!"#$%&'()%*$+%,*(-#%.

('/$01%2'+3-#1%4%*$+%44%56789:
;3<='(51:>%?'=$%@A%B#-1=
C'3(D#>%@#(1"#D<EF#1%'G%H#/%231EDI%J'-A%KLI%H'A%6%5BE$<#(I%677M:I%""A%LNMOL7P
@3Q-E1=#+%QR>%Perspectives of New Music
C<*Q-#%STU>%http://www.jstor.org/stable/833173
;DD#11#+>%PKVP7VLP6P%PP>PN

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pnm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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
 OPEN FORM
AND
EARLE BROWN'S
MODULESIAND 11 (1967)

JOHNP. WELSH

I. INTRODUCTION

My first impulses to work with new notations and new scoring

methods were primarily motivated by a desire to create a mobile
situation in a piece of music.1

Earle Brown (1970)

to have elements exist in space . . . space as an infinitude of direc-

tions from an infinitude of points in space ... to work (composition-
ally and in performance) to right, left, back, forward, up, down, and
all points between ... the score [being] a picture of this space at one
instant, which must always be considered as unreal and/or transi-
tory ... a performer must set this all in motion (time), which is to
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModulesI and II 255

say, realize that it is in motion and step into it... either sit and let it
move or move through it at all speeds.2

Earle Brown (1961)

Faced with ... real open-structure music, the critic finds himself in a
situation altogether unprecedented....
But what of a single implementation? From a didactic standpoint,
it may be useful, even interesting. From a critical standpoint, on the
contrary, it would not be relevant, as the significance of the project
lies not in any one of its realizations but in their very multiplicity....
The critic . . . should not reduce virtual multiplicity to explicit
oneness, anarchy to order, ... he should expose the range of inter-
pretations the model allows, not impose just one.3

Herman Sabbe (1989)

WRITTEN ALMOSTTHIRTYYEARSapart, these commentaries by Brown

and Sabbe agree on the interest and multi-dimensionality witnessed in
open-form music. Indeed, since midcentury, open-form composition
(described initially as "a condition of mobility" by Earle Brown) has
come to be distinguished from other, more traditional modes of musical
composition. Here, indeterminacy at various levels of the compositional
process allows the performer to share directly with the composer in the
construction of the music. Open-form composition, then, is a collabora-
tion, one which often takes place as real-time composition, where the
player relies on spontaneous performance decisions. In any realization,
each moment cannot be foreseen, as Sabbe further explains: "Whatever
meaning there is arises exclusively from the immediate, unique, and unre-
peatable context."4 He continues:

. . . this situation means at the same time the end of Idealism and
Realism. The world is not seen as fixed, or as found; whatever reali-
ties may present themselves are considered to be versions of a world
of worlds in the making.5

In his program notes to Available Forms I (1961-62), Brown describes

the open-structure environment:

The title of the work refers to the availabilityof many possible forms
which these composed elements may assume, spontaneously
directed by the conductors in the process of performing the work.
256 Perspectivesof New Music

The individual musical events are rehearsed, but the performances

are not.6

Similarly,Boulez explains the multiple readings that can be applied to the

central "Constellation/Constellation miroir" from his Piano Sonata No.
3:

There is a great diversity of routes. ... In some ways, this Constella-

tion is like the map of an unknown city.... The itinerary is left to
the interpreter's initiative, he must direct himself through a tight
network of routes. This form, which is both fixed and mobile, is sit-
uated, because of this ambiguity, in the centre of the work for which
it serves as a pivot, as a centre of gravity.7

II. "A CONDITIONOFMOBILITY"

A mobile . . . an object defined by its movement and having no

other existence.
A mobile does not suggest anything: it captures genuine living
movements and shapes them. Mobiles have no meaning, make you
think of nothing but themselves. They are, that is all; they are abso-
lutes. There is more of the unpredictable about them than in any
other human creation.8

Jean-Paul Sartre, "Les Mobiles de Calder" (1946)

Mobiles in the visual fine arts date back to the 1930s and, over the years,
have come to be regarded as important representativesof the experimen-
tal art tradition. Although Sartre's description of a mobile is one of "an
object" and not a musical form, some composers, nevertheless, made an
"auralapplication of an essentially visual procedure developed principally
in Calder's mobiles."9 Open-structure compositions such as Twenty-Five
Pages (1953), Available Forms I and II (1961-62), Modules I and II
(1967), and Tracking Pierrot (1992) by Earle Brown, Klavierstuck XI
(1957) by Karlheinz Stockhausen, Piano Sonata No. 3 (1956-57) and
Structures, Livre II (1956-61) by Pierre Boulez, and Interpolation
(Mobilepourflute) (1958) and Mobilefur Shakespeare(1961) by Roman
Haubenstock-Ramati are sometimes called "mobiles." To create what has
become known as a mobile, the composer typically notates musical ele-
ments or events which are assembled, ordered, and combined by the
players or conductors during the performance.10 New performance
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II 257

contexts-the result of a "cut-and-paste" approach-are invented for

these events. Mobiles challenge, then, conventional constructive prin-
ciples, perhaps to the extent that traditional musical causality is all but
abandoned (except within each precomposed event). Mobiles invent
form in real time. Even so, each open-form score creates its own identity
or "fingerprint"when the composer weights the invariant elements. No
two realizations will exhibit the same processes, but there exists the
potential for multiple characteristicrealizations. The quest for the defini-
tive performance disappears,as well, in favor of injecting "ambiguity and
relativity as a creative potential . . . a second degree of creative expan-
sion."1' Brown continues: "Ives once said: 'If I write it down and make
it absolutely fixed and accurate, it will take the life out of it."'12

Many consider Brown's Twenty-Five Pages (for one to twenty-five

pianos) to be the first open-form score (see Example 1). In June 1953,
he wrote: "It will be seen that the basic 'mobile' elements of the piece-
page sequence and inversion, clef disposition and time-admit of a con-
siderable number of different presentations of this material. All of these
possibilities are valid within the total concept of the work...."13 David
Tudor played the Folio pieces (Folio includes a study for Twenty-Five
Pages) on the "Nacht Koncerte" at Darmstadt in 1954. (Invitations were
not extended to Cage and Brown until 1958.) At the time, interest in
open form, as it applied to music, the visual arts, film, theater, and
poetry, was increasing. In a sense, open form was "in the air." Following
Brown, open-form composition proved to be a valuable working method
for composers such as Boulez, Bussotti, Cage, Haubenstock-Ramati,
Pousseur, Stockhausen, and Wolff as early as the 1950s. It has been well
documented that Boulez turned to the nineteenth-century symbolist,
Stephane Mallarme, and works such as his Un Coup de des (A throw of
the dice) and Le Livre-unfinished at the time of his death in 1898-to
provide the conceptual framework for designing variable forms. Mal-
larme described his works in musical terms, whereas Boulez used literary
terminology. For Brown, too, his "conditions of transformability"can be
witnessed in the works of writers such as Mallarme, Joyce, and Stein. The
traditional modes of signification are abandoned and, instead, are
replaced with ones that tend to be open-ended, nonreferential, and
favoring polyvalent readings. Brown explains this new awareness to con-
ductor Richard Dufallo:

creative ambiguity; ambiguity as a creative function of the activity of

a listener, conductor, or musician. I've always considered that, as a
composer, I was a primary creative input; to create situations which
258 Perspectivesof New Music

then went on to stimulate further situations, in which ambiguity

would be a creative part of the outcome . .. there was a very strong
thing that I felt from literature, from Joyce and Stein especially; the
fact that we didn't know exactly what they were talking about,
exactlyhow they wanted us to interpret it. This allowed my mind, as
a reader, to become a part of the actual creative process.... You can
see the parallelbetween what I do as a composer who allows you as a
conductor to have a creative input.14

A single open-form score allows many realizations to emerge by the

recontextualization and reassembly of the composed materials. Brown
prefers:

to produce graphic situations, the implications of which would

involve the performer's response as a factor leading to multiple
'characteristic'realizations of the piece as an audible event; . . . to
extend and intensify the ambiguity inherent in any graphic represen-
tation and possible composer, performer, and audience response to
it; a work, and any one performance of it, as 'process' rather than as
static and conclusive.l5

In a 1959 interview, Alexander Calder stated: "My mobiles are objects

in space. I am a sculptor because I want to avoid telling stories."16 The
visual mobiles of Calder and the mobility of elements found in musical
works by Brown, Haubenstock-Ramati, and others typically resist narra-
tive design, yet some elements of narrativeremain behind, perhaps due to
the mere choice of materials, or perhaps because some manner of narra-
tive is unavoidably and individually imposed during the visual or sonic
experience. Still, Calder explains that mobiles are "abstractions which
resemble nothing in life except their manner of reacting."17 By their very
nature, mobiles present a contradiction. On one hand, mobiles are non-
linear, spontaneous constructions while, at the same time, the experience
is highly linear with a hierarchical ordering and narrative determined by
each person. This puzzling coexistence points out the compositional and
experiential counterpoint found in any open structure. One might say
that the individual experience is encouraged (in actuality, required) to
emerge over some inappropriatecollective model. (In this instance, "You
either follow sonata-allegro form or you don't" does not apply.) The col-
laborative partnership intensifies among composer, performer, and audi-
ence in that the individual yet valid "narratives"constructed by each
person are the results of the spontaneous mixing of variant and invariant
elements. These issues reflect Brown's own understanding of mobility in
music:
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II 259

' ~
*-h *
"s r
-
^=^-^ i

-
..- .. .
3f It# -
*,ffl
_t<
>
f *

* t_

? Copyright 1975 by Universal Edition (Canada) Ltd., Toronto. All rights reserved. Used by permission
of European American Music Distributors Corporation, sole U.S. and Canadian agent for Universal Edi-
tion (Canada) Ltd., Toronto.

EXAMPLE 1: EARLE BROWN, TWENTY-FIVE PAGES (1953), PAGE 16

260 Perspectivesof New Music

I wanted (and still want) very much for the work to have a 'reality'
of its own in addition to the specific controls imposed by myself and
by the performer. Ambiguity in the service of expanding the concep-
tual and real potential of the work must not lead to the loss of the
work as a recognizable, and to a certain extent, 'objective' entity.
The 'object' must reappear transformed by the process imposed
upon it as a 'subject.'18

A counterpoint of divergent elements, Mallarme said, surrounds the cen-

tral theme or fil conducteur. However, the transformations need not be
linear. In music, open-form mobile scores are variations whose sequence
is determined during each performance. Brown has suggested that the
twenty-nine events in Available FormsI (for eighteen instruments) could
be considered as twenty-nine themes. He says: "In a sense . . . what I've
made is 'variations for orchestra' which can be constantly juxtaposed in
different ways."19

III. BROWN'S OPEN-FORM MUSIC FROM THE 1950s AND 1960s

EXAMPLE 2: ALEXANDER CALDER: "MOBILE" (1962)

 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II 261

My first thoughts about making musical works in what I call a condi-

tion of mobility, and what is now called open form, were influenced
by the mobiles of the American sculptor Alexander Calder. At
approximatelythe same time, around 1948, the paintings and work-
ing methods of Jackson Pollock began to be widely publicized in
America. A correlation that I made-rightly or wrongly-between
these two artists and their technical and aesthetic points of view has
been my rather obsessive primary motivation as an artist and com-
poser since that time. The first works that I consider practicalexten-
sions of this point of view into music are in Folio (1952-53); they
reflect both of the above artists' characteristics, which I feel are
applicable to the composition, form, and performing and experienc-
ing of music.20

Earle Brown (1965)

Earle Brown's ModulesI and II, for chamber orchestra, are the first and
second works in a continuing series of open-structure works which, in
many ways, reveal the basic nature of the mobile itself. Module I, Module
II, Module III, or any future Module may be performed as separate pieces
or simultaneously in any combination.
Many also consider Available Forms I to be the earliest example of an
open-form score for orchestra. Twenty-Five Pages, where any of the
twenty-five unbound pages may by played in any order with either side
up, the Module series, and Available Forms I and II, for orchestra, fall
into the first of two broad areas defined as mobiles by Brown: "a 'mobile'
score subject to physical manipulation of its components, resulting in an
unknown number of different, integral, and 'valid' realizations."21Thus,
with Available Forms, the conductor cues the numbered event to be
played: the order of the events, tempo, and articulation are determined
or composed by the conductor during performance. It follows that a syn-
ergistic energy-futile to observe in the printed score-is released only
during performance (see Example 3).
November 1952 for piano(s) and/or other instruments or sound-
producing media and December1952 for one or more instruments and/
or sound-producing media derive conceptually from visual mobiles,
which appear to float through space and represent the second of the two
areas (see Example 4). An analogous process in the sounding arts unfolds
when the performer interprets Brown's graphics, not as a drawing, but as
three-dimensional elements (notated, though, in two dimensions) mov-
ing through space and time. The performer realizes the graphics, a snap-
shot of a dynamic and transitory process, from multiple perspectives-
262 Perspectives of New Music

? Copyright1962 (renewed)by AssociatedMusic Publishers,Inc. (BMI). InternationalCopyright

secured.All rightsreserved.Used by permission.

EXAMPLE 3: EARLE BROWN, AVAILABLE FORMS I FOR CHAMBER

ORCHESTRA (18 PLAYERS) (1961), PAGE 6 OF 6
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II 263

reading left to right, right to left, down, up, back to front, front to back,
or from any other possible direction. Indeed, the performer's perspective
alters the shape of fixed yet abstract graphics. Brown describes the second
area as:

a conceptually'mobile' approach to basically fixed graphic elements;

subject to an infinite number of performance realizations through
the involvement of the performer's immediate responses to the
intentionally ambiguous graphic stimuli relative to the conditions of
performance involvement.22

Performers must improvise to realize the proportional notation. In par-

ticular, December1952 provides "the barest suggestion for improvisation,
and when it's done by a large group it's a collective improvisation."23
Relative pitch, relative time, and relative loudness are the only parameters
notated by Brown. With his background as a jazz trumpeter, Brown has
talked at length about his respect for spontaneity and collective improvi-
sation and, ultimately, toward trusting musicians during an improvisation
of his score.

- l lm

I - ' I
__ -
I~~~~~~~~14

? Copyright 1962 (renewed) by Associated Music Publishers, Inc. (BMI). International Copyright
secured. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

EXAMPLE 4: EARLE BROWN, DECEMBER 1952 FROM FOLIO (1952-53)

AND 4 SYSTEMS
(1954)
264 Perspectivesof New Music

IV. ANALYSIS OF MODULE I

This essay will now discuss Modules I and II, which are the only pub-
lished works from the Module series to date (Module III is unpublished).
Module I consists of four pages scored for two flutes, oboe, BL clarinet,
bass clarinet, bassoon, two horns, two trumpets, trombone, tuba, two
first violins, two second violins, two violas, two 'celli, and two contra-
basses (the orchestration for each page of ModulesI and II appearsin the
Appendix). On each page, Brown notates five chords or vertical struc-
tures, labeled one through five. The vertical structures on each page
"may be played in any sequence and each may be held for as long as the
conductor wishes, at any constant or variable loudness."24 If Modules I
and II are performed simultaneously, the composer provides the follow-
ing recommendations: (1) two conductors should be used, one for each
Module and (2) the page ordering should be identical for both Modules.
The chords or simultaneities, by contrast, may be performed any number
of times in any sequence. The conductor indicates the simultaneity to be
played and shapes the sequence of chords in real time. Brown further
adds:

In Paris we . . . did pages 1 to 4 in sequence and then ended by

doing page 1 for the second time. You ... can play the four pages in
any sequence you like but after deciding the sequence you must do
the same sequence at roughly the same times. If you wish, you can
do the four pages in your sequence and then do any one or more
pages for the second time. The general 'tempo' of pages, however,
should not allow you to do more than 5 or 6 pages in approximately
12 to 15 minutes of performance time. It should not be less than 10
minutes.25

Each chord-performed always as a simultaneity, and never in arpeggi-

ated fashion-on the four pages of Module I deserves close attention.
According to Brown, "On pages 1 and 4 of both Modules, the first four
chords may be combined and overlapped in any sequence and combina-
tion"26 (see Example 5, page 1 of Module I). The orchestration on pages
1 and 4 has been carefully arranged to insure that chords 1, 2, 3, and 4
may be combined in any manner without possibility of a conflict between
individual parts. No two chords use the same orchestration. During per-
formance the conductor does not need to consider the practicalconcerns
of Brown's orchestration: the duplication or conflict between parts is a
direct result of the combining process. Indeed, the rich diversity of sonic
textures to be found in the Modulesseries is limited only by the imagina-
tion of the conductor.
 MODULE I
(D
1
0 1 ( 2- 4
2 Flu.
i
-%W 1-6,

A
UCbor.? IC.
aBus.b Clr. i h
Ban CClar.1~ i.B.

2 Hrns. ,Jh
2 HTp. 46.W

Tron.
BbCon.'2 L
2 o

2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
Vin.lI
w 1 ^a
I t
Via.21- a -2 --
1-
~ ~
21~~~~~~ ~-: 2 ~ ~
V1 o
s 1
am
C.2ts
2

8va lower

? Copyright 1970 by Universal Edition (London) Ltd., London. All rights reserved. Used by pe
Music Distributors Corporation, sole U.S. and Canadian agent for Universal Edition (London) Lt

EXAMPLE 5: MODULE I, PAGE 1 (SCORE IN C)

266 Perspectivesof New Music

In Module I, chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 move successively higher in register,

contain six discrete pitches, and lack any instrumental doublings. Each
structure, scored for a mixed ensemble of six, focuses on a new orchestra-
tion. By comparison, the entire orchestra sounds on chord 5 to create a
harmonically rich and dense texture, one that may be similar to the tex-
ture obtained when chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 are combined and sounded
together.
From the pitches found in chords 1, 2, 3, and 4, a composite scale can
be constructed. This scale consists of an intervallic series and its retro-
grade. A related composite scale can be constructed using chord 5 (see
Example 6).
Chords 1,2,3,4

a!#ML+

(8 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1) (1 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 8)

Chord5 - -

(s# 2.t _:.'4' ~-2-

(8 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1) (1 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 8)

EXAMPLE 6: MODULE I, PAGE 1, COMPOSITE SCALE CONSTRUCTION

On page one of Module I, Brown uses register, orchestration and,

primarily,intervallic redundancy to focus and integrate the open perfor-
mance. These fixed elements act as "counterweights" to the ever-
changing, real-time construction of the work. Chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 are
symmetrical, using the intervallic pattern 8 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1. Chord 5
is a transposition by interval 5 of the union of chords 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The interrelationships extend deep into the five chords themselves.
Brown notates two instruments on each staff. In addition, recall Brown's
orchestration: two flutes, two horns, two trumpets, violins I and II, two
violas, two celli, and two contrabasses. The remaining instruments share
staves based on similar timbres and registers: oboe and clarinet; bass clar-
inet and bassoon; and trombone and tuba. Chords are constructed by
 M

Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and 11 267

superimposing timbres and intervals. In Example 7, instrumentation pro-

vides an insight to the construction of chord 1 (below).

7:--

EXAMPLE 7: MODULE I, PAGE 1, CHORD 1

The two celli, viola and horn, and trombone and tuba pairs each focuses
on interval 11 (see Example 8). The superimposition of these intervals
and instruments creates an interlocking method of construction, which
helps to define not only chord 1, but the remaining chords as well.
Chord 1, then, is restricted to low-register strings and brass.

cello 1 viola 1 trombone

4):: -=
4)9,:
cello 2 9 1
i
horn tuba

EXAMPLE 8: MODULE I, PAGE 1, CONSTRUCTION OF CHORD 1

This organization of timbre with intervals can be seen in Example 9

and will help provide a methodology for this analysis. The component
dyads (suggested by Brown's instrumentation) focus on interval 11, and
each component dyad is separated by interval 8, while the starting level
for each chord increases by interval 9. Register and timbre together cre-
ate a characteristicsound for each chord. Chord 1 focuses on low-register
strings and brass, while chord 2 emphasizes middle-register strings and
woodwinds. High-register brass and strings comprise chord 3, while
high-register woodwinds and brass are used in chord 4. Open form
allows for many potential chord combinations. Thus, when executing
page one, chords 1-4 may overlap and sound together as the conductor
wishes. The resultant chord creates a structure intimately related
(through transposition) to chord 5 (which is always played tutti). How-
ever, when one, two, or three of these chords sound, the resultant sound
is not just a fragment of chord 5, but a reflection in microcosm of the
intervallic design found throughout the first page.
268 Perspectivesof New Music

Chord 1 Chord3

88
I^---
3

8
n
vin vl
tpt --

11 via tPt

horn

Chord4
Chord2

' 48
15

., 8

cb vie

vln
vin
Chord5 ob vlla 8
tuba vie tt
tpt
bsn tPt clar 8- -
I-
S #0 i- -.
1 vln 1
11 horn
hom ffl trrom via vln
-
) cb V
hL.
Ja 1 I* *
0
bsn
------------------- 9
cb horn vie vlc vl
- -9
-------- --:- 9

EXAMPLE 9: MODULE I, PAGE 1, INTERVALLIC CONSTRUCTION

OF CHORDS 1-5
 MODULE I
?D

8va lower

? Copyright 1970 by Universal Edition (London) Ltd., London. All rights reserved. Used by per
Music Distributors Corporation, sole U.S. and Canadian agent for Universal Edition (London) L

EXAMPLE 10: MODULE I, PAGE 2 (SCORE IN C)

270 Perspectivesof New Music

Page 2, like the previous page of Module I, reveals highly distinctive

sonic results. Brown's performance instructions indicate the following:
the five chords on pages 2 and 3 are not overlapped or combined in any
way. Rather, each chord, itself, is discrete and invariant. Only the order
and repetition of chords are variable. Furthermore, each sounds tutti-an
aspect new to the structure that is realized through unison and octave
doublings. Doublings are consistently present between the violins and
violas and between some woodwinds and brass, while further doublings
can be found elsewhere too (see Example 10). In general, the five chords
change only slightly with respect to register. Moreover, a clear intervallic
focus and another characteristic sound-different from page 1-take
shape. Additionally, chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 reveal a higher concentration of
interval 2 than was seen on page one.
The composite scale for page two is not symmetrical and contains little
information about the structure of this page. However, the chords on
page 2 appear in reduction in Example 11. Interval 2 tends to be a fea-
ture of chords 1, 2, and 3, while intervals 1 and 2 are equally present in
chord 4; these intervals virtually disappear in chord 5. Thus, chords 1-5
display a successive transformation from a focus on interval 2 toward
interval 5. However, the degree of audibility of this transformation is an
aspect of the work to be determined by the conductor during perfor-
mance.
Chord I Chord2 Chord3
4

Chord4 Chord5 .

A= I

EXAMPLE 11: MODULE I, PAGE 2, CHORD REDUCTION

Only the composite scales of chords 1 and 2 are symmetrical. (Both

chords 1 and 2 are symmetrical about middle C. Chord 1 uses the inter-
vallic pattern 5 2 3 2 5 2 3, while chord 2 uses 2 5 2 5 2 3 2.) However,
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and 11 271

another kind of symmetry appears here. As seen in Example 12, each

chord has been divided into two components: strings and brass/wood-
winds. (This divides the chamber orchestra into two nearly equal groups.
In addition, as described below, the interlocking orchestration is directly
related to the construction of each chord.) Upon investigation, an inter-
nal symmetry becomes apparent for each chord on page two. Both the
strings and brass/woodwinds components tend to focus on symmetrical
patterns featuring interval 5. However, the components are superim-
posed and separated by interval 2 (which produces the interlocking of
instrumental groups). This construction method is consistent in the
strings component throughout page two, while symmetry is lacking in
the brass/woodwinds component in chords 4 and 5. In fact, chord 5 is a
contrast in structure and sound to chord 1.

Chord I
Chord4
strings woodwinds/brass strings woodwinds/brass

-A
5
5 55
9 rT *
6 5 5 8

- 5 1(2f

Chord5
Chord2 strings woodwinds/brass
strings woodwinds/brass *
5*

95 ' +5 j= =. 5 -e

5 4
4 7

995 9 9
55

strings woodwinds/brass

5 65

5 5
9

EXAMPLE 12: MODULE I, PAGE 2, INTERVALLIC CONSTRUCTION

OF CHORDS 1-5
272 Perspectivesof New Music

As on page one, a composite scale can be constructed from pitches

found on page three, chords 1, 2, 3, and 4. A recurring intervallic pattern
-7 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1-appears (see Example 13). Although this pattern is
different from the pattern found on page 1, the intervallic focus remains
on interval 1. As with page two, chords 1-4 sound tutti, while chord 5 is
a performance silence. On page three, then, the most dense texture can
potentially follow the least dense-silence. Finally,there is little change in
register for each chord on both pages two and three.
Chords 1,2,3,4 ^

1 111 (71 1 1 2 1 1)(71 1 1 1 1 1 1 1)

Chord5

1 TACET

(Note: In this example, hollow noteheads have been transposed up one octave from where they
appear in the score. Brown seems to have preferred these pitches to sound in the lowest register of
the contrabasses.)

EXAMPLE 13: MODULE I, PAGE 3, COMPOSITE SCALE CONSTRUCTION

The orchestral doublings on page three are treated in a much different

manner than was seen on the previous page. Every pitch in the strings is
doubled by either woodwinds or brass. Chord 1 appears below with its
orchestral timbres indicated. This one-to-one correspondence in orches-
tration is applied to the remaining chords on page three as well. Register
and timbre, then, are generally consistent from chord to chord on page
three (see Example 14).
At the deep structural level, many chord-to-chord relationships can be
observed; however, they tend not to be as consistent as those found on
page one. Example 15 again reveals an emphasis on intervals 5 and 7.
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and 11 273

Chord 1

strings

1 _

[V |woodwinds
-brass

/ j *ii | woodwinds

__ Ibrass

EXAMPLE 14: MODULE I, PAGE 3, CHORD 1, ORCHESTRATION

Chord I [-7 5

:5
.~:
-7
.......-. 5

Chord2 7

77
) 7, - -.S

t17 - -
- ,5

Chord3

#- 7

- 5

EXAMPLE 15: MODULE I, PAGE 3, INTERVALLIC CONSTRUCTION

OF CHORDS 1-4
274 Perspectivesof New Music

Chord4
7-?_ 5
A /IW0

li, 7
55

7
.
---5

EXAMPLE 15: (CONT.)

The sound and design of page three stand in contrast to the other
pages of Module I Chords are constructed from intervals used infre-
quently elsewhere in the piece. Indeed, page three features intervals 3
and 4 in the construction of each chord. In addition, the low, middle,
and high components of each chord relate through transposition by
intervals 5 and 7. For chord 1, examine the lowest collection of four
pitches (A-C-E-G), the middle four (D-F-A-C), and the highest four
(G-B,-D-F) (see Example 16.) A symmetrical construction using inter-
vals 3 and 4 can be seen by stacking upward beginning on G. The three
components are generated by starting with [D = 0] [0, 3, 7, 10]. T5 will
share two pitch-classes with To and one with T7; T7 will share two pitch-
classes with To and one with T5. T7 and T5 are each a perfect fifth above
and below D, respectively. The remaining chords on page three are con-
structed in the same manner (see Example 17).

3434343

[D = 0]
T5 [0, 3, 7,10] T7

EXAMPLE 16: MODULE I, PAGE 3, CHORD 1,

SYMMETRICAL CONSTRUCTION
 Open Formand EarleBrown'sModulesI and II 275

Chord 1 Chord 2 Chord 3 Chord 4

component

high T5 T5
middle [D =0] [E =0] [Ft = 0] [C#= 0]
[0,3,7,10] [0, 3, 7, 10] [0,3, 7,10] [0,3, 7,10]

low

EXAMPLE 17: MODULE I, PAGE 3, CHORD CONSTRUCTION

On page four, the last page of Module I, chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 are

played by small, mixed instrumental ensembles, while chord 5 is per-
formed tutti. This arrangement is similar to that of page one. Indeed,
pages one and four use the same compositional technique-simple trans-
position-to generate additional material. The composite scale con-
structed from pitches found in chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 is symmetrical about
the intervallic pattern 6 7 6 2 5 1 2 2 1 2. Chord 5 is a transposition by
interval 3 of the union of chords 1, 2, 3, and 4. This aspect may have
been influenced by the fact that thirds were especially characteristicof the
previous page, and were virtually absent from pages one and two (see
Example 18).
Chords 1,2,3,4

.__-_ .o-
I' w
(6 7 6 2 5 1 2 2 1 1 2) (2 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 7 6)

Chord5 A

k-=#-
C(6 7 6 2 5 1 2 2 1 1 2) (2 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 7 6)

EXAMPLE 18: MODULE I, PAGE 4, COMPOSITE SCALE CONSTRUCTION

276 Perspectivesof New Music

As seen on page one, here internal symmetry and transposition help

interrelate chords 1, 2, 3, and 4. Example 19 reveals symmetrical chord
constructions different from those used elsewhere in Module I. The sym-
metrical chord construction of chord 1 is transposed by interval 6 to pro-
duce chord 3. Likewise, chords 2 and 4 use another symmetrical
arrangement transposed by interval 6 (see Example 19).

Chord2
ChordI Chord3 Chor4

i
.;
5
25 )i ,
3 ji 5 P 338

_ 'I
9 9
A 1

I transpositionby interval6 l

[I transpositionby interval6 l

EXAMPLE 19: MODULE I, PAGE 4, INTERVALLIC CONSTRUCTION

OF CHORDS 1-4

The preceding discussion of Module I reveals that each page has a dis-
tinctive intervallic, textural, registral, and timbral focus. Intervallic con-
struction is especially central to the sound of each page. This "sonic"
identity emerges through these fixed elements-common to all realiza-
tions of Module I-and from the process of recombining and reassem-
bling the elements as prescribed by the composer. Together, a single
"characteristic"realization-one of an infinite number of realizations-
takes clear shape. A summary of the relationships in Module I follows in
Example 20.
Consider a single performance version of Module I with the following
sequence of pages-one, two, three, and four. Knowing the page
sequence provides a general description of the processes to unfold in the
realization. Despite page sequence, though, each page retains its charac-
teristic structure and sound, while the details will change.
On page one, chords 1-4, either alone or in any combination, are
related intervallically to chord 5, and their textures are comparable as
well. The more overlapping seen in chords 1-4, the increased relation-
ship and identity there is to chord 5-the summation of chords 1-4.
Here, then, the conductor determines the degree of the relationship
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II
MODULE I
PAGE 1
*symmetrical, composite scale con-
struction
*union of chords 1-4 related by
transposition (interval 5) to
chord 5
*symmetrical chord construction,
focus on intervals 3, 5, and 8
*no instrumental doublings
*chords 1-4 played by mixed en-
semble of six
*chords 1-4 successively rise in re-
gister
*chord 5 played tutti
PAGE 3
*recurring intervallic pattern in
composite scale construction
*superimposition of To, T5, and T7
efocus on intervals 3 and 4
*chords generated through transpo-
sition
*one-to-one correspondence in in-
strumental doublings
elittle change in register
*chords 1-4 played tutti
*chord 5 is performance silence
EXAMPLE 20: MODULE I, SUMMARY
277
PAGE 2
*no symmetrical, composite scale
construction
*no transposition to generate mate-
rial
*interlocking orchestration: strings
and woodwinds/brass
*instrumental groups constructed
around interval 5, separated
by interval 2
*instrumental doublings
elittle change in register
all chords played tutti
PAGE 4
*symmetrical, composite scale con-
struction
*union of chords 1-4 related by
transposition (interval 3) to
chord 5
*symmetrical chord construction
*chords 1-4 played by mixed en-
semble of six or seven
*chords 1 and 3 focus on intervals
1, 2, and 5 in middle register
*chords 2 and 4 focus on intervals
3, 8, and 9 over wide registral
space
*chord 5 played tutti
*no instrumental doublings
OF PAGES 1-4
278 Perspectivesof New Music

between chord 5 and the combinations available with the other four
chords. When chords 1-4 sound together, the resultant structure, in
every way, approaches that of chord 5-transposition and orchestration
are the only differences. The composite scale, which focuses on pitch
interval 1, is symmetrical;and, thus, related symmetrical chord construc-
tions are easily generated. Each chord reveals a distinctive orchestration
and registral space. Chord 1 emphasizes low brass/strings; chord 2,
middle-register strings/woodwinds; chord 3, high brass/strings; chord
4, high woodwinds/strings; and chord 5, full orchestra. For the most
part, the texture of each chord tends to be rather thin, although a dense
texture is possible with overlappings.
Page two, on the other hand, is consistently thick in texture:
Doublings allow each chord to be played tutti. This texture is due to the
cluster-like orchestration where strings and brass/woodwinds interlock.
In this way, seconds (interval 2 especially) dominate the sound on page
two. The homogeneity of each chord is further enhanced by few changes
in register between chords.
Page three, as well, displays timbral richness. Doublings are used in dif-
ferent ways to allow chords to be played tutti. For chords 14, there is a
one-to-one correspondence in orchestration: Every pitch in the strings is
doubled or matched by either brass or woodwinds to produce chords
played tutti. In contrast to the structures found on the other pages of
Module I, chord 5 on page 3 is a performance silence. This allows the
conductor to improvise densities of the most extreme kind-chords
played tutti covering more than five octaves and no sound at all. Thirds
are used to construct seventh chords which are then superimposed. It
seems that the superimposition of familiarchord types is, for Brown, yet
another way to produce vertical structures-indeed, the only elements
found in Module I.
Page four recalls the texture, orchestration, and symmetrical chord
constructions found on page one. Likewise, the recombining and over-
lapping of chords 1-4 applies here as well. The small mixed ensembles of
chords 1 and 3 focus on intervals 1 and 2 in the middle register; while,
the small ensembles of chords 2 and 4 focus on intervals 8 and 9 over a
wide registral space. As before, when chords 1-4 are overlapped, the
resultant union, in every respect, challenges the tutti chord 5-here,
related again by transposition.
The structures found on pages one and four are comparable. Combi-
nations of chords 14 mirror, in varying degrees, chord 5. If only one
chord sounds, the relationship to chord 5 is limited; whereas, if chords
1-4 are combined, the result is a transposition of chord 5. Brown himself
considers the sequence-page one, two, three, and four-as a kind of
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II 279

"exposition" (page one), "development" (pages two and three), and

"exposition" (page four). Although the sequence of pages described
above reveals the outline of a linear progression, Module I is far removed
from traditional gestures and constructive principles. Each page is singu-
lar in both its design and sound. When another sequence of pages is cho-
sen, a different macroprocess is created. Indeed, any sequence of pages
may be chosen by the conductor; and, it follows that multiple processes
or realizations will result. By contrast, each page, regardless of the reas-
sembling principles, contains a sonic identity or "fingerprint." The
mobility of elements (Brown calls this "a second degree of expansion")
does not erase these "fingerprints," which are invariant and remain
behind in all realizations of the work. Process changes, but structure does
not.

V. MODULEIAND MODULEII

Module I and Module II can be performed separately or simultaneously.

The chamber orchestra differs slightly in Module II. Here, the wood-
winds and brass have been altered. The orchestration includes flute,
oboe, English horn, Bb clarinet, bassoon, contrabassoon, two horns, two
trumpets, two trombones, two violins I and II, two violas, two celli, and
two contrabasses. In general, the orchestration in each piece is different,
although the two mobiles use nearly the same pitch material. (The
orchestration on page four of both scores is, for the most part,
unchanged even with the new orchestra. The instrumental substitutions
in Module II are inconsequential to the structure of the piece.) This essay
will now examine the interrelationships between corresponding pages of
the two Modules. Brown recommends that, in a simultaneous perfor-
mance, the corresponding pages of each Module be performed together
with some overlapping. This suggests a possible connection between cor-
responding pages. First, in Example 21, corresponding pages are com-
pared in each Module. Only relationships between the union of chords 1-
4 and chord 5 appear.For example, on page one, for Module I, the com-
posite scale of the union of chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 is identical with the
composite scale for Module II, chord 5. In the same way, Module I, chord
5 is identical to Module II, the union of chords 1, 2, 3, and 4. The
orchestration, however, is different on page one for each work.
The mobility of elements expands and intensifies with simultaneous
performances of Modules I and II. Consider the following page
sequence-page 1, 2, 3, and 4-for each piece. Brown prescribes that
each conductor should perform the corresponding pages at about the
280 Perspectivesof New Music

MODULE I MODULE I

PAGE 1

union of chords1-4- transpositionup by interval5 -union of chords1-4

unison
transpositionup orchestrationsdifferent transpositiondown
by interval5 by interval5
chord5 transpositiondown chord5
by interval5

PAGE 2

union of chords1-4 --composite scalesidentical, union of chords1-4

interlockingorchestrations
switched

chord5 identical chord5

PAGE 3

union of chords1-4 -composite scalesdifferent union of chords1-4

similar
orchestrations

chord5 performancesilence chord5

PAGE 4

union of chords1-4-transposition up by interval3 -union of chords1-4

unison
transpositionup orchestrationsidentical transpositiondown
by interval3 byinterval3
chord5 transpositiondown chord5
by interval3

EXAMPLE 21: PAGE COMPARISON BETWEEN MODULE I AND MODULE II

 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and /I 281

same time (with some overlap permitted). On page one of Module I, the
composite scale of the union of chords 1-4 matches in pitch, intervals,
and register, Module II, chord 5. Similarly, Module I, chord 5 matches
Module II, the union of chords 1-4. Only the orchestration differs
between the two Modules. Recall that in each Module, the union of
chords 1-4 is related by transposition to chord 5. These observations
actually intensify Brown's use of transposition on page one. Here, in
both works, a characteristic sound emerges-one that is different from
the other pages. Regardless of the Module, the union of chords 1-4 and
chord 5 are related by transposition or unison, yet are contrasted through
orchestration.
The thick, cluster-like texture of page two is unmistakable. Again, all
chords are played tutti using Brown's interlocking orchestration. In each
Module, corresponding chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 match in pitch and register;
however, the orchestration has undergone a kind of mobility itself. For
example, in Module I, chord 1, the orchestration was divided into a string
component and a brass/woodwind component. In Module II, chord 1,
the orchestration has been switched for each component. Here, the
string component had been the brass/woodwind component of Module
I, chord 1; and the brass/woodwind component was the string compo-
nent of Module I, chord 1. This technique can be witnessed with chords
1-4. Furthermore, chord 5 is identical in pitch and orchestration in both
pieces. The relation between materials here can be seen as well in the
interval content of chords 1, 2, and 3. As was described above, both the
string and brass/woodwind components focus on interval 5, and each
component is separated by interval 2. This tends to disappearin chords 4
and 5 in favor of more dissonant intervals. All in all, an echoing of clus-
ters between the two orchestras results where the reversalsin orchestra-
tion might be described as mirror images of the same vertical structures.
On page three of each Module, chords 1, 2, 3, and 4 are, for the most
part, constructed from different pitch materials. In general, there are few
pitch relationships between page three of each Module; however, there is
a common technique to generate material. Furthermore, the orchestra-
tion for each chord is similar. For example, chord 5 is tacet in both
scores, and ensures significant silences and textural contrasts. Within each
Module the tutti quality of each chord distinguishes itself through an
intervallic focus on thirds. One might consider the superimposition of
non-functional seventh chords as a suggestion of the "sound" of pan-
tonality. In relation to the other pages, this is a new feature to the work.
During performance, the overlapping of superimposed seventh chords
forms a somewhat dense texture. Page three does not have the focus on
pitch or symmetrical chord constructions as was observed on the other
282 Perspectivesof New Music

pages of these two scores. It sustains the ever-forming qualities of open

form.
Page four contains the same inter-Module relationships as was seen on
page one. Some details concerning chord constructions have been
altered; however, the construction of a composite scale (based on inter-
vallic retrograde and transposition) still applies here. For example, the
composite scale of the union of chords 1-4 in Module I is identical, as is
the orchestration, to the composite scale and orchestration of chord 5 in
Module II. Likewise, the composite scale and orchestration of chord 5 in
Module I is identical to the composite scale and orchestration of the
union of chords 1-4 in Module II. The composite scale of the union of
chords 1-4 in Module I is related through transposition by interval 3 to
the composite scale of the union of chords 1-4 in Module II. The same
relationship holds for chord 5 of each Module (these relationships are
summarized in Example 22). Thus, the echoes return, though different
this time on page four, to again focus the work, but now toward a new
collection of pitches and intervals.
In Modules I and II, pages one and four each use different materials
which are generated through transposition. While this helps to relate
material, it also points out that the material is restricted. The chords in
these two scores are transformed into music through the concert perfor-
mance and, consequently, through the mobility of the chords. When
these chords are in motion-that is to say, the conductors cue the chords
any number of times in any sequence and shape the timbres, dynamics,
duration, and articulation-the process of this open-form model begins
to unfold. Indeed, the analysisand description of an open process is valu-
able, but it is ultimately in performance that an open-form structure
materializes.
With four or five chords notated on four pages of each Module, Brown
explains his economical approach toward composition:

After a certain point, which I express in the program notes for Cross-
sectionsand ColorFields, I tried to strip away and to simplify the tre-
mendous complexity of Available Forms II into simple chordal
structures. ModulesI and II are like that. Time Spans and New Piece:
Loopsare like that. Cross-sectionsis like that. ... To do the maximum
with a simple amount of material, and to limit the material that I
compose and still have the maximum of interactional complexity.27

Brown has described his early music as a strict interpretation of the

Schillinger system. The mathematical rigor used to organize elements
such as pitch groups and rhythmic series was also used to create propor-
tions, symmetries, and asymmetries. ThreePiecesfor Piano (1951), Music
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and 1 283

MODULE I MODULE II

PAGE 1

(symmetrical pattern: 8 1251111511)

union of chords 1-4 union of chords 1-4

starting pitch for composite scale: starting pitch for composite scale:

C F

chord 5 chords 5

starting pitch for composite scale: starting pitch for composite scale:
F C

(symmetrical pattern: 6 7 6 2 5 1 2 2 1 1 2)
union of chords 1-4 union of chords 1-4

starting pitch for composite scale: starting pitch for composite scale:
BL c#

chord 5 chord 5

starting pitch for composite scale: starting pitch for composite scale:

c# B6

EXAMPLE 22: INTERVALLIC RELATIONSHIPS ON PAGES ONE AND FOUR

284 Perspectivesof New Music

for Violin, Cello and Piano (1952), and PerspectivesforPiano (1952) are
polyphonic and Schillinger-derived serial works. Twenty-FivePages and
December 1952 represent his first encounters with open form, graphic
scores and proportional notation. The "sound pillars" or vertical chord
structures of the Module series, Time Spans (1972-73) and Cross-sections
and Color Fields (1973-75) further illustrate the diversity of Brown's
continuing experimentation with mobile composition. Finally, subse-
quent works such as Corroboree(1964), String Quartet (1965), Windsor
Jambs (1980), and Tracking Pierrot (1992) combine both open and
closed forms. Presently, Brown continues to explore open form and the
control afforded by his application of the Schillinger system.

VI. CONCLUSION

The early days of the Darmstadt Summer Courses were particularly

attractive to composers interested in serialism. Some, though, were led
into new realms of composition by Cage (with chance procedures) and
Brown (with open form and proportional notation). Interestingly, Cage
and Brown chose to explore indeterminacy in very different ways. The
fact that Cage and Brown are different prompted Feldman to point out
how they are similar: "Both Cage and Brown dramatize the structural
aspect of process."28 Cage invented structures which circumvent the
improvisations of a performer. Brown celebrates the role of improvisation
which, for him, has its roots in playing with jazz combos. Improvisation
includes "what your background is feeding you when you are confronted
by my score. Your history is going to come into it if you let it."29 Brown
composes the materials, but allows form to be improvised, while Cage
worked the opposite way-the structure is determined and the materials
are only suggested. Brown considered how one might reconcile the
polarity between total control and total improvisational methods. This
was not an "either-or" issue for Brown; instead, he recognized a fertile
middleground. Several months after Tudor played the Folio pieces and
music by Cage, Feldman, and Wolff at Darmstadt in 1954, Boulez wrote
in his article, "Recherches maintenant": "The task of placing the formal
possibilities of music on an equal footing with morphology and syntax
seems more and more urgent; fluidity of form must integrate fluidity of
vocabulary."30It was January 1957 when Brown traveled to Europe and
presented the Folio scores to Bussotti and Heinz-Klaus Metzger in
Cologne. The following year both Cage and Brown attended the Darm-
stadt Festival. Brown puts these events into historical perspective for us:
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II 285

What made me write music the way I wrote it, and still write it, is
more connected to my experiences as a young artist, influenced by
Kenneth Patchen's poetry and James Joyce and Gertrude Stein and
the Abstract Expressionist painters and sculptors. That all happened
to me before I ever went to Europe. What really happened was that
those influences which were totally American reallyinfluenced Euro-
peans. I've always said that I could document the fact that this was
the first time that musical influences went from this country to
Europe, rather than the other way around.31

On the occasion of Brown's sixtieth birthday, in December 1986, Keith

Potter recounted how Brown, Feldman, and Wolff have been historically
misrepresented as followers in the shadow of Cage. He wrote:

And even when their individually pioneering ideas receive men-

tion-in Brown's case, for example, the early contributions he made
to the notational practices now generally known as "proportional
notation" and "open form"-the blanket term "indeterminacy"
tends to obscure the real differences of aesthetic and technique that
separate them. These differences, indeed, did ultimately separate the
members of this "New York school" who, not unnaturally, found
themselves increasingly absorbed by what they did not have in com-
mon. And of none is this truer than of Brown.32

Feldman concluded: "While the influence of Cage and myself on the

avant-garde community has been largely philosophical, Brown's has been
more tangible and practical.... His 'time notation,' in fact, has become
part of modern-day compositional usage."33 One could add that Brown
is responsible for extending musical notation to include graphics and line
drawings. Since midcentury, open form, proportional notation and
graphics have been used by a variety of composers in ever-new and
refreshing capacities. While these tools may be routine for some,
unnecessary for others, and historical for still others, the fact remains that
they have been accepted into the contemporary literature. New notations
and graphics are not unusual today, and this knowledge affects any com-
poser. Indeed, the last forty years has affected us in a fundamental way.
Put simply, if a notation does not exist, then we invent one. Previous
generations could not make this conceptual leap. Constructive tech-
niques are often nonlinear, and open form serves as a model for fixed
scores. Conceptually, we operate on an open-ended system, not one
which is fixed. Today, indeterminacy and its notative solutions still serve
the creative interests of many. While we can observe the influence of
286 Perspectivesof New Music

Brown and Cage on more than a generation of young composers, we

may, nevertheless, fail to notice the subtle assimilation of their work at a
level where creative processes are instinctive.
Open structure is one of many contemporary musical revolutions that
has expanded the principles of musical composition. The beauty in the
visual mobiles of Calder and in the open-form mobile scores of such
composers as Brown, Boulez, Haubenstock-Ramati, and Stockhausen lies
in the actual movement and transformabilityof materials through space
and time. Open structure intensifies performance to the level where per-
formance becomes composition. The direct, spontaneous spatterings of
color by Pollock and the ever-forming relationships of a mobile in
motion are immediate when we experience such art. The "action" paint-
ings by Pollock and others of "The New York school" abandon focal cen-
ters. The "finished" canvas serves as a recording of actions left during the
creative process. These open systems invite multiplicity. The correlation
that Brown made between his work and the visual art of Calder and Pol-
lock lies in these open systems and changing perspectives and is first real-
ized in Folio (1952-53). Recently, Brown told an interviewer: "Pollock is
a visual representation of tremendously intricate polyphony; the webs of
lines and splashes, the bursts of color. It looked like what I wanted my
music to sound like."34 With open-structure music, the spontaneous con-
cert performance creates an unrepeatable process. Form, timbre, melody,
and texture are immediate concerns, while traditional musical causality is
disrupted. Modes of operation that are linear, closed, and referential are
displaced in favor of ones that are chaotic, open, nonreferential, and con-
tradictory. The influence of the physical nature of making music clearly
intensifies in ways different from those found in more conventional
musics: the conductor or players directly manipulate, shape, and assemble
the work during performance (and not in rehearsal). In open-form
music, the score does not document process. Rather, it contains the ele-
ments necessary to invent process, and the performance records a single
process in time. The multiplicity of structures is made manifest, realized,
completed, and fulfilled only at the moment of realization. Open form
possesses a vast arrayof combinations that we have great difficulty in fully
comprehending: the realized concert performance helps us to translate
the magnitude and mystery of the infinite into meaningful human and,
most importantly, sonic terms. Perhaps Jean-Paul Sartre describes the
mobile environment best for us:

If you miss it, you have lost it forever. Valery said of the sea that it is
a perpetual recommencement. A mobile is in this way like the sea,
and is equally enchanting: forever rebeginning, forever new.
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and 11 287

Mobiles do not seek to imitate anything ... they are nevertheless

at once lyricalinventions, technical combinations of an almost math-
ematical quality and sensitive symbols of Nature.35
288 Perspectivesof New Music

APPENDIX

Orchestration for ModulesI and II

MODULE I

Chord 1 Chord 2 Chord 3 Chord 4 Chord 5

PAGEONE hrn fl hrn fl TUTTI

trom clar trp (2) ob
tuba vln II vln II clar
via vic via bsn
vic cb (2) vln I(2)
PAGETWO TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI
PAGETHREE TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TACET

PAGEFOUR fl vln I fl tuba TUTTI

clar vln II clar vln I
bassclar vic hrn (2) vln II
bsn cb trp via
trp cb vic
trom

MODULE II

Chord 1 Chord 2 Chord 3 Chord 4 Chord 5

PAGEONE eng hrn clar ob fl TUTTI

bsn hrn trp hrn
con bsn trom trom vln I
trp via vln I vln II
cb vic vln II via
cb vic

PAGETWO TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI

PAGETHREE TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TUTTI TACET

PAGEFOUR ob con bsn fl vln I TUTTI

bsn vln I eng hrn vln II
hrn vln II clar via
trp via hrn vic
trom (2) vic trp cb
cb

Note: Parentheses indicate number of instruments sounding. Double stops are

not indicated.
 Open Form and Earle Brown'sModules I and II 289

NOTES

1. Earle Brown, ASUC, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference

(April 1970): 8.
2. Earle Brown, "Prefatory Note," Folio and 4 Systems(New York:
Associated Music Publishers, 1961). Folio and 4 Systemscontains
writings, detailed performance notes, and scores (which include
December1952, Four Systems,and 1953).
3. Herman Sabbe, "Open Structure and the Problem of Criticism,"
Perspectivesof New Music 27, no. 1 (Winter 1989): 314.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Earle Brown, Program notes of the New York Philharmonic Society,
February 1964.
7. Pierre Boulez, "Sonate, que me veux-tu?" Perspectivesof New Music
1, no. 2 (Spring 1963): 41.
8. Alexander Calder, Calder's Universe, ed. Jean Lipman (Philadelphia:
Running Press, 1976), 261-62.
9. William Bland, "Earle Brown," The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians 3, Fifth Edition (1980), 341-42.
10. David Cope writes that events tend "to avoid the traditional concept
of melody . . . not necessarily building to a climax or part of a
cadence." David Cope, New Directions in Music, fifth edition
(Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1989), 157.
11. Earle Brown, in Trackings: ComposersSpeak with Richard Dufallo
(New York:Oxford University Press, 1989), 108.
12. Ibid.
13 Earle Brown, "Directions for Performance," Twenty-Five Pages
(Toronto: Universal Edition, 1953).
14. Trackings,108.
15. Earle Brown, "Notation und Ausfiihrung neuer Musik" (lecture pre-
sented at Darmstadt, 1964), Darmstddter Beitraigezur neuen Musik
9 (1965): 64-86.
290 Perspectivesof New Music

16. Alexander Calder, Hommage to Alexander Calder, ed. G. di San Laz-

zaro (New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1972), 98. From the
interview, "No One Thanks Me When They Have to Make a
Horse," recorded by Yvon Taillandier for the monthly publication
XXe siecle, no. 2 (March 1959).
17. Calder's Universe,262.
18. "PrefatoryNote," Folio and 4 Systems.
19. Trackings,109-10.
20. "The Notation and Performance of New Music."
21. "PrefatoryNote," Folio and 4 Systems.
22. Ibid.
23. Brown, ASUC Proceedings5: 11.
24. Earle Brown, "Performance Notes," Module I and II (New York:
Universal Editions, 1970).
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Trackings,114.
28 Morton Feldman, statement from "Composers in Performance"
(BMI, 1966).
29. Trackings,117.
30. Peter F. Stacey, Boulez and the Modern Concept (Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press, 1987), 79-80.
31. Trackings,106.
32. Keith Potter, "Earle Brown in Context," TheMusical Times(Decem-
ber 1986).
33. Feldman, BMI.
34. Trackings,109.
35. Statement by Jean-Paul Sartre, Calder's Universe,261.