Phivos – Angelos Kollias An introduction to Henry Brant’s spatial music

through his work ‘Ice Field’

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA in

Instrumental and Vocal Composition

City University - London

12 August 2004

ABSTRACT

The dissertation’s focal point is Henry Brant’s composition Ice Field. First, a general

presentation of the notion of space in relation to music is provided, as well as

historical references to the spatial aspect of music. Then, information about the life

and career of Henry Brant are presented. Additionally, reference to Brant’s features of

his music is given. The notion of space follows, as found in Stockhausen, Boulez and

Xenakis music, with some comparisons given. The major part of the dissertation is

devoted to Ice Field. Discussion of the work and analytical information are provided

accompanied by musical examples.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation is the partially result of an MA Degree in instrumental and vocal

composition at the Faculty of Music of City University, London (2003-2004; under

the supervision of Prof. Rhian Samuel). My decision to focus on this topic derives

primarily from my interest in the spatial factor of music as means of expression. My

interest was to research and use the results in my creations. Several aspect of spatial

music found in Brant and other composers, which were found during the research,

have been explored in my compositions of the same academic year. The choice of

Brant was ideal, as he is a composer specialised in ‘spatial music’. Additionally, the

fact that Henry Brant was relevantly unknown in the U.K., although made the task of

the research a bit harder, it also made it more challenging.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the precious help of my supervisor

Professor Rhian Samuel, who was supervising me very closely in all the stages of this

dissertation, offering criticism and technical information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction……………………………………………………………..…….1 Chapter 1: Space – an Introduction…………...…………………………….2 Chapter 2: An Introduction to Henry Brant………………………..……….7

Chapter 3: Ice Field…………………………………………………..……….21

Bibliography………………………..…………………………………….…....52

Appendix………..…………………………………………………..…….…....54

- 1 -

An introduction to Henry Brant’s spatial music through his work, ‘Ice Field’

Introduction

The main aim of this dissertation is a general approach to the spatial aspect of music through the

music of Henry Brant. Attempt has been made to show a relevantly broad scope, within the limits of

a postgraduate dissertation, but without degrading its value to a superficial result.

In the first chapter, the dissertation starts by introducing some of the notions of space in

relation to music. A quite general history of ‘spatial music’ is presented, from the fifteenth century

and the Cori spezzati to the first half of the twentieth century and Edgard Varèse.

In the second chapter, biographical data about Brant are given as well as a presentation of his

musical career. Many of Brant’s major compositional features are stated here. The chapter concludes

with the notion of space as found in some of Brant’s contemporary composers. Stockhausen, Boulez

and Xenakis have been selected among the most important figures that include ‘real-space’ in their

views about music and in their compositions. Some comparison has been made among the three

composer’s views and those of Henry Brant.

The third chapter contains the major part of the dissertation, which is the discussion of Henry

Brant’s Ice Field. First, general information concerning the work are provided. Then, detailed

examination of its formal characteristics is given and the musical material is presented. The

discussion takes into consideration issues discussed in the previous chapters and more particularly

those about the features of Brant’s music and demonstrates them in the context of this composition.

- 2 -

Chapter 1: Space – an Introduction

The distinction between the temporal and the spatial arts derives from the way we create them and

perceive them. Stravinsky defines music as a chronologic art.1 He says that music presupposes

temporal organisation and that it is inconceivable apart from the element of sound and time.2 Hegel

states that the necessity of time is the dominant feature in music.3 Langer says that ‘music makes

time audible’.4

Music is a live art and performances as well as hearings take place in space. Although music

is considered primarily as a temporal art, we cannot fully experience a symphonic piece without

listening to it in space. Primarily in the romantic era, the focus of attention of composers,

philosophers and musicologists had become time; thus space was relegated in importance.5 An

internal ‘musical space’ came to replace the forgotten physical space. Authors endow the term,

‘musical space’ with different meanings, conveying a large range of views about music. Some of

these notions, discussed by Harley, are: the choice of a quasi-introspective mode of description

(Kurth), phenomenological-metaphysical speculation (Zuckerkandl), or mathematical formalizations

(Xenakis).6 In any of these senses, however, musical space differs from the physical space we live

in.

1 Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University

Press, 1942) p.28 2 Ibid. pp.27-28 3 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, Dritter Teil., Das System der einzelnen

Künste, Dritter Abschnitt, Die romantischen Künste, Zweites Kapitel, Die Music (ed. H.G. Hotho 1842) p.52 4 Susanne K. Lange, Feeling and form: A theory of art development from “Philosophy in a New Key”, (New

York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953), as quoted by Maria Anna Harley, Space and spatialization in contemporary music: History and analysis, ideas and implementation (Montreal: McGill University, unpublished PhD dissertation, 1994) p.54

5 Maria Anna Harley, Space and spatialization, p.92 6 Ibid.

- 3 -

According to Duchez, ‘the rationalization and geometric representation of the sensation of

pitch result in the emergence of a “conceptual perception”’.7 The metaphor of height is applied to

the pitch-gamut: a listener trained in Western music is perceptually influenced by this construction

of pitch, and therefore listens to pitches in terms of low-high, and their sequences as descending-

ascending. According to Xenakis, we understand the property of height through our ‘existential

experience’.8 Thus, when height is related to pitch, it helps us to manipulate the latter. Spatial

relations allow us to imagine and remember music more easily.

The interest in physical space ‘as an essential aspect of musical composition’ 9 started in the

beginning of the second half of the 20th century and has become more prominent since then. When

musical importance is given to the direction and distance from the listener of the sound sources, as

well as the acoustic characteristics of the performing area, then ‘spatialization’ in music is present.

In other words, we are talking about ‘spatial music’.10 In order for the importance of the spatial

factor in music to affect the listener, new ways of perception and cognition have to be assigned.

Despite the spatial function’s elevation to prominence in the 20th century, the spatial factor

has always affected the creation of music, 11 as in, for instance, acoustic characteristics of different

halls used in different historical periods, or the arrangement of the musicians and the audience in

these halls must have been affecting the performance and writing of music.12 We should not forget

also the factor of space affecting the performer as a listener. This case includes anyone taking part in

7 Marie-Elisabeth Duchez, ‘La représentation spatio-vertical du caractère musical grave-aigu et l’élaboration

de la notion de hauteur de son dans la conscience musicale occidentale’ (Acta Musicologica, no. 1, 1979), pp.54-73 as quoted in Maria Anna Harley, Space and spatialization, p.80

8 Iannis Xenakis, ‘Music, space and spatialization: Iannis Xenakis in conversation with Maria Anna Harley’, transcribed from a tape recording made in Paris, 1992, (French translation by Marc Hyland Circuit in Revue Nord-Americaine de Musique du XXe Siecle, 1994), quoted in Maria Anna Harley, Space and spatialization, p.81

9 Phrase from Henry Brant’s article’s title ‘Space as an essential aspect of music composition’, edited by Elliot Schwartz, in Contemporary composers on contemporary music (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967) pp. 221-242

10 It appears that the term, ‘spatial music’, was first introduced by Varèse (Harley, Space and spatialization, p.95).

11 Ibid. p.101 12 For example, the music written for Churches in contraposition with chamber music.

- 4 -

the performance of music, whether it is to be listened from an audience or just for the participant

musicians.

Various different notions of space have been briefly presented above. As the interest of this

dissertation is focused on the music on Henry Brant, there will be some concentration on the aspect

of (physical) space in music. But let us first give a narrowly-focussed view of this musical aspect in

the history of music before Henry Brant and his contemporaries.13

Spatial music is considered by several authors to have its origins in polychorality, Cori

spezzati .14 Music based on the evolution of psalmody of the early Christian church was popular in

northern Italy around the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Antiphonal music flourished in Venice, in

St. Mark’s Cathedral, and achieved its perfection through Giovanni Gabrieli, in the late sixteenth

century. He even wrote music in which five choirs participated at the same time.15 The polychoral

style was used not only in northern Italy, it was also popular in several European music centres.

Other composers writing in a polychoral style include Orlando di Lasso, was working in Munich,

Palestrina, at St. Peter’s in Rome, and Thomas Tallis in England. Through students of Gabrieli the

polychoral style was also spread to middle Europe: Jacob Handl was working in Olmütz and Prague;

Hans Leo Hassler in Ausburg, Nuremburg, Ulm and Dresden; Michael Praetorius in Hamburg.

According to Arnold, Cori spezzati disappeared by approximately 1625 with maybe Orazio Benevoli

as the last representative.16

In the eighteenth century, the spatial factor almost did not exist in the music literature. Even

in polychoral composition, the orchestras and choruses were all placed together. Nevertheless, one of

13 This Brief History of Spatial music is primarily based on Dorothy Carter Drennan, Henry Brant’s use of

ensemble dispersion, as found in the analysis of selected compositions, (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Miami, 1975), Chapter II, ‘Ensemble Dispersion: History, Theory, and Literature’, pp.16-41

14 Harley, Space and spatialization, p.103 15 Richard Zvonar, A History of Spatial Music, http://www.zvonar.com/writing/spatial_music/History.html,

accessed: 5-12-2003 16 Drennan, pp.20-21

- 5 -

the later examples of the echo effect that was used in spatially separated groups in the sixteenth and

the early seventeenth century reappears in Joseph Haydn’s Echo (1761). In this composition, string

trios were spread to different rooms, each one with its own symphony. Prince Esterhazy’s idea was

for him to be able to choose to listen to an ensemble, to combinations of ensembles, or all of the

musicians as a whole. Also, Mozart includes in compositions like Serenata notturna in D (1776) and

Notturno (1777) antiphonal ideas but without asking for any spatial separation.

According to Drennan, Hector Berlioz is the main representative of ensemble’s spatial

separation in the nineteenth century.17 She cites four compositions which employ spatialization: in

his Requiem (1837), for double chorus and orchestra, four small brass and woodwind ensembles are

dispersed from the main orchestral forces. Two are placed on the opposite sides of the stage and two

in the opposite sides of the performing area. In Romeo and Juliet (1839), a symphonic work for

orchestra, soloists and choruses, he requires that two small choirs to be placed on each sides of the

stage, on a lower level from the orchestra, performing antiphonal passages. In the second scene of

the second part, a double male chorus performs behind the scenes. In the Funeral and Triumphant

Symphony (1840/ rev.1842), the third movement uses an orchestra onstage and a second situated in

the pit. The Te Deum (1849), for triple chorus, orchestra and organ, calls for the organ to be sited in

the extreme opposite side from the orchestra and choruses.

Gustav Mahler often uses off-stage instruments, contrasting different musical layers at the

same time, which are spatially and rhythmically distinct.18 In his Second Symphony (1893-1894), an

off-stage ensemble plays consisted of trumpets, horns and percussion. In the Eighth Symphony

(1906-1907), four trumpets and three trombones, separated from the orchestra, appear in the end of

17 Ibid., pp.22-23 18 Harley, Space and spatialization, p.105

- 6 -

every movement. According to Mitchell, in the music of Mahler there is already ‘an idea of

directional sound involved’.19

Drennan claims that the shift of the spatial role as enhancement of dramatisation to an

important factor of music starts with Charles Ives.20 Both Mahler and Ives use ensembles, which are

differentiated spatially and rhythmically. In The Unanswered Question (1908), Ives goes even

further by introducing the concept of un-coordination. A flute quartet and a trumpet are opposite to

each other, while a string orchestra is placed in another region of the hall. Each group is maintaining

each own different rhythm, independently. In his Fourth Symphony (1910-25), he calls for the

instruments to be divided into two separate orchestras. The musical material deriving from the two

orchestras creates the impression of a background and a foreground via quiet and loud music

respectively. According to Burkholder, this is characteristic in the use of space for Ives, where he

depicts events from real life experience in the foreground and the environmental noises in the

background.21

Edgard Varèse was a very important figure for the history of space in music. Although he

regularly referred to space in his lectures and writings, he was not able to realise fully his ideas, as

they were too idealistic for the technical means of his time. However, when Varèse was in his

seventies, he achieved a materialisation of his vision of sound-masses projected in space, in the

work, Deserts (1952-54).22 The idea of spatially separated sound-masses distinct in timbre, dynamics

and spatial location sounds like a more abstract version of Ives simultaneous performance of

different musical layers.

19 Ibid., p.107 20 Drennan, p.25 21 Peter Buckholder, All made of tunes: Charles Ives and the uses of musical borrowing, stated as forthcoming

[1993] p.11 as quoted by Maria Anna Harley, Space and spatialization in contemporary music: History and analysis, ideas and implementation, (Montreal: McGill University PhD dissertation, 1994) p.111

22 Mattis’s definition of sound-mass is ‘a composite sound that has a recognisable timbre, rhythmic profile and articulation, but whose components can be altered one by one to highlight different aspects of the sonic gesture’. [Olivia Mattis, ‘Stravinsky: a surprising source for Varèse’s spatial ideas.’ Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Musicological Society, (Montreal, 1993, p.3), as found in Maria Anna Harley, Space and spatialization, p.120]

- 7 -

Chapter 2: An Introduction to Henry Brant

Henry Brant was born in Montreal, Quebec, in 1913, of American parents, his father being a

professional violinist.1 In Montreal, Brant started his musical studies at the McGill Conservatorium

(1926-29). Then, he continued in New York, at the Institute of Music and Art (1929-34) and in the

Juilliard Graduate School (1932-34). He also received private composition lessons from Wallingford

Riegger, George Antheil and Aaron Copland, and studied conducting with Fritz Mahler.

After his graduation from Juilliard, he started working as an arranger, composer and

conductor for radio, films, ballet and jazz groups. He wrote music for, among others, Benny

Goodman, André Kostelanetz, the Dorian Woodwind Quintet and the American Ballet Theatre. In

1943, he started teaching instrumentation and arranging for radio and films at Columbia University.

Later, in 1947, he started working at Juilliard as well, teaching modern orchestration, and literature

and materials of music, as well as conducting wind ensembles and the repertory chamber orchestra.

In 1957, Brant moved to Vermont, teaching in Bennington College and conducting the Orchestral

Ensemble and Choir. At Bennington, the composer conducted premieres of new American works

every year. Since 1981, Henry Brant has lived in Santa Barbara of California.

Brant's spatial music is being increasingly performed and recorded in the United States and

Europe. Awards and honours received by the composer during his career include two Guggenheim

Fellowships, the Prix Italia (the first American composer to win this award), the American Music

Centre’s Letter of Distinction, and election to the American Academy of Arts and Letters.

1 There are several informative biographies of Henry Brant. These include: the entry in NGD (rev. ed) by Kyle

Gann and Kurt Stone, pp.246-248; Dorothy Carter Drennan, ‘Henry Brant: Biographical Data’ in Henry Brant’s use of ensemble dispersion, as found in the analysis of selected compositions, (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Miami, 1975), pp.42-47; ‘Henry Brant: Biography’ in the webpage of his publisher, Carl Fischer, at http://www.carlfischer.com/brantbio.html, accessed 14-2-2004.

- 8 -

In March, 1983, a Henry Brant Week in Boston was dedicated to the composer, while in June

of the following year, a special week in the Holland Festival, was devoted to his music. He received

the ASCAP/Nissim Award in 1985, a Fromm Foundation grant in 1989 and a Koussevitzky

Foundation award in 1995. In 1998, the Paul Sacher Foundation obtained all his original

manuscripts, while in September of the same year, he received an honorary degree of Doctor of Fine

Arts from Wesleyan University. In 2002, Henry Brant won the Pulitzer Prize in Music for his

composition Ice Field.

Henry Brant claims that he composed from the first years of his life.2 Although he did not

begin composing ‘spatial music’ until he was 40, from early on, he was interested in experimentation

with unusual instruments or new instrumental combinations. Indeed, when he was only nine years

old, he was creating his own instruments from plumbing pipes and cigarette boxes.3 Some years

later, in Music for a Five and Dime (1932), he used Eb clarinet, piano and kitchen hardware, while

Lyric Cycle (1937) is written for soprano, three violas and piano. In 1929, he moved to New York,

and for the next twenty years, wrote commercial music, and, at the same time, experimental music.

After the stock market crash of 1929 came the Great Depression, discouraging attempts at

experimentation in the arts of U.S., and offering composers the choice of writing ‘a conventional

kind of music, stop writing, or find some third way out of it’ as Brant puts it.4 He calls his

compositional years between 1931 and 1941 the ‘Americana and Satire’ period. 5 At this time, he

was writing works with satirical elements, like for instance ‘The Marx Brothers’, where a

very cautious kind of novelty was introduced into music, so that it could not offend anybody. It sounded only slightly different from the music written for Hollywood films.6

2 Frank J Oteri and Henry Brant, ‘Space to grow’, NewMusicBox (New York: American Music Center, Vol. 4,

No. 9.45, Jan 2003), p. 3. Online: http://www.newmusicbox.org/45/interview_brant.pdf, accessed 16-11-2003 3 Ibid. 4 Alan Baker and Henry Brant, An Interview with Henry Brant, Minnesota Public Radio, June 2002.

http://www.musicmavericks.org/features/interview_brant.html, accessed 5-12-2003 5 Oliver Daniel, ‘Henry Brant’, pamphlet (New York: Broadcast Music, Inc.) as found in Drennan, p.52 6 Baker

- 9 -

For several years, Brant developed the idea of writing works for groups of the same

instrument or family of instruments. He even modified instruments to get the result at which he was

aiming. For instance, he scored Angels and Devils (1931) for three piccolos, five flutes and two alto

flutes, while Consort for True Violins (1965) uses eight stringed instruments, four conventional

[violin, viola, cello and bass], four invented.7 Following this, between 1942 and 1953, he wrote

symphonies and chamber music.

Brant’s name is mostly associated with spatial music. His adoption of a spatial approach

began for practical reasons: the constant increase of contrapuntal lines in his writing meant the

production of works where the individual lines were not always identifiable. In trying to find a

solution to avoid ‘blurriness’, Brant turned to Ives. Ives, facing the same problem, resolved it by (1)

physically separating the players and (2) having them not maintain a rhythmic ensemble.8

Brant noted that spatial separation reduces harmonic unity and emphasises polyphonic

contrast between displaced sound bodies. Under the above conditions and with the addition of

writing contrasting material for each group, each group’s identity becomes individualised.

Harmonic relations between the different groups are loosened and the different musical streams

become more audible.9

Brant’s observations have been independently studied by scientists interested in ‘auditory

scene analysis’. According to one of them, Albert Bregman, ‘the spatial separation of a multiplicity

of sounds prevents the auditory system from computing certain dissonances between them’.10 When

the focus of attention is selectively placed on the different groups of instruments performing

7 The Violin Octet’s additional four instruments were created by Carleen Hutchins with the composer’s

assistance. (Oteri, p.17) 8 Cole Gagne, Tracy Caras and Henry Brant, ‘Henry Brant’, Soundpieces:Interviews with American Composers

(Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1982) , p.57 9 Henry Brant, ‘Space as an essential aspect of music composition’, edited by Elliot Schwartz, Contemporary

composers on contemporary music (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967) p.224 10 Albert S. Bregman, Auditory Scene Analysis (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: MIT Press,

2nd ed., 1999) p.300

- 10 -

stylistically distinctive music, this is explained as the so-called ‘cocktail party problem’.11 This

occurs when a listener immersed in a complex soundfield (like the noisy crowd of a cocktail party) is

able to pick out significant sounds as well as filter out sounds of minor importance.

The major influence on Brant’s spatial music is indisputably Charles Ives and more

particularly his The Unanswered Question (1908). Brant clearly admits this ‘What I do now [spatial

music] comes from Ives’.12 In The Unanswered Question, three distinct musical identities (a muted

string orchestra, a flute quartet and a trumpet) perform simultaneously but from three different sides

of the hall.

As well as Ives’s piece, another major influence was Brant’s first experience of hearing

Hector Berlioz’s Requiem in the hall where it was first performed:

There were four brass choirs in the corner of the balcony, and there were sixteen timpani in the middle of the floor and a symphony orchestra to the one side of that and a chorus to the other side of that and I began to see that there’s a lot going on.13

He also mentions, as one of his three major influences, Giovanni Gabrieli (1556-1612).

Brant came across Gabrieli’s music when he was teaching at The Juilliard School. There, he

conducted Gabrieli’s canzonas for spatially separated brass choirs. Brant and Stockowsky even tried

to perform some of the old master’s music in Saint Mark’s of Venice, the space for which it was

created.

Brant used Ives’s basic principles for the first time in Antiphony One (Rural Antiphonies) of

1953. This work is written for five spatially separated orchestral groups, with the spatial aspect of

sound as a basic feature. This composition is a landmark in Brant’s compositional career, setting a

new compositional direction concerned with spatial, polyrhythmic and multilayered features. 14

11 Bregman, pp.529-532 12 Henry Brant, as quoted by Debra Sykes in ‘Henry Brant and his music: Spatialman’ (Musicworks:

Explorations in sound, 64, Spring 1996) p. 43 13 Oteri, p. 12. 14 The following discussion of Brant’s works is mainly indebted to Drennan’s ‘Composition and style’ in Henry

Brant’s use of ensemble dispersion… (op.cit.), pp.47-59

- 11 -

Almost all of Brant’s compositions after 1953 contain spatially separated groups, employing

a large variety of styles, textures and timbres. Complex rhythms and harmonies result from the

combination of their diverse musical identities.

In Hieroglyphics (1957), the viola soloist performs from three different locations in the hall,

while the rest of the instruments, which are in various places, remain in the darkness, invisible from

the audience. Atlantis (1960) is a symphonic work with seven groups divided all over the orchestra

hall, on balconies, boxes and aisles. Voyage four (1963) is scored for a soprano and 83

instrumentalists, who are sited in many different levels, some of the performers even being placed

under the audience’s floor. Verticals Ascending (1967) is written for two separated ensembles, each

one with its own conductor and metre (the first group’s 4/4 is temporally equal with the seconds

group’s 3/4). Divinity (1973), for spatially separated harpsichord and brass quintet, includes the

selection of some performers’ movement, containing optional walking routes.

More recently, Brant’s spatial exploration uses larger spaces and orchestral forces. Orbits

(1979) is scored for organ and 80 trombones with individual parts. Meteor Farm (1982) is written

for expanded orchestra, two choirs, jazz band, gamelan ensemble, African drummers and singers,

and South Indian soloists, where all groups retain their original music. Western springs (1983) asks

for two orchestras, two choirs and two jazz bands. Fire on Amstel (1984) is a three-hour work,

involving almost all Amsterdam’s city centre: four canal boats, each with 25 flautists and a

percussionist, travelling over the canals and playing. At the same time, three choruses, three brass

bands, three wind bands, four hand organs and four bell-ringers are in different places, near the

canals performing. Northern Lights Over the Twin Cities (1986) was written to be performed in a

sports arena of Minnesota. Trajectory (1994) is scored for spatial music, accompanied by an abstract

silent film. Festive Eighty (1997) was commissioned to be performed in Central Park, while

Glossary (2000) was commissioned for the celebration of the new millennium.

- 12 -

Any discussion of Brant’s music must begin by considering the notion of the sound’s ‘streams’.15

The term ‘stream’ is used to describe the combination of similar instrumental sounds, in a particular

location in the hall, perceived as a unite entity. A stream in music perceived by hearing is analogous

to an object perceived in vision.16 Drennan uses the term ‘sound mass’ in a similar sense, but to

avoid confusion with Varèse’s term, the use of ‘stream’ is preferred.17 A stream is the combined

output of an instrumental ‘group’. The term will be used here in a perceptual sense, so that a ‘group’

may even imply a single instrument that produces a unique stream.

By placing the different groups in different points inside the hall, Brant also takes advantage

of the sound’s direction and distance. Each group is used in such a way to produce a stream, easily

distinguishable from the other streams but all balanced in volume. The timbres, the musical material

and the different tempi used by each group are the most important means used to discriminate from

the others, as well as very importantly, to define each group’s spatial identity. Each stream’s

function is equally important to the musical result. Very often, in order to familiarise the listener

with the material and style of each stream, Brant introduces them independently in the beginning of

the work before combining them later on. The combination of different streams results to a complex

amalgam. The entrance of different streams at the same time is avoided.

Through observation and experimentation, Brant has enhanced his music with many

acoustical effects. According to the composer, ‘“Maximum separation” is the locus classicus of

15 The main sources for Henry Brant’s principles of his music used here include:

Dorothy Carter Drennan’s ‘Summary’ in ‘The Relationship . . .’ (op.cit.), pp.310-321; Henry Brant, ‘Space as an essential aspect of music composition of Henry Brant’, in Contemporary composers on contemporary music, ed.Elliot Schwartz (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967) p. 221-242; Henry Brant with Cole Gagne and Tracy Caras, ‘Henry Brant interview’ in Soundpieces: interviews with American composers, ed. Cole Gagne and Tracy Caras (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1982) p.53-67. Plus another source. Check that your refs are consistent.

16 The term ‘stream’ is used in a similar way with that of Bregman’s ‘auditory stream’ (Albert S. Bregman, Auditory Scene Analysis, p.9).

17 The definition of sound-mass as used by Varèse is given above (Chapter 1). Drennan’s definition for sound-mass is ‘a body of musical sounds originating from a single area in the hall which is produced by two or more instruments’ (Drennan, p.15).

- 13 -

spatial music’.18 It is achieved by placing two groups with independent musical material and variant

instrumentations in the far sides of a hall (the one onstage, the other one on the back of the hall).

The resulting effect is more resonant and sonorous than if there was only a point of origin of the

sound.

Instruments with similar timbres, arranged at the two far corners of a wall, result to the

illusion that the sound is coming from the intervening wall instead of coming from two points of

origin.19 This effect is used in compositions like December (1954), Voyage Four (1963) and Divinity

(1973). In all three compositions, brass instruments are playing.

Brant states that the height of a sound’s origin affects its ‘height’ in the sound spectrum.20

More precisely, a ‘low’ pitch seems to come from a lower point of origin than a ‘higher’ pitch

coming from the same vertical height. Sounds coming from a point of origin which relate in this

way to ‘high’ or ‘low’ pitches are very effective, and so Brant likes in his experiments to arrange

instruments in a vertical positioning according to their register. With this principle in mind, if an

ensemble is arranged in front of a wall, when all the instruments are playing at the same time, with

pitches which correspond in musical ‘height’ to vertical height, the effect will be as if the whole

wall’s area is sounding at once.

Another compositional effect used by Brant is ‘cumulative polyphony’.21 The performers

enter, playing, one by one, and continue to play. As a result, the hall is gradually filled up with

sound. Brant usually uses this technique to build up climaxes. In some cases Brant gives a specific

direction to the musician’s entries so that, as well as the ‘filling-up’ effect, the sound travels around

the hall. ‘Cumulative polyphony’ appears, for instance, in the beginning of Millennium II (1965),

18 Brant, ‘Space…’ p. 229 19 Brant, ‘Space…’ p.232 20 Brant, ‘Space…’ p.232 21 ‘Cumulative polyphony’ is Drennan’s term (Drennan, p.314). Brant simply refers to it as ‘travel and filling

up’ (Brant, ‘Space…’, p.238)

- 14 -

with trumpets and trombones entering successively, according to their placement in the hall, each

one with a different melodic line.

Many of Brant’s compositions have extramusical references. In an early stage of his career,

he was writing music for ballet and films, where concrete associations are essential. Writing at the

time, he explained that text and ‘actual subject matter’ were more stimulating for his musical

creation than were ‘abstract musical problems’.22 In a later interview, however, the composer

admitted that extramusical elements are afterthoughts and not related with the music. In some cases,

he thinks of a title when he gets a commission, even before starting composing. In this way, the

work can be available for advance publicity.23

As well as the spatial factor, Brant’s music is distinguished by its long-term allegiance to

poly-stylism. As Brant says, ‘Single-style music . . . could no longer evoke the new stresses, layered

insanities and multi-directional assaults of contemporary life on the spirit’.24 The non-classical

element of his style frequently includes jazz and references to non-Western music. For instance, the

instrumentation of Meteor Farm (1982) includes, as well as conventional western instruments, an

Indonesian gamelan ensemble, a jazz band, three South Indian soloists and a West African chorus

with percussion. By having different groups performing different material, each stream is even more

clarified as a distinct identity. Another reason for Brant’s choice of stylistic mixture is his belief that

textures and timbres in Western tradition of music have been saturated.25 Thus, he finds and uses

fresh elements for the Western tradition from other, non-Western music.

22 Henry Brant, ‘Henry Brant’, American Composers Today, David Ewen ed. (New York: H. W. Wilson Co.,

1949), p.42, quoted in Drennan, p.48. 23 Cole Gagne , Tracy Caras and Henry Brant, ‘Henry Brant’, Soundpieces: interviews with American

composers (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1982) , p.63 24 Henry Brant, as quoted by Elliot Schwartz and Daniel Godfrey, Music Since 1945: Issues, materials and

literature (New York: Schirmer, 1993), p.292 25 Debra Sykes, ‘Henry Brant and his music: Spatialman’(Musicworks: Explorations in sound, Issue 64, spring

1996) p. 44

- 15 -

Humour is a significant feature in Brant’s music. In his ‘Americana and Satire period’, he

writes a great number of compositions with humour as the main element. For example, Dis Chord

(1932) is a musical burlesque, while a comic-strip opera’s prelude is called Whoopee in D major

(this uses material from musical comedies and light operas). Additionally, in some later

compositions, humorous elements are prominent, like in Madrigal en Casserole (1949) for chorus,

whose text is the preparation of a casserole, and Fire Garden (1965) is a spatial cantata, where music

mocks the text. In some compositions, humorous passages may be used to contrast other musical

materials.

When the composer was asked about ‘form’ in his music, he answered that the basis of the

formal structure is the actual space for which he is composing and the arrangement of the

instruments in this space.26 That is because the place for which the work is written determines the

instrument’s locations and, as the point of origin of the sound is the fundamental structural feature,

the performance hall indirectly affects the form of the work. Before writing a piece, Brant goes

around the hall of his interest asking the stage manager or someone from the fire service about any

limitations as fire regulations. He also studies the hall in order to avoid locations inconvenient for

the listeners and to take the advantage of locations with good resonance.27

The intentional lack of unity in most of Brant’s works is very characteristic. He states that he

tries to avoid relations between the elements not only by having them juxtaposed in timbral and

spatial character, but also by avoiding musical relationships.28 His belief is that what degrades music

is the fact that ‘there are so many things that are related’.29 For that reason, many times he composes

unrelated material played at the same time or in succession. Although, in the broad sense, the word

26 Oteri, pp.10-11 27 Amirkhanian 28 Henry Brant, ‘On space, spatial music and other topics’, Henry Brant in conversation with Maria Anna

Harley, (unpublished typescript) p.9 quoted by Harley, Space and spatialization, p.248 29 Ibid.

- 16 -

‘collage’ would be appropriate to characterise the tendency, Brant dislikes the term.30 For him

‘collage’ has the notion of randomness, which he does not like to include in his music.31

In many cases, necessity requires a solution and this solution then becomes independent of its

functional cause. In other cases, a restriction produces a condition, which then becomes

characteristic or idiomatic. In Brant’s case, the most important issue is spatial music itself, with its

need for ensemble dispersion to clarify contrapuntal writing.

Spatial separation reduces control over rhythmic co-ordination. One reason is that the

musicians of a group cannot listen to the other groups playing. The problem may possibly be solved

if all follow the same conductor, but, in the case of medium-to-large-sized orchestral halls, even if

the conductor is strictly followed, there is the problem of time lag. Not only that, but the adherence

of all ensembles to one conductor has dramatic implications which may be at odds with the aesthetic

of the piece. The solution comes though intentionally adding a degree of indeterminacy where ‘no

exact rhythmic correspondence is intended’.32 The result is rhythmic complexity along with

rhythmic freedom.

Although, there is a degree of chance in this treatment of rhythm, Brant opposes the larger

notion of indeterminate music. Interestingly, to explain the minor factor of chance, he compares the

state of non-coordination in his spatial music with the use of rubato in Chopin.33

As it happens in the course of the history of music, some innovations occur independently, almost at

the same time, in different places of the planet. When Schoenberg was establishing his twelve-tone

system, composers Jefim Golyscheff (1897-1970), Josef Matthias Hauer (1883-1959) and Edgard

30 Harley, Space and spatialization, p.249 31 Ibid. 32 Brant, ‘Space…’, p.234 33 Brant, ‘Space…’, p.234

- 17 -

Varèse (1885-1965) had arrived to analogous conclusions, independently.34 Similarly, Brant’s first

spatial composition was performed in the U.S. while almost at the same time Stockhausen was

experimenting with space in Germany. Even if the interest in space was not developed independently

but with some sort of interaction, both of these two different lines of history should have enough

fertile ground for the new concept to be accepted.35

Karlheinz Stockhausen treats space as one more parameter for serialisation.36 In serialism,

where every parameter is treated independently, only the aspect of direction could be serialised. That

is because distance includes, among other things, the factor of loudness, which is an independent

parameter, so things start to be complicated to theorise. According to Stockhausen, taking as a unit

the smallest perceivable interval of direction, it is possible to create a ‘scale of localities’.37 For

Harley, Stockhausen’s circle of directions, although it is theoretically acceptable, it is perceptibly

‘nonsense’.38 She argues, based on Blauert’s perceptual representation of hearing, that depending on

the listener’s orientation, his perception of directionality is affected, as the degrees of exactness are

not homogeneous from every direction.39 Nevertheless, in later writings, Stockhausen, when he talks

about spatial composition, is referring to both the aspects of directionality and distance.40

Stockhausen uses the ‘scale of localities’ in Gesang der Jünglinge (1955-56), one of the most

famous of early electronic pieces which manipulate acoustic sounds. His first spatial composition

using acoustic instruments is ‘Gruppen’ (1955-57), for three orchestras. The orchestras are placed on

the left, on the front and on the right of the audience, each one with each individual conductor. As he

34 Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt, Arnold Schoenberg, (Westport: Greenwood Press. Translated by Edith Temple

Roberts and Humphrey Searle) pp.82-83 35 Brant states that Stockhausen was aware of his article when composing Gruppen, and Boulez confirms it

elsewhere: Harley, Space and spatialization, p.134, note 56. 36 For the discussion of the spatial issue in the music of Stockhausen, Boulez and Xenakis, apart from the

individual sources that are stated, a main source employed here is Harley’s Space and spatialization, pp. 88-91, 132-150, 269-306.

37 Ibid., p.136 38 Ibid., p.136 39 Ibid., p.136 40 Karlheinz Stockhausen, Texte zur Musik. Band 5. 1972-1984. Komposition. (Selected and edited by Christoph

von Blumroder. Cologne: DuMont BuchVerlag, 1989) p.105-106, quoted by Harley, Space and spatialization, p.141

- 18 -

says, his intention was to write ‘a normal orchestral piece’ but he started to include many different

time layers at the same time.41 The use of three orchestras was to achieve the different rhythmic

layers, which for a single orchestra would not be feasible. Interestingly, the function of space here is

very similar with that of Brant’s use. The three conductors can independently conduct each orchestra

in each own rhythm, while the audience can perceive each different identity coming from different

direction.

Pierre Boulez, in On Music Today, discusses the different factors of serialism, without

omitting the spatial factor. He describes it as the index of distribution.42 He claims that its function

‘was almost reduced to altogether anecdotal or decorative proportion, which have largely falsified its

use and distorted its true functions’.43 He argues that space can be as flexible in its treatment as the

other musical factors. Regarding spatial function, a sound can be perceived as coming from a

constant point in space (fixed distribution) or a variable point (mobile distribution). In mobile

distribution, a sound can be perceived as moving from one point of space to another gradually

(conjunct movement) or abruptly (disjunct movement).

Boulez also experiments with the relationship of the listener’s position with music

performance. In his work Poésie pour pouvoir, the listener in some instances becomes the observer

of the sound. In other cases, the listener is observed by the sound. In Figure, Doubles, Prismes, a

work that he keeps revising (1958, 1964, 1968 and in a conversation of 1975 he talks about an

upcoming version) the arrangement of the musicians in the orchestra is a major characteristic.44 The

separation is not so large to make spatialization prominent because it takes place onstage. The

orchestra is subdivided into 14 groups: six groups of strings, three of woodwinds, four of brass and

41 Karlheinz Stockhausen, Conversation with Jonathan Cott (London, 1974) p.200-1 as quoted by Robin

Maconie, The Works of Karlheinz Stockhausen, (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1990) p.88 42 Pierre Boulez, On Music Today, (tran. Susan Bradshaw and Richard Rodney Bennett, London: Faber, 1975).

p.66 43 Ibid. p.66 44 Pierre Boulez, Conversations with Célestin Deliège, (London: Eulenburg Books, 1976) p.99-100

- 19 -

one of unpitched percussion and with several pitched percussions among them. This, except the

spatial effect, provides the sound’s fusion with very homogenous sonorities.45

Iannis Xenakis’s approach to physical space differs from that of Boulez and Stockhausen.

His methods included application of scientific principles, especially through mathematics, into the

course of composition. He never adopted serial techniques. As the composer says, ‘Music can

surround us in the same way as the sounds of nature surround us in the forest or at sea’.46 For

Xenakis, the most significant thing is the kinetic properties that the musicians obtains once the

aspect of space is introduced.47 The traditional arrangement of the orchestra onstage limits the

possibilities of sound movements. ‘Genuine movement’ can be achieved with the orchestra

surrounding the audience. This way, space can be ‘tamed’.48

In Eonta (1963-64) for piano, two trumpets and three trombones, spatial movement is the

result of the performers’s movement. The brass players have to change their locations on the stage.

Additionally, in three sections they have to perform while moving. Terretektorh (1965-66) is another

composition where the spatial factor is prominent. Here, the 88 musicians are precisely arranged

among the audience, in a circular theatre.49 Only the conductor is positioned outside the audience, on

a central stage. Here the sound’s movement is illusionary, the effect created by the instrument’s

overlapping dynamic envelopes (crescendos followed by decrescendos). As the composer describes

it, the effect of circular motion is similar to the movement of the second hand of a clock: although

sound does not move continuously, in the same amount of time, the same amount of space is

covered, giving the impression of continuous motion.50 The composition is based into a strong

45 Ibid. p.100 46 Bálint András Varga, Conversations with Iannis Xenakis, (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1996) p.97 47 Ibid. p.97 48 Ibid. p.97 49 Xenakis when writing Terretektorh was imagining an ideal hall, ‘where the listener, wherever he may be

sitting, can hear properly what is being played both in front of and around him’. (Varga, p.99) 50 Iannis Xenakis, ‘Music, space and spatialization…’ (op. cit.) quoted in Harley, Space and spatialization,

p.283

- 20 -

theoretical background, spatial movement deriving from mathematical functions. Different kinds of

spirals are employed to create different rotations.

Brant’s approach to composition is not theoretical; it derives from practical experimentation.

All other three composers give more importance to theoretical basis, Boulez and Stockhausen to that

of serialism, Xenakis primarily to that of mathematics. Brant treats every dispersed group as a

unique identity, distinguished from the others from instrumentation, rhythm even style. The other

three composers use the individual teams as carrier of sound’s movement in space. A musical phrase

can sound as moving around using different instruments of the same timbre. Brant can justify this

only when he creates a mass of instruments, which are consider as the same group, spatially

dispersed, like for instance in his Orbits, where 80 trombones surround the audience. All of the three

composers mentioned above are interested in unity, especially Boulez and Stockhausen, in terms of

material and formal structure. Contrarily, Brant combines different musical material at the same

time and in different sections of the work. For Xenakis, the concern with space is more allied to the

exploration of sound’s kinetic properties. Stockhausen and Boulez’s use of space includes

clarification of polyphony, which is Brant’s main reason for writing spatial music.

- 21 -

Chapter 3: Ice Field

Ice Field is the work for which Brant was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in Music (2002). The work was

commissioned by the ‘Other Minds Community’ with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation’s

Multi-Arts Production for Michael Tilson Thomas and the San Francisco Symphony. It was first

performed in the Davies Symphony Hall with the composer playing the organ.

Brant explains that the work’s title refers to a childhood memory of when the composer,

aged twelve, sailing across the Atlantic Ocean with his parents, spent a day passing through an ice

field.1 The composer describes very vividly this early experience of his life, which 75 years later

influenced him in writing this major work:

In a single day we went through an actual ice field and saw perhaps 100 icebergs of all sizes. Some, as we crept by them, seemed to be as high as a 10-story building, and when our boat passed between two of these monsters, you suddenly had to put on your overcoat, but as soon as our boat emerged, you’d suddenly have to take off your coat in a hurry to avoid getting fried in the blazing sun… It took us a whole day to crawl through the blinding maze of ice giants. This suited us fine. We got to see them.2

He asserts that, although the recollection of the incident provided the title of name this work,

he did not try to depict it musically. As with many other of his compositions’ titles, Ice Field has

extramusical references, but these references are not directly linked with the musical result. Even if

the composer had a programmatic plan in his mind as a mean of creation, ‘trying to depict icebergs

in sound is something [he] wouldn’t even want to attempt’.3

The subtitle, ‘Spatial Narratives’, suggests the major importance of the spatial factor. The

instruments of the orchestra are separated into smaller groups throughout the hall (see diagram 1):

1Charles Amirkhanian and Henry Brant, Charles ‘Amirkhanian Interviews Henry Brant’, Other Minds

Community, http://www.otherminds.org/shtml/Brantinterview.shtml (accessed: 15-5-2004). 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

- 22 -

onstage, the string orchestra is arranged in the conventional manner. The harps, pianos and timpani

are sited all together, while the organ console

Diagram 1 - Davis Symphony Hall

Diagram 2 - Henry Brant with Michael Tilson Thomas at Davies Hall

- 23 -

is on the right of the stage. 4 The oboes and the bassoons are in a choir loft. The brass section,

including horns, trumpets and tuba, is in the first balcony, along with a jazz drummer. Piccolos and

clarinets are placed in one corner of the top balcony, while the xylophone and glockenspiel are in the

opposite corner. Gongs, bass drum and bass steel drums are at the downstairs level behind the

audience.5

Given the earlier discussion contained here, it is clear that the choice of the instruments’

arrangement is not random. Brant is driven by the ‘compelling naturalness of effect when high

pitches originate in a high location (e.g. piccolos in a top balcony), or low pitches from a low

position… (e.g. timpani placed in back of the ground floor audience section)’.6 Thus, he arranges as

he describes in his article: the piccolos (forming a group with the clarinets) and the glockenspiel

(doubled by xylophone) in the highest possible point of the hall, while the low registered percussion

are placed in the lowest level of the hall, behind the audience. The rest of the instruments are

arranged as described, though the reasons are less obvious.

To each of the groups of the orchestra has been given some autonomy:

the musicians onstage follows the principal conductor; the percussive section in the back of the hall

takes cues from the stage conductor, as do the groups in the top balcony, while the second balcony’s

instruments are conducted by an assistant conductor.

4 It is clear that the location of the organist does not affect the origin of organ’s sound, as the pipes’ location is

fixed in each performance hall, although it may affect the performance visually. 5 For the information about the orchestra’s arrangement, have been taken into consideration both the score’s

indications and the composer’s description of the first performance. Brant refers to the string orchestra’s arrangement as situated ‘in its usual position’. This information is not specified in the score. It appears that in the first performance, oboes and bassoons were placed in the choir loft. This arrangement although it is preferable, it is optional from the score’s indications. Alternative arrangement is given also for the first balcony’s group, in a series of adjacent boxes. As a final remark, not specific instructions have been given from the score, neither the composer’s description, for the two groups of the top balcony, which group is in which corner. (For Brant’s description of the arrangement see: ‘Charles Amirkhanian Interviews Henry Brant’, )

6 Henry Brant, ‘Space as an Essential Aspect of Musical Composition’, Contemporary composers on contemporary music (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967) p.232

- 24 -

The work lasts approximately 21 minutes.7 It is divided in to fourteen sections, each section lasting

between c. thirty seconds and one and a half minutes.8 All sections are clearly distinguished from

each other by silent moments. The only exception is the seventh to the eighth section, where there is

no silence, but there is a very abrupt change of character (an unexpected drummer’s solo, as from a

jazz concert, comes to replace the dramatic low sounds of low registered instruments).

Only the tenth and twelfth section fall outside the time values given above. Both sections

stand out because they are much longer in duration than the others (5' 42" and 2' 32" respectively).

The tenth section is indisputably the most important, much longer than any other and starting in the

middle of the piece (at 9' 34"). Thus, half the work occupies the last four sections. The twelfth

section, apart from its duration, is exceptional since its material is directly connected with the eighth

section. The eight and twelfth sections employ an ‘unmistakably jazz character presented in

harmonically strident contexts’.9

In contrast with the over-riding importance of the tenth and twelfth sections are the fifth,

seventh and thirteenth, which not only are small in duration (0' 23", 1' 07", 0' 28" respectively) but

they are barely developed. They can be seen as parenthetic sections.

As Ice Field starts and the sections succeed each other, clearly distinguished in character and

by moments of silence, the impression is formed that a journey has started with no return. The

composition can be seen as a collection of different ideas placed in succession or, in some cases,

arranged to sound at the same time: like a series of miniature pieces. This is not surprising, taking

7 Brant says that it is a ‘twenty minutes piece’ (Amirkhanian), while Carl Fisher’s catalogue has it as twenty-

three minutes. Time values will be referring according to the recording of Ice Field (performed 08/12/2001), played by San Francisco Symphony under Michael Tilson Thomas, published in the internet by American Mavericks, http://musicmavericks.org/rafiles/brant_icefield.ram (accessed 11/3/2004). The fact that it is one of the first performances, and the composer is not only present but he is performing the organ, makes this recording in combination with the score, very revealing for the composer’s intentions. Unfortunately, the author of this dissertation has not experienced a live performance of this piece, thus has to imagine the spatial characteristics from the score’s indications.

8 Some quantization has been made for time values given. To be more exact, sections last between 28 seconds, and 1 minute 43 seconds.

9 Although Brant does not specify that he is referring to these two sections, these are the only ones where jazz style is clearly exposed (Amirkhanian).

- 25 -

into consideration Brant’s attitude towards unity discussed above. Nevertheless, common

characteristics appearing in different sections offer some sense of unity. The compositions may not

have teleological development, but the formal structure of the complete work derives from structure

at a lower level. Thus, it would be advantageous to study the formal characteristics of each section,

observing similarities across sections, in an attempt to understand the formal structure as a whole.

The fourteen formal structures use two types of material which are treated in one of two

ways, either developed linearly, or else in a periodic manner (with some repetition). The two types

of material are, first, a stream (which may be only a line) with other, lesser streams around it, and

second, a combination of streams, which is more generally democratic, yet may consist of many

parts, some quite inconsequential.

The majority of the sections use the first texture mentioned above, that of a central stream

with other lesser streams around it, developed linearly. These sections are the second, third, fifth,

sixth and eleventh.

The second section, although it lasts for 35 seconds is intensely developed. First and second

violins, violas and cellos build a strict canon with their sequential entrances, every two bars. This is

clearly the central stream of the section (see Ex. 1). Woodwinds as one group and pianos with harps

as another, occasionally ‘jump out’ from different parts of the hall, each one with each own unique

material. The double basses play staccato chords, leading in and out the woodwinds. Moreover, the

organ appears twice, for only a bar each time (first time setting the end of the cannon’s entrances and

the second time setting the end of the section). In the meanwhile, the three trombones perform a

‘chopped’ line in different tempo, an opposing layer to the central one.

The third section’s main stream is made from the drummer playing a repetition of a three-bar

rhythmic pattern, between the cowbell and the chinese block (see Ex. 2). Different streams of

instruments are playing complexes ‘around’ the basic layer: piccolos and clarinets/ oboes, english

- 26 -

Ex. 1 – String’s cannon (first four bars), Figure 2

Ex. 2 – Drummer’s rhythmic pattern, Figure 3

Ex. 3 – Fifth section’s opening bars, Figure 5

- 27 -

horn and bassoons / horns / trombones / tuba / and from the divisi strings: first and second violins /

violas, cellos, and double basses.10

The fifth section’s basis is the texture made by the dissonance chords of the pianos. Timpani

and organ accompany them, each one adding a new layer in respective order and they are finishing

together after the pianos (see Ex. 3)

The sixth section shares the same material with the second section. This time all of the strings

are part of the central group, but instead of a canon, they produce a fugue-like layer (see Ex. 4).

Surrounding streams are made, as in the second section, from woodwinds, and from pianos with

harps. The organ is much more active here, as one more layer of sound. In the place of the

trombones’s line, the three trumpets appear occasionally, at first the one after the other (first, then

second then third), then playing in combinations (first overlapped by second – twice, first

overlapped by third – twice) and concluding all trumpets playing together before the end of the

section.

The eleventh section is made by a combination of short ideas from the following groups:

organ/ first, second violins and violas/ tuba/ cellos and double basses/ trumpets/ piccolos and

clarinets/ trombones (see Ex. 5). After their first appearance in succession in the order mentioned

above, the horns are introduced overlapping the trombones and take the role of the central stream.

Short ideas from the above groups reappear overlapping each other and the central stream.

The second texture is that of a stream with other, lesser streams around it, developed in a periodic

manner (with some repetition). The only case clearly following this principle is the twelfth section. It

10 The different groups are shown divided by lines.

- 28 -

is made by four alterations of a material in the form AB.11 A is a planned improvisation of the

jazzdrummer, accompanied by an instrument playing predefined music, xylophone the first time,

Ex. 4 – String’s fugue-like layer, Figure 6

Ex. 5 – The five first streams in the beginning of the eleventh section, Figure 11

11 In other words, it divided into eight subsections in the form ABA’B’A’’B’’A’’’B’’’.

- 29 -

steel drums the second, bass drums the third, and gong the last time. Furthermore, the last time, the

organ accompanies the improvising drum-set. The drummer’s improvisation gives a jazzy character

to the section, which is preserved in B as well. Here, the central stream is the drum set’s steady

rhythm with the brass’s texture, occasionally supported by piccolos and clarinets (See. Ex.6). The

secondary stream, in every alteration of B, comes each time from a different group that plays

dissonant staccato complexes. The two pianos the first time (the one in the high register, the other in

the low register), organ the second time, strings the third. The last time, all three secondary materials

are used, the one altering the other in small fragments.

The third texture is that of a combination of streams, developed linearly. The only section following

this principle is Section 1, which is divided by pauses into four sub-sections. Each subsection

includes three groups of instruments whose streams overlap and end in the order in which they

began. In the first subsection, for instance, the clarinets begin, then the piccolos overlap them, in turn

being overlapped by the organ. Only in the second subsection, a single line (not from the percussion

at the back of the hall (see Ex. 7).

In the category of the fourth texture, which is a combination of streams developed in a periodic

manner, are the fourth, thirteenth and fourteenth sections. The fourth section is created from three

alterations of a material made by four streams in the form, ABCD.12 Stream A consists of a

conversation in the second balcony between the thick texture of brasses and the drummer’s strikes

(see Ex. 8). Stream B is introduced from the strings (excluding the double basses) contradicting in

character stream A, which is still present (see Ex. 9). Stream B is then left alone before replaced by

12 Or else it is divided into twelve subsections in the form ABCDA’B’C’D’A’’B’’C’’D’’.

- 30 -

stream C, again in the strings (including double basses), but different in character, to be concluded

with a line from the drummer’s tom-toms and the low percussion sounds as stream D.

Ex.6 – Drumset and brasses mainstream, accompanied by piccolos and clarinets, Figure 12

Ex.7 – Ice Field’s opening bars, Figure 1

- 31 -

Ex.8 – Fourth section’s Stream A (first three bars), Figure 4

Ex.9 – Fourth section’s Stream B, Figure 4a

- 32 -

In the seventh section, the streams are those of bass drums, low brass instruments (bass trombone

with tubas) and the organ. In each of the three sub-sections, a stream is at first presented alone, then

is overlapped by the organ’s stream, which ends alone. The first time the bass drums enter first, and

the second time, it is the turn of the brass instruments. The third time both streams appear, first the

bass drums, overlapped by brasses, and finally, the organ reappears.

The thirteenth section is very similar in character to the seventh, but less complex. It consists

of three alternations of the fragments played by bass drums, gong and organ.

The final section’s main stream this time consists of three minor streams of sound: the

strings’s staccato chords, answered by the pianos’s chords, accompanied by the winds’s held notes,

doubled in five octaves. Piccolos and clarinets conclude each time with a quasi-cadence. This basic

framework is repeated unaltered three times, while an additive process takes place: instruments

reappear repeating the same music in each subsection. The first time, the timpani enter (for two

bars). The second time, the harps join with descending glissandi, while brass instruments appear

with the fourth section’s material, conducted by the assistant conductor. The last time, the organ

appears. Additionally, the first balcony’s material, derived from the fourth section, is completed with

the addition of the drummer. The work’s conclusion is built from four small ideas in succession

made from combinations of groups (strings and woodwinds/ brasses pianos and timpani/ only pianos

and timpani). The organ has the last word with a ff chord.

The sections described above are classified in this way as they use the four kinds of texture in the

most obvious way. There are also sections that are more complicated. The eighth section anticipates

many episodes of the twelfth section, sharing the same material. Actually, this section has the same

form as the subsections of the twelfth (AB). Again, in A, a solo from the jazz drummer introduces the

section, although this time it is more restricted and no other instrument accompanies it. What makes

- 33 -

it difficult to classify it as a texture made from a central stream with other lesser streams around it

developed linearly, is the fact that in B, the first appearance of the material is repeated but then

developed in linear fashion. Here, once again, the brasses and the drum-set have the leading role,

with piccolos and clarinets adding supporting phrases. The minor stream is comprised of the string

instruments (excluding the double basses) with a two-voice quasi-canon in octaves, oboes doubling

the second voice. Other streams of lesser importance are those of the steel drums and of the double

basses.

The ninth section is divided by pauses into four subsections. The first subsection by itself is a

texture made from a combination of streams, developed linearly (see Ex.10). The violins are

overlapped by piccolos with clarinets and finally glockenspiel, all to be interrupted by the organ’s.

Timpani and piano create the central stream of the next section, while the uncoordinated steel drums

takes the role of a minor stream. The continuous glissandi of the strings form the main stream of the

third subsection; this texture is surrounded by the harps’s broken chords and the xylophones

repeated major seventh. The last subsection is made up of sustained textures created by a

combination of bassoons, contrabassoons, pianos, and double basses, in their low register, answered

by gongs sounds.

The tenth section is divided into seven subsections, with the form ABA’CB’A’’B’’. A

subsection and its variation have, as the central stream, string sound, with a minor stream from harps

and another from flutes with clarinets. In its first appearance (A), violas, cellos and double basses

appear. In its first variation (A’), violins and violas play the string stream and celesta joins the harps

group. The second alteration has all the string instruments in the main stream, while the pianos this

time replace the celesta in the harps’s group. Each of these subsections consists of smaller divisions

(three in A and A’, four in A’’). Each division is made by a melodic line doubled by the strings, the

harps’s group surrounding chords, and a concluding overlapping chord of the woodwinds (see

- 34 -

Ex.11). B subsections and its variations have strings always as the central force, while trombones

and woodwinds are secondary streams. Additionally, the organ’s chord sounds in the very beginning

Ex.10 – Ninth section’s combination of streams, Figure 9

Ex.11 – The first division of material A, Figure 4a

- 35 -

of B and B’. Subsection C takes the role of symmetrical axis, being between ABA’ and B’A’’B’’

triads of sections. It sounds like an alteration of stream C’s material of the fourth section.

As well as presenting the listener with this huge variety of textures and forms, in Ice Field, Brant

explores the idea of coordination between different groups of instruments. Different degrees of

coordination between streams can be found, ranging from complete coordination, to semi-

coordination, to no coordination at all.

The first instance of complete coordination among distant groups occurs in section 3 (see

Ex.12). In this ‘tutti co-ordinated’ section, the assistant conductor conducts all the instrumental

forces in the hall, indirectly. Being in charge of the first balcony instruments, he conducts the steady

rhythmic pattern of the drummer. The principal conductor has to follow the drummer’s beat for

coordination purposes. The same principle is used in sections 8 and 12 where instrumental forces all

over the hall are used, all coordinated. Again, the jazz drummer dictates the rhythm to the first

conductor. In this category of complete coordination, there is one case where the principle conductor

conducts instruments from different groups, including the group of which the assistant conductor is

normally in charge: in section 7, he has to coordinate the bass drums, the organ, the bass trombone

and the tuba.13

There are cases, where non-coordination between two musical streams is intended (see

Ex.13). The two conductors conduct different instrumental groups simultaneously, in independent

tempo. Such instance starts in the fifth bar of the second section, where the central stream of the

strings canon is overlapped by a line from three trombones. The first conductor conducts in 2/2 with

a tempo, minim = 66, while the second conductor conducts in 3/4 with a tempo, crotchet = 86.

13 However, the score’s instructions in this page are contradictable. In the top of the page there is the instruction

‘this page is directed by the principal conductor’, while the thick black line on the left margin of the brass instruments, which represents the assistant conductor’s part, is present at the same time.

- 36 -

Ex.12 – Section three, tutti co-ordinated, Figure 3

- 37 -

Ex.13 – two conductors maintain their respective tempi, Figure 2a

- 38 -

These precise indications of tempo avoid any symmetrical subdivisions between the groups. This is

clear also from the score, as the barlines do not correspond proportionally in time. In addition, there

are also clear indications to show that the trombones may continue after the other instruments have

stopped. The same principle is used similarly in the fourth section, where the central stream (brasses)

is overlapped by a secondary (strings) different in rhythm and tempo. Again clear indications specify

the intended avoidance of coordination. Analogous use of this effect occurs in the following

sections: nos. 6 (strings central, trumpets secondary), 10 (B, B’ and B’’ subsections / strings central,

trombones secondary), 11, and 14 (strings central, brasses secondary). The eleventh sections show

this effect in its most elaborated form, as the many different strings are subdivided between the two

conductors’s different tempi.

In other cases, the composer completely avoids coordination. Different groups, cued in from

the conductor, perform un-conducted, without any attempt of coordination within the group or with

other groups. This is how the work starts, where the different forces are introduced by the stage-

conductor’s cues (see Ex.7 above). In this section, clarinets, piccolos and pianos are the groups that

are cued; here, apart from being uncoordinated with the other groups, they are also un-coordinated

within their own group.

As stated before, one of the ways in which Brant distinguishes amongst the different streams is by

assigning different kinds of material to each group of instruments. At least in Ice Field, the basic

conditions of grouping instruments together are those of their location in the hall and their

instrumental genre (characterised as strings, woodwinds, brasses, percussion). Hence, the major

groups in Ice Field are:

Strings [first violins, second violins, violas, cellos and double basses] Brasses [trumpets, French horns, trombones and tuba] Top balcony woodwinds [piccolos (doubling flutes) and clarinets] Stage woodwinds [oboes (doubling English horns), bassoons and contrabassoons]

- 39 -

Harps Pianos Organ Percussion: Xylophone (doubling glockenspiel)

Jazz drumset Low percussion [gongs (doubling orchestra bass drums), bass steel drums] Timpani

The groups have flexible ‘borders’; combinations of the same team’s instruments can form

separate groups or even all to be separated into different groups. For instance, the work starts with

clarinets and piccolos as different groups, while some bars later each piano is presented as a separate

group. Another example is in the third section, where violas, cellos and double basses form different

group from that of first and second violins. In rare cases, instruments of very different groups may

be grouped together. For example, all over the second section double basses can be perceived as part

of the same group with stage woodwinds (see Ex.13 above).

The strings’s material uses imitation as a principle and in some occasions it is quasi- canonic.

A strict four-voice canon appears in the second section (see Ex.1 above). In the sixth section, a

fuge-like layer is built from first violins to double basses (see Ex.2 above).; each new entry imitates

the line of the preceding instrument, diatonically transposed down at least a major fourth. In the

eighth section, a two-voice canon occurs between first and second violins as the first voice, and

violas and cellos as the second. The first voice is repeated in the second voice starting three beats

later and an octave lower. A three-voice canon, rhythmically free, starts in the tenth section’s second

subsection. More rarely, the string instruments perform complexes14. The first occasion is the double

basses complexes of the second section. Moreover, in the third section, violas, cellos and double

basses form one group, while first and second violins another. Both groups appear with staccato

complexes. In the eleventh section, the strings are separated into first and second violins with viola,

14 The term complex is used to describe a collection of notes with no particular organisation.

- 40 -

and cellos with double basses. In the fragment of the first group, strings are playing in fifths. The

other group’s fragment is made from two identical melodies, a fourth apart. Strings’s material is also

made by complexes in the twelfth and last sections.

The material of the brasses is the least systematised of all groups. They are used in a

different way in almost every section. In the second section, the trombones, in a different tempo

from the other instruments, perform a line made only from inversions and octave-compounds of the

minor second (major sevenths and minor ninths). In the third section, horns, trombones and tuba play

chords as separate groups. The horns perform complexes of minor second over minor third over

minor second, and the trombones, three-note clusters, while the tuba plays an F1.15 In the fourth

section, the brass instruments produce a thick ‘lattice’ of sound from two threads (forte, staccato and

molto marcato – see Ex.7).16 A higher, four-voice thread and a lower, five-voice thread are knitted

in contrary motion. The high thread is produced by the three trumpets performing three separate

lines and first and second horns in unison. A fixed complex is produced by a major third below a

perfect fourth, below a major third (at its first occurrence, it sounds A3/C#4/F#4/Bb4). The low thread

comprises the three trombones playing separate lines, the second and third horns in unison, and the

tuba. Together they produce a complex made up of a major sixth above a major third, above a major

third, above a minor third (at its first occurrence, sounding B2/Ab3/C4/E4/G4). The material reappears

in the last section as a secondary stream.

Similar material is used from the brass instruments in sections 8 and 12. This time the

different threads do not move homorhythmically, and each one employs a different instrumental

timbre. First the trumpets produce a three-voice thread, second, the two pairs of horns play a two-

voice thread, and finally the trombones, a three-voice thread. The tuba plays steadily on-the-beat

15 C4 represents middle C. 16 The term, ‘thread’, is used to describe a line or a combination of lines moving in parallel. Distinction has to

be made between thread and line: a stream can be created from a combination of threads, or anything else that can be perceptually grouped together.

- 41 -

staccato notes. The complex here is a minor second below a minor third, used by trumpets and

trombones, while the horns play in major thirds with each other.

In the sixth section, the trumpets appear as a secondary thread. Each trumpet has been

assigned a different melody and articulation (first trumpet, legato, second trumpet, flutter-tonguing

and third trumpet, double-tonguing). Each time, each trumpet performs exactly the same line, as

occurred in the sixth section.

In the seventh section, the bass trombone and tuba play a very low, two-voice, chromatic

passage. In the tenth, of the brass instruments, only the trombones appear, sliding through a three-

note cluster, and later playing in minor ninths. In the eleventh section, each instrumental team of the

brasses has a different stream: the tuba performs a low line; the trumpets play three-note clusters in

a phrase coloured by trills, while the trombones also play similar clusters, alternating between

staccato and glissando. Finally, the horns create a linear stream with four-note clusters.

The stage woodwinds are generally used in pitch class chromatic clusters. For example, in

the third bar of the second section they play the cluster, C1/B1/Bb2/E3/C4/Db4 that fills the pitch class

interval of a minor third Bb-Db, plus an additional E (see ex.13). This cluster is then transposed up a

semitone. A slightly different one appears in 2a, filling the pitch class interval, D#-F, with an

additional Ab. There are only two sections in which the above principle is not used. In the tenth

section, the woodwinds always appear playing chords made up of intervals of sixths, while in the

final section, all stage woodwinds play long held notes doubled over six octaves.

In sections 1, 9 and 11, the top balcony woodwinds, play, not only independent from the

other instruments, but also from each other. Each one uses a separate tempo, to a dense texture with

some sense of anarchy. In sections, 8 and 12, piccolos and clarinets, using a harmonic complex built

from a minor third on the top of minor second, doubled into two octaves, are treated in a manner

similar to that of the brasses. Their stream answers that of the brasses’s main stream. In the last

- 42 -

section, again using a harmonic complex as a unit (Ab5/Db6/E6/G6/C7/Eb7 and its transpositions) they

perform the cadential phrase of the subsection. In the third and tenth section, they perform long held

clusters.

The pianos in general use dense clusters. Often, they create chromatic clusters by combining

two whole-tone clusters, a semitone apart (this in sections 1, 2 and 6). The only time the pianos play

melodic fragments is in the fourth section; here they use three note-phrases. In the ninth section, the

pianos play octatonic clusters. The next section is the only one is which a celesta appears instead of

the piano. Here it plays octatonic clusters, grouped with the harps using the same material. The

pianists and harpists are also grouped in the second and sixth sections, with harps generally filling

chromatic blocks with glissandi, using two diatonic scales a semitone apart. Harps use octatonic

clusters in the ninth and tenth section.

In the percussion, the drumset’s tom-toms and bass drum are used twice grouped together,

linearly, with one continuing the line of the other. This occurs once in the beginning of the work, and

twice in the fourth section. Also, in the ninth section, the timpani sound with the downstairs

percussionist’s steel drum. Xylophone and glockenspiel have minor roles in the composition. The

xylophone sounds in the first section, playing four-note chords. It appears again in the ninth section

repeating a minor ninth (G5-G#6) and in the twelfth section, to accompany the drummer’s solo,

playing only with fourths. The glockenspiel appears only once, in the ninth section, for only a small

phrase.

Despite the significance of the organ’s role in Ice Field, neither the composer’s comments,

nor any structural characteristics imply that the work is an organ concerto.17 However, at some

points in the work, the organist can indeed be regarded as a soloist. Moreover, it appears in almost

17 In an article of San Francisco Chronicle about Brant’s Pulitzer Prize, Ice Field is characterised as an organ

concerto. See: Joshua Kosman, ‘Composer, 88, modest about winning Pulitzer - Ice Field premiered by S.F. symphony’, San Francisco Chronicle, 9 April 2002, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/04/09/MN125371.DTL&type=news, accessed: 18-7-2004

- 43 -

ever section of the work, even if for only an instance.18 It is important also to consider the fact that

the composer wrote this work having in mind that he would play the organ in the first performances.

The organist’s use of improvisation is reminiscent of that of a jazz band’s soloist. A

conventional jazz soloist has to improvise within some limits set by stylistic norms and his personal

taste: for instance, to play certain rhythmic patterns, to use specific modes, to respond in the material

used by other musicians. In the case of the organist of Ice Field, the limits of improvisation are

predefined by the composer. He sets up the limits within which the organist must function, with the

use of written indications in combination with conventional notation, all on a single stave.19 A

curved line on the stave sets the length of playing time; no dynamic markings are included;

occasionally, specific time values appear. Finally, from the ninth section onwards, apart from some

controlled improvisation, the organ also performs notated music.

The drum set is an instrument with quite different role from the rest of the orchestral

instruments, and shares some common characteristics with the organ. In the third, eighth and twelfth

sections, it has the central role, dictating the rhythm of the whole orchestra. Above all, in the eighth

and twelfth sections, as with the case of the organ, the drummer is asked to improvise within

specified limits. The difference is that, as occasionally happens in conventional jazz music, the rest

of the instruments stop playing while it takes the role of the soloist. The contrast between these two

instruments is an interesting one: the organ, with its religious associations, and the drum set,

directly associated with jazz. Together they create a focal point.

The controlled improvisation of the organ and jazz drummer, and the flexibility of coordination

between different streams or within groups of instruments, and the use of repetition of material an

18 The organ appears in twelve sections in total. These are all the sections except for the fourth and the eighth

sections. 19 Two staves are used in the organ part only in passages where the use of both hands is asked or in rare

instances of non-improvisation.

- 44 -

unspecified number of times all reveal Brant’s intention to flirt with indeterminacy. However, as

stated above, he does not make use of the fully-fledged notion of aleatoric music. The traces of

indeterminacy in his music are part of his open attitude towards composition, where if something

‘works’ for him, he adopts it.

The fact that there is not a common fate justifying the coexistence of the different sections does not

mean that they are randomly put together. It is the negation to the very notion of unity that makes

them so oppositional and not ignorance of the issue. This can be seen even within sections that are

made as collage of fragments of ideas. Nevertheless, there are features in the work that provide

unity. Musical material can be found in some instrumental groups that it is used all over the work.

For example, the pianos’s clusters, the use of imitation between the different string instruments to

create polyphonic textures, or the use of controlled improvisation in the organ. Another feature of

unity is that all of the different sections, follow four different formal structural features show above,

or combination of them. In a higher structural degree, unity is preserved within individual sections,

particularly those that are developed in a periodic manner. For instance, fourth, tenth, twelfth and

last section have easily identifiable formal structure that directly gives unity within each section. The

strongest feature of unity is the resulting material from the different orchestral groups found in

different sections. Sections that clearly share the same material are the second with the sixth and the

eighth with the twelfth. Even the return of the fourth section’s material in the last section gives some

sense of unity.

In Ice Field, a great range of Brant’s musical characteristics can be found: Spatial separation that has

become his ‘trademark’; juxtaposition of different musical materials from different instrumental

group; degrees of coordination between groups; arrangement of instruments in vertical positioning

- 45 -

according to their register; and controlled improvisation. The work is written for a large orchestra,

which extends the range of capabilities given to the composer. Considering also that many of his

‘common’ features throughout his long compositional career are clearly presented here, in addition

with the fact that for this work the composer received the Pulitzer Prize in music, make Ice Field one

of the most significant works of Henry Brant.

- 46 -

- 47 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Mavericks. ‘Ice Field recording’, played by San Francisco Symphony under

Michael Tilson Thomas, performed 08/12/2001. http://musicmavericks.org/rafiles/brant_icefield.ram (accessed 11/3/2004)

Amirkhanian, Charles and Henry Brant. ‘Charles Amirkhanian Interviews Henry Brant’. Other Minds community, http://www.otherminds.org/shtml/Brantinterview.shtml Accessed: 15-5-2004

Brant, Henry. ‘Space as an Essential Aspect of Musical Composition’. Contemporary

composers on contemporary music. Edited by Elliot Schwartz. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967 pp. 221-242

Brant, Henry. Ice Field (composed in 2001). New York: Carl Fischer, 2002 Baker, Alan and Henry Brant. An Interview with Henry Brant.

Minnesota Public Radio, June 2002 http://www.musicmavericks.org/features/interview_brant.html Accessed: 5-12-2003

Boulez, Pierre. Conversations with Célestin Deliège. London: Eulenburg Books, 1976

(First published in French under the title Par Volonté et par Hasar: Entretiens avec Célestin Deliège. Paris: Les Editions du Seuil, 1975)

Boulez, Pierre. On Music Today (tran. Susan Bradshaw and Richard Rodney Bennett).

London: Faber, 1975. Bregman, Albert S. Auditory Scene Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts and

London, England: MIT Press, 1999. Carl Fischer Inc. ‘Henry Brant: Biography’.

http://www.carlfischer.com/brantbio.html. Accessed: 14-2-2004

Cope, David. New directions in Music. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press,

1993 (sixth edition, 1998) Drennan, Dorothy Carter. Henry Brant’s use of ensemble dispersion, as found in the

analysis of selected compositions. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Miami, 1975

Gagne, Cole, Tracy Caras and Henry Brant. ‘Henry Brant’ Soundpieces: interviews

with American composers. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1982. pp.53-67 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, Dritter Teil. Das

System der einzelnen Künste, Dritter Abschnitt. Die romantischen Künste, Zweites Kapitel. Die Music (ed. H.G. Hotho 1842).

-48-

Harley, Maria Anna. ‘Spatiality of sound and stream segregation in twentieth century instrumental music’. Organised Sound: An International Journal of Music Technology, Vol. 3; Issue 2; Aug 1998; p.147-166

Harley, Maria Anna. Space and spatialization in contemporary music: History and analysis, ideas and implementation. Montreal: McGill University PhD dissertation, 1994

Jaffe, David A. Henry Brant. http://www.jaffe.com/brant.html Accessed: 24-6-2004

Keller, James M. ‘Ice Field’s Program note’ http://www.sfsymphony.org/templates/pgmnote.asp?nodeid=2239&callid=117 Accessed: 9-6-2004

Kosman, Joshua. ‘Composer, 88, modest about winning Pulitzer - Ice Field premiered by S.F. symphony’. San Francisco Chronicle. 9 April 2002. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/04/09/MN125371.DTL&type=news (Accessed: 18-7-2004) Maconie, Robin. The Works of Karlheinz Stockhausen. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1990 Oteri, Frank J.; Brant, Henry. ‘Space to grow’. NewMusicBox. New York: American

Music Center; Vol. 4; Issue 9:45; Jan 2003. Online: http://www.newmusicbox.org/45/interview_brant.pdf. Accessed: 16-11-2003

Gann, Kyle and Kurt Stone. ‘Brant, Henry (Dreyfuss)’. The New Grove Dictionary

of Music and Musicians. Revised edition. p.246-248

San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center. ‘Louise M. Davies Symphony Hall – Technical Specifications’. http://www.sfsymphony.org/templates/hall_over.asp?nodeid=96, accessed: 11-3-4

Schwartz, Elliot and Daniel Godfrey. Music Since 1945: Issues, materials and literature. New York: Schirmer, 1993

Scruton, Roger. Aesthetics of Music.

Oxford University Press, 1999 Stuckenschmidt, Hans Heinz. Arnold Schoenberg. Westport: Greenwood Press.

(Translated by Edith Temple Roberts and Humphrey Searle) Stravinsky Igor. Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons (Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1942/ thirteen printing 1998) Sykes, Debra. ‘Henry Brant and his music: Spatialman’.

Musicworks: Explorations in sound, Issue 64; spring 1996; p. 42-48

-49-

Varga, Bálint András, Conversations with Iannis Xenakis. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1996

Worrall, David. Space in sound: sound of space. Organised Sound 3(2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998. pp. 93-99

Zvonar, Richard. A History of Spatial Music. http://www.zvonar.com/writing/spatial_music/History.html Accessed: 5-12-2003

RECORDINGS

Brant, Henry. ‘A Handbook for the spatial composer’, mp3 included in the CD The Henry Brant Collection, volume 1. Innova 408, 2003

Brant, Henry. Ice Field. Cond. Michael Tilson Thomas, San Francisco Symphony orchestra. American Mavericks, http://musicmavericks.org/rafiles/brant_icefield.ram. Accessed 11/3/2004.

PICTURES

Davis Symphony Hall Tech specifications:

http://www.sfwmpac.org/symphonyhall/sh_pdfs/dsh_techspecs.pdf

Henry Brant with Michael Tilson Thomas at Davies Hall:

http://www.otherminds.org/shtml/Branticefield.shtml

-50-

APPENDIX

San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, http://www.sfsymphony.org/templates/hall_over.asp?nodeid=96, accessed: 11-3-4