The notion of a score as a mobile structure serves as a unifying element between Earle Brown and André Boucourechliev, albeit in different ways. Firstly, this term highlights their radical stance towards notation, setting them apart from European practices and distinguishing their work from the renowned efforts of Boulez (Third Sonata) or Stockhausen (Klavierstuck XI) during the same era. The score as a mobile entity, as embraced by Brown and Boucourechliev, also signifies a rupture with the American avant-garde, as the choices made by performers become crucial. Boucourechliev, in particular, emphasized his interest in conscious choices and the musical taste of the performer as the piece unfolds in the act of performance.
While December 1952 stands as Brown's most renowned work, its abstract nature does not faithfully represent the pieces he composed thereafter. In his later works, Brown employed more detailed scores that ingeniously combined traditional and graphic notation. His compositions often consist of multiple independent sheets of music, with the conductor determining their order of performance on the spot. Here, the aim is not to negate the performer's or composer's decisions, as in John Cage's chance operations, but rather to recreate the inherent unpredictability of a live performance. Available Forms I, for instance, showcases a more gestural and calligraphic notational style compared to December 1952. The fusion of staff notation, graphic elements, and specific conducting conventions yields unprecedented compositional outcomes, actively engaging the players in a manner unattainable through traditional notation.
Brown and Boucourechliev break away from established conventions, allowing for a more dynamic and spontaneous interpretation of the score. By blurring the lines between composition and performance, they embrace the fluidity and unpredictability of live music, granting each performance a unique character and emphasizing the crucial role of the performer's artistic decisions.
For Boucourechliev, the performer's consciousness and musical taste are essential components that shape the unfolding of the piece. This emphasis on personal interpretation and choice resonates with his rejection of chance operations and aleatoric music.
Instead, he seeks to cultivate a deliberate and thoughtful approach to performance, underscoring the human agency involved in breathing life into the composition. The score becomes a dynamic framework within which the performer's artistic intuition can thrive, resulting in an immersive and engaging musical experience.
The concept of a mobile score as embraced by Earle Brown and André Boucourechliev signifies a departure from traditional practices and an embrace of the performer's agency and interpretive freedom. By incorporating graphic elements, unconventional notational techniques, and an emphasis on conscious choices, they forge new paths in composition and performance. The scores become living entities, capable of capturing the ephemerality and unpredictability inherent in live music, and inviting performers to play an active role in shaping the sonic landscape.
He saw Beethoven as a profound source of inspiration and admiration, writing two books about the composer. Boucourechliev recognized a direct connection between Beethoven's modernity, particularly his abandonment of classical forms in his late string quartets, and the possibilities that the open work could offer in his own time. One of Boucourechliev's piano solo pieces, "Archipel IV," exemplifies this approach. The score features an archipelago depicted on a large sheet of paper, with different musical structures or modules. The performer is given the freedom to navigate through these structures, creating a unique journey with each performance.
As a young pianist, the opportunity to play each structure in a different order and with varying durations was an infinite source of inspiration, stimulating creativity and opening up new possibilities for interpretation.
Boucourechliev's embrace of the open work philosophy allowed for a dynamic and interactive relationship between the composer, performer, and listener. The score became a flexible framework, inviting exploration and fostering a sense of discovery. By challenging fixed notions of form and embracing indeterminacy, Boucourechliev invited a reimagining of musical structures and an engagement with the ever-shifting nature of artistic expression.
In essence, Boucourechliev's commitment to the open work was rooted in a deep understanding of the transformative power of uncertainty and the questioning of established norms. By pushing the boundaries of traditional composition and performance, he encouraged performers to actively participate in the creation of music, allowing for a more personal and dynamic connection with the audience. The open work became a means to explore the complexities of human experience, reflecting the uncertainties and ambiguities of life itself.
Through his compositions and writings, Boucourechliev left a lasting legacy as a composer who dared to challenge conventions and embrace the fluidity of artistic expression. His devotion to the open work philosophy continues to inspire musicians and audiences alike, inviting them to engage with music in a more interactive and profound manner. In a world marked by uncertainty, Boucourechliev's approach reminds us of the power of doubt and the possibilities that arise when we embrace the open-ended nature of artistic creation.