BROWN
Time Spans for Orchestra
Score
EARLE BROWN
Time Spans
for Orchestra
Score
Earle
Score (transposed)
Instrumentation
3 Flutes
1 Alto Flute
2 Oboes
1 English Horn
3 Clarinets in B b
1 Bass Clarinet
2 Bassoons
1 Contrabassoon
4 Trumpets in C
4 Horns in F
4 Trombones
2 Tubas
2 Pianos
2 Harps
2 Vibraphones
2 Marimbas
16 First Violins
14 Second Violins
12 Violas
10 Violoncellos
8 Contrabasses
Duration: approximately 12 minutes
The conductor needs an arrow indicator with numbers 1 - 3 (provided with score) to show the musicians which page to perform from.
Earle Brown wrote TIME SPANS for Conductor/ Composer Hans Zender, who first performed the piece in Kiel, Germany, during the 1972 Olympics.
TIME SPANS includes both “open form” — as Earle Brown called it — and “closed form.” Pages 1 and 3 are both “open form” while page 2 is “closed form.”
Earle Brown formulated general instructions for “open form” for earlier compositions, such as NOVARA (1962; published by Editions Peters), excerpted below:
Novara (1962) , Directions for Performance
P RE lIMINARy N OTES
Spontaneous decisions in the performance of a work and the possibility of the composed elements being “mobile” have been of primary interest to me for some time; the former to an extreme degree in FO l IO ( 1952 ), and the latter, most explicitly, in TWENT y FIVE PAGES ( 1953 ). For me, the concept of the elements being mobile was inspired by the mobiles of Alexander Calder, in which, similar to this work, there are basic units subject to innumerable different relationships or forms. The concept of the work being conducted and formed spontaneously in performance was originally inspired by the “action-painting” techniques and works of Jackson Pollock in the late 1940 s, in which the immediacy and directness of “contact” with the material is of great importance and produces such an intensity in the working and in the result. The performance conditions of these works are similar to a painter working spontaneously with a given palette.
The conductor may conduct the events in any sequence or juxtaposition, in changing tempi, loudness, and in general mold and form the piece. The inherent flexibility of the materials allows the work to constantly transform itself and re-express its potential, while the sound materials and characteristics which I have composed contain the essential “identity” which makes this work different from any other.
I have felt that the conditions of spontaneity and mobility of elements which I have been working with create a more urgent and intense “communication” throughout the entire process, from composing to the final realization of a work. I prefer that each “final form,” which each performance necessarily produces, be a collaborative adventure, and that the work and its conditions of human involvement remain a “living” potential of engagement.
S CORE AND STR u CT u RE
The conductor may begin a performance with any event on any page and may proceed from any page to any other page at any time, with or without repetitions or omissions of pages or events, remaining on any page or event as long as he wishes.
T IME N OTATION
There is a built-in factor of flexibility in the notation and scoring of this piece because the availability of forms is based on letting go of the idea of metric accuracy. This is achieved through the notational system used in this work. This system, which I have called a “time-notation,” is a development of the work in FO l IO ( 1952 and 1953 ) and most clearly represents sound-relationships in the score as I wish them to exist in performance, independent of a strict pulse or metric system.
C OND u CTING
The conducting technique is basically one of cueing ; the notation precludes the necessity and function of “beat” in the usual sense (although the conductor does indicate the relative tempo). The number of the event to be performed is indicated by the left hand of the conductor — one to five fingers. A conventional (right-hand) down-beat initiates the activity. The relative speed and dynamic intensity with which an event is to be performed is implied by the speed and largeness of the down-beat as given with the right hand. Nearly all of the events in the score have been assigned dynamic values. These are acoustically accurate in terms of instrumental and ensemble sonority and balance and must be respected as written, although the conductor may “override” the indicated dynamic values and raise or lower the over-all loudness.
The conception of the work is that the score presents specific material having different characteristics, and that this material is subject to many inherent modifications, such as modifications of combinations (event plus event), sequences, dynamics, and tempos, spontaneously created during the performance. All events are always prepared by
a left-hand signal and initiated by a down-beat from the conductor; the size and rapidity of the down-beat implies the loudness and speed with which the event is to be performed. The conductor must, as with any notation, insist on accurately articulated relationships from the rhythmic “shape” of phrase and pitch sequences in this work.
G ENERA l M ODIFICATIONS OF E VENTS
conducted fermata : the conductor may introduce a fermata at any time during the performance, in any single event or combination of events. Both hands cupped towards the orchestra and held stationary indicates that all musicians in that group should hold the sound or silence which they are at that moment performing, until the next sign from the conductor tells them either to cut off or to continue from the point of interruption. A cut-off is signaled with both hands and must be followed by another eventsignal from the left hand and a down-beat. To continue, the conductor moves both hands from the “hold” position back to the body and then outward towards the orchestra, palms up (as if giving the initiative back to the orchestra).
conducted stop : the conductor may stop any event or combination of events at any time during the performance. The normal, two-hand cut-off signal will silence his entire group. leaving the hands up will hold that silence until the signal to continue from the point of interruption is given. If the hands do not remain up in “hold” position, the musicians are to expect another event-signal from the left hand, and a down-beat.
modification of single event : any two-hand cut-off signal affects the entire group. The conductor may wish, however, to modify only one event among two or more events being performed simultaneously. To do this he signals the number of the event to be modified with his left hand; then indicates the modification — a hold or cut-off — with only his right hand. (Events not indicated by the fingers of the conductor’s left hand continue to proceed normally.) It is absolutely essential that the orchestra members clearly
understand this difference in signaling: a hold or cut-off by both hands affects an entire group; a hold or cut-off by only the right hand affects only the event indicated by the fingers of the left hand. Players whose parts do not contain events signaled by the conductor’s left hand must remain unaffected by his subsequent right-hand indications.
As soon as the conductor initiates (by left-hand eventsignal and right-hand down-beat) a new event that appears on the player’s part, the preceding event is automatically cancelled. No specific stop-signal is required. The player simply discontinues the event he is playing and, without break between events, begins to play the new one.
With these procedures clearly understood by the conductor and the musicians it is possible to achieve smooth transitions and long lines of connected material of extreme complexity and frequent modification. The first impression derived from the score will be one of many sporadic fragments. This wealth of fragments shows the numerous formal possibilities inherent in the work, and it is this realization, not the fragmentations, that must become the dominant characteristic of performance.
Dy NAMICS
All indications of dynamics are relative to the instrumental technique and register of the particular sound called for, i.e., a string sound to be played col legno tratto, sul ponticello, with a dynamic of ffff, must be played as loudly as possible regardless of the dynamic intensity produced by the same dynamic marking in an instrument of a different nature. Thus, a low C in the Flute marked ffff is not expected to have the same volume as a middle-register tone marked ffff in a clarinet. This simply means that the flutist is to play his tones at the maximum volume available in that register of his instrument. The pppp indicates that the sound is to be as soft as possible. All dynamic indications are “balanced” in this way, relative to their acoustic functions within the event-structures and the characteristics of the instruments employed in them.
specific instructions for the 1972 performance can be found in the correspondence between Earle Brown and Hans Zender. Obviously, other interpretations and solutions for combining “open form” and “closed form” are possible. The quotations below are to be understood as specific choices for one performance. These choices serve as an example as how to “read” the piece.
. . . Page 2 should be a very long, very intense, hypnotic, elegant, severe, austere, beautiful thing. We may adjust the timings somewhat but I want it to be long . . . very dangerously close to boring but like walking a tight-rope and juggling at the same time!
Page 3 is “open form” but I will give you a suggestion of what I “hear” for the entire continuity of the work (in this performance). [Event # 3 of page 3 ]: . . . is a “loop” of material to be repeated until you stop it. As to the “form” of this performance, I think of it as follows:
# 1 of page 1 : just the 2 pianos; majestically, basically loud but with some dynamic variation, with much sustaining pedal for overlapping resonances, moderate-slow tempo in looserandom rhythm, pianists listening and reacting to one another but not following each other. Once through the material should be enough but it could “loop” if you want, until you “feel” to bring in the first chord of # 2
# 2 of page 1 : proceeds from chord 1 to chord 20 . Musicians must keep count or you can give a left-hand signal on 1 , 5 , 10 , 15 , etc. The rhythm is up to you but it should not be fast from 1 to 20 . . . . Between 2 or 3 of the chords it could be quick but not the entire sequence fast. Each chord stops on the downbeat of the next, unless you clearly hold some section over into the following chord . . . but this should not be done too often because I want to basically hear this continuity of sonority.
Page 2 is very clear.
Page 3 : I have a feeling that this page should begin with
the two piano material of page 1 superimposed with the percussion material of this page . . . either very loud or very soft in dynamics. After this percussion area (as “loop”)
I hear event # 1 (quietly, with quite a bit of silence at the fermata points), followed by event # 2 . . . very strong, abrupt, and perhaps rather violently . . . but cleanly. It should be shockingly active after the basic staticity of the previous material. Ending with event # 4 . . . , combinations of the 5 primary sections (families) . . . . P l EASE SEPARATE the vibe-marimba chord from the BRASS! (so that there are 5 sonorities) . . . . Durations, dynamics, superpositions, “open form” . . . (if I may “influence” you), it would be beautiful as the final sound in the “open form” to hear all five sections tutti, sustaining for a long time, ppp, with percussion sections randomly attacking their sonorities (ppp) . . . so that every note can be heard but none over-powering any other. (Aha! So you see, enfin , that I am very old-fashioned and romantic!)
Earle Brown to Hans Zender, 4 August 1972
On this page, the 4 major timbral sections; WOODWINDS, BRASS, PERCUSSION, STRINGS; are cued by the conductor according to the condensed “time score”. The entrances will be cued by a left-hand preparation and a right-hand “down-beat”, the latter sometimes for more than one section. All entrances will be for the complete ensemble of each section. Dynamics are indicated and will be controlled by the conductor. Cues are given:to the LEFT (of conductor) to the RIGHT to the CENTER (HIGH) to the CENTER (LOW)
for WOODWINDS for BRASS for PERCUSSION for STRINGS 1 2 3 4
(Further control of sub-divisions within each of the major sections may or may not be employed. If so, the sub-sections will be indicated by 1 to 5 fingers of the left-hand of the conductor in addition to the above directional controls)
Earle Brown
Earle Brown was born in 1926 in Lunenburg, Massachusetts, and in spirit remained a New Englander throughout his life. A major force in contemporary music and a leading composer of the American avantgarde since the 1950s, he was associated with the experimental composers John Cage, Morton Feldman and Christian Wolff, who – together with Brown – came to be known as members of the New York School. Brown died in 2002 at his home in Rye, New York.
Earle Brown wurde 1926 in Lunenburg, Massachusetts, geboren und blieb im Geist ein Leben lang Neuengländer. Ab den 1950er Jahren war er eine treibende Kraft in der zeitgenössischen Musik und einer der führenden Komponisten der amerikanischen Avantgarde. Enge Verbindung unterhielt er zu den experimentellen Komponisten John Cage, Morton Feldman und Christian Wolff, mit denen gemeinsam er später der sogenannten New York School zugerechnet wurde. Brown starb 2002 in seinem Haus in Rye, New York.