is also a C. However, here Riley already slowly shifts the harmonic weight a little. The played C is a grace note to an E. Modules 2 – 4 fill the rest of the melodic scale by adding F and G. Modules 6 – 7 emphasize the C. Module 8 emphasized the F – G motive. The D does not occur, creating a “gap-step”169 effect as with a pentatonic scale.
Carl argues that the first modules of In C are not in C Major, but in C Ionian. There seems to be no strong dominant throughout this passage. He also argues that the harmonic flow of In C does not consist of tonal centers, but rather of modal ones.170 Modulation does happen throughout the work,
but it is “effected by the careful shifting of weight assigned to the function of individual pitches within a given module.”171 This is accomplished by the context and the placement of the different
pitches in the various modules of the work.
We must, however, not forget the unpredictable character of In C: since the performer can choose how often to repeat a module, changes between In C’s modal centers can be blurred. This gives performers the opportunity to control these modulations and play with them. The shifts from one 166 Ibid., p. 64 167 Ibid., p. 65 168 Ibid., p. 66 169 Ibid., p. 68 170 Ibid. 171 Ibid.
