Xenakis in Miniature - Style and Structure in A R

Xenakis in Miniature: Style and Structure in "à r.
(Hommage à Ravel)" for Piano (1987)

Author(s): Ronald Squibbs
Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 120-153
Published by: Perspectives of New Music
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25164508
Accessed: 06-09-2015 15:58 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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.
Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives of New Music.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Sun, 06 Sep 2015 15:58:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Xenakis inMiniature:
Style and Structure in
? R. (Hommage? Ravel)
for Piano (1987)
4 *- ? *
1? ?
Ronald Squibbs
Introduction
the early 1970s and the late 1990s Iannis Xenakis

Betweencomposed several short works for solo instruments and for small
ensembles. Because of their limited duration and minimal instrumenta
tion, these works may be thought of as miniatures in comparison to his
lengthier and more numerous chamber and orchestral works.1 Xenakis's
miniatures are attractive subjects for analytical study because, in spite of
their brevity and relative simplicity, they nevertheless demonstrate a mas
terly coordination of texture, pitch materials and temporal structure
comparable to that found in the larger works. The miniature that has
Xenakis inMiniature 121
been chosen for analysis here is a r. (Hommage a Ravel) for piano, which
was commissioned by the Radio-France International Festival at
Montpellier in 1987 as part of its commemoration of the fiftieth anniver
sary of Ravel's death. At twenty-one measures and just over two minutes
in duration, it is one of themost concentrated of Xenakis's works. While
the subtitle of a r. indicates that it is a tribute to Ravel, thework contains
little stylistic resemblance to the older composer's work except for a gen
eral virtuosity and brilliance of harmonic color. Stylistically it is much
more closely related to Xenakis's own chamber works from the same
period, works such as Jalons (1986), XAS (1987), and Waarg (1988),
which are particularly notable for their exuberance and intensity of
expression.
This analysis will examine the structure of ? r. from three perspectives:
first, texture, segmentation and formal design; second, sieve theory and
pitch-class sets; and finally temporal structure. Though these three per
spectives inevitably intertwine somewhat through the course of the
article, each will be the principal focus of a separate section below.
Texture, Segmentation and Formal Design
In Xenakis's instrumental works, large numbers of individual sounds tend

to coalesce into textures that are homogeneous with respect to rhythm,
density, dynamics, articulation, and pitch collection. Relative homogene
ity ismaintained even when the temporal intervals between the sounds
are randomized, as in the process of stochastic composition, for in such
cases the average of the resultant texture remains constant.2 Sud
density
den changes in any of these characteristics have the effect of setting off a
given texture from other, surrounding textures, thus dividing themusical
surface into clearly perceptible segments. These segments are the con
tainers for the sound masses forwhich Xenakis iswell known, and they
serve as the primary structural units upon which the form of a work is
based. As such, they are subject to hierarchical groupings that form the
basis for larger structural units.3 Segments group together to form sec
tions and sections, in turn, group together to form parts. A small work
will typically divide into no more than two or three parts.
In Xenakis's music from the 1970s and 1980s, two or three distinct
types of textures are generally featured in a given work. In ? r. two types
of textures are used: simultaneities and random walks. Simultaneities are
common to several different styles of music, and therefore do not require
any particular technical explanation. Their role in Xenakis's stylistic
development, however, isworth noting. As Mihu Iliescu has pointed out,
the simultaneities inXenakis's latemusic appear to be a transformation of
122 Perspectives of New Music
the idea of sound masses?formerly manifested as collections of discon

nected, individual sonic elements?into large chords, resulting in "verti
cal blocks" of "harmonic/timbral color."4
In contrast to the transformation of sound masses into simultaneities,
the stylistic evolution of the random walk in Xenakis's music is not so
simple, and therefore requires a more detailed explanation. A general def
inition of a random walk is "the movement of something in successive
steps, the direction, length, or other property of each step being governed
by chance independently of preceding steps."5 Random walks are used as
models of physical processes such as Brownian motion, which is "the
ceaseless erraticmotion of fine particles in suspension."6 Xenakis has used
both terms interchangeably to describe a type of sinuous melodic contour
introduced into his instrumental music in the early 1970s. These melodies
have their origin inXenakis's first attempts to extend the principles of sto
chastic composition into the domain of sound synthesis through the gen
eration of stochastic waveforms.7 Graphic representations of stochastic
waveforms consist of continuous lines that feature irregular jumps in
amplitude with respect to time. When the vertical dimension of the graphs
was interpreted as pitch instead of amplitude, the irregular shapes con
tained in the graphs resulted in a distinctive type of instrumental melody.
In order to facilitate the performance of themelodies by instrumentalists,
pitch-time graphs of random walks were transcribed into standard musical
notation. Xenakis's first instrumental work to employ random walks is
Mikka for violin (1971), inwhich a continuous glissando moves through
pitch space with unpredictable changes of speed and direction.8 When the
notion of random walks was subsequently transferred from music for
strings to music for keyboard instruments, the continuous motions that
had formerly been represented by glissandi were replaced by rapid linear
motions through large pitch collections, the latter lending a distinctive
harmonic flavor to the random walks.
Xenakis explains the connection between random walks and pitch col
lections in the preface to the score ofMists for piano (1980), where he
states that one of the main ideas in thatwork is "the exploration of pitch
series (scales) and their cyclic transpositions. . . .Their exploitation in
sound ismade either in a contiguous manner (melodically) or by means
of stochastic distributions ... in order to produce sound clouds of
defined density; in short,with the aid of random walks (Brownian move
ments)."9 This statement suggests that the sound "clouds" (i.e., masses)
and the melodic presentations of the scales both may be referred to as
random walks. While it is indeed true that the individual elements in sto
chastic sound masses are connected by randomly occurring intervals in
pitch and time (like the irregular jumps in a random walk), the distin
guishing feature of the random walks that Xenakis introduced into his
instrumental music in the 1970s is their perceptible continuity. It is in

this specific sense that random walks are referred to in the present analy
sis, for those that appear in ? r. are of the melodic variety only, the sto
chastic sound masses having been replaced in this work by
simultaneities.10
The random walks in ? r. are invariably presented in pairs,
thereby
establishing a two-voice texture as a norm within thework. Segment 1,
shown in Example 1, contains thework's firstpair of random walks. Both
walks are rhythmically identical, consisting entirely of triplet thirty
second notes, but each one changes direction independently of the other.
The walk in the lower staff changes pitch on every note, but the one in
the upper staffpasses initially fromA4 to G(t4, where it remains formuch
of the first beat of the measure.11 Similarly, once the upper walk reaches
G6 near the end of beat 2, it remains there for three triplet thirty-second
notes. The presence of repeated pitches in these two
places in the upper
walk effectively changes the rate of speed at which itmoves through its
scale. (The pitch repetitions also prefigure the more extensive use of
repeated articulations later on in the work, the structural importance of
which will be discussed shortly.) Because of the pitch
repetitions in the
upper walk the two walks differ in the rate of speed at which theymove
through the pitch material, despite their identical surface rhythms. The
walks are coordinated harmonically, however, since both of them move
through the same scale. Another coordinating factor is dynamics, for the
markings in the score indicate simultaneous changes in both walks. The
|J=46Mm|
2 segment
segment 3
? r.(Hommage
? Ravel)pourpianobyIannis
Xenakis. 1989
Copyright
byEditions
Salabert.
Allrightsreserved. bypermission.
Reprinted
EXAMPLE 1: ?R., MEASURES 1-2
first pair of walks thus demonstrates a balance between independent and

related characteristics, a balance that ismaintained within the other pairs
of random walks in ? r.
Segment 2 introduces thework's first simultaneity, an eight-note struc
ture on the firstbeat of measure 2. The juxtaposition of the random
walks in segment 1 with the simultaneity in segment 2 initiates an alter
nation between contrasting textural types that continues through seg
ment 10, as shown in the form chart in Example 2. Textures are
represented in the center of the chart by a strip of black and white
regions, the white regions symbolizing the random walks and the black
ones the simultaneities, respectively. The accumulation of black regions
in segments 10 through 13 represents a succession of simultaneities that
breaks up the previous pattern of alternating textures. These simultanei
ties are represented in the chart individually because of the precedent
established in segments 2,4, 6, and 8 that single simultaneities may stand
alone as discrete
segments.
The break in the pattern of alternating textural types that occurs fol
lowing segment 10 is the basis for the work's firstsectional division. This
is shown in Example 2 where the first section, A\, includes segments 1
through 9 and the second section, SI, begins with segment 10. (The "A"
in the section designation Al signifies "alternating textures," while the
"S" in 51 signifies "similar textures.") Although itmay at first appear that
segment 10 should be included in section A\ in order to complete the
alternation of random walks and simultaneities that was established by
segments 1 and 2, its placement at the beginning of 51 is intended to
reflect the particular sense of cohesiveness resulting from the direct suc
cession of similar textures in segments 10-3. While it is true that the
break in the pattern of alternating textures does not become apparent
until the arrival of segment 11, the force of the direct succession of two
simultaneitiesin segments 10 and 11 effectively overwhelms whatever
links segment 10 may have had to the random walks in segment 9. The
impression of radical structural change is reinforced by the succession of
two additional simultaneities in segments 12 and 13. The inclusion of
segment 10 in this group is further supported by the pitch structure of
the simultaneities. (See Example 3.) The exact repetition of the pitch
contents of segment 10 in segment 12 effectively divides the succession
of four simultaneities into pairs according to their pitch contents: the dif
fering pitch contents of the odd-numbered segments contrast with the
identical pitch contents of the even-numbered ones. In this way the
alternation of contrasting structural elements persists into 51, but now it
is temporarily transferred from the characteristic of texture to that of
pitch.
X fl> C3 Ln
t*t
.j62oftrtald_nttai)
2 T_r
IiIi_L
iI' I' iiiui
iIiIiB_|__,
ili
Ii
A2 per
??h EXAMPLE
2:CHART
FOR ? R.
i?i?s???*?S?*?S?*?te?"n?te?Is?ft
FORM
*(.ttctaatdunfa)-_nara?ras__3r
(.38oft?_-duafaO
I
_41
set
class
__(.
tftot?
14
duration) LI
nndkxn?___s
?7
I
pc
class
set by
parts
pc
parts
time
126 PerspectivesofNew Music
measure: 2 3 45 6 6 77
81112
segment: 2 4 6 8 10 11 12 13 15 18 20
measure: 13 13 14 14 16 16 17 17 19 21
segment: 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 38 40
EXAMPLE 3: SIMULTANEITIES IN ? R.
The identities of the textures have been very clear up to this point in
the work. With the arrival of segment 14 (measures 7-8), however, the
issue of textural ambiguity arises. Shown in Example 4, this segment con
sists of fifteen simultaneities. The short durational values of these simul
taneities and their overall wavelike contour, however, recall similar
characteristics in the random walks. Segment 14 is thus, from one per
spective, a "random walk of simultaneities" or, from another perspective,
a rather "thick" random walk whose four voices move in parallel motion
through a scale. The ambiguous textural status of this segment?some
where between a random walk and a group of simultaneities?is indi
cated by the gray coloration of its region in the chart in Example 2.
? r.(Hommage
Xenakis. 1989
Copyright
byEditions
Salabert.
All rights
reserved. bypermission.
Reprinted
EXAMPLE 4: ? R., SEGMENT 14 (MEASURES 7-8)
Textural ambiguities in Xenakis's music tend to serve as signposts for

structural characteristics of global importance in addition to lending vari
ety to the musical surface locally.12 In ? r., the "random walk of simul
taneities" turns out to be a miniature reflection of the large-scale,

wavelike descent articulated by the long-held simultaneities over the
course of the work. This descent is illustrated in Example 3, where the
simultaneities are lifted out of their immediate musical contexts and are
shown with unspecified durations. The contour of this succession of
simultaneities ismore complex than the contour of segment 14 (compare
with Example 4), but both successions move generally in a descending
direction with doublings-back along the way. On the global level, the
large-scale descent of the long-held simultaneities is clearly perceptible
over the course of the two-minute composition and contributes to the
conclusiveness of the work's ending. This descent thus constitutes an
event of major structural significance, towhich attention is aptly directed
by the appearance of a similar event inminiature form in segment 14.
Following the interruption created by the ambiguous segment 14, the
succession of long-held simultaneities that began in segment 10 resumes
in segment 15, thus bringing the notion of similar textures back into
focus. This notion appears to be transferred to the random walks through
their direct succession in segments 16 and 17. The inclusion of both of
these segments in section 51 is challenged, however, by several factors.
Most importantly, the alternation of random walks and simultaneities
with which the work began returns in segments 17 through 21. The
return of this familiar pattern provides a basis upon which to group these
segments together to form section Al. Furthermore, the resumption of a
pattern of alternating textures at this point is heralded by changes in
tempo and articulation, as shown in Example 5. At the beginning ofmea
sure 10, the tempo shifts abruptly from J = 46, which was established in
measure 1, to J= 36. Simultaneously the articulation of the notes in the
random walks changes from single to double attacks. These changes
occur while segment 16 is still in progress, thus blurring the boundary
between it and segment 17. The precise temporal boundary between
these two segments is compromised as well, for the B^3 with which seg
ment 17 begins (at the end of the first beat of measure 10) overlaps with
the E6 and F6 with which segment 16 ends. The double attacks achieve
greater structural significance in segment 17, however, because it con
tains the firstpair of random walks to be fully articulated in thismanner.
Segment 19 continues the double attacks (see Example 5). Thus, articu
lation links segments 17 and 19 together as members of the same section.
The final pair of random walks in section t42, however, which are con
tained in segment 21, returns to the single articulations and triplet
thirty-second notes found previously in section Al. The change back to
single articulations in segment 21 is linked to a change in the work's
pitch structure, which will be discussed in detail in the next section.
15segment
segment 16 gva
? r.(Hommage
Xenakis. 1989
Copyright
byEditions
Salabert.
All rights
reserved.
Reprinted
bypermission.
EXAMPLE 5: ?R., MEASURES 8-11
Looking back over the music that has been discussed so far, a pattern
of alternating section typesmay be observed: Al is followed by SI, which
in turn is followed by Al. The strict alternations of textural types that
occur within each of the A sections defines them clearly, while SI is
mostly, but not completely, concerned with the presentation of similar
textures. The pattern of alternation among section types continues when
Al is followed by S2, whose structure is simpler than that of its prior
counterpart, SI. S2 consists of a succession of four simultaneities fol
lowed by three pairs of random walks, the first two ofwhich are separated
by an eighth rest (segment 27). The direct succession of similar textures,
first limited to simultaneities (in segments 10-3 and again in segments
22-5) now begins to involve the random walks more completely than
was the case in SI.
The pattern of alternating section types breaks down, however, when

S2 is followed directly by S3. S3 contains segments 30 through 36 (see
a succession of four simultaneities fol
Example 2) and, like S2, features
lowed by three pairs of random walks. Along with the simplification in the
structure of the S sections comes a simplification in the contours of the
random walks. All of the paired random walks in sections S2 and S3
ascend in parallel motion. These walks are also briefer than their predeces
sors in the previous A and S sections. The impression of brevity is further
reinforced by their use of sixty-fourth notes, which allow these walks to
regain the speed that had been lost due to the change to a slower tempo
inmeasure 10. All of these factors contribute to the sense that these ran
dom walks are fragments rather than complete structures. Like motivic
fragments in traditional musical contexts, these simplified and abbreviated
random walks give the impression that they are moving in an accelerated
fashion toward a structural goal. The forward momentum is held back at
first,however, by the fact that the three pairs of random walks in S2 are
identical with respect to their pitch contents. The silence (eighth-note
rest) in segment 27, abruptly following the first pair of random walks in
S2, also interfereswith the sense of forward motion. The momentum is
held back even further by the arrival of the four simultaneities at the
beginning of S3. Forward motion resumes, however, with the random
walks in the second half of S3. The first pair of walks in this section is
higher in pitch than thewalks in S2, and the next two pairs of walks con
tinue accordingly, each pair ascending higher than the previous one.
The energy that is accumulated by the random walks in sections S2
and S3 is discharged at the beginning of the final section, A3 (segments
37 through 40). Segment 37 contains the longest and most complex pair
of random walks in the entire work. The contours of these walks are once
again independent and both are wide-ranging in their use of pitch. Fol
lowing the buildup of energy in sections S2 and S3 and its release in the
climactic pair of random walks in segment 37, the energy level of the
music tapers off steadily. This decrease in energy is manifested by a
descent in pitch between the last two simultaneities, in segments 38 and
40?the latter being the lowest simultaneity in the work?and by the
return to slower note values (triplet thirty-second notes) in the final pair
of random walks (segment 39). The dissipation of energy is reinforced by
the indication ralentir that extends from segment 39 to the end.
The overall formal shape of a r., and particularly the course of events in
its final three sections, exemplifies a type of dramatic form that has been
noted by several commentators on Xenakis's music. Makis Solomos has
given a particularly lucid description of this kind of formal plan:
Some works seem to unfold according to a dramatic formal plan?to

put it simply: progressive increase in tension, climax, descent. This is
only an impression, however: the dramatic form of these works is
purely a superficial effect. In contradistinction to Romantic forms, it
is not structural. The composer does not reach the climax by means
of a development, but by placing a passage that appears from the
outside like a climax (for example, a spectacular gesture) at "just the
right moment," that is to say in a place that is decided upon
abstractly as a function of the work's total duration. This iswhy,
moreover, contrary to a somewhat widely held opinion, Xenakis's
forms have nothing narrative about them: the idea of narration pre
supposes a certain discursiveness. They are simply there, like steep
cliffsmade out of heterogeneous blocks of stone.13
Although the kind of dramatic form described in this quote does not
rely on traditional notions of thematic development, it nonetheless suc
ceeds in orienting the listener to the overall shape of a work as it unfolds
in time. Whether it is structural or merely "superficial" is debatable, for
in the most general structural sense (independently of stylisticties to the
eighteenth or nineteenth centuries and to their harmonic-contrapuntal
basis in particular) the form is clearly a function of themusical materials,
which are handled in a consistent and musically logical manner.
As has been demonstrated above, a proper interpretation of the form
of ? r. rests upon the segments and their grouping into larger structural
units. Example 6 gives a concise summary of the grouping of segments
into sections. The abbreviations for the textures in the segments are as
follows: "w" indicates paired random walks, "s" indicates simultaneities,
"r" indicates a rest, and "a" indicates the ambiguous segment 14. The
table shows that the number of segments in the A sections decreases as
the work progresses, while the number of segments in the S sections
remains about the same, at seven or section. The
eight segments per
alternation and succession of textures that serves to group the segments
into sections is reflected at the level of the sections as well. A and S sec
tions alternate at the beginning of the work, but this pattern is broken
when 52 is followed directly by S3. The overall form is then rounded by
the return of an alternating section at the end. This final section, A3, is
the only one that ends with a simultaneity. To the extent that a simulta
neity, depending on context, tends to sound more conclusive than a pair
of random walks, the sections that end with random walks may thought
of as ending in a structurally "open" manner, while only the final section
ends in a "closed" manner, thus providing an appropriate conclusion to
the work as a whole.
section contents segments
Al WSWSWSWSW 1-9
51 ssssasw 10-6
A2 wswsw 17-21
52 sssswrww 22-9
53 sssswww 30-6
A3 wsws 37-40
w = random walk
s = simultaneously
a = ambiguous texture
r = rest
example 6: sections in ? r.
The higher-level grouping of sections into parts shown in Example 2 is

based on the changes in tempo and articulation at the beginning of mea
sure 10, which slightlyprecede the boundary between sections 51 and ^42.
The double-attack articulation that is introduced inmeasure 10 evolves
intomultiple repeated attacks in several of the simultaneities in sections 53
and ^13 (segments 31, 33, 38 and 40), thus helping to group these later
sections together with ^42 on the basis of similarities in articulation.
The reader may have noted that the sectional divisions here
proposed
are not marked by any traditional means of formal articulation. While one
certainly does not expect to find cadences in thismusic, neither are there
rests, or fermatas to mark the ends of sections such as one fre
any ritards,
quently finds in themusic of other post-tonal composers. In fact, the only

rest in the entire composition occurs as a dramatic silence in themiddle of
a section (segment 27 in S2), and the only ritard is the one that occurs at
the end of the final section in order to bring the work as a whole to a
close. The lack of specific means for marking formal articulations is
directly related to the generally nonthematic nature of Xenakis's music.
This ismusic inwhich segments run directly into one another, frequently
without any attenuation or nuance to indicate that one segment is about
to end and another about to begin. The establishment of sharp segmental
boundaries through sudden changes in texture, dynamics, density, pitch
material, or other factors is typical of much of his music. These sudden
changes on the musical surface help to generate the dynamism and con
frontational intensity that are hallmarks of his compositional style.
Sieve Theory and Pitch-Class Sets
The structures that have been referred to informally above as pitch col
lections or scales may be characterized more precisely as pitch-class sets.
The pitch-class (pc) sets that are used in the random walks in ? r.were
composed according to the principles of sieve theory, a general theory of
musical structures that Xenakis firstdeveloped in the mid 1960s.14 Sieve
theory provides a method for the generation and analysis of structures in
musical spaces that are divisible into units of equal size. Examples of such
spaces include series of equal durational values, such as eighth notes,
which may be used in the construction of rhythmic patterns, or the
equal-tempered semitonal pitch space. Structures created with the aid of
sieve theory are generated through a process of selection from among the
units in a given musical space. Selections are made by means of set
theoretic operations performed upon the elements of setswhose contents
are determined by the unfolding of interval cycles within the musical
space. Sieve theory may also be used to analyze existing musical struc
tures from the perspective of this selection process. With respect to the
generation and analysis of pc sets in particular, there are some points of
contact between sieve theory and standard mod-12 pitch-class set
are also, however, some important conceptual and termi
theory.15 There
nological differences between the two theories. While the specifics of
sieve theory have been dealt with at length elsewhere, for the purposes of
this analysis sieves will be regarded as pc setswhose modulus is a number
considerably larger than 12.16 This analytical approach focuses on the
contents, interval structure, and transposition of the sieves used in ? r.
rather than on the possible origins of the sieves in interval cycles and in
the application of set-theoretic operations upon them.
In order for the analysis of the pc sets inXenakis's music to be relevant
to the structure of a particular work, it is necessary to take into account
the different ways in which he implemented sieve theory at different
stages of his compositional development. In works from the mid to late
1960s, such as Nomos Alpha for violoncello (1965-6) and Persephassa for
six percussionists (1969), his implementation of the theory was fairly lit
eral.17 The sketches for a laterwork such asMists for piano (1981), how
ever, reveal that the pc set used at its opening was composed first and was
only analyzed afterward, presumably in order to uncover its underlying
intervallic structure. After experimenting with different combinations of
interval cycles, each resulting in a different interpretation of the set's
potential length, Xenakis eventually settled on the solution that became
the basis for the class of transpositionally related sets used throughout
that work.18 While the set inMists was composed specifically for use in
thatwork, by the time ? r.was composed Xenakis appears to have devel

oped a preference for a particular type of pc set, variants of which appear
in several works from the 1980s.19 From the 1960s to the 1980s, then,
Xenakis appears to have distanced himself gradually from reliance upon
sieve theory as a generator of unique musical structures. He began to
move instead toward the establishment of a more or less stable body of
structures more or less loosely connected to the specifics of sieve theory
in its original formulation.
In addition to the changes in his compositional process, the presence of
local variants within the sets further complicates their analytical interpre
tation. These local variants show up as occasional substitutions or interpo
lations within a prevailing set structure. Yet another complication is the
fact that the pc sets rarely appear in their entirety on the surface of the
music. It is often necessary, therefore, to construct complete pc sets by
piecing together subsets whose interval structures appear to derive from a
common interval succession. Interval successions that are found to occur
in the majority of the subsets may be used as the basis for constructing a
standard form of the complete pc set. After the interval structure of the
standard form of a complete pc set is established, it becomes possible to
determine how the subsets on themusical surface are derived from trans
positions of that set. Isolated pcs that do not fitwithin transpositions of
the standard pc setsmay then be identified as local substitutions or inter
polations. This is the method thatwas followed in determining the stan
dard form for the first class of transpositionally related pc sets to appear in
? r., two members of which are shown in Example 7. The second class of
transpositionally related pc sets to appear in ? r., two members of which
are shown in Example 8, is the same one that is used inMists. Evidence
from the compositional sketches for that work has been used to deter
mine the normative structure for the sets in that class.
The sets in class 1 extend over the entire range of the keyboard, as can
be seen in Example 7. This span is coextensive with the total length, or
modulus, of the sets in this class, which is 88 semitones. On an instru
ment with a range wider than that of the standard piano, the interval suc
cession of this set could potentially unfold multiple times. Upon
completion of each modulus, the set's interval succession would repeat
itself cyclically. Because of the potentially cyclic nature of this interval
succession, itmay be regarded as a cyclic interval succession (CINT).20
The succession of the intervals in a CINT remains constant under trans
position, but their order positions rotate according to the different levels
of transposition. The CINTs for each of the sets in Example 7 are shown
beneath the listing of the set's contents.21 The first set is designated 1.0,
signifying a set of class 1 under the transposition operation T0 mod 88.
The second set, 1.64, is a transposition of the first, at T^ mod 88. The
CINT of set 1.0 begins with the succession <211321...>, starting
from pitch A0 (shown with an open notehead). The same succession may
be observed within the CINT of 1.64, beginning from C?6 (also shown
with an open notehead). After the highest pitch, C8, is reached, set 1.64
effectivelywraps around to the bottom of the keyboard. The beginning
of set 1.64's CINT, < 4 1 2 2 1 ... >, matches up with the portion of set
1.0's CINT that starts from A|2. The contents and CINTs of the sets
from class 2 in Example 8 follow similar conventions, except that the
modulus of class 2, 90 semitones, exceeds the range of the piano key
board by two semitones.22 Notes that are unrealizable on the piano are
shown in parentheses in the example. The intervals in the CINT for class
2 are somewhat larger than those in the CINT for class 1, resulting a
smaller number of pcs per modulus in the sets in class 2.
A portion of set 1.0 from Example 7 appears inmeasure 1 of ? r. (see
note in
Example 1). From Alt 1 to F)t6 the match is exact, but the highest
the upper random walk, G6, does not appear in Example 7 because it is a
local variant in relation to the standard set whose contents have been
determined by the CINT shown in that example. In contrast to the
"imperfect" realization of segment 1, the contents of the portion of seg
ment 3 (shown inmeasure 2 in Example 1) make for an exact fitwith the
structure of set 1.64 from Example 7.
Set class 1 :modulus = 88
EXAMPLE 7: TWO PC SETS FROM SET CLASS 1
Set 2.82 in Example 8 is the source for the pcs in segments 16 and 17
inmeasures 8-11 of ? r. and set 2.52 is the source for segment 19, the
beginning of which appears in the second half of measure 11 (see
Example 5). The fit between the sets and their realizations in the seg
ments is, once again, less than perfect, but in this case there is an external
referent that helps to make sense of the discrepancies. Segments 16, 17
and 19 in ? r. are part of a quote fromMists, measures 31-4 of which is
shown in Example 9. This is not a literal quote, however, for the bor
rowed appear at a slower tempo mar., where are also sub
segments they
jected to interruptions and reordering. The tempo of segment 16 in a r.,

for example, begins at j = 46 and changes to J = 36 at measure 10, the
latter being half the tempo of the corresponding passage inMists, where
J= 72. There are also differences in articulation and in the placement of
the segment boundaries in the two works, as indicated in the detailed
comparison that follows.
Set class 2: period = 90

-- - - -- -
^- 1?ma-
set2.82
fe
,..,.,.,.i--" f.?a?g
< 4231 4324232 6 2335 24362321521 514:
_ 8
-?15m
set2.52 ,,
<262 335243 62 321 52151 442 314324 23:
EXAMPLE 8: TWO PC SETS FROM SET CLASS 2
MistspourpianobyIannis
Xenakis. 1981by
Copyright
Editions
Salabert.
Allrights
reserved. bypermission.
Reprinted
EXAMPLE 9: MISTS, MEASURES 31-4
The random walks in segment 16 in ? r. correspond to the passage in

Mists that begins on the firstbeat of measure 31 and extends through the
third beat of measure 32. (Compare Examples 5 and 9.) The random
walk in the upper staff in segment 16, however, starts on CttS instead of
on G#4, where the corresponding walk inMists begins. Consequently the
in the random walk in segment 16 are shifted one
pitches upper-staff
place to the leftfrom their positions in thewalk inMists but the rhythmic
structure of the original remains intact.While measure 31 inMists begins
with a single walk, segment 16 in ? r. adds a four-note line (F4 through
a pair of walks. Another slight
Dtt5) in order to begin directly with
difference is that the lower walk in the third beat of measure 31 inMists
branches off to form a second voice, thus producing an "arborescence"
that ismissing from the lower walk in ? r.23The differences that have
been mentioned so far are relatively minor, but more significant ones
appear at the end of segment 16, including the following: double-note
articulations begin at the start of measure 10 in ? r.; Ftt6 at the top of the
upper walk inMists is replaced by F6 in ? r.; and the BH at the bottom of
the lower walk inMists jumps up two octaves to Bl?3 in ? r. Both F6 and
B\>3 are local variants that deviate from the structure of the pc set shown
in Example 8. The Bl?3 is particularly notable because its octave position
associates itwith segment 17 rather than 16 on account of its close prox
imity to the following pcs in segment 17. Rhythmically it extends past
the end of segment 16 and precedes the remainder of segment 17, thus
causing the only overlap between segments to occur within ? r. These
deviations from the structure of the corresponding random walks inMists
serve as markers of a significant in ? r.'s struc
point large-scale temporal
ture,which will be explored in detail in the third section of this essay.
Segment 17 in ? r. corresponds to the passage from the fourth beat of
measure 32 through the third beat of measure 33 inMists. The sustained
C4 at the beginning of segment 17 changes the rhythmic structure of the
original walks, but once they get underway the alignment of pcs is the
same as inMists until the interpolation of E2 in beat 3 of measure 10?
another local variant of the set?causes a realignment of the pcs in the
upper and lower walks. Several pcs from the original walks are skipped
over in the firstbeat of measure 11 in ? r. and both walks cut off prema
turely in comparison to their counterparts inMists. The abbreviation of
thewalks in segment 17 is apparently necessary in order to create a space
for the quarter-note simultaneity that arrives in segment 18.
Segment 19 contains an even more radical transformation of the origi
nal material. It begins with the F4 and E6 that occur on the third beat of
measure 34 inMists and then proceeds in retrograde as far as E3 and F4
in the fourth beat ofmeasure 33. (Only the firstportion of segment 19 is
shown in Example 5.) Temporally, segment 19 has the opposite problem
from segment 17: the material fromMists on which it is based is too

short rather than too long. A repeated B7 on the fourth beat of measure
11 adds an extra eighth note to segment 19's duration. Corresponding
to the lengthening of the random walk in the upper staff in segment 19,
the succession D2, Bl, AH/Gttl is repeated in the random walk in the
lower staff.
The passage that contains segments 16 through 19 is not the only one
inwhich material fromMists finds itsway into ? r. The paired random
walks from the end of measure 34 to the beginning of measure 36 in
Mists appear, also in retrograde, in segments 5 (measures 3-4) and 7
(measures 5-6) of ? r.24 In these cases, the boundaries between the seg
ments inMists are not maintained precisely when thematerial is imported
into ? r. This results in a mixture of elements from different transposi
tions of the pc sets. Once again, reference to the original source of this
material helps to clarifywhat would otherwise have to be regarded as
local deviations in the pc sets of ? r.
The analysis up to this point has focused on local occurrences of the pc
sets. From a more global perspective, the distribution of set classes within
thework as a whole may be seen to articulate a clearly defined large-scale
structure. This is shown in Example 2, where the classes and transposi
tions of the pc sets are represented numerically. As in Examples 7 and 8,
the first integer in a set's label indicates the class to which it belongs,
while the second integer represents the level of transposition by which
the set relates to the firstmember of its class. As the chart shows, the sets
in segments 1, 3, and 5 articulate an aba pattern consisting of 1.0, 1.64,
and 1.0. This pattern in the deployment of set transpositions in the ran
dom walks is analogous to the pattern of alternating textures in segments
1-3 and, like that pattern, it also has large-scale structural implications.
Specifically, the small aba pattern is a miniature reflection of a large ABA
pattern that is articulated by the change from set class 1 to set class 2 (in
segment 7) and back to set class 1 (in segment 21). This largeABA pat
tern is independent of the six-section, two-part structure articulated by
texture. The two different divisions of the work into parts are not essen
tially in conflict, however, because both of them are coordinated with the
work's large-scale temporal structure, as will be demonstrated shortly.
The chart in Example 2 indicates the order inwhich various transposi
tions of the pc sets in both classes appear, but does not relate the transpo
sitional levels to any specific properties of the sets.When the levels of
transposition are considered in connection with the degree of pc intersec
tion (i.e., number of common tones) between members of a set class,
however, a possible rationale for Xenakis's choices of specific sets from
each class begins to emerge. The following is a brief comparison of the
intersections among the sets chosen from each class in comparison to the
maximum and minimum intersections possible for their respective classes.

A comparison of this sortmakes it possible to assess the degree to which
Xenakis appears to have made intentional compositional use of the gen
eral structural properties of each set class.
The intersections between members of class 1 vary between eleven and
twenty-seven out of the forty-two pcs contained within each set. This
excludes pairs of sets related by the identity operation, T0 mod 88, which
hold all of their pcs in common. This range of intersections is represented
fully among the sets chosen for inclusion mar., as demonstrated by the
intersection matrix contained in Example 10a. Considering the intersec
tions between the neighboring members of set class 1 in Example 2 in
relation to this intersection matrix, it is notable that Xenakis consistently
relates pairs of setswhose intersections are near themaximum.25 The sole
exception is segment 37, where portions of sets 1.9, 1.83, 1.7, and 1.19
are combined. The relations between several pairs of sets in this group are
at or near the minimum for sets in this class. These minimal intersections
allow for a saturation of the pc space, where seventy pcs appear within the
range of eighty-six pcs contained within the segment.
The intersections between members of pc set class 2 vary between zero
and nineteen out of the twenty-eight to thirtypcs that are realizable on
the piano keyboard, excluding pairs of sets related by the identity opera
tion, T0 mod 90. This range of intersections is given only partial repre
sentation among the sets from this class chosen for inclusion in ? r., as
shown in Example 10b, but a fuller representation is given among the
complete group of sets chosen for inclusion inMists (not shown in the
r. divide into two
example). The four sets from this class that appear in ?
pairs based on their intersections. The intersection between 2.0 and 2.62
is near the maximum, while that between 2.62 and 2.82 is considerably
lower. The intersection between 2.82 and 2.52 is once again near the
maximum. The division of these sets into pairs is consistent with their
separation in time, for 2.0 and 2.62 appear in segments 7 and 9, respec
tively,while 2.82 appears in segments 16 and 17 and 2.52 in segment 19.
The intersections that have been considered so far refer to the abstract
relationships between complete sets.When the intersections are exam
ined with respect to the subsets that actually appear on the surface of the
music, a different but no less consistent picture emerges. In this case, any
given random walk shares about half of its elements with its predecessor,
with a slight dip to about fortypercent when the change ismade from set
class 1 to set class 2 and back again (i.e., between segments 5 and 7, and
19 and 21). This slight reduction in the intersections between classes is
attributable to the decreased density of class 2 in comparison to class 1,
for class 2 sets contain between twenty-eight and thirtypcs while class 1
sets contain forty-two.
pc intersections
sets 1.0 1.64 1.24 1.5 1.9 1.13 1.83 1.7 1.19
1.0 42 25 20 25 27 20 25 15 25
1.64 42 22 24 18 15 25 20 22
1.24 42 25 24 17 24 12 25
1.5 42 26 15 24 11 26
1.9 42 26 26 11 24
1.13 42 21 19 19
1.83 42 13 20
1.7 42 13
1.19 42
a. Set class 1
pc intersections
sets 2.0 2.62 2.82 2.52

2.0 16 13 kT~
[~29
2.62 30 8 8
2.82 28 15
2.52 29
b. Set class 2
EXAMPLE 10: TRANSPOSITION AND INTERSECTION MATRICES
The interpretation of the pitch structure in ? r. has been weighted in

favor of the random walks because they contain many more elements
than the simultaneities, but the simultaneities are also important within
the overall pitch structure. The elements within the simultaneities taken
as a group (as shown in Example 3) combine to form a set that is inde
pendent of the set classes used in the random walks. The ambiguous seg
ment 14 likewise makes use of a set that is different from the set classes in
the random walks. Nonetheless, there is a relative consistency to the
degree of intersection between the simultaneities and the random walks
that surround them. In general, simultaneities that are preceded or fol
lowed by random walks share about half of their elements with them.
This includes the relationship between segment 14 (regarded in this
instance as a random walk) and the simultaneities that surround it. The
degree of intersection is slightly lower for the simultaneities that are adja
cent to random walks based on set class 2. Once again, thismay be attrib
utable to the lower density of the sets in this class.
As in many of Xenakis's works, particularly those written since the

development of sieve theory in themid 1960s, the pitch structure of ? r.
is grounded in a system, even though the details of the system may be
loosely implemented and therefore somewhat difficult to discern. None
theless, the broad outlines of the organization of pitch in ? r. reveal a
structure that balances internal consistency with varying degrees of aud
ible differentiation. The internal consistency is manifested in the rela
tively stable degree of intersection among sets, both large and small, on
the surface of themusic. Differentiation ismanifested in the use of differ
ent types of sets for the simultaneities and random walks as well as in the
use of two classes of sets for the random walks themselves, each class pos
sessing its own interval structure, density, and properties of intersection.
Temporal Structure
It iswell known that Xenakis consciously structured the temporal pro

portions of his early works. The strongest evidence of this practice is
found in a short essay published in 1955 inwhich he described the use of
the Fibonacci series in the determination of segment durations in
Metastasis for orchestra (1953-4).26 When interviewed in the 1990s
about the conscious organization of the temporal aspect of his later
music, the was and somewhat evasive:
however, composer equivocal
In Metastasis, for itwas a conscious decision. . . .But this is

instance,
no means the rule. Musicologists scores and come up
by may analyse
with their conclusions?and theymay be perfectly right?but their
findings need not indicate anything conscious on my part.27
In deference to the composer's disclaimer above, I will leave aside the

question ofwhether the temporal proportions in ? r.may have been gen
erated through conscious effort and proceed directly to the observation
that the work contains evidence of three distinct but interrelated systems
of temporal organization. The first is a system of proportions that con
nects several aspects of the work's structure, including texture, pitch
materials and tempo markings, into a unified conception. The second sys
tem is the proportional division of the work into two parts according to
the golden section. The third system consists of the statistical organiza
tion of the segment durations, a type of organization that, along with the
use of the golden section, traces its origins back to Xenakis's music from
the 1950s.
Before these systems of temporal organization are explored in detail,

however, some mention should be made of Xenakis's general ideas on
musical time. In a chapter of Formalized Music entitled "Symbolic
Music," Xenakis outlines a general theory of musical structure inwhich
he makes a distinction between "outside-time" and "in-time" struc
tures.28According to this distinction, the outside-time characteristics of a
single sonic event include pitch, duration, timbre, and articulation. There
may seem to be a contradiction inherent in the notion of a sonic event's
duration existing "outside-time." This contradiction may be resolved,
however, ifone considers the duration of an event to be the quantity of
time the event will occupy once it has been placed into its compositional
context. Alternatively, one may consider the outside-time characteristics
of an event, including duration, as potential qualities that, at an early
stage in the compositional process, are as yet unordered with respect to
time. The characteristics of sonic events "in-time," on the other hand,
may be thought of as the actual qualities of events that are ordered with
respect to time in the finished composition. A third category of musical
time is the temporal structure, which may be thought of as a framework
of temporal placeholders whose boundaries coincide with the initiating
and terminating points of sonic events in their in-time (ordered) context.
While Xenakis's theory of musical time deals mainly with individual sonic
events, the analysis of the temporal structure of ? r. given here is based on
the durational, pitch, and textural characteristics of complete segments
and, where appropriate, on their grouping into sections and parts as
described in the first section of this essay.
Examples 11 and 12 give numerical and graphic representations,
respectively, of a proportional system that relates pairs of sections in the
work. (The timings that are used in the calculation of the proportions are
based on a literal interpretation of the metronome markings in the
score.) As the examples illustrate, each A section is about 1.3 times as
long as its corresponding S section. The proportion between A\ and SI
is slightly higher, at 1.36:1, while that between Al and S2 is exactly
1.3:1. In order to compare the proportion between A3 and S3 with the
other pairs of sections more easily, the order of these two sections has
been reversed. The proportion between A3 and S3 is slightly below the
norm, at 1:29:1. Allowing for slight deviations from the simple
proportion of 1.3:1, the consistency of the actual proportions between A
and S sections is remarkable. The greater amount of time spent on theA
sections suggests a relative structural dominance of alternating textures
over successions of similar textures within thework as a whole.
section durations proportions
^41/Sl 28"/20.6" 1.36:1
~A2/S2 21.7"/16.7" L3??
~A3/S3 22.5V17.5" 1.29:1
EXAMPLE 11 : DURATIONS FOR PAIRS OF SECTIONS
_41 SI A2 S2 A3 S3
EXAMPLE 12: BAR GRAPH OF SECTION DURATIONS
The existence of the proportions between sections outlined above

relies upon the temporal ordering of the segments, and therefore this sys
tem of temporal organization constitutes an in-time structure. A catego
rization of the segments according to the textures they contain,
independently of their temporal ordering (i.e., outside-time), also reflects
the same proportions as above but from a different perspective. When all
of the segments that contain simultaneities are grouped into one cat
egory and all of the remaining segments?those that contain the random
walks plus the ambiguous segment 14 and the measured silence (eighth
note rest) in segment 27?are grouped into a second category, a binary
division is generated outside-time with respect to texture.29 The larger of
the two categories, containing the random walks and segments 14 and
27, has a cumulative duration of 72 seconds, while the smaller category,

containing the simultaneities, has a cumulative duration of 55 seconds.
The proportional relationship between the two categories is 1.31:1,
which is virtually identical to the proportions between A and S sections
in-time. Correspondences between in-time and outside-time propor
tional systems, the latter based on the categorization of segments by tex
ture or by articulation, appear in other works by Xenakis as well.30
The proportion of 1.3:1 is approximated by two more structural fea
tures in ? r.The first of these involves the use of the two pc set classes in
the random walks. Cumulatively?that is,without regard to the temporal
ordering of the segments?the amount of time spent on pc set class 1 is
39 seconds, while the amount spent on set class 2 is 30.5 seconds.31 The
proportion between the amounts of time spent on each set class is
1.28:1. The final structural feature related to this proportion occurs
between the durations of the beat units at each of the two tempi used in
the work. A quarter-note beat at the slower tempo of J = 36, introduced
inmeasure 10, lasts 1.67 seconds while the same beat unit lasts 1.3 sec
onds at the faster tempo of J = 46, which is used inmeasures 1-9. The
proportion between 1.67 and 1.3 seconds per beat unit is 1.28:1, once
again an approximation of 1.3:1.
Another proportional system that appears in ? r. is the golden section,
which also appears in several other works by Xenakis.32 The golden sec
tion divides a length so that the proportion of the smaller part to the
larger is equivalent to the proportion of the larger part to thewhole. The
larger and smaller parts of the golden section may be termed, respec
tively, "major" and "minor." The major golden section may be approxi
. . . and the minor . . . The
mated by the decimal 0.618 by 0.382.
division of ? r. into two parts between segments 16 and 17 occurs
approximately at the work's minor golden section. More precisely, the
minor golden section occurs between the arrival of Bt3 at the end of the
firstquarter-note beat inmeasure 10 and the following C4 at the begin
ning of beat 2 (see Example 5). The B\?arrives before the golden section,
at 0.38 of the work's total duration and the C arrives just after it, at
0.383. Thus, the unique overlap that occurs here between the end of seg
ment 16 and the beginning of segment 17 effectivelymarks the minor
golden section precisely
The three-part division of the work articulated by changes between pc
set classes in the random walks also involves a golden section. In this case
the middle part (segments 7-20), where pc sets of class 2 are dominant,
occupies a portion of the work's total duration equivalent to the minor
golden section while the outer parts combine to form a quantity equal to
the major golden section. Here again there is a proportional correspon
dence between in-time and outside-time structures, the former consisting
of the division of the work into two parts based on texture, tempo and
articulation, and the latter its division according to the distribution of pc
set classes used in the random walks. Both of these proportional systems
are illustrated in Example 2, the in-time division labeled near the top of
the chart and the division according to set classes shown in themiddle.
The third system of temporal organization in ? r. involves the statistical
distribution of the segment durations. Beginning in the mid 1950s,
Xenakis used the exponential distribution in conjunction with a random
izing procedure to determine the attack times of individual notes in his
stochastic music.33 The statistical structure of the exponential distribu
tion is such that shorter time intervals are much more numerous than
longer ones, and exponentially more likely to occur. Use of the exponen
tial distribution in composition results in temporal structures in which
the majority of events are clustered close together and only a few are
spaced far apart. In the series of stochastic works composed between
1956 and 1962 with the aid of his ST computer program, Xenakis
extended his use of the exponential distribution to include the generation
of segment durations as well as the attack times of individual events.34 In
the compositional process of these works, segments of music were gener
ated randomly by the computer program but were subsequently
resequenced by the composer in order to produce finished compositions
that accorded more favorably with his personal aesthetic criteria. In other
works from this period and afterward, it appears that the segment dura
tions may have been structured statisticallywithout the use of random

ization, thus bypassing the need to adjust the results of prior stochastic
calculations. In works of this type the segment durations appear to have
been sequenced in such a way as to articulate large-scale proportional
structures. One such work isHerma for piano (1960-1), in which the
firstpart contains mostly longer segments and the second mostly shorter
segments, the division between the two parts occurring at the work's
major golden section.35 When the exponential distribution is used in a
non-stochastic context, as in the determination of segment durations in
Herma, the lengths of the segments possess an overall statistical structure
but their ordering appears not to be the result of a random process.
In ? r., in contrast to Herma, the distinction between longer and
shorter segment durations ismade on the basis of texture rather than on
the division of thework into parts. In ? r., the random walks occur in the
longer segments while the simultaneities occur in the shorter ones. As has
been demonstrated above, the segments in ? r. generate patterns by pre
senting either contrasting or similar textural types. The ordering of the
segments, then, is evidently not the result of a random procedure. In the
absence of randomization, the determination of the segment durations
cannot be said to constitute a stochastic process, but when viewed collec

tively the segment durations clearly possess the statistical characteristics
of an exponential distribution, as demonstrated in Examples 13 and 14.
In both examples, the simultaneities in segment 14 have been counted
individually, thus raising the number of segments from forty to fifty-four.
The density of the exponential distribution thatwas used for comparison
with the statistical sample is 0.425 segments per second, which is equiva
lent to the number of segments (54) divided by thework's total duration
(127 seconds). At a density of 0.425 segments per second, the average
length of a given segment is 2.35 seconds.
For purposes of statistical comparison the segment durations are
placed into categories, or "bins," that sort them by two-second incre
ments. The number of segments in ? r. that fallwithin each bin closely
matches the exponential distribution with a density of 0.425, making for
a very good fit between the statistical sample and the theoretical model.
The alternative reading of segment 14 as a succession of simultaneities
rather than as a four-voice random walk is essential to the goodness of fit
frequency relative frequency

segment
duration
exponential a r. exponential a r.
(seconds) distribution distribution
0-2 31 30 0.573 0.556
2-4 13 13 0.245 0.241
4-6 0.104 0.130
6-8 0.045 0.056
8-10 0.019 0.019
10-2 0.008 0.000
12-14 0.003 0.000
14-16 0.001 0.000
16-18 0.001 0.000
18-20 0.000 0.000
EXAMPLE 13: COMPARISON OF STATISTICAL STRUCTURE OF SEGMENT
DURATIONS WITH EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION =

(DENSITY 0.425)
between the statistical structure of the segment durations and the expo
nential distribution. Thus the textural ambiguity of segment 14 is shown
to be significant from the perspective of thework's temporal structure as
well as for the way inwhich it reflects the overall contour of the long
held simultaneities over the course of thework.
exponential distribution
111111111111111
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
seconds
EXAMPLE 14: GRAPH OF STATISTICAL STRUCTURE
OF SEGMENT DURATIONS
Conclusion
As a representative miniature from relatively late in Xenakis's career, ? r.

demonstrates the composer's skill in coordinating textural, pitch, and
temporal structures in order to generate a dynamic and clearly articulated
musical form. Perhaps themost impressive aspect of thework's form is its
multi-leveled temporal structure. The irregular lengths of thework's seg
ments, a result of their apparent derivation from a statistical distribution,
prevent the music from falling into a predictable rhythmic pattern. This
statistical distribution also provides an overarching context for the abrupt
stops and starts between segments, thus lending structural meaning to
what might otherwise be interpreted as superficial irregularities in the
work's rhythmic structure. Other aspects of the work's temporal organi
zation, however, appear to be guided by simple proportional systems.
The interaction of statistical and proportional systems of organization

that has been demonstrated in a r. has been found in other solo instru
mental works as well. Further research will likelyuncover the presence of
similar interactions in the temporal structures of his chamber, choral,
orchestral and electroacoustic works.
In addition to elucidating some of the specific aspects of Xenakis's

compositional skill, this essay has also served to indicate some of the diffi
culties inherent in the analysis of his music. Xenakis's music is the result
of a peculiar mixture of formalized concepts and informal applications of
those concepts. This has been demonstrated above with respect to his
free adaptation of the concept of random walks from electroacoustic to
instrumental media. In their keyboard-instrument manifestations, these
textural phenomena bear little resemblance to the random walks that
were initially developed in connection with stochastic synthesis.
A related difficulty stems from Xenakis's penchant for coining new
terms or for borrowing terms from various branches of science, only to
put them to idiosyncratic use in his writings. This aspect of his work has
been continued in much of the writing about his music and has thus
helped to perpetuate exaggerated notions of the extent to which his
music is stylistically and structurally isolated from the work of his con
temporaries. As a corrective to this tendency, some tentative steps have
been made here to relate some of his theoretical ideas, such as the dis
tinction between outside-time and in-time structures or the basic prin
ciples of sieve theory, to similar concepts in what has come to be
regarded as the mainstream of music theory. Sieve theory in particular is
related to the general concepts underlying pitch-class set theory, but
Xenakis's preference for the generation of non-mod-12 pc sets calls into
question the appropriateness of pc-set theory for the analysis of his
music, an appropriateness that is rightfully taken for granted in the analy
sis of music by many other post-tonal composers. On the other hand,
recent work relating interval cycles to pc-set similaritymay shed addi
tional light on connections between sieve theory,which is also based on
interval and the pc-set structure of the simultaneities that are such
cycles,
a prominent feature of themusical surface inXenakis's lateworks.36
In spite of the practical problems involved in the analysis of Xenakis's
music, the intense concentration on its details that is required by the ana
lytical process is intrinsically rewarding. In the case of ? r., the analytical
process reveals clearly that even such a miniature work as this aptly
demonstrates the combination of skill and raw energy, of spectacular ges
tures in just the right place along with a few local d?tails stubbornly out
of place, that are distinctive marks of Xenakis's singular creative voice.
Notes
I would like to thank Robert Morris for his insightful comments on ear
lier versions of this essay.
1. Xenakis's miniatures include Charisma for clarinet and violoncello

(1971),Mikka forviolin (1971),Mikka ?5*for violin (1976), Pour
Maurice for baritone and piano (1982), ? r. for piano (1987), Paille
in the Wind for violoncello and piano (1992), Manamas Xapin
Witoldi Lustoslawskiemu for brass quartet (1994), Hunem-Iduhey for
violin and violoncello (1996), and O-Mega for percussion and instru
mental ensemble (1997).
2. Xenakis defines the density of a texture as the average number of
sounds per unit of time (1992, 12).
3. The hierarchical grouping of structural units outlined here is adapted

from Tenney and Polansky 1980. A more formal extension of Tenney
and Polanksy's work isUno and H?bscher 1995, which contains a
temporal gestalt unit analysis of Xenakis's Herma for piano (1960-1).
4. Iliescu 2001, 57, translation mine.

5. OED2002.
6. Webster 1998.
7. Xenakis 1992,242-54. Stochastic synthesiswas not fully implemented

until the 1990s. See Xenakis 1992, 289-322, and Hoffmann 2001.
8. Solomos 2001b explores various manifestations of random walks

referred to as "Brownian in Xenakis's music.
(there movements")
9. Xenakis 1981, preface.
10. Solomos includes Mists among the compositions in which Xenakis

made use of random walks, but claims that he ceased doing so in the
early 1980s (2001b, 249 and 243). This generalization is contra
dicted by their use in ? r.,which was written in 1987 and incorpo
rates some of the same random walks used previously inMists.
11. Pitches are labeled according to the conventions of the American

Acoustical Society. Middle C is C4. No meter signature is given at
the beginning of ? r., but the notation implies common time
throughout.
12. Another striking instance of textural ambiguity occurs in the final

segment of Evryali for piano (1973), where a synthesis is achieved
between two textural types that compete for dominance throughout
much of thework. See Squibbs 2001, 155.
13. Solomos 1996, 127-9, translation mine.
14. Xenakis 1992, 180-200 and 268-88.
15. Standard texts on pitch-class set theory include Forte 1973, Rahn
1980, Morris 1987, and Straus 2000.
16. Gibson 2001, Jones 2001, Squibbs 1997, 57-66.
17. On the use of sieve theory for the generation of pc sets inNomos
Alpha, see Xenakis 1992, 230-2 and Vriend 1981, 35-50; for the
generation of rhythmic patterns inPersephassa, see Gibson 2001, 87
91.
18. I am grateful to Scott McCoy for allowing me to examine his copy of

the sketches forMists.
19. This family of sets is discussed inGibson 2001, 90-2.
20. The CINT as used here is equivalent toMorris's CINTX (1987, 40

1 and 82).
21. For ease of reference, the contents of the pc sets in Examples 7 and 8
are listed according to their pitch equivalents inmusical notation. Sim
ilarly,pcs will be referred to in the text by the letternames and octave
positions of their pitch equivalents as realized in the score to ? r.
22. The firstset in Example 8 is designated 2.82 because it is related by
T82 mod 90 to a set, 2.0, that appears earlier in thework, in segment
7 (see Example 2).
23. Arborescence is a term used by Xenakis to indicate a branching struc

ture.
24. Only the random walks at the end of measure 34 ofMists are shown
in Example 9. Segments 5 and 7 of dr. do not appear in the examples.
25. "Neighboring" sets are not necessarily adjacent, but rather the
closest in succession excluding any intervening simultaneities or any
random walks based on the same setwithin a set class.
26. Xenakis 1955.
27. Varga 1996, 203-4.
28. Xenakis 1992,155-70.

29. The simultaneities are containedin segments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-3, 15,
18, 20, 22-4, 25, 30-3, 38, and 40. The opposing category, made
up mostly of random walks, consists of segments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,14,16,
17,19, 21, 26-9, 34-7, and 39.
30. See Squibbs 1997 for correspondences between in-time and outside
time proportional structures in the following works. (Page references
are given after the title of each work.) Mikka (238-40) and Mikka
CCS"(250-2), both for violin, are miniature works. Some largerworks
that demonstrate this kind of proportional correspondence include
Evryali (162-4, see also Squibbs 2001, 157-8) and Mists (189-90),
both for piano, Theraps (257-60) for double bass, and the electro
acoustic work Mycenae-Alpha (278, see also Squibbs 1996, 209-12).
31. As shown in Example 2, pc set class 1 is used in segments 1, 3, 5, 21,
26-9, 34-7, and 39. Pc set class 2 is used in segments 7, 9, 16, 17,
and 19.
32. The golden section appears at significant structural points in all of

the works listed in note 41, as well as in other works such asHerma
forpiano (1960-1) (Squibbs2000).
33. See Xenakis 1992, 12.
34. Xenakis 1992, 131-54.

35. See Squibbs 1997, 135-7 and 2000, 148-50.
36. Buchler 2000, Quinn 2001.
References
Buchler, Michael. 2000. "Broken and Unbroken Interval Cycles and

Their Use in Determining Pitch-Class Set Resemblance." Perspectives
ofNew Music 38, no. 2 (Summer): 52-87.
Flint, Ellen Rennie. 1989. "An Investigation of Real Time as Evidenced

by the Structural and Formal Multiplicities in Iannis Xenakis'
Psappha." Ph.D. dissertation, University ofMaryland at College Park.
Ann Arbor: UMI.
Forte, Allen. 1973. The Structure ofAtonal Music. New Haven: Yale Uni
versity Press.
Gibson, Beno?t. 2001. "La Th?orie des cribles." In Solomos 2001a,

85-92.
Harley, James. 1996. "Sonic and Parametric Entities in Tetras-.An Ana

lyticalApproach to theMusic of Iannis Xenakis." Canadian University
Music Review 16, no. 2: 72-99.
Hoffmann, Peter. 2001. "Analysis through Resynthesis: Gendy3 by

Iannis Xenakis." In Solomos 2001a, 185-94.
Iliescu, Mihu. 2001. "Xenakis et le 'destin' musical de l'Occident." In

Solomos 2001a, 53-8.
Jones, Evan. 2001. "Residue-Class Sets in theMusic of Iannis Xenakis:

An and General Intervallic Expression." Perspec
Analytical Algorithm
tives ofNew Music 39, no. 2 (Summer): 229-61.
Morris, Robert. 1987. Composition with Pitch-Classes. New Haven: Yale

University Press.
OED. 2002. Oxford English Dictionary, online edition.
<http://www.oed.com>
Quinn, Ian. 2001. "Listening to Similarity Relations." Perspectives ofNew

Music 39, no. 2 (Summer): 108-58.
Rahn, John. 1980. Basic Atonal Theory. New York: Schirmer.
Solomos, Makis. 1996. Iannis Xenakis. Mercu?s: P.O. Editions.
-, ed. 2001a. Presences of Iannis Xenakis. Paris: Centre de Docu

mentation de laMusique Contemporaine.
- 2001b. "The Unity of Xenakis's Instrumental and Electro

acoustic Music: The Case for 'Brownian Movements.'" Perspectives of
New Music 39, no. 1 (Winter): 244-54.
Squibbs, Ronald. 1996. "Images of Sound inXenakis's Mycenae-Alpha."

Les cahiers du GREYC4: 208-18.
-. 1997. "An Analytical Approach to theMusic of Iannis Xenakis:

Studies of Recent Works." Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Ann
Arbor: UMI.
-. 2000."Musical Composition as Applied Mathematics: Set

Theory and Probability in Iannis Xenakis's Herma" In Bridges: Math
ematical Connections inArt, Music, and Sciences: Conference Proceed
ings 2000, ed. Reza Sarhangi. Winfield, Kansas: Southwestern College,
141-51.
-. 2001. "A Methodological Problem and a Provisional Solution:

An Analysis of Form and Structure in Xenakis's Evryali," in Solomos
2001a, 153-8.
Straus, Joseph. 2000. Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, 2d ed. New

York: Prentice Hall.
Tenney, James and Larry Polansky. 1980. "Temporal Gestalt Perception

Music Theory 24, no. 2 (November): 205-42.
inMusic." Journal of
Uno, Yayoi and Roland H?bscher. 1995. "Temporal-Gestalt Segmenta

tion: Polyphonic Extensions and Applications to Works by Boulez,
Cage, Xenakis, Ligeti, and Babbitt." Computers inMusic Research 5:
1-37.
Varga, B??nt Andr?s. 1996. Conversations with Iannis Xenakis. London:

Faber and Faber.
Vriend, Jan. 1981. "Nomos Alpha forVioloncello Solo (Xenakis 1966):

Analysis and Comments." Interface 10: 15-82.
Webster. 1998. Webster's International Encyclopedia 99, CD ROM.
Xenakis, Iannis. 1955. [untitled appendix]. In Le Corbusier, Modulor 2,

1955: la parole est aux usagers. Paris: Editions de l'architecture
d'aujourd'hui. English version, trans. Peter de Francia and Anna
Bostock. In Le Corbusier, Modulor 2, 1955: Let the User Speak Next.
Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1958, 1968.
. 1981. Mists pour
piano. Paris: Salabert.
-. 1989. ? r. (Hommage ? Ravel) pour piano. Paris: Salabert.

-. 1992. Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composi
tion. Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon.

Xenakis in Miniature - Style and Structure in A R

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

Xenakis in Miniature - Style and Structure in A R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xenakis in Miniature: Style and Structure in "à r.

(Hommage à Ravel)" for Piano (1987)

the early 1970s and the late 1990s Iannis Xenakis

Texture, Segmentation and Formal Design

In Xenakis's instrumental works, large numbers of individual sounds tend

the idea of sound masses?formerly manifested as collections of discon

instrumental music in the 1970s is their perceptible continuity. It is in

EXAMPLE 1: ?R., MEASURES 1-2

first pair of walks thus demonstrates a balance between independent and

EXAMPLE 4: ? R., SEGMENT 14 (MEASURES 7-8)

Textural ambiguities in Xenakis's music tend to serve as signposts for

taneities" turns out to be a miniature reflection of the large-scale,

EXAMPLE 5: ?R., MEASURES 8-11

The pattern of alternating section types breaks down, however, when

Some works seem to unfold according to a dramatic formal plan?to

section contents segments

The higher-level grouping of sections into parts shown in Example 2 is

quently finds in themusic of other post-tonal composers. In fact, the only

Sieve Theory and Pitch-Class Sets

thatwork, by the time ? r.was composed Xenakis appears to have devel

Set class 1 :modulus = 88

EXAMPLE 7: TWO PC SETS FROM SET CLASS 1

jected to interruptions and reordering. The tempo of segment 16 in a r.,

Set class 2: period = 90

<262 335243 62 321 52151 442 314324 23:

EXAMPLE 8: TWO PC SETS FROM SET CLASS 2

EXAMPLE 9: MISTS, MEASURES 31-4

The random walks in segment 16 in ? r. correspond to the passage in

from segment 17: the material fromMists on which it is based is too

maximum and minimum intersections possible for their respective classes.

sets 2.0 2.62 2.82 2.52

EXAMPLE 10: TRANSPOSITION AND INTERSECTION MATRICES

The interpretation of the pitch structure in ? r. has been weighted in

As in many of Xenakis's works, particularly those written since the

It iswell known that Xenakis consciously structured the temporal pro

In Metastasis, for itwas a conscious decision. . . .But this is

In deference to the composer's disclaimer above, I will leave aside the

Before these systems of temporal organization are explored in detail,

section durations proportions

^41/Sl 28"/20.6" 1.36:1

~A2/S2 21.7"/16.7" L3??

~A3/S3 22.5V17.5" 1.29:1

EXAMPLE 11 : DURATIONS FOR PAIRS OF SECTIONS

EXAMPLE 12: BAR GRAPH OF SECTION DURATIONS

The existence of the proportions between sections outlined above

27, has a cumulative duration of 72 seconds, while the smaller category,

tions may have been structured statisticallywithout the use of random

cannot be said to constitute a stochastic process, but when viewed collec

frequency relative frequency

0-2 31 30 0.573 0.556

2-4 13 13 0.245 0.241

4-6 0.104 0.130

6-8 0.045 0.056

8-10 0.019 0.019

10-2 0.008 0.000

12-14 0.003 0.000

14-16 0.001 0.000

16-18 0.001 0.000

18-20 0.000 0.000

EXAMPLE 13: COMPARISON OF STATISTICAL STRUCTURE OF SEGMENT

DURATIONS WITH EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION =

EXAMPLE 14: GRAPH OF STATISTICAL STRUCTURE

As a representative miniature from relatively late in Xenakis's career, ? r.