TWELVE-TONE TECHNIQUES IN A WORK

FOR GUITAR BY MILTON BABBITT

by

Brian M. Bemman

Bachelor of Arts
Florida State University, 2009

______________________________________________

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Master of Arts in

Music Theory

School of Music

University of South Carolina

2012

Accepted by:

J. Daniel Jenkins, Director of Thesis

Reginald Bain, Reader

Samuel Douglas, Reader

Lacy Ford, Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies

 UMI Number: 1509772

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 1509772
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Copyright by Brian M. Bemman, 2012
All Rights Reserved

ii
 ABSTRACT

For Milton Babbitt, twelve-tone techniques are indispensible in the compositional

process. One of his works for guitar, entitled Sheer Pluck (Composition for Guitar), is a

remarkable exemplar of such techniques, yet is largely overlooked in the analytical

literature. Babbitt’s piece utilizes an incredibly complex structure based on the D-

hexachord called an all-partition array. Chapter one of this study includes the state of

research on the analysis of this composer’s works and justifies the need for additional

work. Chapter two provides an extensive analysis of the work with emphasis on form,

array structure, and its projection both in the pitch and rhythmic realms. Chapter three

suggests areas of further study.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge several individuals instrumental in the success of this

document. First, I thank those individuals at the Peters C. F. Corporation who quickly and

graciously permitted the reprinting of select passages from the score (Milton Babbitt

Composition for Guitar Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by

Permission) that are found in this document. I also thank Andrew Mead and Jenine

Lawison-Brown for their advice during the preliminary stages of this research on

Babbitt’s all-partition array methods.

I wish to further thank my readers, Reginald Bain and Samuel Douglas. Both of

these individuals have provided me with a wealth of knowledge and will continue to be

an inspiration to me. Particularly, I thank the director of my thesis and mentor, John

Daniel Jenkins. Without his guidance and continued support none of my research would

have been possible. I admire each of these individuals for their academic as well as

personal integrity, and I aspire to one day be as great. Finally, I wish to thank my parents,

John and Judy, for their continued love and support of everything I pursue in life.

iv
 PREFACE

Because of the sheer complexity of such atonal/serial works by composers such as

Arnold Schoenberg, music analysts began in the 1960s to employ mathematical

methodologies for the purposes of analysis. At that time, such tools seemed entirely

appropriate, if not necessary. First seen in a nascent way the work of Howard Hanson,

Allen Forte developed these ideas later, culminating in the publication of The Structure of

Atonal Music in 1973.1

While serial composition was quite in vogue in academia during this time, by the

late 1980s the focus on serial music in universities began to wane—at a time when it

never quite achieved acceptance outside of these institutions. Nevertheless, some

composers continued to produce complex twelve-tone works which are elucidated by

mathematical analysis. Most notably, these works are found in the legacy of the late

composer, Milton Babbitt. This document attempts to continue this long-standing

tradition by presenting a detailed analysis of a largely overlooked work by guitar, Sheer

Pluck (Composition for Guitar).

1
Thomas Christensen, The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002): 624.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………iii
ABSTRACT………….……………………………………………………………………..iv
PREFACE…………………………………………………………………………………...v
LIST OF FIGURES....……………………………………………………………………….vii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...……..………………………………………………………..1
1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW……………........……………………………………………...1
1.2 BABBITT’S TWELVE-TONE TECHNIQUES...…………………………………………...5
1.3 WHY IS THIS DOCUMENT NEEDED?...........................................……………………...8
CHAPTER 2 ANALYSIS OF “SHEER PLUCK” (COMPOSITION FOR GUITAR)………………….9
2.1 THE ARRAY……………………..………………….………………………………...9
2.2 FORM…….……………………….......………..…………………………………...16
2.3 PITCH PROJECTION………………………………………………………………….21
2.4 RHYTHM PROJECTION...…………........…………………………………………….37
CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION.………………..……………………………………………….44
3.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS…………………………………………………………….44
REFERENCES………………………………...……………………………………………46
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1. BABBITT’S ALL-COMBINATORIAL HEXACHORDS…..…………………………6

FIGURE 2.1. BLOCK I OF THE PROJECTION CHART………………………………………..11

FIGURE 2.2. BLOCK II OF THE PROJECTION CHART.………………..……………………..12

FIGURE 2.3. BLOCK III OF THE PROJECTION CHART…………...……...…………………..12

FIGURE 2.4. BLOCK IV OF THE PROJECTION CHART….……..…...………………………..13

FIGURE 2.5. BLOCK V OF THE PROJECTION CHART...……………………………………..13

FIGURE 2.6. BLOCK VI OF THE PROJECTION CHART..……………………………………..14

FIGURE 2.7. BLOCK VII OF THE PROJECTION CHART...…….……………………………..14

FIGURE 2.8. BLOCK VIII OF THE PROJECTION CHART.…………………..………………..15

FIGURE 2.9. MM. 126–131 WITH “CADENCE”...…………………………………………..16

FIGURE 2.10. MM. 92–98 WITH “CADENCE” IN MM. 92–93..………………...…………...19

FIGURE 2.11. ROW-FORM DISTRIBUTION……………………....…………………………20

FIGURE 2.12. BLOCK I/II BOUNDARY……………………………………………………..23

FIGURE 2.13. OPENING AGGREGATE.……………………………………………………..24

FIGURE 2.14. BLOCK II/III BOUNDARY.…………………………………………………..25

FIGURE 2.15. BLOCK III/IV BOUNDARY...………………………………………………..26

FIGURE 2.16. BLOCK IV/V BOUNDARY…………………………………………………..27

FIGURE 2.17. BLOCK V/VI BOUNDARY…………………………………………………..28

FIGURE 2.18. BLOCK VI/VII BOUNDARY….……………………………………………...30

FIGURE 2.19. BLOCK VII/VIII BOUNDARY.………………………………………………31

vii
FIGURE 2.20. LYNE ARTICULATION BY BLOCK……….…………………………………..32

FIGURE 2.21. BLOCK VII MOTIVIC IDEA………...………………………………………..33

FIGURE 2.22. FINAL AGGREGATE………………………………………………………...35

FIGURE 2.23. PROJECTION OF DYNAMIC LEVELS FOR BLOCK I...…………………………36

FIGURE 2.24. UNIT OF DURATION AND MODULUS.……...………………………………..38

FIGURE 2.25. TIME-POINT ROW IN BLOCK VII…..………………………………………..40

FIGURE 2.26. OPENING AGGREGATE WITH QUARTER-NOTE DIVISION…….……………...41

viii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Milton Babbitt wrote avidly about music and contributed many musical analyses

and compositional strategies to the academic world. During the apex of his career, he

published numerous essays and articles concerning his viewpoints on the evolution of the

analysis not only of other composers’ works, but also of his own. Such general

information on Babbitt is easily accessible in The Collected Essays of Milton Babbitt and

an earlier collection, Milton Babbitt: Words about Music.1 More rigorous insights into his

analytical practices can be found in the numerous articles he published in journals such as

the Journal of Music Theory (JMT) and Perspectives of New Music (PNM), to name a

few.

Babbitt Scholars

For a period of almost 20 years beginning in the 1960s, Babbitt’s compositions

thrived both as the result of and the driving force for the emphasis on atonal music during

this time. The earliest evidence for this reciprocal relationship can be traced back to his

prefatory article on compositional practices entitled “Set Structure as a Compositional

1
Milton Babbitt, Milton Babbitt: Words about Music, ed. Stephen Dembski and Joseph N. Straus
(Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987) and Milton Babbitt, The Collected Essays of Milton
Babbitt, ed. Stephen Peles with Stephen Dembski, Andrew Mead, and Joseph N. Straus (Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2003).

1
Determinant.”2 Many theorists since have taken interest in Babbitt’s works, while still

others such as George Perle have expressed deep criticisms of his theories.3

On the other hand, Andrew Mead has emerged as the foremost proponent of Babbitt’s

work.

Mead’s first contributions to the literature about twentieth-century analytical and

compositional techniques appeared in Music Theory Spectrum (MTS) and Intégral in the

early and late 80s, respectively. 4 Mead’s work culminated in An Introduction to the

Music of Milton Babbitt, published in 1994. 5 To this day, this book remains the

preeminent source on the composer and his music. Mead’s seminal analyses of Babbitt’s

works were published in this intervenient time between 1981 and 1994. One of these

articles, “Detail and Array in Milton Babbitt’s ‘My Complements to Roger,’” set the

standard for the analysis of partition array pieces.6 With the decline in emphasis upon

such works by the late 1990s however, his most recent interests have shifted to other

topics. He now writes extensively on the phenomenology of music.7

The techniques Mead advanced in these early articles, namely the representation

of partitions of the aggregate in exponential notation and the organization of arrays in a

2
Milton Babbitt, “Set Structure as a Compositional Determinant,” Journal of Music Theory 5 (Spring
1961): 72–94.
3
George Perle, “Babbitt, Lewin, and Schoenberg: A Critique,” Perspectives of New Music 2, no. 1
(Autumn–Winter 1963): 120–32.
4
Andrew W. Mead, “Detail and Array in Milton Babbitt’s ‘My Compliments to Roger’,” Music Theory
Spectrum 5 (Spring 1983): 89–109, and “Twelve-Tone Organizational Strategies: An Analytical Sampler,”
Integral 3: 93–169.
5
Andrew W. Mead, An Introduction to the Music of Milton Babbitt (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University
Press, 1994).
6
Mead, “Detail.”
7
Andrew W. Mead, “Bodily Hearing: Physiological Metaphors and Music Understanding,” Journal of
Music Theory 43, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 1–19.

2
projection chart, have been used extensively by other theorists in their own analyses. One

such theorist, James Bennighof, published an article in 1987 entitled “Set-Class

Aggregate Structuring, Graph Theory, and some Compositional Strategies.”8 It offers

some ways in which to visualize the organization of the aggregate. Of equal, if not

greater importance to the visual conceptualization of this organization is the aural

understanding. Bruce Samet’s dissertation of the same year sought to provide a way in

which to aurally recognize presentations of the aggregate.9 Such recognition is essential

to any analysis of sufficient complexity that attempts a meaningfully coherent

explanation.

Another theorist whose work is closely tied to Mead’s work is William Lake.

Lake published an article entitled “The Architecture of a Superarray Composition: Milton

Babbitt’s String Quartet no. 5.”10 While borrowing many of Mead’s techniques, his

analysis invokes them in order to explain an ever more complex, hierarchical process of

structure called the superarray. With two aggregate structures now recognized, the

partition array and superarray, differing explanations for their organization were apt to

arise.

One such explanation makes use of source sets in analysis and comes directly

from Babbitt himself, as first acknowledged in his 1961 article in JMT.11

8
James Bennighof, “Set-Class Aggregate Structuring, Graph Theory, and Some Compositional Strategies,”
Journal of Music Theory 31, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 51–98.
9
Bruce Samet, “Hearing Aggregates,” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1987.
10
William E. Lake, “The Architecture of a Superarray Composition: Milton Babbitt’s String Quartet no. 5,”
Perspectives of New Music 24, no. 2 (Spring–Summer 1986): 88–111.
11
Babbitt, “Set Structure.”

3
 Another theorist and composer, Robert Morris, adheres to a partition approach. 12

A more recent theorist to clarify the distinction between them is Brian Alegant. His

dissertation, “The Seventy-seven Partitions of the Aggregate: Analytical and Theoretical

Implications,” explores the divide between source set and partition approaches to

aggregate organization as conceived of by both composers.13

Sheer Pluck (Composition for Guitar)

Numerous other theorists have subsequently published writings pertaining to the

compositional practices that Babbitt developed. Judd Dansby’s dissertation, “Array and

Superarray Structure and Projection in Milton Babbitt’s Recent Orchestral Music,”

provides an overview of various aspects of some of his third-period compositions.14 Of

particular focus in this document is Steven Raisor’s thesis,15 which includes an analysis

of the piece Sheer Pluck (Composition for Guitar), a work commissioned by and

dedicated to the celebrated guitarist David Starobin in 1984.

Raizor contextualizes the understanding of this work through analytical

comparisons to three other serial works for the guitar. Raisor’s surface analysis of this

piece draws upon Babbitt’s proclivity for source sets in order to derive several pertinent

12
Robert Morris, Class Notes for Advanced Atonal Music Theory (Lebanon, NH: Frog Peak Music, 2001)
and Composition with Pitch-Classes: A Theory of Compositional Design (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1987).
13
Brian Alegant, “The Seventy-seven Partitions of the Aggregate: Analytical and Theoretical
Implications,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1993.
14
Judd G. Dansby, “Array and Superarray Structure and Projection in Milton Babbitt’s Recent Orchestral
Music,” D.M.A. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1998.
15
Steven C. Raisor, “Twentieth-Century Techniques in Selected Works for Solo Guitar: Serialism,” M.M.
Thesis, Florida State University, 1994.

4
and discrete trichords. He in turn uses these as the basis for his assertion that imbricated

trichords play a central role in the structure of the piece. Trichords no doubt manifest in

the work to some degree; however, Raisor’s analysis fails to capture the sheer complexity

of the interactions of aggregates. After all, Mead has not only previously suggested that

the work is structured with an all-partition array, but has said that “a thorough

investigation of a twelve-tone row entails more than a look at its segmental

components”16 Therefore, discussions in the next chapter will address the specifics of

form and projection in the all-partition array structure of Sheer Pluck.

1.2 BABBITT’S TWELVE-TONE TECHNIQUES

Combinatoriality

Babbitt utilized many techniques of twelve-tone composition, some of which

were a continuation of those pioneered by Schoenberg. Others Babbitt developed himself

and remain unique to his compositions. A thorough discussion of these techniques as they

appear in Babbitt’s three compositional periods may be found in Mead’s An Introduction

to the Music of Milton Babbitt.17 The following discussion will focus on those techniques

applicable in his nominal final period (1981-2011), to which Sheer Pluck belongs, and is

an early representative of.

The foundations for the majority of Babbitt’s mature twelve-tone compositions lie

in the Schoenbergian concept of inversional hexachordal combinatoriality, which

according to Mead “allowed rows to exert their influence over more than one

16
Mead, Introduction, 145.
17
Mead, Introduction.

5
aggregate.”18 This property made possible the dense and voluminous networks of

relationships that characterize Babbitt’s final period. Mead refers to Babbitt’s

exploitation of the relationships of the underlying row class of a work in as many ways

possible, as the principle of “maximal diversity.”

Integral to the principle of “maximal diversity” is Babbitt’s choice of pitch

content. His works, as such, are derived almost entirely from the all-combinatorial

collection classes, most of which are hexachords. There are six of these all-combinatorial

hexachord types that Babbitt labeled A through F. These are found below in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Babbitt’s all-combinatorial hexachords

Each of these hexachords has intervallic properties unique to themselves, but all

can be inverted onto themselves as well as transposed and inverted onto their

complements. Collectively, these operations represent all of the possible canonical

transformations of a row: P, I, R, and RI. Moreover, the so-called higher-order

18
Mead, Introduction, 21.

6
hexachords, D, E, and F are ever more remarkable. Each of these comprise members that

can invert onto themselves or their complements at multiple index numbers. With

maximal diversity in mind, it is easy for one to see the compositional appeal of these

hexachords for Babbitt. We will now look closely at how exactly these hexachordal

“mosaics” contribute to the compositional structure of an all-partition array.

All-Partition Array

A hexachordally combinatorial pair of rows in such a structure necessarily forms

both linear and vertical presentations of the aggregate. Their combination results in four

aggregates (two horizontal and two vertical) called an array. The linear rows are referred

to as lynes. As Mead describes, “the number of lyne pairs present in Babbitt’s all-

partition arrays is, with a couple of exceptions, determined by the number of distinct

members of the underlying hexachord’s mosaic class.”19 Sheer Pluck, the subject of this

analysis, because it is based on the D-hexachord type (for which there are six distinct

members), can be constructed as three lyne pairs (a six-part array). The E-hexachord

however, forms only two lyne pairs (a four-part array) while the A, B, and C hexachord

types form six lyne pairs (a twelve-part array).

Discrete vertical presentations of the two aggregates in an array are distinguished

according to the partitioning of members from each lyne within each vertical boundary.

Thus, a six-part array might have a segment length of two distinct members for which its

partition would be 26. Typically, we curtail a block at the moment in which every lyne

has concluded a presentation of the aggregate. At block boundaries, a new row-form

transformation commences. An all-partition array then, as its name suggests, contains all
19
Mead, Introduction, 31–32.

7
partitions of the aggregate possible given the number of parts dictated by the underlying

hexachordal mosaic. A four-part array will contain thirty-four aggregates, a twelve-part

array will contain seventy-seven aggregates, and a six-part array will contain fifty-eight.

While many structural aspects of all-partition arrays are the same, the ways in

which pitch and rhythm are projected can dramatically shape the way in which the music

travels through each block. In the following chapter, we will discuss the form and

projection of the unfolding of these simultaneous lynes and concatenating blocks in Sheer

Pluck.

1.3 WHY IS THIS DOCUMENT NEEDED?

The analysis of this work by Babbitt fulfills two critical needs. First, in doing so the

author wishes to draw more attention to this piece. Second, analyses of works for guitar

are rarely undertaken by theorists. This document will not only contribute to the growing

body of the analysis of guitar works, but inspire others to do the same. Additionally, the

work seeks to further scholarship about the composer.

8
 CHAPTER 2

ANALYSIS OF SHEER PLUCK (COMPOSITION FOR GUITAR)

2.1 THE ARRAY

Projection Chart

As Mead rightly observes, “because arrays may be interpreted in a wide variety of

ways, and because they are not the easiest things in the world to construct, Babbitt has

tended to reuse the same rather small bunch of all-partition arrays in a number of works,

varying them under certain types of operations.”20 While Mead has determined that the

general array structure of Sheer Pluck (Composition for Guitar) resembles that of the

violin part in the later Joy of More Sextets,21 the following analysis presents the first

thorough attempt to demonstrate the work’s all-partition array structure.22 The analysis

subsequently reveals several incongruities between the array structures of Sheer Pluck

and Joy of More Sextets, which other authors have not previously addressed.

Analysis of Sheer Pluck reveals its structure as a single iteration of a six-part, all-

partition array with segments of 12 or fewer elements into 58 statements of composite

columnar aggregates. Each lyne pair is registrally defined and bound by octave such that

20
Mead, Introduction, 33.
21
Mead, Introduction, 271.
22
A trichordal analysis was previously offered by Raisor, “Twentieth-Century.” Andrew Mead informed
me that while several theorists have attempted an analysis of this work, to his knowledge nothing yet in the
way of an in-depth analysis of the all-partition array structure has been published. Personal e-mail
communication from February 10–12, 2012.

9
lynes six and five are confined within the written range E3-D#4, lynes four and three

within E4-D#5, and lynes two and one within E5-D#6.

Because segment length in any given lyne is not restricted to six elements or

fewer, and lynes do not necessarily conclude an aggregate partition at the same time, the

possibility for redundancies of pitch class within a partition arises. Additionally, when a

lyne and its register partner are inverted to maintain their hexachordal content or these are

found in retrograde but invariant partitioning, omission of pitch classes from a partition is

also possible. An array type using these techniques produces weighted aggregates. 23

Such a technique often results in an array that does not exhaust all possible row-form

transformations of its underlying row class and subsequently neither its lyne pair

hexachordal content. Unlike in the second part of Joy of More Sextets, the array type in

Sheer Pluck is not a hyperaggregate construction because row-forms I0 and P4 are absent.

Nevertheless, many similarities among Babbitt’s works abound and will prove equally

significant in the remaining discussions.

Continuing for a moment with our comparison of these two works, we find that

the lyne order from low to high in Joy of More Sextets is reversed in Sheer Pluck.

Moreover, the initial and subsequent row-form transformations differ. While their

partitioning schemes are similar, the varying ways in which Babbitt projects lynes in

Sheer Pluck affects many of the resultant partitions. We will look more closely later at

how exactly the surface details affect block differentiation by techniques of pitch.

Figures 2.1–2.8 provide the projection chart of the arrays, block by block, of

Sheer Pluck. Following Mead’s notation, pitch classes are represented in numbers

23
See Mead, Introduction, for a more thorough discussion of these techniques. However, they will be
briefly discussed in further sections.

10
horizontally by lyne pair [fixed C=0]. Columnar aggregates are demarcated vertically by

partition and corresponding measure location. I have included aggregate numbers for ease

of reference in following discussions. Dotted lines represent pitch classes held across

partition boundaries and the conclusion of a row form is indicated with a “//” symbol.

Figure 2.1. Block I of the projection chart

11
Figure 2.2. Block II of the projection chart

Figure 2.3. Block III of the projection chart

12
Figure 2.4. Block IV of the projection chart

Figure 2.5. Block V of the projection chart

13
Figure 2.6. Block VI of the projection chart

Figure 2.7. Block VII of the projection chart

14
 Figure 2.8. Block VIII of the projection chart

One will notice that some partitions are underlined in bold. These denote

divergent aggregate partitions from Joy of More Sextets. Furthermore, in Figures 2.1, 2.5,

and 2.8 some pitch class numbers are either in parenthesis or are marked with an asterisk.

These notations correspond to doubled pitch classes and missing pitch classes,

respectively. Each of these curiosities is a consequence of the two ways in which to

produce weighted aggregates (mentioned earlier and to be discussed later) and do not

factor into the partitioning or affect row ordering. The following will frequently reference

Figures 2.1–2.8.24

24
For the reader following along with the score (Milton Babbitt Composition for Guitar Copyright © 1985
C. F. Peters Corporation), there is a mistake. In m. 4, the low-register pitch classes 6 and 7 are impossible
to play on the guitar as simultaneities. Instead these should be pitch classes 7 and 9, and are written as such
in the projection chart. Subsequent score editions might have fixed this issue.

15
2.2 FORM

Two Parts

Like many of Babbitt’s works that share common array structure and projection,

these works often embody the same large-scale forms utilizing similar pitch and rhythmic

techniques to differentiate their lower-level sections. The discussion here however, will

confine itself to techniques of pitch projection in determining the work’s form.

Looking now to Figure 2.9, as Raisor notes, “measures 128–131 clearly mark the

end of a section with a ‘cadence’ in measure 130.”25 Furthermore, he remarks of the

measures following this “cadence” that “this amount of silence does not happen any other

place in the entire work.”26

Figure 2.9. Mm. 126–131 with “cadence.”

Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

We might consider what Babbitt himself has said of this work in order to confirm

Raisor’s suspicion. Babbitt states that “the character of this one movement work

25
Raisor, “Twentieth-Century,” 38.
26
Raisor, “Twentieth-Century,” 40.

16
manifestly changes at about its midpoint, where there is a reinterpretation of the

underlying rhythmic conception…”27 suggesting then an overall two-part form.

It might be argued that Babbitt’s words confirm Raisor’s intuitions. However, I

believe his criterion for determining the form of the work, namely, the presence of a

“cadence,” is insufficient. First, Babbitt points to a rhythmic reason for the structural

divide. Moreover, the “cadence” in m. 130 is not the only one of this kind in the piece.

That is not to say that such “cadences” do not contribute to structural division. However,

a final decision must hinge on the location of this rhythmic event, but we will discuss this

in the following section.

Such “cadences” function in fact as lower-level structural divides to parse blocks

at their boundaries and do not necessarily mark large-scale sections. Moreover, they

appear along side many other surface details of the underlying row forms, such as

expressive articulations and extreme register contrasts between lyne pairs. Only in those

instances when such a “cadence” coincides with the culmination of some important block

will the “cadences” be considered a device of large-scale division. Thus, Raisor’s

statement that “smaller divisions of the work…represent phrases rather than structural

division” is perhaps misguided as it results from an analysis that ignores the complexity

of the interacting blocks in the array structure.28

27
Todd Seeyle, “Sheer Pluck,” Music and Arts Programs of America, Inc., CD-1032, 4.
28
Raisor, “Twentieth-Century,” 40.

17
 The Partition of Most Importance

As Mead more appropriately notes, “the various ways partitions are distributed in

different arrays creates a striking contrast in our sense of flow through the aggregates of

compositions employing them. The placement of the aggregate derived from a single lyne

can be particularly dramatic from this point of view.”29 Not unlike in Arie da Capo

(1974) and Post-partitions (1966), in the middle of Sheer Pluck Babbitt uses partitions of

large segments to draw the listeners’ attention to structural or pitch relational events.

One will note in Figure 2.6 the only single lyne aggregate presentation in the

work: a partition of 121 in the lowest register and lyne that occurs in mm. 126–131. This

same partition appears roughly in the middle of Post-partitions, as well as several other

compositions.30 In Sheer Pluck this particular partition serves not as a structural divide,

but as a source of pitch relations that help guide the projection of the array much as it

does in Post-partitions. This moment in Sheer Pluck occurs not at a block boundary, but

at a structurally insignificant moment in the middle of a block. Furthermore, the partition

occurs in Block VI beyond the midway point of the piece.

There exists however, another “cadence” occurring earlier in the work that

coincides both with another important partition and at a structurally important block

boundary. As shown in Figure 2.10, this “cadence” occurs in mm. 92–93 with pitch

classes 5 and t.

29
Mead, Introduction, 130.
30
See Mead, Introduction, 181–187 for a discussion of Post-partitions.

18
 Figure 2.10. Mm. 92–98 with “cadence” in mm. 92–93.
Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

Comparing this same moment with the projection chart in Figure 2.4, this “cadence”

crosses the register boundary from lyne four to five (with pitch classes 5 and t) serving

not only as a point of repose but one of continuation, eliding the following section with

the next row-form transformation, R3 in lyne five. The section that follows in mm. 94–98

commences the only single, lyne-pair aggregate presentation of the work. This moment

occurs in the highest register with lynes one and two and a partition of 62. This partition

is incidentally (or perhaps not so) the same partition of the opening aggregate of

importance in Post-partitions, where the partition 121 served as its source for pitch

relations. And as previously mentioned, this occurs in a structurally significant place in

the work, parsing Blocks IV and V (the exact middle of the piece with respect to block

number) concluding the former with a “cadence” and commencing the latter with the all-

important 62 partition.

Recall earlier the importance of the 121 partition for Babbitt as a source for pitch,

but not structural relations in Post-partitions. Looking now to Figure 2.11, the

commencing row transformation for lyne six is R6, an all-combinatorial operation.

19
 Figure 2.11. Row–form transformation distribution by partitioned section.
The * indicates non-combinatorial row-form transformations

Interestingly, the following operations P3, RI4, I1, RI10, P9, R0, and I7 of the same lyne

are all-combinatorial as well. In fact, lyne six alone comprises the all-combinatorial

transformations of the row-form of its 121 partition in their entirety. Given that this

partition unequivocally confirmed the piece’s underlying row class, 31 it serves in a way as

the foundation for the entire array’s construction, from which the subsequent expression

of its abstract pitch structure, the D-hexachord mosaic, is derived. From its parent lyne, in

combination with the lyne pairs above, many pitch relationships can be expressed or

manipulated from this mosaic in order to project pitch motion through a block. We will

discuss these relationships and projections in the following sections. However, take note

in the preceding figure the distribution of row-form transformations. It is the 62 and not

121 partition that very nearly divides the piece in half.

Before we continue with a discussion of smaller-scale structural divisions, we

should observe that Babbitt’s preferential treatment here of one particular lyne over

others is not at all uncommon. As observed by Mead, in the two Soli e duettini’s for two

31
I thank Jenine Lawison-Brown for this observation. Personal e-mail communication on December 6,
2010.

20
guitars and guitar and flute, “both works contain a guitar solo based on the same block of

the lower array.”32 Although Sheer Pluck is not based on a superarray, we similarly find a

“solo,” the aforementioned 121 partition, occurring also in the lower array only now as a

“lyne solo.” Moreover, whether an all-partition array or the more complex superarray

structure, Babbitt composed many of his works in two parts, including Joy of More

Sextets (1986), several Soli e duettinis and the String Quartet no. 4 (1970) to name only a

few. Therefore all of the aforementioned arguments used to arrive at this conclusion

should remain significant to the following discussions because of their use in many other

compositions.

2.3 PITCH PROJECTION

The preceding discussion established a case for a two-part form at m. 94, citing

the importance of select partitions, “cadences,” and their use in other works to support it.

The following discussion will address the smaller structural divisions of each block

through the interactions of lynes and their projection. As Mead notes, “motion through a

composition, particularly one using several array transformations, is shaped and guided

by the change of lyne projection.”33 In select instances, their projection will further

reinforce the large-scale form. To facilitate the following discussion, all figures should be

compared with their corresponding locations in the preceding projection chart.

32
Mead, Introduction, 260.
33
Mead, Introduction, 139.

21
 Block I

Throughout the work, Babbitt goes to great pains to clearly articulate the motion

of each lyne through a block and its continuation to the next. As suggested earlier, he

achieves this primarily through the use of expressive articulation, extreme register (itself

a reflection of partition distribution at the level of block and lyne) and the explicit

repetition of pitch classes. In other works, dynamic levels are generally reserved for the

articulation of their underlying rhythmic structure. While at times dynamic levels in

Sheer Pluck do differentiate block boundaries, their explicit usage here will not be

discussed. As Mead notes, “in general, a given mode of projection is preserved for at

least a complete row statement in a lyne.”34 This is important because while lyne pairs are

easily distinguished registrally, a single lyne will frequently cross paths with its partner

within a register boundary, making them often very difficult to track. The differentiation

of lynes is thus more readily observed at block boundaries where row statements are

completed and partition distributions change at the level of lyne.

Figure 2.12 shows is the music for the boundary between Blocks I and II (Figures

2.1–2.2).

34
Mead, Introduction, 136.

22
 Figure 2.12. Block I/II boundary.
Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

This boundary occurs in m. 21 with the row-form conclusion of lyne six with pitch-class

6. One will note not only that the indicated pizz. distinguishes lyne six from lyne five, but

also the beginning of lyne three, P1, is marked by extreme register and a return to ord.

Perhaps interesting to note here is the passage that begins the piece. There exists

already a curious relationship between the number of lynes and the strings of the guitar

(both six). Is it possible that Babbitt has further exploited the idiomatic nature of guitar

through a corresponding expression in pitch content? Figure 2.13 shows the opening

aggregate of the piece. Considering both discrete entrances of the first two pitch classes

in a lyne and lyne pair, most of these form instances of either interval class 5 dyads or

interval class 4 dyads. These occurrences are circled in the figure below.

23
 Figure 2.13. Opening aggregate and entrances of discrete lyne and lyne pair dyads.
Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

These adjacent interval classes in commencing lyne and lyne pairs correspond directly to

the tuning of the adjacent strings of the guitar (E, A, D, G, B, E), which also comprises

interval classes 5 and 4. Whether this observation is exceedingly abstract or not, one

thing is for sure: Babbitt was always very keenly aware of his choice of pitch content and

the ways in which he could express it.

Of further interest here is the preceding columnar aggregate in mm. 16–20. This

aggregate is missing pitch classes 7 and 8. As Mead notes, “…Babbitt has created

weighted aggregates in part by retrograding the constituent rows of an array block

without reversing the order of the partitions. This will also preserve hexachordal areas

within lynes but will redistribute the pitch classes in ways that do not guarantee

aggregates within the sequence of partitions.”35 Looking back to Figure 2.1, the row-form

transformations of Block I are primarily (and expectedly) retrogrades, R6, RI7, R7, I5, I6,

and RI6 from lyne six to one. There is in fact two ways to create weighted aggregates,

however. The method just described appears to occur only in the first part of the work

while the other seems to occur exclusively in the second part.

35
Mead, Introduction, 134.

24
 Block II

Figure 2.14 shows the boundary between Blocks II and III (Figures 2.2–2.3). This

boundary occurs in m. 41 with the row-form conclusion of lyne one with pitch class 0.

Figure 2.14. Block II/III boundary.

Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

One will note here the same method of articulation, a change from pizz. to ord, used in

Block I to distinguish a lyne from its partner and the block boundary.

Interestingly, Block III begins with the row-form commencement of lyne two

(pitch classes e and 4 ord.) in an anacrusis-like fashion and with dynamic contrast. Lyne

one begins with pitch class 9 in m. 42. Its subsequent interplay with lyne two comprises

the entire first aggregate of Block III, concluding in m. 45. The texture here contrasts

readily with the previous aggregate in Block II, whose partition, 6 23, necessarily contains

four active lynes and distributes these in disjunct registers. The opening partition of

Block III however, is 9 3 and naturally contains two lynes. In such instances, Babbitt

consistently projects these as a lyne pair. His choice of partitions here is not incidental as

25
the partitions can be projected to produce a qualitatively different sound from one

another, further distinguishing the two blocks to which they belong.

Block III

Figure 2.15 shows the boundary between Blocks III and IV (Figures 2.3–2.4).

This boundary occurs in m. 65 after the row-form commencement of lyne five with pitch

class 6 following a shift in extreme register from the repeated pitch class 1 in lyne two.

Figure 2.15. Block III/IV boundary.

Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

Block IV begins with a continuation of lyne six following a rest and articulation change

from sul pont. to ord. It is perhaps important at this point to notice (with the exception of

the boundary for Blocks I and II) how dynamic levels have also helped to articulate

boundaries. Although the “two domains,” pitch and rhythm, “are not correlated in

consistent ways,”36 according to Mead, Babbitt has thus far taken care to align a change

in dynamic level with the arrival of each block, thereby further distinguishing these

boundaries. He continues this practice through the rest of the piece.

36
Andrew W. Mead, “About About Time’s Time: A Survey of Milton Babbitt’s Recent Rhythmic Practice,”
Perspectives of New Music 25, no. 1/2 (Winter–Summer 1987): 191.

26
 Block IV

Figure 2.16 shows the boundary between Blocks IV and V (Figures 2.4–2.5). We

have discussed this boundary before; it occurs in mm. 92–93 after the “cadence” of pitch

classes 5 and t.

Figure 2.16. Block IV/V boundary.

Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

We find that this boundary lacks a distinguishing expressive articulation with the lyne

pair one and two that follows and begins Block V. The role of the “cadence” here

however, combined with extreme register and dynamic contrasts, is no doubt sufficient to

distinguish the two blocks from each other. Moreover, the most striking contrast in

partitioning occurs at this moment. The boundary here is formed by a 3 25 partition (with

all lynes participating) and a 62 partition to begin Block V, where only the highest

register lyne pair is active (lynes one and two). Recall that this same situation occurred at

the boundary for Blocks II and III. Perhaps the most aurally interesting confirmation of

this block boundary (and as a new means to project and differentiate lyne pairs) is the

27
first use of tremolo in m. 98. Babbitt continues to use tremolo until the conclusion of the

work.

Block V

Recall that in Block I we found a use of a weighted aggregate that resulted in the

loss of two pitch classes from a columnar aggregate as well as the addition of repeated

pitch classes. Repeated pitch classes result from a second manner of generating weighted

aggregates that Babbitt utilized in the second part of this work. In speaking about Four

Play (a supper array work also from 1984), Mead described how “passages based on

single blocks of weighted aggregates also contain aggregates unfolded within instruments

(or registral division in the case of the piano), but octaves and unisons arise between

instruments.”37 Naturally, in the case of Sheer Pluck the distinction cannot be made via

instrumentation, but in regards to differing lyne pairs, the consequence remains the same.

Figure 2.17 (Figures 2.5–2.6) shows the boundary between Blocks V and VI. The

boundary occurs in m. 118 following the pizz. articulation of pitch-class 3 in lyne five

which elides the arrival of Block V with a forte gesture.

Figure 2.17. Block V/VI boundary.

Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

37
Mead, Introduction, 218.

28
While the articulations on either side of the boundary are the same, we do find the

boundary marked by a dynamic contrast and parsing silence. Moreover, the respective

partitions (8 14 and 42 3 1) from each block reflect the same lyne distribution that was

previously noted. However, the more important consequence of the preceding partition’s

lyne projection however, occurs in its motion through a weighted aggregate.

We find in mm. 116 and 117 pitch class 1 doubled at the octave, corresponding to

rows belonging to lynes two and four, respectively. Moreover, as Mead rightly attests,

“weighted aggregates will, not surprisingly, create a very different sound on the surface

of the composition, as different lynes project the same pitch class within the same time

span.”38 This instance of a doubled pitch class in an aggregate is only one of several

throughout the piece. Interestingly, the greatest density of these occurs in Block V,

further reinforcing the aural distinction of the two large-scale sections.

Block VI

Figure 2.18 shows the boundary between Blocks VI and VII (Figures 2.6–2.7).

The boundary occurs in m. 151 following the arrival of pitch classes t and 0 in lyne five.

38
Mead, Introduction, 134.

29
 Figure 2.18. Block VI/VII boundary.
Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

Block VII begins with the continuation of pitch class 5 in lyne one following an extreme

register and dynamic level contrast. Interestingly, like the boundary for Blocks I and II,

the respective partitions here (10 12 and 9 13) do not conform to the contrasts in lyne

distributions previously discussed. However, the arrival of Block VII introduces an

entirely new technique for distinguishing itself to be discussed shortly, motivic ideas.

Block VII

Figure 2.19 shows the boundary between Blocks VII and VIII (Figures 2.7–2.8).

The boundary occurs at m. 179, following the conclusion of lyne three with pitch classes

9 and 4 at ff dynamic.

30
 Figure 2.19. Block VII/VIII boundary.
Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

Following a span of silence, the final block begins with contrasts of extreme register and

dynamic level in continuation of lyne four with pitch class 4 and the conclusion of lyne

one with pitch class 0. Furthermore, the partitions from each block at this boundary, 10 2

and 33 2 1, respectively, mark a return to the distribution of lynes seen earlier.

Lyne Articulation

Thus far, the discussion has observed articulations and techniques that locally

differentiate lynes only at block boundaries. The following discussion will trace the

large-scale paths of these articulations by lyne through each block. Figure 2.20 shows the

unique articulations used in each block (excluding reiteration) to project each lyne. The

repetition of pitch class in a lyne to distinguish its registral partner occurs in every block,

and is thus too frequent to notate. However, lynes are left blank in blocks where

repetition is the only distinguishing articulation used in a lyne pair.

31
 Figure 2.20. Lyne articulation by block

Notice the difference in articulation densities in each large-scale section of the piece. The

second part is considerably more complex than the first. It presents several articulations

in each line per block in contrast to only one in each lyne per block in the first part. The

reasons for this greater density and cycling of articulations in the second part are a

consequence of the newly extended rhythmic durations that occur here. Their

understanding will become clearer in the following discussions.

Motives and “Stretching”

Perhaps the most interesting passages of the piece occur in its final two blocks.

Because the 58 aggregates are now nearing completion and weighted aggregates are in

abundance throughout the second part, the projection of the resultant repetitions of pitch

classes in a columnar aggregate can be treated in rather novel ways. First, their durations

32
can now be dramatically extended (or “stretched” as Mead describes) and while

maintaining discrete repetition of pitch class in a lyne, the interplay of these features

within a lyne pair can be composed so as to create clearly memorable motivic ideas.

As shown in Figure 2.21, such a moment occurs in Block VII. In mm. 160–62 we

find interplay between lynes one and two of a motivic idea that is almost literally

repeated.

Figure 2.21. Block VII motivic idea.

Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

The material following this moment includes further interplay between lynes in which

each alternates moments of linear and harmonic projections of pitch material. The

harmonic projections include iterations of a P5 in m. 164 (over a pedal-point pitch class

5) that subsequently descends by half-step to conclude the partition in m. 166.

33
 Material following this partition (mm. 168–171) similarly expresses a

rhythmically motivic idea. This motive occurs in m. 168 with pitch-classes t and 5 of lyne

two. Pitch class 5 subsequently elides the repetition in m. 170, a whole-step lower. The

second time however, the motive concludes with pitch classes 7 and 0 expressed

harmonically as a P4 (the inverse of the closing moment from the previous aggregate).

This sonority occurs in a rhythmic augmentation of the first motive and with an extreme

registral shift. No where in the preceding passages of the work is there a similar motivic

treatment of row-form or aggregate completion.

The preceding passage is one of the most fascinating moments in the work for

several reasons beyond those described above, but these curiosities will be addressed in

more detail in the following section. Further pitch projections extended in duration are

observed with great frequency through the remainder of the piece. Never is this

“stretching” of pitch class durations more apparent however, than in the final aggregate

of the piece.

Block VIII

In the final aggregate, no. 58, we find the longest durations of pitch classes within

one columnar aggregate. Their pedal point-like nature is shown in Figure 2.22 with pitch

class 4 (and lowest sounding pitch of the guitar) beginning with the last partition in m.

211.

34
 Figure 2.22. Final aggregate, no. 58.
Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

Remarkably, Babbitt concludes the rows of all six lynes with semblances of tonal closure,

shown by the circled pitch classes. These “cadential” motions include three “tonic-

dominant” resolutions, a “leading tone” resolution, “plagal” resolution, and a

“suspension.” Thus, the seeds of “cadential closure” sown earlier in the work to conclude

smaller-level divisions come to full fruition here to conclude the entire piece.

Dynamic Level Projection

At this point one might notice that a thorough discussion of dynamic levels has

been conspicuously absent. In those figures above that provide excerpts from the score,

35
one will see that changing dynamic levels occur quite frequently (with the exception of

aggregates 1, 48 and 49 to be discussed later). Figures 2.1–2.8 showed the projections of

pitch for each lyne in their corresponding blocks. A chart similar to these can be

constructed tracing the projection of dynamic levels by lyne in a given block. Figure 2.23

shows such a chart for Block I.

Figure 2.23. Projection of dynamic levels by lyne

and aggregate number for Block I

While the projection of dynamic levels reflects a rapidly changing soundscape within

very short periods of time, there is no discernable pattern either self-contained in the

dynamic levels themselves or in relationship with their corresponding pitch projections.

This observation suggests the possibility of another purpose for this mysterious

presentation of dynamic levels, such as the articulation of an underlying rhythmic

foundation.

36
2.4 RHYTHM PROJECTION

Whereas the preceding discussion addressed those aspects of pitch projection in

Sheer Pluck that helped determine the small-scale and large-scale form, the following

remarks will focus on methods of rhythmic projection that might manifest and therefore

reinforce these findings. As Mead observed, “in Babbitt’s more recent practices, most

pieces contain some multiple appearance of an all-partition array and its transformations

in the pitch domain, rhythmically articulated by transformations of the same array

translated into the temporal domain.” However, “the number and nature of array

transformations in the two domains may differ, and the two domains are not correlated in

consistent ways.”39

Time Point System

Typically, Babbitt utilized his time point system for those compositions in which

both the temporal and pitch domains are expressed by the same underlying row class.

Babbitt’s time point rows evolved in response to his earlier duration rows which could

not express time independently from the pitch domain, only one-to-one attacks in both

domains. In contrast, time-point rows express moments of time between attacks. These

intervals of time are expressed with a basic unit of duration which corresponds directly to

“beat” classes from the time point row. For example, a time point row that begins with

“beat” classes 0 and e will have eleven units of duration between its first two time points.

39
Mead, “About About Time’s Time,” 191.

37
 In most of his compositions using time points, Babbitt has commonly chosen a

unit of duration equal to a thirty-second note, sixteenth-note or an eight-note.40 Moreover,

he grouped these durations into larger units of twelve (analogous to the twelve pitch

classes) called the modulus. An example of a duration unit and its corresponding modulus

are shown below in Figure 2.24.

Figure 2.24. Unit of duration (sixteenth-note) and its modulus.

While the projection of pitch in an all-partition array is relatively straightforward

to understand because of registral division at the octave, the same cannot be said of the

projection of rhythm. Despite the modulus acting as the “octave” of the rhythm domain,

Babbitt has developed the time point system to be remarkably more complex.

Babbitt fills his time point intervals with additional attacks,

derived by subdividing the spans with various complete and
incomplete equal-note-value strings….These added attacks
frequently duplicate actual time-point values, so, in general,
Babbitt has tended to derive his sequences of time points by
moving between lynes, thus generally signaling time point
intervals by dynamic change. Babbitt has also greatly
slowed the rate at which time point aggregates or
composite aggregates flow by…in order to allow a certain
small repertoire of time intervals to be filled in a variety of
ways using equal-note-value strings. The result is vastly
slowed dynamic rhythm in these compositions, with

40
Mead, Introduction.

38
 frequent long strings of events at a single dynamic level, or
rocking regularly between two dynamic levels. By varying
both the degree to which time intervals get filled in and the
length of time to complete time point aggregates, Babbitt
can produce a wide range of rates of dynamic change.41

Mead’s statements above encompass many of the features found in Sheer Pluck and so

the following discussion will address these techniques. While this analysis of rhythm

projection does not compare in detail to the preceding analysis of pitch projection, I wish

only to establish a plausible foundation on which to build further research.

Integral to the projection of time point lynes is dynamics. As Mead further notes,

“…the partitional shape of the underlying time-point array is projected on the surface of

the music by means of the dynamics assigned to each lyne or lyne pair.”42 Recall that the

underlying row class of pitch was determined by the presence of a single lyne row

presentation (121 partition) found in lyne six. Similarly, finding a single dynamic level

presentation should yield the 121 partition of the underlying time point row. Looking

again to the motivic passage described above, such a single dynamic level presentation

occurs in piano. Figure 2.25 shows a possible time point analysis of the passage with the

arrival of a P0 row-form transformation. The duration unit is the sixteenth-note and the

row’s constituent “beat” classes are enclosed in squares.

41
Mead, Introduction, 256–257.
42
Mead, “About About Time’s Time,” 191.

39
 Figure 2.25. Aggregate nos. 48 and 49 of Block VII with
time-point row and equal-note-value strings.
Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

Pertinent to the analysis of this passage is the inclusion of equal-note-value

strings. Here, these strings occur in spans of four duration units in length. Those spans

not of four duration units long are either repetitions of earlier time point attacks (m. 163

with time points e and 0) or an equal subdivision of the string length, two (m. 171 with

time points 0 and 1). The presence of these strings in the temporal domain results in the

“stretching” of durations described earlier and imbues the second part of the work with its

characteristic slow rhythmic passage. This “stretching” of durations manifests in the pitch

domain not only through extensive repetition of pitch class in the second section as

previously shown, but most readily in the greater amount time required for the

completion of aggregates.

40
 Compare Figure 2.25 with its analogous location in the first part of the work,

Figure 2.26. Shown here is the opening aggregate of the piece and is the only other place

in which an aggregate is presented at a single dynamic level.

Figure 2.26. Opening aggregate with quarter-note division

Copyright © 1985 by C. F. Peters Corporation Used by Permission

The opening aggregate is presented in only a single measure comprising four beats. In

contrast, the first aggregate of Figure 2.25 is presented in six measures comprising 19

beats. Moreover, the dynamic level of the second part (piano) corresponds to two

aggregate presentations compared to only one in the first. This suggests that the

underlying time-point row of the first part must have been reinterpreted in the second

with a larger unit of duration in order to accommodate for “stretching.”

More often than not however, time-point rows do not cycle in accordance with

pitch-class rows and generally unfold much more slowly. Without many corresponding

pitch cues, the importance of projecting time-point rows and differentiating their row-

form transformations is crucial. This is primarily achieved through the presence of a

steady pulse throughout a piece.

According to Mead, Babbitt takes great care to preserve this steady pulse in many

of his pieces. In Babbitt’s works from the late 80s and early 90s (including the two Soli e

41
duettinis mentioned above, for instance), he goes so far as to write rapidly changing

additive and irrational meters. In his earlier works however, “the time point system as

originally conceived depended on a stable meter for its apprehension.”43 Interestingly,

Sheer Pluck belongs to this latter category of meter usage despite its date of composition.

In listening to the work, I believe one clearly notices articulated quarter-note durations.

Not surprisingly, the equal-note-value strings previously mentioned are the same

durational length. Moreover, these quarter-note durations are also preserved in the first

section of the piece as shown in the previous figure.

Not a Time-Point?

This final observation of quarter-note pulses begs an entirely new question to be

considered, the possibility of the so-called “pulse piece.” Richard Swift first observed

that in some of Babbitt’s compositions, equal-note-value strings were not accompanied

by a corresponding time- point system.44 Such pieces

frequently employ a fixed time span for equal-note-value

strings, usually steady pulses of quarter-notes….Some
pieces employing fixed timespans maintain a steady tempo
throughout, while others contain changes of tempo from
section to section. In all of these pieces, however, the
steady stream of pulses is particularly vivid, and one may
quite readily hear both the nature of the subdivisions, and
the qualitative differentiations among their elements.45

As previously mentioned, an unwritten but perceived tempo change does indeed occur

(through larger duration subdivisions of the beat) in the second section of the work. Only

43
Mead, Introduction, 257.
44
See Richard Swift, “Some Aspects of Aggregate Composition.” Perspectives of New Music 15, no.1,
Sounds and Words: A Critical Celebration of Milton Babbitt at 60 (Autumn–Winter 1976): 326–48.
45
Mead, “About About Time’s Time,” 215.

42
future analysis of the rhythm here will shed light on the possibility of a “pulse piece”

however, I believe the underlying rhythmic structure will prove more complex.

43
 CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSION

3.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The analysis presented here by no means exhausts the techniques Babbitt used to

compose Sheer Pluck (Composition for Guitar) and as such, many new insights await.

Recall that an initial comparative analysis challenged Raisor’s argument for the location

of the work’s second part at m. 134. Citing Babbitt’s own words as support, without an

analysis of rhythm comparable in scope to the analysis of pitch offered, this location

cannot be conclusively stated. However, an analysis of pitch that traces its projection

through an all-partition array structure makes for a strong case.

The most convincing location of this second part occurs in m. 94 with the arrival

of the 62 partition following a “cadence.” This argument is especially convincing when

Babbitt’s techniques for manipulating the 62 and 121 partitions are compared to his other

pieces. The 121 partition proved a source of pitch material and not as a structural element

in these works. This partition in Sheer Pluck comprises the work’s underlying

hexachordal mosaic based on the D-hexachord from which the entire array was

constructed. Moreover, the 62 partition occurs at the boundary of Blocks IV and V

bisecting the exact middle of the eight-block work. In contrast, the 121 partition occurs in

a structurally insignificant location, the middle of Block VI.

Further analysis of pitch revealed Babbitt’s techniques for distinguishing each

block boundary and for articulating the projection of each lyne. At block boundaries, his

44
use of “cadences” and extreme register (itself a consequence of partition distribution) are

reoccurring features. The projection of lynes through blocks and their differentiation are

achieved rather consistently through the use of various articulations: trem., sul pont.,

gliss, and slurs. Repetition of pitch class, pizz. and ord. are the most frequently used

articulations. However, the distribution and occurrence of these articulations are

drastically different in each part of the work. In the first part, Babbitt utilized pizz. and

ord. exclusively to project and differentiate lynes while maintaining a single articulation

for the length of the row. In contrast, Babbitt utilized all of these articulations and

frequently cycled through several within the length of a row presentation.

Such rapid alteration of articulations was only one of several indications of the

presence of some underlying rhythmic foundation. The distribution of dynamics and their

relationship with the amount of time required for the completion of aggregates factors

significantly in this observation as well. Moreover, this duration of time greatly increases

in the second part of the piece. The concluding discussion on rhythm included a plausible

time-point analysis of a passage from the second part. It comprises a unit of duration

equal to the sixteenth-note and utilizes equal-note-value strings of four duration units

long.

Further analysis of Sheer Pluck is definitely warranted. The underlying rhythmic

“code” has not yet been cracked, but I believe the aforementioned surface discussion of it

is on the right track for further research. Most importantly, listening to this work with a

hearing informed by this analysis solidifies many of the pitch, rhythm, and structural

conclusions presented here.

45
 REFERENCES

Alegant, Brian. “The Seventy-Seven Partitions of the Aggregate: Analytical and

Theoretical Implications.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1993.

_______. “Cross-Partitions as Harmony and Voice Leading in Twelve-Tone

Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 1–40.

Babbitt, Milton. “Introduction: A Response.” Perspectives of New Music 35, no. 2

(Summer 1997): 129–36.

_______. “Set Structure as a Compositional Determinant.” Journal of Music Theory 5

(Spring 1961): 72–94.

_______. The Collected Essays of Milton Babbitt. Edited by Stephen Peles with Stephen
Dembski, Andrew Mead, and Joseph N. Straus. Oxford: Princeton University
Press, 2003.

_______. Milton Babbitt: Words about Music. Edited by Stephen Dembski and Joseph N.
Straus. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

Bennighof, James. “Set-Class Aggregate Structuring, Graph Theory, and Some

Compositional Strategies.” Journal of Music Theory 31, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 51
98.

Christensen, Thomas. The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Dansby, Judd G. “Array and Superarray Structure and Projection in Milton Babbitt’s
Recent Orchestral Music.” D.M.A. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign, 1998.

Diamond, Harold J. Music Analyses: An Annotated Guide to the Literature. New York:
Schirmer Books, 1991.

Lake, William E. “The Architecture of a Superarray Composition: Milton Babbitt’s

String Quartet no. 5.” Perspectives of New Music 24, no. 2 (Spring–Summer
1986): 88–111.

Lewin, David. “A Theory of Segmental Association in Twelve-tone Music.” Perspectives

of New Music 1 (Autumn 1962): 89–116.

46
_______. “Generalized Interval Systems for Babbitt’s Lists, and for Schoenberg’s

String Trio.” Music Theory Spectrum 17, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 81–118.

Mead, Andrew W. “About About Time’s Time: A Survey of Milton Babbitt’s Recent
Rhythmic Proactice.” Perspectives of New Music 25, no. 1/2 (Winter–Summer
1987): 182–235.

_______. An Introduction to the Music of Milton Babbitt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 1994.

_______. “Detail and Array in Milton Babbitt’s ‘My Compliments to Roger’.” Music
Theory Spectrum 5 (Spring 1983): 89–109.

_______. “Twelve-Tone Organizational Strategies: An Analytical Sampler.” Intégral 3:

93–169.

Morris, Robert. Class Notes for Advanced Atonal Music Theory. Lebanon, NH: Frog
Peak Music, 2001.

_______. Composition with Pitch-Classes: A Theory of Compositional Design. New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.

Morris, Robert D. and Brian Alegant. “The Even Partitions in Twelve-Tone Music.”
Music Theory Spectrum 10 (Spring 1988): 74–101.

Perle, George. “Babbitt, Lewin, and Schoenberg: A Critique.” Perspectives of New Music
2, no. 1 (Autumn–Winter 1963): 120–32.

Raisor, Steven C. “Twentieth-Century Techniques in Selected Works for Solo Guitar:

Serialism.” M.M. Thesis, Florida State University, 1994.

Samet, Bruce. “Hearing Aggregates.” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1987.

Seeyle, Todd. “Sheer Pluck.” Music and Arts Programs of America, Inc. CD-1032.

Swift, Richard. “Some Aspects of Aggregate Composition.” Perspectives of New Music

15, no. 1, Sounds and Words: A Critical Celebration of Milton Babbitt at 60
(Autumn–Winter 1976): 326–48.

Winham, Godfrey. “Composition with Arrays.” Perspectives of New Music 9, no. 1

(Autumn–Winter 1970): 43–67.

47