Christophe Bertrand - Satka (2008)

Already deceased....what a shame.

It really seems like an interesting piece that went in search of beautiful sounds....

I like it very much, the fact that it lasts much longer compared to Simon Steen-Andersen in this case the listening doesn't feel heavy....

This is the kind of pieces that I like very much. Thanks Red for the report and the initial introductory part

RedScharlach wrote:

I could have proposed something else, for example the dizzying Vertigo... but I leave the discovery to you, if you are interested.

I will wait for the next round... when you propose it

I take up Red's invitation

RedScharlach wrote:

In your opinion, why did you have fewer problems with Bertrand? Could you explain what is more accessible in his piece? (if you want, feel free to continue the discussion in the thread dedicated to him...)

I think in some aspects, forgive my coarseness.

First of all, the formal aspect is more easily evident. I mean that it is 10 minutes of a sort of counterpoint to an instrument periodically interspersed, about every minute, by sonic events.

As if at every variation—though its contents are not evident in its body (at least for me)—there is a new event... or at the beginning of each one...

00:00 until the minute mark is a crescendo of tension

However, it must be said that at a certain point after the first 2'... one is inclined to say: "enough" ... ok, we have understood the starting material... and indeed at 2'15'' it fortunately changes its "solfège" .. but only for a few seconds. A moment of hope; one will have to wait 3' to hear a sort of decrescendo and a change in sonority.

We move from more beautiful sounds, to 4' 56'' a more full-bodied sonority... but at 5' everything is as before, at 6' another change for a few seconds, at 6'44'' a struck string arrives, a pizzicato of a double bass or, more likely, a piano which will then appear more evidently.

Rhythm intensified at 7'20'' until a stop at 7'25'' and resumption of speed

7' 53''... stop and new sonority for a few seconds

At 9' and 15'' the piano is nice

The fact that the events are intelligible and correlatable helps, despite the incessant "counterpoint"... if they had made them last less by strategically placing the climaxes, I would have gained a minimum benefit.

As you can see, I have problems, but at least I grasp a sense... this perhaps helps the piece to be more accessible.

At least... put that brutally

PS

Am I mistaken, or can you even hear the score being turned, in some parts?

Just one other thing that came to mind, I had already imagined its ending from the very beginning. Perhaps the short final modulation is a bit predictable, no?

Curiosity, a score exists. I would still like to see it and listen to the piece again while following it.

It shouldn't be difficult to obtain the score: it is published by Suvini Zerboni.

By the way, on the Suvini Zerboni website I found the introductory notes:

"Satka is a Sanskrit term that literally means 'group of six'. In fact, the piece is written for an ensemble of six instruments. Structurally, it is arranged in 17 sections according to the Fibonacci sequence, whose duration continuously grows and decreases, from 10'' to 87''. Satka is, to some extent, a twin piece to Hendeka, for string trio and piano, composed shortly before. Although the instrumentation is very different, some ideas return. The approach or departure of musical gestures through the addition or subtraction of silences, which confer a feeling of 'elasticity' to the musical mass, is a recurring parameter. Satka is a composition of extraordinary virtuosity, in which the speed is paroxysmal practically throughout its entire twelve-minute duration. Only four sections in sostenutissimo—very tense, very violent and indeed very tense—halt the flow of notes, without however reducing the tension. In fact, once again, this virtuosity is not intended to be demonstrative, but rather to communicate a great energy from the stage to the hall."

Regarding your analysis, nothing to add! ... perhaps one could discuss what lasts too long and what lasts too little (in the presentation it mentions 17 sections lasting from 10 to 87 seconds)... it seems to me anyway that the effectiveness is also linked to the prominence of the objects (scales, precisely) and the rhythmic processes that animate them.

So those interventions of a few seconds are "sections"... in my opinion, the purpose of the Fibonacci sequence was certainly not musical and perhaps it cannot regulate a musical discourse that is sometimes too short and sometimes too long, or the composer had a duty to deviate. Perhaps it could have been compensated for with orchestration... which then depends on a lot of other things... so... I don't know... I didn't write it, but being a listener, it might be intended for me, so compared to other pieces, it grabs me more... but from 1 to 10, we are around 3 or 4.

Obviously, in all my subjectivity... I have seen that others like it ... I hope to get used to it, sooner or later...

jack wrote:

...in my opinion, the purpose of the Fibonacci series was certainly not musical and perhaps it cannot regulate a musical discourse that is at times too short and at times too long, or perhaps the composer had the duty to deviate.

This is a fundamental point, one that has been discussed extensively and upon which I reflect daily as a composer. It is a truly fundamental problem because it is linked to time. How long should this event, or this section, last? Of course, one could think of some empirical norms (such as: for progressions, it is best not to repeat the pattern more than three times, otherwise it becomes too predictable), but in reality, I believe it is a matter of sensitivity that cannot be reduced to a rule. Every composer has their own time.

The other part of the problem is that which is linked to the methods we use to structure time. In this case, Bertrand uses the Fibonacci series. Obviously, he was free to deviate: I believe he did not feel the need to (and not due to some form of slavery toward the method).

And Bach, how did he structure time? Did he face the problem that yet another repetition of the ritornello in a Concerto tempo might be too much?

And why is it—I ask myself—that the most natural time seems to me to be Grisey's (I am thinking of Les espaces acoustiques in particular), where every event seems to arrive at the right moment, with the right cadence, with the right measure?

RedScharlach wrote:

The other part of the problem is that which is linked to the methods we use to structure time. In this case, Bertrand uses the Fibonacci sequence.

It might not be enough in the sense that it depends on the intensity of the events and their distribution over time... when it doesn't work, it's because the resources were not well-dosed... or the method is flawed in itself.

RedScharlach wrote:

Obviously, he was free to deviate: I don't think he felt the need to (and not due to a form of slavery towards the method).

We don't know this fully... everything is linked to one's own musical sensitivity.

RedScharlach wrote:

And Bach, how did he structure time? Did he face the problem that yet another repetition of the refrain in a Concerto tempo might be too much?

And why is it—I ask myself—that the most natural time seems to me to be Grisey's (I am thinking of Les espaces acoustiques in particular), where every event seems to arrive at the right moment, with the right cadence, with the right measure?

Well, it doesn't seem to me that there is much unnatural about Bach; he simply had a reference method and prepared the cadences adequately... but it is like this for all great composers.

Frankly, I don't know if those under 30 can already define themselves as great composers; they are people who write decent music in their own style... to go from there to saying that we are facing a new Bach... or Grisey, it's quite a leap....

A few things are not clear to me following the use of the Fibonacci sequence.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successione_di_Fibonacci

If it effectively governs the duration of the sections, as indicated by Jack's span measurements, what is the correspondence and the "scale" used for these correspondences?

In general, if one does not want to draw from tradition using proven models ("by definition," given the number of masterpieces already written) that are balanced, proportionate, etc... during the exploration and search for new models, one may also fail or not be 100% convincing. Successors, since the composer has already passed away, will have the opportunity to exploit his experience. After all, even Verdi wrote "No" works (experimental) and "Yes" works (where he exploited the experience gained during the experimental phase).

Gerardo wrote:

If it actually regulates the duration of the sections, as indicated by Jack's span measurements, what is the correspondence and the "scale" used for these correspondences?

The seventeen sections should be these (listening... I am not sure I have identified them all correctly!)

0.29

1.00

1.26

2.13

2.24

3.13

4.10

5.02

5.46

6.03

6.28

7.20

7.56

8.30

8.47

9.14

10.05

I leave the calculation of the proportions to you; it is not difficult. Obviously, the Fibonacci sequence is not used linearly, otherwise we would have a continuous increase in durations. He probably only used a portion of it (it shouldn't be complicated to discover which one, once the duration proportions have been derived).

Xenakis wrote:

Frankly, I don't know if those under 30 can already call themselves great composers; they are people who write decent music in their own style... from here to saying we are facing a new Bach... or Grisey, it's quite a leap....

Well, in my opinion the problem isn't finding a new Bach or a new Grisey... I prefer the old ones!

And in any case, if the points of reference cannot be Bach and Grisey because they are too great, to whom should we refer? To Domenico Zipoli? (with all due respect to Zipoli!)

As for Bertrand's importance, in my opinion it is remarkable, despite his age, because he has succeeded in defining his own sound world (I tried to describe it in my first post), a sound world that is certainly indebted to the lessons of his teachers, but very personal in its extreme expressive urgency.

But I never said it was a problem... in fact, I didn't even mention them myself. Bach, etc.

I should point out that Mozart had already written something serious at age 4 and by 17 had already reached a great symphonic peak... unfortunately Bertrand has passed away, but let us remember that among Schubert, Chopin, etc... I don't know who lived longer, and they didn't have the internet or our technological means that save you time; they spent 8 hours a day transcribing by hand and an equal number of hours from the Nobility to procure work.

I like the piece too, but let us let history take its course... A composer's sound, as you defined it in the opening topic of the section, roughly corresponds to the voicing of jazz musicians... understand that it is little to be automatically Oscar Peterson...

... let's just say that for now we could be facing a good composer like Salieri could have been. And if I may, one must have this awareness... we do not decide who will remain and who will less so... and history teaches us that those praised in their own time are not always the ones remembered later...

Xenakis wrote:

And if I may, one must have this awareness... it is not for us to decide who will remain and who will less so... and history teaches us that those idolized in their own time are not always the ones remembered...

This is certainly an important point, one on which I have often reflected and on which I do not have a precise answer. Obviously, it is not up to us to decide who will remain and who will not. In my opinion (at least for now, that's how I think), this question has almost zero interest. I don't talk about this or that piece because I think it will be remembered in a hundred years. I talk about it because it interests me NOW (it interests me as a listener and, in this specific case, as a composer).

I find composer rankings even less interesting (at the top, obviously, is Beethoven!). If I mention Bach and Grisey, it's not to say who is the greatest; it's because I want to understand how time is structured in their pieces, and to understand how time is structured in Bertrand's piece, and to understand how I myself might structure the time of my next composition.

Xenakis wrote:

A composer's sound, as you defined it in the section's opening topic, roughly corresponds to the voicing used by jazz musicians

This is also an interesting observation, given that sound, the way I see it, is not just a matter of harmony (abstractly understood) but also of speed, timbral quality, etc...