"Evocation of the Ancestors"
It will be remembered that the "Evocation" consisted of two alternating blocks of material, the first of which spaced or marked off successive appearances of the second, principal block. Attention will here be focused primarily on the second of these two alternating blocks, henceforth designated Block B.
At issue are (1) fixed metric identity and (2) displacement. These, of course, are the twin sides of the double edge or coin referred to above. However, in the "Evocation" the second of these edges surfaces with an inconvenient hitch: at strategic points of arrival and departure, the background periodicity upon which felt displacement hinges does not, as in the previous illustrations, flatten out the foreground irregularity. Except for the initial statement of Block B at no. 121 + 3, the periodic grain that may be inferred does not as a rule arrive on target with the shifting meter as subsequent Block B statements are concluded. At the same time, the "feel" of periodicity is inescapable. In the 1929 revision the half-note is initially the tactus with an assigned marking of 72. And with the half-note-quarter-quarter motive of Block B's initial bar, a meter may be inferred, in relation to which the subsequent
bars assume the by now familiar role of disruptive troublemakers. Indeed, the "play" of the "Evocation" derives in large part from the stimulation of long-term periodic expectations and the stubborn, counteracting refusal of
fixed metric identity, as defined by subsequent repeats of the initial motives and submotives of Block B, to comply.
This, of course, is the familiar twist of the double edge. Yet for the reasons indicated already, hidden periodicity seems here at a greater disadvantage than in the passages examined from Les Noces and Histoire, so that, in turn, displacement in the metric identity of the reiterating motives may not be as acutely felt. With subsequent repeats of Block B's initial motives, the listener is more apt to readjust his/her metrical bearings than to persevere with the diminishing traces of a prevailing periodicity. Hence the opposing forces of fixed identity and displacement are placed in a more balanced relationship. For the conservative listener, the radical implications of the shifting meter are more persuasively brought to the fore.
Shown in Examples 27a–27c are three versions of Block B's initial statement at no. 121 + 3. These are drawn from page 73 of the sketchbook, the 1913 autograph, and the 1929 revision. As reported earlier, the sevens of the sketchbook version were carved up into two units of 4 + 3 quarter-note beats in the 1913 autograph. Highlighted in particular in the autograph is the underlying repeat structure of the initial B statement. For while motive a7 is shortened by two notes at m.4, the initial 4 + 3 unit is retained. (The deleted notes are bracketed in Example 27b, where the a7 label is retained for the repeat.) Hence, motivically speaking, modified restatements of Block B derive in their entirety from the single motive a7 and its 4 + 3 subdivision. All subsequent extensions, contractions, and reorderings materialize with reference to this single motivic point of departure.
Example 27:
"Evocation"
In contrast, the barring of the 1929 revision records the actual shortening of motive a7 at mm.3-4. As shown in Example 27c, the final C falls on the downbeat at m.5. And since the downbeat here coincides with the return of Block A, the C is placed in a parallel relationship with the earlier C at m.3. This in turn underscores a more separately realized identity for the repeat (labeled b5 in Example 27c), whose 2 + 3 subdivision will in turn differ from that of a7. In addition to a bar for the half-note C, a disruptive
bar will now accommodate C-C-D as well as D-C-D. Moreover, as barred in Example 27c, the a7–b5 succession will serve as the somewhat lengthier motivic point of departure according to which subsequent modifications in Block B statements are gauged.
This does not suggest, of course, that the repeat structure of a7 followed by b5, as graphically exposed by the autograph version, is entirely obscured. On the contrary, a7 still contains b5, while, as boxed off in Example 28, a single inflection, the D, acts as a kind of pivot in distinguishing subsequent repeats of the two motives. Indeed, by including the final C in the motivic definition, the boxed-off D in Example 28 divides Block B into two equal units of six quarter-note beats.
And in this way, too, the "Evocation" emerges as yet another illustration of that earlier noted addiction to pitch-stutter, to "a ceaseless alternation between two or three notes," here in the reduced form of a punctuation of C and its inflection D. Correspondences with the above-noted passages need hardly be cited in this connection. Yet perhaps especially in the "Evocation," the very idea that so much could in fact have been made of so little presses itself on the imagination to a degree quite without equal among the many other, similarly disposed passages in this oeuvre .
Two restatements of Block B are shown in Examples 29 and 30. These feature extensions and reshufflings of the original a7–b5 motivic order as introduced at no. 121 + 3. In addition, there are hinges in these lengthier statements, slight infractions in terms of C-E -D and G-F
-E that occasionally extend the motivic repeats by three quarter-note beats. Additional variety is achieved by deleting the initial half-note C of motive a7, so that a7 becomes a5.
Example 28:
"Evocation"
Example 29:
"Evocation"
Example 30:
"Evocation"
Most extensive among these restatements, however, is that at nos. 125-27 + 1. Shown in Example 30, this begins with a recapitulation of the original a7–b5 order, which is followed by a b5/a7 overlap; the barring here of b5 conceals the longer a7 repeat, which is then extended by the C-E -D hinge. The latter hinge adds refinement and "tease" to the balancing act of these measures. Yet, as recomposed in Example 31, the omission of these hinges in the form of an a7-b5-a7-a7-b5 succession would not have made for an entirely improbable B statement. That Example 31 could indeed have figured as a semi-respectable alternative is at least partially owing to the fact that, following the a7–b5 recapitulation, the motivic order is reshuffled. Still, the pe-
Example 31:
"Evocation" (hypothetical version)
culiar tension of these measures cannot be said entirely to reside in the repetition of a string of unchanging motives. For instance, at nos. 125-26 in Example 30, to what extent is the second of the two successive b5's heard and understood as a "true" repeat of the first? Or in the recomposed version in Example 31, in what sense is the second of the two successive a 7's perceived as a straightforward repeat of the first? The point seems to be that these repeats raise expectations of periodicity that, in a delicate balance between compliance and forced readjustment, are subtly either affirmed or rebuffed by subsequent motivic placement.
As was mentioned already, similar inferences may be drawn from the initial a7-b5 succession itself at no. 121 + 3. For with the half-note as the tactus, the opening bars initiate a periodicity in relation to which the
bars are the disruptive troublemakers. Hence the tension of the repeat motive b5 relative to a7 may be traced (1) to the fact that seven misses eight by one, and (2) to the fact that b5 can in this sense be heard and understood as a syncopation in relation to a7—that, in other words, b5 becomes an offbeat contradiction of the onbeat identity of a7.
Here again the exposed repeat structure of the autograph version is instructive. As outlined in Examples 32a and b, the two sevens and their 4 + 3 subdivisions are a condensation, by one quarter-note beat for each 4 + 3 unit, of a square metrical scheme of two eights with subdivisions of 4 + 4. In other words, with the initial motive a7, a square periodic 4 + 4 unit is squeezed into an "irrational" one of 4 + 3; at m.3, the shortened repeat of a7 arrives one quarter-note beat too soon. And with the shrinkage of this 4 + 4 unit to 4 + 3, pressure tends to accumulate precisely at the juncture of the motivic repeats, that is, at the half-note C that invariably initiates repeats of both a7 and b5. (Note that the half-note C always falls on the downbeats of the irregular measures.) Thus while the initial C at m.3 serves first and foremost as the start of
Example 32:
"Evocation"
the shortened repeat motive, it never entirely severs its ties to a7 as a terminating element; at m.3, a7 is cut short and remains in this respect unfulfilled. (The impact of the condensation could be represented by an interminable succession of elision loops at the juncture of all a7/b5 repeats.) Hence the motivic repetition of Block B assumes, built in from the start, a tight, breathless quality. Always arriving a bit too soon, the repeats within a particular succession appear hurried and impatiently realized, always lacking the sense of a true rhythmic finality or resolution.
The second of the two factors mentioned above concerns b5 as a contradiction of a7. For with the trimming of 4 + 4 to an "irrational" count of 4 + 3, the shortened b5 repeat at m.3 assumes, in relation to a7, a syncopated identity. In accord with the periodicity as inferred from a 7's opening
bar, and in direct opposition to the fixed metric identity of the reiterating motives as defined by the shifting meter, the initial onbeat identity of motive a7 is contradicted by an offbeat placement at mm.3-4. These conclusions are outlined in Examples 33a and 33b, where brackets outline the background
meter for the autograph and 1929 versions, and according to which the block is re-barred in Example 33c. And so, once again, fixed metric identity stands in opposition to displacement, the latter relying for its apprehension on a steady background frame of reference. Note that with the initial Block B statement at no. 121 + 3, the concealed periodicity arrives on target with the foreground irregularity as the block is concluded four measures later.
A final step in this analysis is to situate these findings within the wider context of the two alternating Blocks A and B. Shown in Example 34, the total quarter-note count for Block B is twelve. And Block B is flanked by A
Example 33:
"Evocation"
Example 34:
"Evocation"
statements whose divisions likewise total twelve quarter-note beats. Almost immediately however, this initial regularity is subjected to disruption. For in the echo statement of Block B at no. 122 + 1, the initial half-note C of motive a7 is dropped, a7 becoming a5. And in accord with the prevailing
arrangement, the second half of a7's
bar falls on the first or "strong" beat rather than
on the second, as earlier at no. 121 + 3. Moreover, the scheme fails to coincide with the foreground irregularity at the conclusion of the echo statement; indeed, with the entrance of a5 at no. 123, the original
"feel" has disappeared altogether. For at this point—indeed, perhaps already at the beginning of the echo statement—the initial fixed identity of a7 in its a5 condensed form holds sway, forcing the listener to readjust his/her periodic bearings. And the "play" of the "Evocation" thus unfolds in the manner described above. A7's initial bar stimulates expectations of periodicity which, with each displaced motivic repeat, are continually thwarted and then renewed in a kind of back-and-forth motion. This, in a nutshell, is the crux of the balancing act.
Of course, it could easily be argued that at the higher level of structure in Example 34, the 1-2-3 triple count of Block B at no. 121 + 3 is inherently unstable. For quite apart from the many psychological and physiological points that have traditionally been raised in support of the thesis of an innate duple preference in situations of this kind, Block B is an abbreviation of a conventional duple scheme.[41] As was shown already in Examples 32a and 32b, the 7 + 7 and 7 + 5 schemes of the autograph and 1929 revision are a condensation of a square 8 + 8 scheme, so that, at the higher level in the 1929 revision, a potential 1-2-1-2 count shrinks to 1-2-3. Yet a duple alternative at this level at no. 121 + 3 would not appreciably have altered the disruptive effect as sketched in Example 34 on behalf of the triple mold. Beginning with the downbeat at no. 121 + 3, the entrance of a5 in the echo statement at no. 122 + 1 would still have fallen "incorrectly" on a first, "strong" beat.
In Example 35 these implications are applied to the lengthy B statement at nos. 125-27 + 1. Here, a 1-2 duple scheme is pursued at two levels of structure while, underneath the excerpt, the brackets indicate the motivic repeats and hinges as surveyed in Example 30. And as is evident, the first major point of reckoning comes with motive a7 in the bar at no. 126 + 2, just after the a7/b5 overlap and the C-E
-D hinge. For in accord with the prevailing
meter, a7's half-note C enters "incorrectly" on the second, "weak" beat rather than on the first. Here again, however, the listener is likely to switch metrical gears, opting in favor of a7's fixed identity. But these implications are also short-lived. For the consequence of this readjustment is that b5 enters "incorrectly" on the beat at no. 127, a contradiction which in turn fails to arrive on
Example 35:
"Evocation"
target with the irregular barring as the entire block draws to a close two measures later.[42]
As a final illustration, an outline of the "Evocation" as a whole is sketched in Chart 1. Here, of course, the design is similar to those introduced by Boulez in his extensive discussion of The Rite .[43] Note the sequential character of the format; within the alternation between Blocks A and B, principal statements of B alternate with the shorter echo statements. In addition, the echo statements retain a stable duration of five quarter-note beats for the condensed motive a5, while the remaining, principal statements expand from twelve to twenty-two and finally to thirty-seven beats in the lengthy block surveyed in Example 35. But as should by now be apparent, the perceptual implications of these measurements are far from "abstract." Heard and understood with reference to the double edge of fixed metric identity and displacement, they take on a lively sense of the "play" of this invention, its true raison d'être .
Chart 1:
"Evocation"