Perspectives of New Music Perspectives of New Music

Shedding Some Light on Donatoni's Lumen
Author(s): Guillermo Luppi

Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Winter 2016), pp. 179-195
Published by: Perspectives of New Music
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7757/persnewmusi.54.1.0179
Accessed: 28-09-2017 16:25 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Perspectives of New Music
This content downloaded from 193.170.129.228 on Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:25:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SHEDDING SOME LIGHT ON
DONATONI’S LUMEN
GUILLERMO LUPPI
INTRODUCTION: BRIEF CONTEXTUALIZATION OF LUMEN
Franco Donatoni
T HE PRODUCTION OF THE ITALIAN COMPOSER
extends precisely throughout the second half of the twentieth cen-
tury, his first work being from 1950 (String Quartet no. 1) and his last
one from the year 2000 (ESA [In Cauda V ], for orchestra). We can
divide his works into three different periods, according to his own
words. First, the negative period, which extends from his first works
until the end of the 60s. Next, the transition period, which occurred
during the 70s. Lastly, the positive period, which began in the 80s and
continued until the completion of his last work. The present work is
from the year 1975, therefore occurring in the middle of the transition
period and of his career.
The 70s were a very difficult time for Donatoni. With his approach
to musical composition, he entered into a crisis: he no longer felt any
enthusiasm for serialism, aleatoricism, or combinatory automatism,
where the composer had no subjective involvement (Wright 2000).
The death of his master and friend, Bruno Maderna, in 1973 also
contributed to Donatoni’s depression. As a result, he stopped
180 Perspectives of New Music
composing and became a copyist. We encounter this crisis reflected in

the amount of works composed between 1971 and 1974—only six for
this otherwise prolific composer.
Nevertheless, after the end of the year 1974, he regains his passion
for composing. As a result, he adapts his approach towards musical
composition, as reflected in the techniques employed and, consequently,
in the resulting sonority: his works after 1975 become much more
confident and intense in comparison to his first works, in which he
cared mostly for the logic of the musical process rather than in its
expressiveness. Post 1975, he starts to develop a more ludic, imagi-
native style, where the first impulse of the musical idea has its own
strength and creates its own path through the composition. This is what
Donatoni later called L’esercizio ludico dell’invenzione (the ludic exer-
cise of the invention). This exercise manifested a positive point of view
in converting the compositional activity not into something hermetic
or esoteric, as in his negative period, but instead into a playful space.
This change of mindset led Donatoni to compose many works that
highly impressed international audiences. Those of utmost importance
were: Ash (1976), Jeux and Spiri (both from 1977), and, of course,
Lumen, written in the memory of Luigi Dallapiccola, which is less
known than the three other works. The materials used by Donatoni in
this period were frequently minimal, consisting in a very compressed
idea or gesture, which is to be found attached to the continual process
of mutations. As we will further explore, the composer classified his
procedures in a very precise way, and even if these characteristics are
more explicit in his works after the 80s, we most importantly
encounter many of them in Lumen.
IMPORTANT IDEAS PRESENT IN DONATONI’S POSITIVE PERIOD
One of the composers that Donatoni admired the most was Béla
Bartók. In one article from the year 1982 entitled “Presenza di Bartók,”
the Italian composer esteems the String Quartet no. 4 because of the
presence of the following four characteristics:
1. Its cellular exposition and organic growth;
2. Its expansion without a development of the materials;
3. The juxtaposition of organisms, mutations, and evolutions;
4. Static pulsations and tone continuity.
Shedding Some Light on Donatoni’s Lumen 181
Even though if this article was written seven years after Lumen, and
considering that the first half of the 70s was a time of personal crisis and
research of new expressions, in the present work we find most of the
characteristics that Donatoni pointed out from Bartók’s string quartet
in a somehow prophetic manner. The Italian composer gets further
than just an abstraction of a few ideas, and decides to develop them in
a very personal way. For example, from the idea of “juxtaposition of
organisms” he created the notion of Codes, which are:
“compositional tools that serve to keep not only the stability but
also the [musical] movement. . . . The dichotomy between the
stability and movement is manifested in a variety of codes that can
be categorized in panels and filters. These codes may be applied to
various elements of a composition, such as orchestration, form,
gesture, and tone.” (Decker 2008)
The stability by the use of panels can be gained by the juxtaposition of

static harmonic fragments and through movement by the use of ele-
ments in a “first scene.” In conclusion, panels are fragments of music
that are susceptible to being redefined according to new contexts. This
allows the composer to manipulate the material in an economical way,
while also providing different change rates in the intervallic content.
The second code category is named filters. These provide the media
for achieving growth without development, through a gradual process
of tone continuity and evolution. Although the term “filter” refers to a
process of separating heterogeneous elements, this process, just as it is
applied by Donatoni himself in his works, may be revised by adding
new components to it. Further analyzing the difference between the
two types of codes, filters have the capability of diminishing, adding, or
changing musical objects, while panels consist in a re-contextualization
of only the same musical object. (See Example 1.)
Eight years after writing “Presenza di Bartók,” Donatoni’s 1990
pamphlet illustrates key guides and patterns that can be found in his
positive period. Summarizing them, these arrangements are:
• Code complexity;
• Simplicity of results;
• Difficulty (external) of knowing the nature of the code.
Next, we explore if these characteristics can be encountered in Lumen.
codes
filters panels
EXAMPLE 1
OVERALL GENERALITIES
INSTRUMENTATION
Lumen (from latin, light) is a chamber work for six instruments: two
woodwinds (piccolo flute or ottavino, and bass clarinet), two percus-
sion instruments (celesta and vibraphone), and two string instruments
(viola and violoncello). The particularity of this score resides in the
contrast between the woodwind instruments and the similarity
between the percussion instruments; in the former, we find a huge
range difference (the piccolo flute being the instrument of highest
pitch in the orchestra and the bass clarinet one of the lowest pitches in
the woodwinds family). Regarding the vibraphone and the celesta, we
encounter two struck idiophones that have similar timbres and range.
If we add the strings to this assortment of instruments, we encounter
an unbalanced condition between the bass and middle pitches versus
the high ones. Not only do we have a larger amount of instruments in
the bass and middle registers, but also a higher quantity due to their
tone characteristics and dynamical possibilities. It is said that Donatoni
did not approve of his students composing on the piano, and usually
encouraged (and often challenged) them to write for unusual instru-
ment combinations. Perhaps there is no better example of this behavior
in his career than in the presently analyzed work.
FORM
The original sheet of Lumen is divided into nine sections, with each
section holding some unique features of its own. Nevertheless, this
does not mean that the overall form of the work matches with that
segmentation. These sections do not always involve a formal limit,
even if, at times, they coincide with it.
Global Contrast
Form Section Bars Rate Characteristics
A 1 1–16 High One homorhythmic level texture.
B 2 17–38 High Each family of instruments has its
own texture.
C 3 39–49 Medium/ Piccolo flute holds major
High prominence in this third passage,
followed by the celesta. The
clarinet accompanies the strings,
while the vibraphone does not
participate in the panel.
4 50–56 Very Low The bass clarinet gradually
approaches the ottavino. The
celesta plays in a similar way as in
3, while the strings play in
pizzicato, separately. Overall
rhythmical acceleration.
5 57–58 None Ottavino playing is more agile,
clarinet gradually ceases to
accompany it. The celesta keeps
playing in a similar way, and
strings play in contrary motion.
6 59–62 Low Maximum intensity in the work.
Three very different levels
simultaneously. Trills and glissandi
in all registers. Vibraphone
reappears. Dynamics from piano
to fortissimo, including sforzati.
D 7 63–64 Medium Similar to a re-exposition,
........conclusive section........
pianissimo dynamics. Strings

continue in a similar way as in the
previous panel.
8 65–68 None Descending gesture, decreasing
dynamics. Gradual vanishment.
9 69–72 None Motivic disintegration in a relaxed
texture, until sound extinction.
EXAMPLE 2: FORM
In Example 2, we carefully examine how panels may be grouped

with the resulting form of the work. As we can see, considering the
levels of contrast for making a formal division of the piece, it is clear
that Lumen has a four-part form. These sections do not stand for a role
in the musical speech, as is the common practice period: B and C are
not developments nor parts far in character from A. The piece shows
instead the form of a living organism. Considering the chronological
time of Lumen according to the formal segmentation, we can note that
an average interpretation of the work lasts about five minutes, where
section 1 extends for one minute, section 2 a bit less than half a
minute, section 3 around half a minute as well, and section 4 one
minute. This division seems to suggest two things: first, that time plays
a hierarchical role in the formal organization of the piece; and second,
that symmetry is an important principle behind this organization. In
the following sections I will demonstrate how these two features are
present in different aspects. Further, I will show in detail how these
features arise from the thorough employment of Donatoni’s codes,
described above, together with his philosophy of the musical work
during his positive period.
MATERIALS
Three basic elements that gradually vary between sections are

present in Lumen. They continually grow and decrease, playing as a
figure or as a background in the overall texture, and they may saturate
or lighten the speech, altering the perception of the form. These three
elements (see also Example 3) are:
1. The percussive designs: played mostly by the strings and, towards

the end of the piece, also played by the bass clarinet;
2. The long notes: serving as a background, they appear generally in

the woodwinds, and also occasionally in the strings towards the
end of the piece;
3. The arpeggios: usually played by the celesta and the vibraphone.
To these three elements mentioned above, filters are applied in

order to generate movement. They basically consist of the following
procedures:
1. Augmentation or diminution of a group by adding or subtracting

components;
2. Separating gestures by expanding or contracting the time-span

between them;
3. Replacing notes with silences or vice versa;
4. Isomorphic transformations—retrograde, inversion, RI, circular

permutation, and transposition of the elements of a group.
EXAMPLE 3
ANALYSIS BY SECTIONS
PART 1 (A)
In this first section we find a percussive, homorhythmic gesture

played by all instruments (with the exception of the woodwinds). The
strings play here and all over Lumen (except for section 6 when they
trill over the same notes and one semitone higher) the fifths C-G-D-A,
distributed in both instruments and played in contrary motion. If we
check the notes played by the vibraphone, we encounter fifths as well:
Eb, C#, F#, while the celesta shows E, F, Bb and B. The strings
constantly play their fifths, and the percussion instruments add notes
to their parts from the low pitches until the high B6 (C4 being the
Once the G# is played by the vibraphone, we obtain all twelve notes

central C). (See Example 4.)
of the chromatic collection distributed by fifths between the four men-

tioned instruments. The notes played so far had a fixed registration,
and once the chromatic collection has reached that point, some of the
notes are blurred away, and a slow transposition process of them
begins, in this case, in the percussion parts. This mechanism is not only
applied to the pitch organization of the entire first section, but also to
the entire work: once all the twelve notes are obtained (actually eight,
because the notes played by the strings are not played by any other
instrument), they are transposed in register and instrument. What gives
dynamism to this first section is the evolving distance between the
attacks on different places of the meter grid. We may note as well that
there is a correspondence of the gesture every two bars, matching even
and odd bars—this correspondence will be present as well throughout
the rest of the work.
Examining how these mechanisms are applied, bar number 8
presents a circular permutation of the third silence to the first place of
the group; the twelfth bar is in the same location as bar number 4
(besides the anticipation of the strings). The fifth bar compared to bar
3 is a slightly varied retrograde; bar 7 as compared to bar 5 is a circular
permutation of the space contained in each half note, shown in
Example 5.
EXAMPLE 4: BARS 3 AND 4
EXAMPLE 5: BARS 5 (TOP) AND 7 (BOTTOM)
EXAMPLE 6: CONCLUSION OF A
As Example 5 illustrates, there is a retrograde of the components

contained in each half note of bar 7 with respect to bar 5. Each com-
ponent of the half note demonstrates different transformations—A
presents a circular permutation of element 1 with 2, B is a retrograde,
and C presents the same disposition of components (except that the
space occupied before by a quarter note in bar 7 has an eighth note
and a complementary silence). Between bars 9 and 11 we find that the
half rest occupies the first two parts of 9 and the last two of 11, while
approaching both bars. We can imagine a mirror in the second pulse of
bar 10, and see that after that point, all the rest of this first section that
was played until then gets reflected and varied with the procedures
mentioned above. We can see this in a more apparent way in bars 13,
14, 15, and 16, where the pursuit of symmetry is self-evident. (See
Example 6.)
PART 2 (B)
A new element is introduced in the second section: the resonance,

which is in the charge of the woodwinds. We find that the notes that
were played vertically in the percussion instruments now unfold
(plus the duplication of the Eb). The bass clarinet serves as well to
horizontally, respecting the pitch height of the last chord of Section 1
in a similar way with the Bb5 that was played by the celesta. The bass
prolong some of the notes of the cello (D3) while the ottavino works
clarinet prolongs the sonority of the string instruments, and the

ottavino does the same in regard to the percussion part.
notes (Eb, E, F, F#, Ab, Bb, B), and even in the same pitch height until
Between bars 17 (Example 7) and 23, the celesta plays the same
bar 21, where the transposition process begins. Even if the notes are
almost the same ones, we find that none of these presentations of the
gesture are replied to in an exact way; there is always a circular
permutation of the notes applied to the group, which adds or deletes
some of those elements. The same occurs in the vibraphone part, but
only four notes are played (C#, Eb, E, F) while incorporating notes
in a tighter way. This is due to the fact that between bars 17 and 21,
played by the celesta. When doing such modifications, we obtain new

contrapuntal relations between all the participating objects. All twelve
notes of the chromatic mode are to be found in every part of the work
from these bars on, creating a web of relations hard to calculate, and
making the nature of the code hard to comprehend. Nevertheless, at the
same time, a simplicity of result is reached this way, thanks to the
coherence in the use of the minimal materials, achieving what Donatoni
was aspiring to obtain for his positive period.
EXAMPLE 7: GESTURE
Proceeding with this second section, focusing on the woodwinds, we

notice an irregular imitation, separated at a one bar distance, from the
bass clarinet to the piccolo flute (in bars 19 and 20 this imitation is at
an exact rhythm and in contrary motion). The relation of both
instruments varies throughout this second section—after bar 23 they
play in a more synchronized way, while the contrary motion between
them is preserved. From this bar until the end of the section, the game
between both instruments approaches and takes distance from a
synchronized to a distanced rhythmic, special, and directional imitation.
After that place we see a tendency to expand the range of the pitches
toward the high, and we can examine this behavior especially in the
celesta, where in bars 29 and 30 it reaches its highest notes (B6).
Towards the end of Part 2 (bars 32–38) we reach the peak of
redundancy in the whole work, provoked by the insistence of the same
types of operations applied to the same materials and the lack of new
information to call our attention (or, better said, because at that point
the nature of the code implied turns evident). The long notes in the
woodwinds are slowly reduced to short notes until they eventually
assimilate in to the vibraphone towards bar 43. The formal separation
between Sections 2 and 3 is reached precisely because of the gradual
rupture of that uniformity, and the elements that lead the novelty are,
once again, the long notes, since now they appear to be played by the
strings tremolando (bar 35), generating a new texture.
As we can observe in Example 8, the distance between both gestures

is compressed to a distance shorter than a half-note. This fragment
shows how even in the static parts there is change and permanence;
never in the whole work is there an exact repetition of a whole gesture,
although some components are eventually repeated. The celesta com-
pletes an exact repetition of bar 33 in bar 34, but the vibraphone part
keeps only one note in its register when compared to bar 33. In
addition, its expression is expanded to nearly double the length. This
variation procedure is kept until bar 39, where we arrive at Part 3.
EXAMPLE 8: BARS 33 AND 34, CELESTA AND VIBRAPHONE PARTS
PART 3 (C)
The third part of the work occurs between bars 39 and 62. Not only is
the third part the largest one, but it is also the most varied and dynamic,
and includes four different inner segmentations. Compared to Part 2,
the main changes to be found here are that the long notes played by
the woodwind instruments tend to dissolve by diminution and associ-
ate with the celesta first (vibraphone does not play until bar 59). This
instrument starts to decelerate and to reach longer notes, achieving a
role interchange between woodwinds and percussion. The bass clarinet
gets separated from the piccolo flute by assimilating to the strings sec-
tion, where they play in synchronization. Regarding the high notes of
the celesta, we find a similar approach to those played by the ottavino,
having many of them in common and playing both trills simultaneously.
The part corresponding to the left hand of the celesta still has the usual
notes of the old gesture.
Having a closer look at how this very interesting textural interchange
gets unified, in bar 39 the bass clarinet starts to play small groups of
notes (E and F) and gradually incorporates new chromatic sounds to
its collection.
Even if the imitation is irregular, we can note that the celesta

anticipates the part of the piccolo flute and also the bass clarinet part,
to some extent. This latter instrument always plays at a minor second
(or composed ninths) from the piccolo flute, and this relation between
them lasts for all of Part 3. As the bass clarinet gains presence by
having a more participative speech, it starts to imitate in exact form the
motion of the ottavino at that semitone distance. Therefore, what
finally happens is that it starts to separate from the strings progres-
sively. The strings, on their side, gain presence due to their diversity of
attacks (punta d’arco, tremolo, pizzicato alla corda, etc.); not only do
they have a major presence, but also a major relevance due to those
significant changes.
From bar 43 on, we notice a major density and intensity in the
texture. The long notes, which used to be encountered in the wood-
winds, appear now in the strings (Example 9). From bar 45 until the
culminant point reached in bars 57–58, there’s an increasing acceleration
process. The high notes of the celesta install at a semitone distance of
the bass clarinet and piccolo flute, provoking, with all the other charac-
teristics, a very dissonant and tense result.
Example 10 corresponds to parts of the ottavino occurring through-
out bars 53, 55, and 57, where a large crescendo appears. This crescendo
is obtained not only by increasing the intensity by them, but also by
expanding cellules in the unique way shown in the figure. Also, this
illustrates how there is a tendency to match pairs, and analogue
procedures are applied to the parts of the other instruments. The step
between Section 4 and Section 5 presents continuity in the broad sense
of the term, as I previously mentioned in the paragraph concerning
form. The present passage is nothing but a variation of bars 55 and 56.
In the inner form of this third section we can also find an approach to
symmetry—Section 3 began with the bass clarinet playing in a
pointillistic way with the strings, while the piccolo flute and the celesta
had a similar expression. This passage evolved until Section 4, where it
found its major growth, and towards Section 5 (bars 57 and 58)
everything decreases. We find at this point that the part of the bass
clarinet again rhythmically relates to the part of the strings (specifically
with its beginning) while they hold a particular expression in contrary
motion, and play legno battuto sul ponticello. The vibraphone is still not
participating while the celesta plays in a very similar way as in the
beginning of Section 3.
We now arrive at Section 6, the last of Part 3. It is the part of
highest density in Lumen. Here we encounter the limit of expansion of
the initial gestures. We find the large glissandi in the celesta trills at a
semitone distance over the fifths in the strings while the vibraphone
EXAMPLE 9: BAR 43
EXAMPLE 10: FILTERS APPLIED TO

CONSECUTIVE ODD BARS IN THE PICCOLO FLUTE
participates in order to reach the tutti by playing long notes with hard
mallets and synchronizing with the bass clarinet. The piccolo flute
plays in the pointillistic way that the bass clarinet was, by jumping from
its lower register to the higher one. The entire passage is played at a
fortissimo intensity, except for the bass clarinet that plays piano. This is
to create an echo effect of the vibraphone part, so as to prolong its
resonance as well as to be level in all the three registers.
PART 4
Even if Section 7 presents a very similar texture to the one of the

first section, featuring a substantial change regarding density between
panel 6 and the current one, we do not actually feel in the presence of
a re-exposition. Furthermore, I would argue the contrary—Section 4
works better as a conclusive section, where we find the disintegration
of the organism. Instead of a classical form, where we have exposition,
development, recapitulation, and ending (for making a parallel to the
sonata form), in the case of Lumen (and therefore to most of
Donatoni’s positive period), the correct analogy would best be made
with that of a living organism: birth, growth, death. Just as the
functioning of the work is organic, its conclusion would be coherent
with it. In Section 9 (Example 11), we find for the first time in the
work intervals played by the strings out of their respective part. This is
apparent in the piccolo flute (C, G, D, A) supporting the viola and
cello by playing those notes as harmonics. Once again, the celesta and
the vibraphone add the rest of the notes for keeping the chromatic
collection in the passage. But in this case, we see that the originating
The resulting collection reveals a minor scale from C#. The bass
fifths of each part are now to be found ordered in ascending scales.
clarinet plays a major third trill (D-F#) in the whole section, and the
vibraphone completes the twelve notes with its F. All this is kept until
the latter instrument reaches its complete extinction, which is the
moment where Lumen ends.
EXAMPLE 11: CONCLUSIVE SECTION
CONCLUSION
As can be observed in this analysis, Lumen presents all of the character-

istics that Donatoni identified in his writings about his positive period,
and also many of those that he admired in Bartók’s String Quartet no. 4
years before completion of the work. Even if Lumen has not been
stressed as an important work in Donatoni’s career, I argue that it has
major significance once we understand the personal development of his
compositional thought and his work as an aesthetic insight. As Lumen
was produced at the end of a personal period of crisis, and from the
exact middle of his period of production, it has the virtue of possessing
fragments from both his early and late styles.
REFERENCES
Decker, Bradley. 2008. “Preserving the Fragment: Franco Donatoni’s

Late Chamber Music.” Perspectives of New Music 46/2: 159–189.
De Nobili, Lorenzo. 1999. “L’estetica di Franco Donatoni e il
nichilismo di Emanuele Severino.” Diastema 13: 71–96.
Donatoni, Franco. 1975. Lumen. Milano: Edizioni Suvini Zerboni.
Musical score.
———. 1982. “Presenza di Bartók.” In Il sigaro di Armando, 87–91.
Milan: Edizioni Spirali.
———. 1990. “Questionnaire on Complexity in Music.” In Complex-
ity in Music?: An Inquiry into Its Nature, Motivation, and
Performability, ed. Joël Bons, 16. [Netherlands]: Gaudeamus Foun-
dation, the Nieuw Ensemble Foundation, and the Rotterdam Arts
Council.
Poirier, Alain. 2012. “Franco Donatoni: Trajectoires.” IRCAM. Last
modified 13 Feb. 2012. Accessed 3 Aug. 2012. http://brahms.ircam
.fr/composers/composer/1141/#parcours.
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. “Franco Donatoni.” Accessed 14 Nov.
2014. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Donatoni.
Wright, David. 2000. “Franco Donatoni.” Accessed 4 Nov. 2014.
http://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/franco-donatoni.pdf.

Perspectives of New Music Perspectives of New Music

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perspectives of New Music Perspectives of New Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shedding Some Light on Donatoni's Lumen

Author(s): Guillermo Luppi

INTRODUCTION: BRIEF CONTEXTUALIZATION OF LUMEN

composing and became a copyist. We encounter this crisis reflected in

IMPORTANT IDEAS PRESENT IN DONATONI’S POSITIVE PERIOD

1. Its cellular exposition and organic growth;

2. Its expansion without a development of the materials;

3. The juxtaposition of organisms, mutations, and evolutions;

4. Static pulsations and tone continuity.

The stability by the use of panels can be gained by the juxtaposition of

• Difficulty (external) of knowing the nature of the code.

Next, we explore if these characteristics can be encountered in Lumen.

pianissimo dynamics. Strings

In Example 2, we carefully examine how panels may be grouped

Three basic elements that gradually vary between sections are

1. The percussive designs: played mostly by the strings and, towards

2. The long notes: serving as a background, they appear generally in

3. The arpeggios: usually played by the celesta and the vibraphone.

To these three elements mentioned above, filters are applied in

1. Augmentation or diminution of a group by adding or subtracting

2. Separating gestures by expanding or contracting the time-span

3. Replacing notes with silences or vice versa;

4. Isomorphic transformations—retrograde, inversion, RI, circular

In this first section we find a percussive, homorhythmic gesture

Once the G# is played by the vibraphone, we obtain all twelve notes

of the chromatic collection distributed by fifths between the four men-

EXAMPLE 4: BARS 3 AND 4

EXAMPLE 5: BARS 5 (TOP) AND 7 (BOTTOM)

As Example 5 illustrates, there is a retrograde of the components

A new element is introduced in the second section: the resonance,

clarinet prolongs the sonority of the string instruments, and the

played by the celesta. When doing such modifications, we obtain new

Proceeding with this second section, focusing on the woodwinds, we

As we can observe in Example 8, the distance between both gestures

EXAMPLE 8: BARS 33 AND 34, CELESTA AND VIBRAPHONE PARTS

Even if the imitation is irregular, we can note that the celesta

EXAMPLE 10: FILTERS APPLIED TO

Even if Section 7 presents a very similar texture to the one of the

EXAMPLE 11: CONCLUSIVE SECTION

As can be observed in this analysis, Lumen presents all of the character-

Decker, Bradley. 2008. “Preserving the Fragment: Franco Donatoni’s

You might also like