This article tries to approach Helmut Lachenmann’s music from the perspective of the cognitive sciences. The first part examines important theoretical concepts developed in Lachenmann’s own writings such as »polyphony of allocations« (Polyphonie von Anordnungen), »structure sound« (Strukturklang), »family« (Familie), »screening process« (Abtast-Prozess), modes of listening (»(Hin-)Hören« vs. »Zu-Hören«) and points at their cognitive implications. The second part discusses interrelations between Lachenmann’s and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s concepts of »family«. These concepts share an anti-essentialist perspective and argue that »families« might assemble highly heterogeneous mixtures of components. Theories of cognitive categorization based on Wittgenstein’s notion of »family resemblance« include Irene Deliège’s concept of »cue-abstraction«, based on the identification of salient features in musical contexts and their similarity, and Adam Ockelford’s »zygonic model« that criticizes this emphasis on similarity-relations; according to Ockelford, members of a category (or family) do not necessarily share a single property (or essence), but might be connected by association or contiguity. In the third part, two analytical examples related to Lachenmann’s concept of a »musique concrète instrumentale«, Pression (1969/70) and Allegro Sostenuto (1986/88), exemplify the composer’s intuitive use of cognitive principles, based mainly on Gestalt laws. The consistency of cognitive features in Pression for solo violoncello provides counter evidence against Hans-Peter Jahn’s thesis that the order of sections in this piece is arbitrary. Allegro Sostenuto demonstrates Lachenmann’s inventive play with Gestalt principles that serve as tools for categorical transformation: reference pitches, for example, provide clear levels of listening orientation for sounds that metaphorically »extinguish« or »mask« each other. The conclusion argues that Lachenmann’s theoretical ideas and theories of cognitive categorization tend to converge and might be transformed into a theory of musical context that is crucial for an adequate understanding of Lachenmann’s works.

Helmut Lachenmann’s theory of perception highlights musical moments that step out of a coherent stream of self-contained musical logic and challenges established categories of musical experience. The penultimate scene (No. 23: Shō) of Lachenmann’s »opera« The Little Match Girl (1991-96/2001) and the airy chords in the final section of his large ensemble work Concertini (2004/2005) arguably represent such moments of fundamental musical alterity in the composer’s recent output that are characterised by a specific auratic emphasis. Closer examination, however, suggests that these sections are also multiply mediated by self-references with the larger musical structure of these extensive works. This article provides a loosely connected series of discussions on how a balance between alterity and self-referentiality is achieved in these two examples. The discussions acknowledge the distinction between »extra-opus« and »intra-opus« references derived from cognitive science and music theory and focus on pitch organisation, sectional time structure, narrativity and interculturality. The Japanese mouth organ shō that figures prominently in the opera scene and, according to the composer, provides the »scale« for the concluding sounds in Concertini, without doubt symbolizes a moment of fundamental alterity due to its unique timbre, its unalienated sound and a basic articulation derived from the Japanese court music repertoire tōgaku. A detailed analysis of fingerings and pitch organisation, however, reveals a »double-coding« of Lachenmann’s material: on the »extra-opus« realm it refers to or »deconstructs« both Japanese and European musical conventions, on the »intra-opus« realm it connects to the framing scenes of the opera and forms part of a large-scale »cadence sound« that reconsiders the complete spectrum between pitched and unpitched sounds within the three closing scenes. The »utopian« shō-chords played by wind instruments in the final section of Concertini, in contrast, create a more fragmentary type of »cadence sound« due to their short durations, but nevertheless exert a »magnetic« attraction that temporarily assembles the heterogeneous »sound families« of the piece into transient sonic entities. A detailed overview of the sectional time structures reveals that in both cases the music follows a rather rigid sequence of proportions derived from Fibonacci series and the golden section, and includes several quasi symmetrical time layers. In both examples this time structure supports pivotal formal processes: in the shō-scene from the Little Match Girl it suggests a shift from the predominance of shō-sounds to their increasingly independent orchestral »resonances«, in Concertini the symmetrical position of the »shō-chords« within the final section emphasizes their cadential function and »magnetic« effect. The concluding discussions on narrativity and interculturality suggest that – partly in contrast to the preceding arguments of this essay – the analysed sections tend to subvert the conventional closure concept of a »cadence« and rather create open endings. The self-referential elements in the Little Match Girl’s construction of the shō and its inclusion in a re-invented type of »celestial mechanics« discloses non-essentialist, polyvalent strata of musical meaning that match Lachenmann’s concept of nonconventional musical narrativity and non-exploitative musical interculturality (a concept that he has critically discussed at length in a recent article). This is especially cogent when his shō-music is compared to other recent works for the Japanese mouth organ that recontextualize its sounds by »demythologization« in a much more obvious, arguably didactic manner. Finally, Lachenmann’s key idea of »liberated perception« is associated with this discussion on interculturality and traced back to moments in Keiji Nishitani’s philosophy – leaving this article open to further research.

Helmut Lachenmann’s three string quartets Gran Torso. Musik für Streichquartett (1970/71 with later revisions), »Reigen seliger Geister« (1989) and »Grido« (2000/2001, rev. 2002) introduce a huge variety of extended playing techniques that are first listed systematically allowing for a comparison between the three works on a purely technical level. It becomes obvious that most of the extended techniques are introduced in the first quartet and that the subsequent quartets show increasingly smaller selections of these techniques. This especially applies to the most prominent of these techniques: the pressed bow, described by the composer as »rattling«, which symbolizes Lachenmann’s sound world like no other technique. Although the statistics again show the highest degree of timbral differentiation in the first quartet, the pressed bow indeed takes a crucial formal function in all three works. Each quartet includes a relatively long section or field in which this technique dominates. Although the transformation processes by which these fields are integrated show some degree of similarity, a separate predominant function can be discerned for each field. In Gran Torso, the pressed bow section is part of a complex continuous transformation from »tenuto« sounds to single impulses, not least due to its »perforated« sound quality. Whereas this transformation integrates a huge variety of different timbres, »Reigen seliger Geister« condenses the music to two main sound qualities, »flautato« sounds and pizzicato-impulses. The pressed bow field here forms part of a much more concentrated large-scale development and most prominently figures in the retransition from pizzicato-chords to »toneless« impulses towards the end of the piece. In »Grido«, the pressed bow fields integrate other playing techniques as well as pitched sounds, and can be characterized by a tendency towards rhythmic and pitch-related synchronicity that also describes a large-scale formal tendency in this work. Except for the pressed bow sections, the musical flow in this work cannot be characterised by playing techniques anymore, but might be divided into »calm« and »agitated« fields that are interconnected by the »rattling fields«. The analysis provides evidence for the argument that the pressed bow technique, which often was misunderstood as a simple »negation« of beautiful sound, fulfills an essential structural function in Lachenmann’s music.

Commenting on a performance of two musical works that were played as the starting point for this discussion – Anton Webern’s Drei kleine Stücke (1914) for violoncello and piano op. 11 and Helmut Lachenmann’s Ein Kinderspiel (1980) for piano – Jörn Peter Hiekel observes that speaking about music and speaking through music particularly condition one another in new music. Both Webern and Lachenmann, by different compositional means, condense familiar musical gestures until they turn into a »language of their own«. In Lachenmann’s work, which refers to well-known children songs, this process is closely connected to what Albrecht Wellmer has called »wordliness« (Welthaltigkeit). More generally, the serialist »rebellion against music’s resemblance to language« (Adorno) shows a paradoxical twist towards sedimentation in the form of a new emerging language, as Clemens Gadenstätter explains with reference to Karlheinz Stockhausen’s Gruppen (1955–56). In new music musical idioms have been thoroughly destabilized yet always re-contextualized within established formulae. The panellists agree on a notion of both language and music that is not conceived as a closed system, but rather a network of relations transformed in time. Hence no distinct boundary can be drawn between syntax and semantics in music, nor is there any musical language that communicates a universal meaning (despite Joseph Haydn’s claim to the contrary). In addition – as anecdotes from Luigi Nono and Helmut Lachenmann document – the ambiguity of musical meaning is also relevant for composers who might be (favourably) surprised by unorthodox performances of their works that seemingly contradict the composers’ intentions, but in fact contribute to unfolding the multiplicity of meanings in a work.

Nach Helmut Lachenmanns viel beachteter Unterscheidung von fünf Klangtypen stellt sich das Verhältnis von Klang und Struktur im Sinne eines dialektischen Prozesses dar. Als ein die Hörenden aktivierendes Phänomen repräsentiert der Strukturklang den am meisten vergeistigten Typus. Die auf das eigentlich Klangliche beschränkten Farb-, Fluktuations- und Texturklänge sieht Lachenmann hingegen als primitivere Formen an, die passive und saturierte Rezeptionshaltungen unterstützen würden. Eine Darstellung dieser Theorie des musikalischen Klangs und ihrer Verwurzelung in spezifisch deutschen musikästhetischen Traditionen des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts bildet im vorliegenden Text den Ausgangspunkt einer Beschäftigung mit den Fragen, ob Aktivität und Passivität sinnvolle Kategorien der Klangwahrnehmung darstellen und inwieweit nicht auch Fluktuationsklänge engagierte und detailbezogene analytische Hörweisen anzuregen vermögen. Als Beispiele dieses Klangtyps dienen langsame Doppeltremoli und -triller, die Akkorde in triolischem Rhythmus innerlich bewegt und durch die Verschleierung metrischer Schwerpunkte gleichsam schwebend darstellen. Das von Franz Liszt vom Klavier aufdas Orchester übertragene Modell spielt besonders im Streichersatz von um 1900 entstandenen Orchesterwerken eine bedeutende Rolle. In kurzen vergleichenden Analysen zur Behandlung dieser Technik bei Dvořák, Debussy, Balakirew, Skrjabin, Strawinsky, Bartók und Ligeti wird versucht, Kriterien für die Komplexität solcher Klänge und für das Gelingen ihrer strukturellen oder dramaturgischen Einbindung in syntaktische Kontexte zu erarbeiten. / According to Helmut Lachenmann’s much noted distinction of five sound types, the relationship between sound and structure represents a dialectic process. The most spiritual type is the so called »structure sound« because it activates the listeners in a particular way. Lachenmann regards the color, fluctuation and texture sounds, which remain limited to the sound aspect itself, as rather primitive forms, reflecting passive and saturated reception attitudes. In the present article, a presentation of this musical sound’s theory and its roots in the nineteenth and twentieth-century traditions of German music aesthetics leads to a discussion on whether »activity« and »passivity« are reasonable categories of sound perception and to what extent fluctuation sounds can stimulate engaged and detailed analytic modes of listening. Examples for this sound type are slow double tremolos and double trills, representing harmonies quasi pending and inwardly moved, due to triplets and disguises of metric emphases. Franz Liszt transferred the model from the piano to the orchestra, and it plays a prominent role especially in string parts of orchestral pieces composed around the year 1900. In small studies on the treatment of this technique by Dvořák, Debussy, Balakirew, Skrjabin, Strawinsky, Bartók and Ligeti, we attempt to develop criteria for the successful integration of such sound types in structural and dramaturgical contexts of compositions.

During this 5-hour-discussion, Helmut Lachenmann explains the foundations of his music in great, unprecedented detail. The discussion consists of three sections, focussing on Lachenmann’s compositional aesthetics, the relationship between constructivity and freedom in his music, and a detailed discussion with the audience respectively. In the beginning, Lachenmann responds to Clemens Gadenstätter’s and Dieter Kleinrath’s analytical approaches to his second string quartet (see Kleinrath, Fraktalklang in this volume) arguing that a »chemical« analysis should always reference social preconditions and modes of listening instigated by the musical structure. Although music does not only have a structure, but is a structure, Lachenmann doubts that is possible to listen to music merely structurally; his music rather aims at a »liberated perception« which he labels the »last great humanity related utopia«. Elaborating on his often cited idea that a (»structure«-)sound may become identical with large-scale form, Lachenmann explains his concepts of (sound) »families« that are triggered by means of an »arpeggio«. A sound family might assemble highly diverse timbres by relating them to the same harmonic entity or the same basic playing technique – a principle that Lachenmann has derived from the analysis of European music. Introducing examples by Anton Webern and Gustav Mahler, Lachenmann shows how unconventional timbral organisation in their works sheds a completely new light on conventional structural topoi. The composer then explains his theory of listening which distinguishes between Hören (hearing) and Zuhören (listening). Familiar sound structures in music or everyday life usually do not challenge listening habits and thereby immerse the listener in a magical sphere. This mode of listening is especially obvious in functional music such as the German national anthem. The European concept of art, however, is crucially based on the idea of breaching, of intervening into these magical modes of listening, eventually resulting in a unique stylistic development over the centuries. In the second part, Lachenmann explains the multiple ways in which he confronts post-serial structures as represented by the (»structure-« or »time-«)»net« during the beginning of a compositional process. In most of his works, this net is the result of a highly complex structural arrangement of twelve-tone rows, yet it usually merely serves as a kind of »memory« and might be ignored or torn down at specific moments during the compositional work. The function of this net, ultimately, is to push the composer into new situations that he would not have confronted otherwise. In this context, Lachenmann defends the historical works of post-war serialism such as Boulez’ Structures Ia, arguing that »freedom« in that specific historical situation also meant to liberate oneself from a stereotyped fantasy by means of the »diving suit« of serial structure. After arguing that much of his music is based on the implicit double character of »process« (Prozess) and »condition« (Zustand), rather than separating these categories too rigidly, Lachenmann explains the ways in which he transforms »consonant« chords and sounds from tonal music. This practice in fact dates back to works of the early 1960s when he assembled a repertoire of interval collections such as constant sets (e.g. 2-2-2… semitones), continuously increasing/decreasing sets (e.g. 1-2-3-4…), cyclic sets (e.g. 2-3-2-3…) and harmonic as well as non-harmonic overtone sets. The playful, but not ironic integration of these collections into Lachenmann’s music is exemplified by a large section from Ausklang (1984/85) where a »fortissimo« C major tutti forms the final point of a transformation from toneless to resonant sounds. During the discussion with the audience, Lachenmann describes his compositional methods as making a »necessity out of the arbitrary« or forming »consistency out of contingency« – the serialist structural data assembled in the beginning of the compositional process provoke resistance, creative energy, and eventually become conscious as part of a personal musical vision. Similarly, a large-scale formal plan, although usually set out in the beginning, might be extended or revoked at any time in order to »let the idea of the piece discover itself«. Finally, discussing the current knowledge of extended playing techniques among professional musicians, Lachenmann argues against the tendency of becoming obsessed with alienated sounds as a »stylistic prison« and describes composition as a broadening of the mind.

Perception of music as a complicated interaction between hearing and seeing is described as an attraction by two extremes, incarnation and subtraction. In the context of staging a drama or an opera, for instance, incarnation stresses the body of the actor, whereas subtraction dissolves him into an ideal silhouette, into a real but invisible person on stage. In many contemporary art forms such as happenings or sound installations both extremes may be observed, leading either to an emphasis on theatricality, or reducing the work to one single effect: »One sound may be enough« (David Toop). Both forms, however, aim towards a specific kind of presence, demanding utmost concentration with specific religious undertones: no discourse, no structure is transmitted, rather epiphanies emerge directly from colours, fragrances or sounds. Various forms of this polarity appear in the techniques and ceremonies of contemporary ars electronica which the article considers as a (possible) challenge to »classical« contemporary music that is fixed in a score. Helmut Lachenmann’s views on analytical listening and perception (a key metaphor since the end of the twentieth century) are examined in this context, focussing on the musician’s body in selected works including Air (1968/69), Kontrakadenz (1970/71) and NUN (1999/2002). All three examples make clear that »listening« to Lachenmann’s music often implicates seeing how this music is performed in order to grasp how »heterogeneous series« connect diverse sound producing media and techniques. The relationship between hearing and seeing in Lachenmann’s music has recently been isolated by choreographer Xavier Le Roy who has produced ritualistic as well as »subtracting« versions of works such as Salut für Caudwell (1977) and Mouvement (1982/84). A completely »mute« performance of the latter work (Le Roy lets the musicians perform the complete piece without instruments), however, tends to simplify this relationship that might be described as an attempt to breach hearing by seeing and seeing by hearing.

Im zweiten Band der musik.theorien der gegenwart wird mit Helmut Lachenmann einer der führenden Komponisten der heutigen Musik ins Zentrum gestellt, dessen eigene »Theorien« des Komponierens, des Hörens, der Wahrnehmung, des Verhältnisses zwischen Musik und Gesellschaft für die in dieser Schriftenreihe thematisierte Öffnung des Theoriebegriffs zentrale Impulse geliefert haben. Lachenmanns Denken über und in Musik versteht es in brillanter Weise eine eng an musikalischen Texten und Klängen orientierte Theoriebildung von vornherein durch vielfältige Ebenen zu weiten, ohne bezüglich der Kohärenz des theoretischen Ansatzes Kompromisse zu schließen. Dass einer solchen Form der musikalischen Theorie nicht zuletzt ein dialogisches Prinzip inhärent ist, zeigt das programmatisch am Anfang des Bandes stehende Podiumsgespräch. Es belegt insbesondere wie Lachenmanns Kunstbegriff, der Komponieren und Hören in eins denkt, sich permanent neuen, unbekannten Situationen auszusetzen vermag. Die weiteren im vorliegenden Band versammelten Texte finden zu Perspektiven, die im »Kanon« der Lachenmann-Literatur bislang allenfalls marginal gestreift wurden, u.a. indem sie Lachenmanns Musik in die so unterschiedlichen Kontexte der Kognitionswissenschaften, der Klangkunst und der japanischen Mundorgel shō stellen. Sie begreifen dabei die theoretischen Ideen des Komponisten keineswegs als sine qua non der eigenen analytischen Position, machen jedoch durchweg diese so hochgradig vernetzbaren und entwickelbaren Ideen in neuartiger Weise produktiv und vermitteln dabei zwischen Theorie, Hören und musikalischer Praxis.

No description available.

Ein Großteil zeitgenössischer Musik und insbesondere solche, die sich nicht primär auf Tonhöhenrelationen stützt, findet zu wenig Platz im Gehörbildungsunterricht an Musik(hoch)schulen. Das liegt möglicherweise auch daran, dass es kaum methodische Zugänge oder Hilfestellungen dazu gibt. In diesem Artikel wird die Klangfeld-Transkriptionsmethode vorgestellt, mit der Musik zum Unterrichtsthema werden kann, die mit Geräuschen und anderen nicht tonhöhenbasierten Klangtexturen arbeitet. Die Methode geht davon aus, dass die Studierenden das Gehörte als akusmatisch rezipieren, dass sie also die Hervorbringung oder Erstellung der Klänge nicht auf Anhieb nachvollziehen können. Sie verbindet verschiedene Ansätze zum Umgang mit elektroakustischer Musik, musique concrète instrumentale und elektronischer Popmusik im Kontext des Transkribierens. Nach einer kurzen Übersicht über Lehrwerke zur Gehörbildung sowie einem Abriss verschiedener Analyseansätze zu nicht-notierter Musik werden drei Ausschnitte von Werken Amon Tobins und Helmut Lachenmanns mithilfe der Klangfeld-Transkriptionsmethode erläutert und abschließend auf ihr Potenzial hin ausgewertet. / A large part of contemporary music, especially music which is not primarily based on pitch, seems to be missing from current ear training classes in German music academies and music schools. One possible reason for this shortcoming could be the lack of methodological access or support. This article introduces the method of sound-field transcription, which makes music with a high degree of foley, noise, or other non-pitched features accessible for teaching in music classes. The method assumes that students receive aural material primarily acousmatically, not being able to identify the creation or production of the sounds at first hearing. It combines various approaches from different musical genres such as electroacoustic music, musique concrète instrumentale, and popular electronic music on the basis of musical transcriptions. After a short outline of ear training textbooks and various analytical approaches to non-notated music, three excerpts from works by Amon Tobin and Helmut Lachenmann are explicated by the method of sound-field transcription. By conclusion, these analyses are evaluated for their potential.